The central issue of evidence for projected catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is how that evidence is evaluated. The “consensus” method, lead by the UNIPCC, is to evaluate evidence on how it fits with the hypothesis. If it fits, then the evidence is accepted (and in cases exaggerated). If it contradicts the CAGW hypothesis, then the evidence is anti-science.
I believe that scientific evidence should be evaluated by more rational and objective criteria. The projected impacts create costs, so assessment criteria needs to be within the realms of economics. For those interested, (and with an understanding of intermediate level economics), I have drafted out how that assessment criteria might look. Please let me know what you think. http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/10/26/costs-of-climate-change-in-perspective/
You are generating the SAME error as current scientists. Treating the planet like a cylinder through the use of AVERAGING.
Try re-applying this calculation over the WHOLE planet, an actual orb. You should have a globe.
Our planet is in constant change due to natural physical causes of mechanical changes.
The planet adjusts to whatever is put in it.
Our concepts need adjusting to understand our planet first before we can even comment on mundane concepts like temperature which is generated by many factors.
We record, analyze, adjust and project. This is statistical analysis and NOT science.
Joe’s World,
I think you have misunderstood what I have said. I am not propounding a calculation, nor any particular hypothesis, nor an analysis of any data. Rather, I am proposing a framework for assessing how any particular piece of evidence about CAGW should be used in the whole. If you look at the “equation” that I develop, it cannot be used for a calculation. It is just a list of elements that need to be considered. The first element is magnitude. That is the size of the issue. The magnitude includes not just the severity, but the area covered. In this way regional and sub-regional issues can be considered alongside global ones. Further, looking at the costs of an issue would give much greater emphasis on adverse impacts to, say, South-East China, than the Arctic, even if the latter has many times the area.
From my reading of the climate consensus, the problem of averaging is a minor one. The major problems include faulty extrapolation, faulty generalisations, poor data handling and analysis, and a failure to consider alternative explanations.
The averaging part is actually a major problem as it does not consider motion to be part of the environment.
With this mistake, when averaging and re-applying to an orb, it does NOT work as now every point that the data was taken from must be warmer as the data dictates, even though the area may NEVER have had any anomalies.
Thanks for the clarification on the MAGNITUDE issue.
The magnitude of severity to change and funding should NEVER have come up as scientists still have very little knowledge of our planet past and present except for an minor time line.
Sorry, but this is a huge simplification – and makes a couple of implicit assumptions IE that a Catastrophic outcome is even possible, let alone likely. You even postulate tipping points, none of which have been demonstrated from 7000 down to 280 PPM CO2. I think the only tipping point in reality is 180 PPM where Vegetative respiration fails.
Also, you seem to factor only one weighting factor, which makes a huge warmist mistake. You assume that AVERAGES have meaning. The Average Temperature of the planet never killed anyone, Even if the Average temperature of the planet increased by 10 degrees from 15 to 25 we’d go from Chilly to pleasantly warm. It is the implicit assumption that an increase in the average temperature will generates costly extremes either spatially or temporally that is at issue. That certain places would be less habitable than before or the midday extremes would be intolerable to life. This is not in the slightest proven AT ALL. In fact experience tells us that as we increase temperature relative humidity increases and the climate becomes more tropical. That is, the temperature extremes NARROW. An Equatorial Island experiences a temperature range of about 23-33 degrees ( 28 degrees average) to let’s say Hobart which has a range from about -2 to 38 or an average of about 18. Note that the Tropical Island has a climate that is less extreme than the temperate one, it’s extremes are wholly within Hobart’s annual Temperature range despite having an average temperature fully 10 degrees higher . We should expect therefore that as Hobart warms, it’s temperature range will narrow. This implies LOWER costs not higher.
Therefore to estimate cost you need to quantify
Where it will be warmer – eg warmer temperatures in the Simpson desert, Arctic/Anarctic or centre of the pacific probably implies a little less less cost impact, well except the cost of grants to Arctic, Antarctic, Ocean, And Desert climate researchers which of course will be required to go up many-fold
What time of the day will it be warmer (if at all) Higher mins, imply lower cost while higher Maxes imply higher cost (only maybe)
What time of the year will be warmer ( EG Warmer in winter implies lower costs rather than higher)
and
Rate of warming
The average rise tells you none of this and therefore any estimate of damage is pure guess work. What is needed here are moderating weightings on these factors.
One last point, Your graphics depict monotonically increasing costs with temperature and according to the IPCC that is wrong, they have stated that on Balance they expect LOWER costs compared with benefit for at least the next 2 degrees of warming. Now if warming in the short term leads to lower costs (is a Nett benefit to humanity) and peak at 2 degrees at what point are these changes reversed and we reach break even with today, Logic would say 4 degrees – Assuming a linear response but given the CO2 temperature response and most natural systems is logarithmic, I’d anticipate a long flat tailed characteristic and that break-even is at 5 or 6 degrees. I expect you will take this into account?
All we can say with any certainty about real costs of CO2 is that the bill for lawnmowing and food harvesting will increase due to the impact of CO2 fertilization resulting in faster growing lawns, and higher crop yields.
“I think the only tipping point in reality is 180 PPM where Vegetative respiration fails.”
Apparently the atmospheric level has been around 280ppm as a minimum for a very long time. This would indicate (using predator/prey principles) that 280ppm is the level at which vegetation starts to really struggle. The balanced subsistence level, if you will.
Thank goodness we are now releasing a reasonable quantity through our use of coal and fossil fuels, otherwise the world food supply could be in real trouble.
Keep up the good work: US, China, India, and now Germany. The atmosphere NEEDS that CO2 !!
All we can say with any certainty about real costs of CO2 is that the bill for lawnmowing and food harvesting will increase due to the impact of CO2 fertilization resulting in faster growing lawns, and higher crop yields.
I agree because we’ll be mowing every day!
The majority of crop (whether lawn or food source) mass increase will come from the increased input of CO2 and as a result the yields will far outway the costs of what are virtuallly small amounts of major fertilizers and trace elements. A 100 square meter lawn area (couch) can sequester over 25 kilos of CO2 per annum, and increasing CO2 levels will result in a similar curve to Manicbeancounters GW curve. The result is increased O2 production, fertilisation increase through decomposition, and more rapid intake of CO2. The current Green building regulations are fighting this trend.
They say as per FLIM FLAM:
Use less water – droughts coming – The idiots shout at us. So don’t plant lawns – cover the area in gravel and a few Australian native plants. The result of this is that the environment is being raped by these Greens who think only of the CAGW warnings.
The results is a rapid increase in urban heat areas. You’ve seen all the latest no water trendy garden areas, hot, dry and bare – but the new generation is getting used to it.
Get back to massive plantings, water them (by whatever means) and the temperature naturally drops. Good grief – we’ve had these natural air-conditioners available before LG came along and John Brookes, Mattyb & Catamon bought them all (powered by subsidised Solar Panels).
An average lawn of approximately 200 square meters supplies enough Oxygen daily for four people. Not even counting shrubs, trees etc. Lets get real GREENIES and get back to some science that helps people not TAXES them for a beautiful molecule called Carbon Dioxide.
All that I am doing in my graph is replicating the arguments of the Stern review into the costs of climate change. Stern’s argument is that the policy costs of stablising CO2 at around 600ppm will involve costs of 4% to 20% of the costs incurred through letting climate change run out of control. The elements are a huge simplification. This is what economic theory does. But by simplifying, and abstracting, the issues involved can be illuminated and properly understood. I have tried to include all the elements that the climate “consensus”uses, such as tipping points. Rather than argue further, let me give a quick example of how the equation can be applied.
Sea Levels
Al Gore and James Hansen have both made claims that sea levels could rise by around 6 metres. Let us suppose this is over 100 years. (In the late 1980s Hansen was claiming this rise in 20 years)
My equation is
E(CGW)=f{M,1/t,L,│Pr-E()│,r,W}
The Magnitude is quite large and is over as short period, so 1/t is large as well. What is the Likelihood of this happening? Given that the official satellite-based figures from the University of Colorado show that the rise in one twentieth of this rate, with no acceleration, then that is pretty much zero. What weighting should we give to the Al Gore evidence? Given that he has a history of making wild claims and refuses to debate, pretty much zero. For Hansen, the prediction he made has been falsified.
The most complex part is │Pr-E()│. What if people based their expectations on the claims of Hansen and Gore instead of making objective predictions on the best available information? What if they abandoned some areas in anticipation of catastrophe that will never arrive, and built impossibly high sea walls around cities? Rather than adapting to changing conditions, people will create additional costs through needlessly wasting money. Lack of calm objectivity in assessing evidence is costly, and could destroy people’s lives.
I do see what you are trying to do but in doing so you unwitting give weight to the falsities of the argument IE that any temperature increase is a nett cost to society where in all likelihood it is a nett benefit. In doing this you will be as wrong as Stern, only less in magnitude, because the entire cost equation has no relevance – no anchors in the real world. If I take the current population of pink elephants add 2000 to their number for 27 years we will not be able to afford the pink elephant food. I can assess what the potential impact of increasing pink elephant populations might be, but that doesn’t change the fact that they don’t exist. You see how this raises problems.
Headline: Scientist calculates Pink Elephant population explosion might bankrupt state – New Pink Elephant Levy to be introduced to parliament tomorrow” – Pink Elephant habitats to be declared protected wildlife heritage area.
I think you can make statements about Potential Impact here, but you can’t say anything about costs & Benefits because you don’t identify truth, benefits vs Cost , or the spatial/temporal distribution of the cost drivers. It’s just pure potential impact, but of What?
That said, there is an argument for using this to decide what to take notice of, and what to wave away as a Joke. Problem is public perception is distorted such that a miniscule 200 Billion Tonnes of thawing Co2 in the arctic is perceived as important where you would calculate it as insignificant.
In the end I’m not sure where this leads us? maybe you need a Public Perception factor – A “Care Factor” if you will. At least then this might help focus on what needs to be debunked first.
A major issue I have found is a failure to break down the problem into different aspects. There are a number of things to establish a potential, large warming problem. Principally that there is a greenhouse effect, and the measurement of that effect (including climate sensitivity. My graph displays the claimed consequences. The “equation” lists the aspects that need to be established for this to be a non-trivial problem.
What I imply
1) There are a huge variety of skills required. It is not a small elite of specialists in science. Principally it is economics, statistics and accountancy.
2) Results need to be reviewed, with asking of critical questions.
3) The most dangerous people to get involved are public relations specialists, and politicians. Both groups are concerned with promoting belief in a particular set of ideas, to the exclusion of alternatives. Their abilities in their specialisms actually disable them from asking challenging questions.
First snows chilling signs of global warming in Europe and the clocks are still on summer time.
It’s not unusual. Except that those who predicted that snows would be a thing of the past, may in future find themselves in a tight spot:
Italian Scientists Convicted! Shocked That Their Predictions Were Heeded
Do you feel that chill? It’s from a fell wind issuing from an Italian judge’s courtroom, where he has just sent a group of seismologists and one politician to the hoosegow for, it is said, failing to predict the deadly L’Aquila earthquake in 2009.
“Science” has been iced. Why, if scientists are held responsible for some of their whackier propositions, then they might not make them so freely. And nobody wants that. Right, Gav? From the WSJ:
That is the course of following data and projecting the future off of that data for a very small(insignificant) time period.
Scientists are paid and have tenure and published works status among themselves in a snowball of consensus. No worries of actually being accountable for what they spew out.
It is society that gets hurt putting trust into our experts expecting them to actually work for us, to protect us and save us.
In actuality, current science is an absolute disgrace of ignorance and bias.
The busted Italian forecast was of the Bobby “Don’t Worry Be Happy” McFerrin, there-is-no-reason-for-concern kind. And those fellows paid the price. But what of the opposite endless end-of-the-world predictions that besiege us from otherwise sober scientists who assure us that our very breath is killing us? They ever going to be hauled before the (earthly) judge?
we have no less than the question of the century.
I guess failure to predict is in a different category than failed predictions.
Hey Warmists & Al Gore zombies;
Since past warm periods in the Holocene were as warm (or warmer) than the recent warming period, please tell us what caused the past warming periods and why CO2, instead of the cause of the past warming, caused the recent warming?
It is usually, how much water vapour is actually in the atmosphere. Too little and the surface ground temperature is hotter and too much means the surface ground temperature is cold.
Water vapour is a different density than the atmosphere.
Water is a cold substance and found as ice in space.
When water accumulates, it is colder as the deeper you go…
Water vapour is a different density than the atmosphere.
Water is a cold substance and found as ice in space.
When water accumulates, it is colder as the deeper you go…
Not-So-Permanent Permafrost: 850 Billion Tons of Carbon Stored in Frozen Arctic Ground Could Be Released
As much as 44 billion tons of nitrogen and 850 billion tons of carbon stored in arctic permafrost, or frozen ground, could be released into the environment as the region begins to thaw over the next century as a result of a warmer planet, according to a new study led by the U.S. Geological Survey. This nitrogen and carbon are likely to impact ecosystems, the atmosphere, and water resources including rivers and lakes. For context, this is roughly the amount of carbon stored in the atmosphere today.
KK,
Following on from Nice One’s important sojourn into “scientific” sources, and noting that there is a reference to “carbon”(?) stored in arctic permafrost, I have a question that I would like you to answer. Furthermore, it is a question that only you can answer.
My question is, when you pressed [shift]h then, a then, the spacebar, did you repeat those keystrokes or did you copy and paste?
Whoa there! We may need a multi million dollar grant and two or three years to investigate the matter. “Ha “, isn’t something that can be answered so easily.
Whatever I say incriminates me because then I will be admitting that I did it and not my 15 month old grandson.
I think he used the cut and paste function.
———————
The reason for my comment was that Warmers have, over time, constantly refused to look at all of the “other” sources of CO2 entering the atmosphere, especially that from the Arctic tundra.
They claim humans did it all.
Now, not only does he acknowledge it but he wants to use it to scare us!
15 months! Hey, the little guy’s a genius. At 15 months I couldn’t even spell Ha.
Clearly, he recognizes a good fairy story when he hears it.
He certainly has a good sense of humour. 🙂
This comment is definitely worth a chuckle or two, as it clearly is a classic case of: “This is really scary, gimme some more grant money.”
So, I decided to read the original article:
1. More full of ‘coulds’ and references to climate models than you could shake a stick at.
2. This article is not based on temperatures, but assumed radiative forcings caused by rising carbon dioxide levels. So this is a classic climate model prediction, which is long on theory and short on observed facts.
3. No one asked the question “What happened during the several other relatively warm periods in the Holocene – were there runaway carbon emissions from the Arctic then?” Answer: No, the amount was too negligible to measure. Note: It is well-documented the Arctic warmed up more than the Earth’s average temperature during previous Holocene warm periods.
4. No one asked the question: Where did this carbon rich material come from? It is obvious any remnants of this material from the Eemian interglacial ~120,000 years ago, would have been almost all removed during the last Ice Age period by glaciation and erosion, so it is vital to determine the age of this material. Anyhow, the answer must be that nearly all this carbon rich material was mostly laid down during the Holocene period of the last 10,000 years. Hmm, is there any indication of a fraction of this amount of carbon being removed from the atmosphere over the past 10,000 years? Answer: No.
5. Even to be vaguely accurate, the permafrost areas have to dry out for substantial carbon release to take place – another factor not considered. Most of this carbon material is found in low-lying flat areas, which are unlikely to dry out.
6. It is not clear how much of the forecast is dependent on the impact of Arctic tundra fires – see the quote below – it should be remembered these types of fires are as rare as rocking horse poo.
As with most things to do with CAGW, the geological record has record has given this article the finger of derision. This is just another example of why there is so little climate science and so much ‘climate science.’
“To generate the estimates, scientists studied how permafrost-affected soils, known as Gelisols, thaw under various climate scenarios. They found that all Gelisols are not alike: some Gelisols have soil materials that are very peaty, with lots of decaying organic matter that burns easily — these will impart newly thawed nitrogen into the ecosystem and atmosphere. Other Gelisols have materials that are very nutrient rich — these will impart a lot of nitrogen into the ecosystem. All Gelisols will contribute carbon dioxide and likely some methane into the atmosphere as a result of decomposition once the permafrost thaws — and these gases will contribute to warming. What was frozen for thousands of years will enter our ecosystems and atmosphere as a new contributor.”
Nice One’s in the Twilight Zone again.
Oh, I see. I should be scared…. but.. ummm….can’t.. seem…to…stay…awake…..
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Like messages from the Politburo in the Cold War, or four hour harangues from Castro in his prime, it is of worth reading between the lines on this one.
Nitrogen is an inert gas, but is also the basis of fertilisers. In other words, the peat of the permafrost is a rich, natural, organic, fertiliser. It is also carbon rich, being made up of decomposed organic matter. If this all caught fire, then it would release huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Only if it defrosts, it will probably form a peat bog so it won’t catch fire. Even then the most extensive areas will not defrost even with 10 degrees of warming – because they are in Siberia where for many months temperatures are well below minus 10 Celsius.
Well down the article is the previous concern about all this peat defrosting – the huge amounts of methane supposedly trapped. Has this problem now disappeared?
It is another example of why a proper perspective on CAGW is needed. A “scientific” study does not assess the magnitude and likelihood of future catastrophic events. Sensationalism to gain has taken the place of critical analysis.
Wouldn’t this be an example of CO2 release following temperature rise by, say 800 years, just as skeptics have been saying, independent of mankind’s influence? I thought natural CO2 sinks were meant to be a constant in alarmists’ version of the Carbon cycle, but now when it suits you, you wish to invoke natural sources as a means of accelerating CO2 release. So you have been internally inconsistent logically, reinforced the skeptic position that natural sources of CO2 fluctuate and are orders of magnitude greater than anthropogenic sources, and ably demonstrated that scientists have such a small increment of the knowledge required to define all the parameters involved in climate, let alone discerning “drivers” from consequences. Nice one!
By “carbon” I suppose the article you cite refers to carbon dioxide (CO2)?
Given a total atmospheric CO2 content at approx. 3.16×10^15 kg (about 3,000 gigatonnes), this means the release of 850 billion (850 thousand million) tonnes from the Arctic permafrost is a fractional addition of approximately 1/10,000 (0.000268).
Given that the atmospheric sensitivity to CO2 is unknown, this utterly miniscule amount is almost certainly an irrelevance in its putative ‘warming’ effect.
I’ll add a further 10^10 “Ha” to KinkyKeith’s (4.1)
and the effect on the temperature, even under the climate hypochondriacts’ highest sensitivity, would still have 3 spacing zeros after the decimal place.
Yep. But you forgot to mention there’s 50 times the tonnage of CO2 in the ocean as there is in the atmosphere. And that the solubility of CO2 in water is inversely proportional to temperature. And, therefore, we are doomed to a runaway greenhouse. In fact, it should have happened a long time ago. Any guesses why not?
Should be worth a nice old research grant in that eh?
26 Oct: Reuters: Ronald Grover: Gore’s Current TV hires bankers to assess future: source
Current TV, the liberal cable news channel started by former Vice President Al Gore, has hired JP Morgan and The Raine Group to assess strategic options that may include a sale or strategic partnership with another media company, according to a person with knowledge of the operation.
The channel, founded in 2005 by Gore and businessman Joel Hyatt, is also seeking new funding and talking with venture capitalists and other parties, the person said on condition of anonymity because the talks were private…
After a series of programming changes, Current TV programming includes a lineup of talk shows hosted by former New York Governor Elliot Spitzer, former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, and other Democratic politicians.
In March, Current TV fired commentator Keith Olbermann after what it described as a difference in “values.” It has since hired California Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom to host a weekly show… http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/27/us-currenttv-deal-idUSBRE89P13V20121027
are these the best shows they can spruik to find a buyer?
Our actual knowledge and science suffers from capitalists who’s only interest is how to con for the next big score.
Our current crop of consensus is just keeping ignorance rampant and using the uncertainty card to keep their careers alive in a whole world of bull crap.
Farry O’Barrell could change the Ward system for Sydney Council if he really wanted to but like his mate in Melbourne (Ted Ballyhoo), he’s useless when it comes to the real issues.
Oh alright, he fixed the Coastal Retreat laws – well I think he did.
I really don’t think O’Farrell really intended to ‘Get Clover’ with his new laws but to put in common sense policy. It is ridiculous that you can give 100% to both jobs, which require that.
To be fair, both O’Farrell and Baillieu came into tough situations, set up by Labor. Both need to take more of a leaf out of Campbell Newman’s and Jeff Kennett’s book. They have done some good things as well.
While I live in NSW, It looks to me that Baillieu has, by dint of doing nothing, condemned Vic. to another ALP government next year. No doubt he believes that this ‘don’t rock the boat’ policy will still get him and his party through the next election with a bigger majority.
His problem is that the electorate is going to blame him for the stultified mess that is Vic. presently. You continue bad policy, you get the blame for bad policy. Ted Baillieu is yet another of those whom Mrs. T would have scornfully described as “sopping wet”.
O’Farrell is a huge disappointment to me. He has a record state majority and has also done next to nothing. Yet more road and rail transport projects on the never-never, the vast majority of ALP appointed department heads still in their jobs, a continuation and escalation of the war on the state’s motorists by the dumber than dumb Duncan Gay (yes, that is his name!). He either believes in this war or is too gutless to take on the the big hitters in his department.
I could go on but you get the drift. One bunch of useless sponges succeeded by another bunch of useless sponges, neither worth feeding.
I think investing in big infrastructure projects are very important, which both the Baillieu and O’Farrell Governments have done. Although I don’t support all of Baillieu’s decisions, one must remember that he came in with a $6 billion whole in GST revenue, Labor left the state’s finances in bad shape and they wasted a lot on projects such as Myki (a failed ticketing system) and a Desalination plant. Costed the state billions of dollars. People can criticise Ted, but he has had a very tough situation dealt to him and so has O’Farrell. These predicaments and an overall decline in state revenue don’t leave much room to so anything spectacular.
Is your meteorologist ignorant and is he lying to you?
When he describes wind speed and wind shear, does he include the rotating planet?
No.
What he has neglected is that through rotation and velocity differences, the actual winds have vastly more velocity.
What he actually is showing is the difference of our planet in sequence to the atmosphere on the planet surface.
Add into this planetary tilting and you have circulation at tremendous velocities that have NOT been calculated at. lalonde-joe/world-calculations.pdf lalonde-joe/world-calculations-2.pdf
Er … the above has nothing to do with winds. The atmosphere rotates with the earth, but there is slippage at the boundary layer – the Coriolis force. This combines with thermal forces to produce the trade winds.
The diagrams seem to be about rotation speed relative to insolation. Perhaps part of an explanation as to why climate models that apply the solar constant to a flat earth are bunk, because they leave out angle of incidence (cosine law), axis tilt and relative speed.
Never understood why the so-called “climate scientists” did this. Ok, they may have been programming in something like Fortran 80, but you would have thought some of their graduate gameboy programmers could handle a bit of trig.
I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that some of them still don’t understand that climate mechanisms are not all to do with radiation, but include convection, pressure etc. Similar situation with water vapour.
And Joe’s comment “Too little [water vapour] and the surface ground temperature is hotter and too much means the surface ground temperature is cold” is a simplification because it leaves out psychrometric effects.
50% RH and 34°C is “cooler” than 90% RH and 29°C.
You have an exceptionally good grasp on science and the effects.
One thing though, if the planet were to stop dead, the velocity of rotation inertia would generate the winds from the rotation world calculations at the very different velocities.
The interactions is far more complex when including solar angles and density differences of water to air.
We currently walk in the atmosphere even though our bodies are full of water which gives us density in the atmosphere.
Current scientists cannot understand that our environment is 1000 times more complex than they are willing to admit.
Averaging an orb for a calculation with many differing factors is fool hardy at best.
And for what?
To fool the masses?
Current scientists cannot understand that our environment is 1000 times more complex than they are willing to admit.
Averaging an orb for a calculation with many differing factors is fool hardy at best.
And for what?
To fool the masses?
Fool hardy indeed. Early navigators (of sea, and later air) were able to do “great circle” calculations without digital computers.
The GCM modelling was premised with “anthropogenic co2 causes temperature to rise” which is less sensible than “ice cream causes drowning”. At least the latter has an obvious correlation. (Doesn’t seem to apply in Australia though, but apparently we do have a correlation between crocodile attacks and consumption of alcohol.)
The GCM modellers started off fooling themselves, but then the gravy train started to flow.
No doubt you have reasons for your views on Capitalism, just as I have mine for the exact opposite view. We won’t change each other’s opinions.
I just want to say that your experience does not match my own. The wealthy Capitalists I have known have been generous people.
I do not know Bill Gates, or Waren Buffett, but I see they have each given more money more generously than most of the world’s nations have throughout their entire history. I believe that integrity requires me to stand up and reiterate the facts when these contributions are ignored.
On some levels you are correct…
But have they also not been fooled into believing global warming and wanting to “cool” our planet by mass media promotions?
It goes to show why it’s a good idea to avoid attacking the person along with the mistaken belief. If you want to change opinions you need to actually hold a discussion and you can’t discuss anything when you’ve just thrown a bomb at someone. On the other hand, it seems like some need the bomb thrown at them for the sake of making a point to other people. It’s not easy, this business of winning minds away from a fictitious problem to which they’ve been happily married for years. Jo’s been carrying on the crusade for a long time.
And before you say it I know I’m sometimes guilty of bomb throwing myself. 🙁
For when you are bored:
Every now and again I like to access the the BBC “science and Environment” web-page [I leave the word science uncapitalised to reflect the apparent BBC attitude to the two subjects], and try and guess whether a new article will reference global-warming or “climate change”.
Latest example: “Rarest dog: Ethiopian wolves are genetically vulnerable”. Apparently there’s only about 500 left, which means their gene-pool is getting dangerously shallow.
It’s not a terrible article. Mildly interesting. The full paper is pay-walled. But I just knew that an article on genetics might prove irresistible to the BBC. [Or perhaps ones that don’t mention the c-word are more likely to be ignored.]
Read down, and, lo!, like an alcoholic pouring gin on the cornflakes at breakfast time:
“Another major threat to their future comes from habitat loss and fragmentation, which may be accelerated by climate change.”
Little more than a byword. Almost a throwaway line. Thats a lot milder than anything we’d have got in the days of ex Greenie Science correspondent Richard Black.
Checking out Michael Mann’s facebook page today, he seems quite miffed that EVERYONE is calling themselves a Nobel Prize winner, but they only attack ME!!!!
and here are some of those scientists that Mann despises for copying his idea of cutting and pasting his own little fake Nobel Prize certificate.
a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge.
Without doubt, one of the feeblest and most revealing forms of self-justification.
Guys, I like all your comments on my “,” posting, well done.
At the same time it was neither a joke nor an error. It was a (clever? yes, of course) trick to get all the subsequent comments on this thread in the chronological order in my mailbox, so as I could read all of them in the chronological order without getting through the entire page again and again.
You know, this horrible “reply” button.
Maybe there is another way, but I have not found it.
Please, share with me, how you manage this problem (in case you do not want to write a real comment). By getting through the entire page again and again, right?
Life is full of paradoxes. WUWT, at the moment, has a long thread about Dr Mann and his new ‘See you, Sue You’ litigation and his apparent claim to Mannian Laureate status (h/t to Aldimer Latimer)
Some of his staunch, albeit dwindling, supporters have latched onto the Viscount Christopher M’s claim for equal status as a fellow prizewinner and giggle!
Lord M has the sense of Humour (I’m a Nobellist – Wink, wink – No I’m not)
Spikey Mikey (and supporters)- notwithstanding the ‘they’ll be asking to see my birth-certificate next’ retort – have ‘indistinguishable-from-zero’ humour (r<0.01) despite owning 97% of the Joke.
Life is indeed strange.
It’s also interesting to see the lack of reporting of the Nobel Committee’s response to questions about Manns claim that he was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, along the lines of the Nobel was awarded to the Organisation not individuals.
According to Hugh Gillards MMRT is only going raise a fraction of the projected $2Billion.
Seems Hugh studied the same stream of economics in his Masters Degree (Peacekeeping Policy) as his wife Kumi Taguchi (ABC) who also believes zero is a fraction of $2Billion.
fraction
— noun maths
1.a ratio of two expressions or numbers other than zero .
2.any rational number that is not an integer.
Looks like someone’s going to need to have a chat with MacQuarie Dictionary for a revision of the meaning of fraction.
I reckon Swan is secretly hoping for 10x the return from this quarter, spread over the next 2 quarters. Hugh would I’m sure be very relieved to hear that the Treasurer was so optimistic!
I just managed to finish watching that one. It’s a hatchet job – guilt by association – Check! Consensus politics over merits of argument – Check! Big oil funding – Check! “What if you’re wrong argument” – Check! you can see where people have had their responses cut off in mid sentence.
Oh, and lets roll out the token christian conservative climate scientist too while we’re at it.
And golly gee – how dare people request information around public funded research via a Freedom of Information Request – how Dare those peasants ask for such things.
Has it occurred to you that maybe – just maybe, the political movement that almost succeeded in punching this rubbish through was utterly dishonest when they refused to broadcast their own doubts and that maybe they would’ve been better off being honest about the areas still not understood?
That bit about the declines being cherry picked contradicts Dr Phil Jones Interview a few years ago where he state “There is no statistically significant warming over the last 10 years”. So is Dr Phil jones cherry picking as well?
Yes, I agree with most of the things you say. You wouldn’t find some serious science in that doco.
However it is increasing becoming obvious to everyone that the warmist case does not hold water and that is a good thing.
Apparently the only real reason that people have tuned out to the warmist message is because of the GFC…..
Of course, there are 1 in four spaniards at the moment looking at windmills who are probably wondering whether maybe that money would have been better spent elsewhere.
28 Oct: Guardian: Robin McKie: David Attenborough: force of natureDavid Attenborough may have lived the perfect life, travelling the world and seeing its wonders before tourism ravaged them. He talks to Robin McKie about his early regrets, battles with climate-change deniers, and his favourite place on Earth
Coral reefs are now being destroyed at a staggering rate…
Reefs are dying because ocean waters are being acidified as carbon dioxide levels rise in the atmosphere as a result of human industrial activity…
It is a simple question of numbers, says Attenborough. “There is no problem on Earth that could not be solved quite easily if you could reduce world population. The reason that oil palms are being planted all over the place is because there are so many mouths, so many people in the west offering to pay for these forests to be cut down and palms planted for margarine, for plastics.”…
In the past, he was criticised for not making clear his position on global warming, and for not taking on those who deny that climate change is occurring. However, in the past few years, he has been far more explicit in his warnings about the dangers our planet faces as it warms up and the polar regions melt.
Not surprisingly, these attempts at enlightenment have brought him into conflict with those who reject the idea that the Earth is in peril. For example, in the final episode of his last major series, Frozen Planet, Attenborough highlighted the impact of global warming on the polar regions. He pointed out that summer sea ice cover has declined by more than 30% over the past few decades and is causing major disruptions to the wildlife.
Nigel Lawson, former chancellor and leading climate-change denier, was unamused…
So what does Attenborough think about climate change deniers like Lawson? What should be done to counter their highly selective views about global warming?
“Well, it is difficult to know what to say except that people like him have to be allowed to make these claims so that others can assess them. Any idea of suppressing their views would be disastrous. We need to be able to see just how wrong-headed they are and how selective they are in picking data to support their ideas. They pinpoint examples to say global warming cannot be happening because it got colder in some area of the planet. That is the sort of thing they say. But, of course, that completely misunderstands the global nature of the crisis we are facing. We have to keep pointing that out. Certainly I think that most people would recognise that Lawson is up a gum tree.
“The truth is: the natural world is changing. And we are totally dependent on that world. It provides our food, water and air. It is the most precious thing we have and we need to defend it.”… http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2012/oct/26/richard-attenborough-climate-global-arctic-environment?newsfeed=true
“the natural world is changing”…who wouldn’t have thought that?
26 Oct: Bloomberg: Allesandro Vitelli: NYSE Euronext to Shut Carbon Market After Failed Auction Bid
NYSE Euronext and France’s Caisse des Depots et Consignations will close Bluenext SA, their joint carbon exchange in Paris, on Dec. 5 after the bourse failed to win a bid to run European Union permit auctions from next year.
Bluenext was one of several exchanges competing to sell emission permits on behalf of 25 member states in the third phase of the 27-nation bloc’s carbon market starting in 2013. The EU in September contracted Leipzig, Germany-based European Energy Exchange AG to sell the offsets.
“The market environment for carbon has been difficult for us,” Philippe Chauvancy, a company spokesman for Bluenext, said today by phone from Paris. “The fact that we didn’t get the Phase 3 auction was a big blow.”…
*** There is no outstanding open interest in any derivatives contract, Chauvancy said…
The Paris-based bourse settled a tax liability with French authorities for 31.8 million euros ($41.1 million) after an audit covering 2006 to 2009 relating to alleged tax frauds by participants in the market, NYSE said in a July 2011 filing. BlueNext halted trading for 15 days in 2011 after an estimated 2 million permits were stolen in hacking attacks on accounts in Austria, Greece, Italy and the Czech Republic.
“The market never really got over the episodes of permit theft and value-added-tax fraud, and these hit Bluenext particularly hard as they were mostly perpetrated on spot transactions,” Sikorski said…
Richard Adamonis, a spokesman for New York-based NYSE Euronext, declined to comment. Calls to Maria Scolan, a spokewoman for Caisse des Depots’ CDC Climat unit, were not answered.
“We will contact our members next week to make plans for an orderly closing,” Chauvancy said. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-26/bluenext-carbon-exchange-to-shut-after-losing-eu-auction-bid-1-.html
26 Oct: Bloomberg: John Hughes: Airlines See Passage of U.S. Measure Opposing EU Emissions Rule
“U.S. policy makers are solidly and unanimously opposed to the application” of EU emissions requirements to U.S. carriers, Pinkerton said. “Having the EU unilaterally apply what is essentially a tax to U.S. carriers and passengers is absolutely a violation of U.S. sovereignty.”…
If enacted, the law may increase pressure on EU leaders to make accommodations on the requirements that U.S. airlines meet emissions requirements or risk a trade war…
EU leaders cannot easily back down from the emissions requirement because it is law, said Felix Leinemann, the Washington-based first secretary of the transport, energy and environment section for the EU. The EU emissions regulation isn’t a tax; it’s not discriminatory and it doesn’t impinge on sovereignty, he said.
“The European Union takes climate change very seriously,” Leinemann said. “Why should aviation be excluded?”
If the EU does scale back the requirement to a lower threshold, environmentalists “want certainty of what the EU scales back to isn’t challenged again,” said Timothy Johnson, director of the London-based Aviation Environment Federation… http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-26/airlines-see-passage-of-u-s-measure-opposing-eu-emissions-rule.html
Note in that opening sentence, it says ….. Greater than 2000MW.
There’s 190 names on that list.
120 of them are located in China.
Now, they needed to add that rider, because the list would be pages (and pages and pages) longer.
This site started out in early 2010 as Carbon emitting (sic) sites. As it was added to, it grew bit by bit. Then, when it started to get longer they changed it to Coal fired power only. It grew. Then they changed it to plants greater in size than 1000MW. And still it grew. Then they started to add in some of the Chinese plants and it grew, and grew, and grew. Then they changed it to plants of greater size than 2000MW, and still it has that 190 names, 64% of them from China, and these are just the ones they know about.
Barely 2 years ago, when it was 1000MW, there were only 125 names on the list, 75 of them from China, and keep in mind that this is just greater than 1000MW.
With the ramping up of coal fired power in China, that list had to be changed, because, while those large scale plants (2000MW+) are being brought on line at a huge rate, plants of the size between 1000MW and 2000MW (not listed) are also being constructed at the same, or even greater rate.
Those newer 2000MW plants in China mostly entail the use of 2 turbine/generator complexes, and those generators are 1000MW each. Bayswater (circa early 80’s) has 660MW generators, (4 of them) so, as you can see, technology has advanced considerably.
Those new plants in China run larger generators, hence producing more power over the whole year, they burn less coal, do it more efficiently, and because of that, they emit less CO2.
And here we are in Australia, hoping to reduce our CO2 emissions from coal fired power especially, by small percentages.
No wonder China wants our Steaming Coal.
And still, China with a population of 1.35 Billion has barely 8% of its total generated power being consumed in the Residential sector, averaging out to around one home in five across the whole of China having any electrical power at all, let alone a constant and regular supply. In the larger cities, power is available, but the vast bulk of Chinese have no power at all. With all that new power coming on line, those people in China might get to that stage where we are here in Australia with 25% of all generated power being consumed in the Residential Sector, and the U.S. where 38% of all generated power being consumed in the Residential sector. For China though, that is a long long way off yet.
You may notice what could be perceived as a discrepancy between Residential consumption in Australia (25%) and the U.S. (38%) and that U.S. figure of 38% is around the Developed World average. That perceived discrepancy for Australia can be better explained with the differentiation between electricity consumption and energy consumption. Here in Australia, we are large consumers of Natural Gas for energy purposes, and surprisingly, wood burning as an energy source, and I have explained that in this earlier Post at Joanne’s site.
26 Oct: Bloomberg: BP Cancels Florida Ethanol Plant, Extends Renewable Exit
By Christopher Martin and Mario Parker
BP Plc, Europe’s second-biggest oil producer, is abandoning a cellulosic ethanol project in the U.S., its second move in a year to scale back in renewable energy.
The company canceled plans to build a $300 million cellulosic ethanol plant in Highlands County, Florida, to focus on “more attractive” projects, according to a statement on its website today…
The company decided in December to wind down its solar business, which had become unprofitable after prices plunged.
“Ethanol is not something a lot of people are interested in investing money in,” Mark Schultz, an analyst at Northstar Commodity Investment Co. in Minneapolis, said in an interview today.
“Corn-based ethanol hasn’t been profitable for about a year,” he said. BP is “seeing that this isn’t the right street to go down anymore.”…
BP announced plans in 2008 to build the plant, which would have produced 36 million gallons of fuel a year… http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-25/bp-cancels-plans-to-build-florida-cellulosic-ethanol-plant.html
This is news to me, especially at this time of the season. Can’t get into the BBC report. Anyone have any reliable news?
BBC News – Antarctica runway melting: Search for new landing strip
… Australia is searching for a new aircraft landing site in Antarctica because the current runway is melting due to global warming. Only a fraction of the planned flights have been able to land at the multi-million dollar facility which is there to re-supply scientific bases in Antarctica. As the authorities looks for an alternative, they are having to turn to Chinese ships for help. …
Someone forgot to tell the BBC that Antarctica is in the Southern Hemisphere and that it is an inherent characteristic of Antarctic Ice to melt this time of year as summer approaches.
Yep,
It’s October…therefore on it’s way through to Summer in the Antarctic.
It’s truly gob smacking how much these people just arrogantly ignore the bleeding obvious!
Wanna bet that something reasonably close to the opposite is occuring in the Arctic?
From memory, another thing that they failed to tell the BBC is that resupply in Antacrtia is done by ship, the landing strip they are refering to was built for Antarctic Tourism and that the Aurora Australis (the current re-supply ship) is currently icebound some way short of Casey Station. Not that they should have expected that, who would have guessed that this would occur in the same season that the expidition studying the sea ice in Antarctica was stopped 8 miles short of where the original expidition was able to reach.
Sat 27th Oct, 2012 @ 13:00 (Eastern Standard/Summer)
Position; 65° 1.000′ S, 117° 19.000′ E
Current speed; 0.4 (knots)
Distance in last 24 hours; 0 (nautical miles)
Weather conditions; Overcast, snowing. 30kts wind from the south east.
Air temperature; -12 (degrees Celsius)
Sea temperature; -1.85 (degrees Celsius)
Sea conditions; Calm.
Ice conditions; Pack ice, mostly first year floes heavily rafted and covered in deep snow.
Report:
Currently we’re not moving, waiting for visibility to clear enough to see if there are any leads to follow.
Winds peaked last night from the east, south east at about 40 knots and have eased overnight, swinging to a more southerly aspect. Hopefully this will help loosen the pack around us over the next 24 hours.
courtesy of the CAGW scammers, coming soon to a street near you no doubt:
27 Oct: UK Telegraph: Claire Duffin: Street lights turned off in their thousands to meet carbon emission targets
Huge swathes of Britain are being plunged into darkness as more and more streetlights are switched off by councils and roads authorities.
They are making the move despite concerns from safety campaigners and the police that it would lead to an increase in road accidents and crime.
The full extent of the blackout can be disclosed following an investigation by The Sunday Telegraph – which comes on the day that clocks moved back an hour, making it dark earlier in the evening – and found that:
3,080 miles of motorways and trunk roads in England are now completely unlit;
a further 47 miles of motorway now have no lights between midnight and 5am, including one of Britain’s busiest stretches of the M1, between Luton and Milton Keynes;
out of 134 councils which responded to a survey, 73% said they had switched off or dimmed some lights or were planning to;
all of England’s 27 county councils have turned off or dimmed street lamps in their areas…
Local authorities say the moves helps reduce energy bills, at a time when energy prices are continuing to rise…
However some councils admit they may not see savings for another four or five years because of the cost of installing new lights, dimmer switches and complex control systems.
And some councils – as well as the Highways Agency, responsible for motorways and major A roads – say that the lights are being turned off to meet “green” targets to cut carbon emissions, by reducing electricity use… http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9637929/Street-lights-turned-off-in-their-thousands-to-meet-carbon-emission-targets.html
28 Oct: The National, UAE: Vesela Todorova: Global warming – the full picture
The last time the world’s climate scientists produced a major report, it had the effect of ending the scientific debate about whether man-made climate change was a real phenomenon…Due to be published in October 2014, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) Fifth Assessment Report is expected to be the most detailed on climate change ever produced, and for the first time answer important questions about how each region will be affected…
Comments are allowed if scientific language is difficult to understand or if statements need to be qualified with nuances.
But changes to the text must be scientifically justified. Government cannot remove sections because they don’t like the science.
“There are a few limited changes,” Prof van Ypersele said. In past reports, a “few dozens of lines” were changed, but “never … a change affecting a scientific conclusion”.
***The summary is approved by consensus, a process that usually takes three to four days and at least a night of talks… http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/environment/global-warming-the-full-picture
Mid November to December 2012 (SE QLD & Northern NSW) will be higher than average rainfall. Due to early fall of flowers (that set earlier than usual) to enable seed growth ready for the oncoming early wet period.
Further report for January & February 2013 rainfall once the BOM Delonix regia (poinciana) and BOM Mangifera indica (mango) have revealed their secrets. Data from fruit set after current flowering.
I’m not sure I’d put too much stock in that – Gillard is in very similar circumstances to Anna Bligh – but Anna had much less scandal. I predict a similar fate – she’s gone already. The baseball bats are leaning against the veranda post, just waiting for the opportunity.
Reckon Craig’ll be charged just nicely before the next election, maybe a conviction of ex labor President Williamson too, and potentially even a glimpse at why a young solicitor might falsely witness a power of attorney? Ad this to a few Liberal Adds “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead” combined with pictures of Electricity Bills stamped “UP 115%” and I think the governments weak recovery will rapidly slide back into oblivion.
Julia needs to slip down to Toyota to buy the new post election party room.
And on the same day that Newspoll shows a 50/50 split, Bolt alerts us to today’s Essential poll that has a 54/46 split to the Coalition, with Labor going backwards.
I still cant find anyone admitting that they voted Labor last time, and I sure as hell cant find a soul who is going to vote Ginger next time either.
And as a JN aside, I’m just waiting for the likes of Flannery or Combet to come out and link the Frankenstorm in the US to global warming……
Don’t get too smug, Tony. It’s in your voting booths as well as ours. Human nature isn’t different just because you’re an Australian. 🙂
And yes, we have some blithering idiots walking around loose. I sometimes wonder how they manage to get their cloths on and tie their shoes every morning.
(If the ABC is independent why do they want my taxes?)
• Last week I went to see a recycled plastic surgeon.
• Last week, the Thought Police tried to give me a speeding ticket. I told them my brain was stuck in carbon neutral.
• I believe that 50% of global temperatures are higher than average.
• I tried to pay the carbon tax but when I went through my pockets I couldn’t find any climate change.
• I’m not holding my breath for a carbon tax refund.
• Last week, I went to the drug store for a packet of heavy-duty placebos.
• My girlfriend got a job as a climate model. She wears stilettos to reduce her carbon footprint.
• She wears diamonds but only if they’re carbon-free.
• In the future I predict everyone will experience a sense of déjà vu.
• If global warming was a real problem they’d do climate teleconferences.
• I went to the zoo to see this schizophrenic bear. It was a bipolar.
• The head teacher at my old school was a Precautionary Principal. I flunked out but I got some carbon credits.
• In the future I predict everyone will experience a sense of déjà vu.
• I predicteed the world will end last week. Everybody else had the future booked out.
• I got a job as a climate scientist but they had to let me go. I kept on finding out it wasn’t worse than we expected.
• They asked me if I believe in climate change and I said all the time…
That was an interesting experiment. Of course it was for entertainment & we dont know how many denied knowing of the Debate. Program makers no doubt had plenty examples to select their results from, or kept going until they did.
But if found out theyd no doubt plead all harmless fun. Lewandowsky on the other hand …
Hi all, Anthony Watts is getting a funded WUWT-TV broadcast soon, Jo and David were invited by the way. I don’t know the details, but I believe it will contrast with Gore’s 24 hour broadcast. Maybe Jo can find out more details and how it will affect Australian views, it will be on the Internet.
Even the BBC can’t get a clear message to the people –
‘BBC News – Mecca seeks ‘green Hajj’
… Mecca into an environmentally sustainable city. Mecca Mayor Osama al-Bar says he wants to make mosques in the area “eco-friendly”. “We have invited international bidders to build a gigantic solar power station, which will be used in illuminating mosques, hotels, streets and tunnels across Mecca,” he explained. Mr al-Bar said an underground system was being planned to serve the entire city, …
The central issue of evidence for projected catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is how that evidence is evaluated. The “consensus” method, lead by the UNIPCC, is to evaluate evidence on how it fits with the hypothesis. If it fits, then the evidence is accepted (and in cases exaggerated). If it contradicts the CAGW hypothesis, then the evidence is anti-science.
I believe that scientific evidence should be evaluated by more rational and objective criteria. The projected impacts create costs, so assessment criteria needs to be within the realms of economics. For those interested, (and with an understanding of intermediate level economics), I have drafted out how that assessment criteria might look. Please let me know what you think.
http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/10/26/costs-of-climate-change-in-perspective/
40
Manicbeancounter,
You are generating the SAME error as current scientists. Treating the planet like a cylinder through the use of AVERAGING.
Try re-applying this calculation over the WHOLE planet, an actual orb. You should have a globe.
The atmosphere itself is multi-layered with varying degrees of compression differences due to the different velocities.
lalonde-joe/world-calculations.pdf
lalonde-joe/world-calculations-2.pdf
Our planet is in constant change due to natural physical causes of mechanical changes.
The planet adjusts to whatever is put in it.
Our concepts need adjusting to understand our planet first before we can even comment on mundane concepts like temperature which is generated by many factors.
We record, analyze, adjust and project. This is statistical analysis and NOT science.
10
Joe’s World,
I think you have misunderstood what I have said. I am not propounding a calculation, nor any particular hypothesis, nor an analysis of any data. Rather, I am proposing a framework for assessing how any particular piece of evidence about CAGW should be used in the whole. If you look at the “equation” that I develop, it cannot be used for a calculation. It is just a list of elements that need to be considered. The first element is magnitude. That is the size of the issue. The magnitude includes not just the severity, but the area covered. In this way regional and sub-regional issues can be considered alongside global ones. Further, looking at the costs of an issue would give much greater emphasis on adverse impacts to, say, South-East China, than the Arctic, even if the latter has many times the area.
From my reading of the climate consensus, the problem of averaging is a minor one. The major problems include faulty extrapolation, faulty generalisations, poor data handling and analysis, and a failure to consider alternative explanations.
60
Manicbeancounter,
The averaging part is actually a major problem as it does not consider motion to be part of the environment.
With this mistake, when averaging and re-applying to an orb, it does NOT work as now every point that the data was taken from must be warmer as the data dictates, even though the area may NEVER have had any anomalies.
Thanks for the clarification on the MAGNITUDE issue.
The magnitude of severity to change and funding should NEVER have come up as scientists still have very little knowledge of our planet past and present except for an minor time line.
20
Sorry, but this is a huge simplification – and makes a couple of implicit assumptions IE that a Catastrophic outcome is even possible, let alone likely. You even postulate tipping points, none of which have been demonstrated from 7000 down to 280 PPM CO2. I think the only tipping point in reality is 180 PPM where Vegetative respiration fails.
Also, you seem to factor only one weighting factor, which makes a huge warmist mistake. You assume that AVERAGES have meaning. The Average Temperature of the planet never killed anyone, Even if the Average temperature of the planet increased by 10 degrees from 15 to 25 we’d go from Chilly to pleasantly warm. It is the implicit assumption that an increase in the average temperature will generates costly extremes either spatially or temporally that is at issue. That certain places would be less habitable than before or the midday extremes would be intolerable to life. This is not in the slightest proven AT ALL. In fact experience tells us that as we increase temperature relative humidity increases and the climate becomes more tropical. That is, the temperature extremes NARROW. An Equatorial Island experiences a temperature range of about 23-33 degrees ( 28 degrees average) to let’s say Hobart which has a range from about -2 to 38 or an average of about 18. Note that the Tropical Island has a climate that is less extreme than the temperate one, it’s extremes are wholly within Hobart’s annual Temperature range despite having an average temperature fully 10 degrees higher . We should expect therefore that as Hobart warms, it’s temperature range will narrow. This implies LOWER costs not higher.
Therefore to estimate cost you need to quantify
Where it will be warmer – eg warmer temperatures in the Simpson desert, Arctic/Anarctic or centre of the pacific probably implies a little less less cost impact, well except the cost of grants to Arctic, Antarctic, Ocean, And Desert climate researchers which of course will be required to go up many-fold
What time of the day will it be warmer (if at all) Higher mins, imply lower cost while higher Maxes imply higher cost (only maybe)
What time of the year will be warmer ( EG Warmer in winter implies lower costs rather than higher)
and
Rate of warming
The average rise tells you none of this and therefore any estimate of damage is pure guess work. What is needed here are moderating weightings on these factors.
One last point, Your graphics depict monotonically increasing costs with temperature and according to the IPCC that is wrong, they have stated that on Balance they expect LOWER costs compared with benefit for at least the next 2 degrees of warming. Now if warming in the short term leads to lower costs (is a Nett benefit to humanity) and peak at 2 degrees at what point are these changes reversed and we reach break even with today, Logic would say 4 degrees – Assuming a linear response but given the CO2 temperature response and most natural systems is logarithmic, I’d anticipate a long flat tailed characteristic and that break-even is at 5 or 6 degrees. I expect you will take this into account?
All we can say with any certainty about real costs of CO2 is that the bill for lawnmowing and food harvesting will increase due to the impact of CO2 fertilization resulting in faster growing lawns, and higher crop yields.
40
“I think the only tipping point in reality is 180 PPM where Vegetative respiration fails.”
Apparently the atmospheric level has been around 280ppm as a minimum for a very long time. This would indicate (using predator/prey principles) that 280ppm is the level at which vegetation starts to really struggle. The balanced subsistence level, if you will.
Thank goodness we are now releasing a reasonable quantity through our use of coal and fossil fuels, otherwise the world food supply could be in real trouble.
Keep up the good work: US, China, India, and now Germany. The atmosphere NEEDS that CO2 !!
40
sorry, but we don’t. About 3% of natural turn over isn’t a reasonable quantity.
20
I see your point.. but so long as the CO2 ppm in the atmosphere keeps going up. I’ll be happy enough.
If it starts dropping, start worrying !!!
22
.
Bobcl – you said:
I agree because we’ll be mowing every day!
The majority of crop (whether lawn or food source) mass increase will come from the increased input of CO2 and as a result the yields will far outway the costs of what are virtuallly small amounts of major fertilizers and trace elements. A 100 square meter lawn area (couch) can sequester over 25 kilos of CO2 per annum, and increasing CO2 levels will result in a similar curve to Manicbeancounters GW curve. The result is increased O2 production, fertilisation increase through decomposition, and more rapid intake of CO2. The current Green building regulations are fighting this trend.
They say as per FLIM FLAM:
Use less water – droughts coming – The idiots shout at us. So don’t plant lawns – cover the area in gravel and a few Australian native plants. The result of this is that the environment is being raped by these Greens who think only of the CAGW warnings.
The results is a rapid increase in urban heat areas. You’ve seen all the latest no water trendy garden areas, hot, dry and bare – but the new generation is getting used to it.
Get back to massive plantings, water them (by whatever means) and the temperature naturally drops. Good grief – we’ve had these natural air-conditioners available before LG came along and John Brookes, Mattyb & Catamon bought them all (powered by subsidised Solar Panels).
An average lawn of approximately 200 square meters supplies enough Oxygen daily for four people. Not even counting shrubs, trees etc. Lets get real GREENIES and get back to some science that helps people not TAXES them for a beautiful molecule called Carbon Dioxide.
30
This is a hugely important point Bob.
Why is this dangerous “pivot” point being kept from public awareness?
However, so long as the ocean has such a large store of dissolved CO2 we should be reasonably OK as long as
the temperature holds up.
If temperature cools we will be in deep doo doo because the ocean will stop giving off the Golden Gas and we
will have crop failures.
Thank you CO2: the Golden Gas.
KK 🙂
10
Hi BobL
All that I am doing in my graph is replicating the arguments of the Stern review into the costs of climate change. Stern’s argument is that the policy costs of stablising CO2 at around 600ppm will involve costs of 4% to 20% of the costs incurred through letting climate change run out of control. The elements are a huge simplification. This is what economic theory does. But by simplifying, and abstracting, the issues involved can be illuminated and properly understood. I have tried to include all the elements that the climate “consensus”uses, such as tipping points. Rather than argue further, let me give a quick example of how the equation can be applied.
Sea Levels
Al Gore and James Hansen have both made claims that sea levels could rise by around 6 metres. Let us suppose this is over 100 years. (In the late 1980s Hansen was claiming this rise in 20 years)
My equation is
The Magnitude is quite large and is over as short period, so 1/t is large as well. What is the Likelihood of this happening? Given that the official satellite-based figures from the University of Colorado show that the rise in one twentieth of this rate, with no acceleration, then that is pretty much zero. What weighting should we give to the Al Gore evidence? Given that he has a history of making wild claims and refuses to debate, pretty much zero. For Hansen, the prediction he made has been falsified.
The most complex part is │Pr-E()│. What if people based their expectations on the claims of Hansen and Gore instead of making objective predictions on the best available information? What if they abandoned some areas in anticipation of catastrophe that will never arrive, and built impossibly high sea walls around cities? Rather than adapting to changing conditions, people will create additional costs through needlessly wasting money. Lack of calm objectivity in assessing evidence is costly, and could destroy people’s lives.
00
I do see what you are trying to do but in doing so you unwitting give weight to the falsities of the argument IE that any temperature increase is a nett cost to society where in all likelihood it is a nett benefit. In doing this you will be as wrong as Stern, only less in magnitude, because the entire cost equation has no relevance – no anchors in the real world. If I take the current population of pink elephants add 2000 to their number for 27 years we will not be able to afford the pink elephant food. I can assess what the potential impact of increasing pink elephant populations might be, but that doesn’t change the fact that they don’t exist. You see how this raises problems.
Headline: Scientist calculates Pink Elephant population explosion might bankrupt state – New Pink Elephant Levy to be introduced to parliament tomorrow” – Pink Elephant habitats to be declared protected wildlife heritage area.
I think you can make statements about Potential Impact here, but you can’t say anything about costs & Benefits because you don’t identify truth, benefits vs Cost , or the spatial/temporal distribution of the cost drivers. It’s just pure potential impact, but of What?
That said, there is an argument for using this to decide what to take notice of, and what to wave away as a Joke. Problem is public perception is distorted such that a miniscule 200 Billion Tonnes of thawing Co2 in the arctic is perceived as important where you would calculate it as insignificant.
In the end I’m not sure where this leads us? maybe you need a Public Perception factor – A “Care Factor” if you will. At least then this might help focus on what needs to be debunked first.
00
Bobl,
A major issue I have found is a failure to break down the problem into different aspects. There are a number of things to establish a potential, large warming problem. Principally that there is a greenhouse effect, and the measurement of that effect (including climate sensitivity. My graph displays the claimed consequences. The “equation” lists the aspects that need to be established for this to be a non-trivial problem.
What I imply
1) There are a huge variety of skills required. It is not a small elite of specialists in science. Principally it is economics, statistics and accountancy.
2) Results need to be reviewed, with asking of critical questions.
3) The most dangerous people to get involved are public relations specialists, and politicians. Both groups are concerned with promoting belief in a particular set of ideas, to the exclusion of alternatives. Their abilities in their specialisms actually disable them from asking challenging questions.
00
First
snowschilling signs of global warming in Europe and the clocks are still on summer time.It’s not unusual. Except that those who predicted that snows would be a thing of the past, may in future find themselves in a tight spot:
Follow the link for the rest.
70
That is the course of following data and projecting the future off of that data for a very small(insignificant) time period.
Scientists are paid and have tenure and published works status among themselves in a snowball of consensus. No worries of actually being accountable for what they spew out.
It is society that gets hurt putting trust into our experts expecting them to actually work for us, to protect us and save us.
In actuality, current science is an absolute disgrace of ignorance and bias.
50
From Bernd’s link…
we have no less than the question of the century.
I guess failure to predict is in a different category than failed predictions.
20
Hey Warmists & Al Gore zombies;
Since past warm periods in the Holocene were as warm (or warmer) than the recent warming period, please tell us what caused the past warming periods and why CO2, instead of the cause of the past warming, caused the recent warming?
Thanks
JK
30
Jim,
It is usually, how much water vapour is actually in the atmosphere. Too little and the surface ground temperature is hotter and too much means the surface ground temperature is cold.
Water vapour is a different density than the atmosphere.
Water is a cold substance and found as ice in space.
When water accumulates, it is colder as the deeper you go…
00
Go on, don’t be bashful, admit it.
You’re a high school science teacher, aren’t you?
80
Son,
Is stat you hiding behind the name?
10
JK here.
Still waiting for an answer from the warmers as to why recent warming was caused by CO2, but past warmings were natural.
Thanks
JK
20
Not-So-Permanent Permafrost: 850 Billion Tons of Carbon Stored in Frozen Arctic Ground Could Be Released
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121025145436.htm
228
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
210
KK,
Following on from Nice One’s important sojourn into “scientific” sources, and noting that there is a reference to “carbon”(?) stored in arctic permafrost, I have a question that I would like you to answer. Furthermore, it is a question that only you can answer.
My question is, when you pressed [shift]h then, a then, the spacebar, did you repeat those keystrokes or did you copy and paste?
40
MaxL,
Whoa there! We may need a multi million dollar grant and two or three years to investigate the matter. “Ha “, isn’t something that can be answered so easily.
30
Ah Ma,
There is no easy answer to that.
Whatever I say incriminates me because then I will be admitting that I did it and not my 15 month old grandson.
I think he used the cut and paste function.
———————
The reason for my comment was that Warmers have, over time, constantly refused to look at all of the “other” sources of CO2 entering the atmosphere, especially that from the Arctic tundra.
They claim humans did it all.
Now, not only does he acknowledge it but he wants to use it to scare us!
Ah, I don’t understand them.
KK 🙂
100
That should have been
Ah Max
00
15 months! Hey, the little guy’s a genius. At 15 months I couldn’t even spell Ha.
Clearly, he recognizes a good fairy story when he hears it.
He certainly has a good sense of humour. 🙂
30
This comment is definitely worth a chuckle or two, as it clearly is a classic case of: “This is really scary, gimme some more grant money.”
So, I decided to read the original article:
1. More full of ‘coulds’ and references to climate models than you could shake a stick at.
2. This article is not based on temperatures, but assumed radiative forcings caused by rising carbon dioxide levels. So this is a classic climate model prediction, which is long on theory and short on observed facts.
3. No one asked the question “What happened during the several other relatively warm periods in the Holocene – were there runaway carbon emissions from the Arctic then?” Answer: No, the amount was too negligible to measure. Note: It is well-documented the Arctic warmed up more than the Earth’s average temperature during previous Holocene warm periods.
4. No one asked the question: Where did this carbon rich material come from? It is obvious any remnants of this material from the Eemian interglacial ~120,000 years ago, would have been almost all removed during the last Ice Age period by glaciation and erosion, so it is vital to determine the age of this material. Anyhow, the answer must be that nearly all this carbon rich material was mostly laid down during the Holocene period of the last 10,000 years. Hmm, is there any indication of a fraction of this amount of carbon being removed from the atmosphere over the past 10,000 years? Answer: No.
5. Even to be vaguely accurate, the permafrost areas have to dry out for substantial carbon release to take place – another factor not considered. Most of this carbon material is found in low-lying flat areas, which are unlikely to dry out.
6. It is not clear how much of the forecast is dependent on the impact of Arctic tundra fires – see the quote below – it should be remembered these types of fires are as rare as rocking horse poo.
As with most things to do with CAGW, the geological record has record has given this article the finger of derision. This is just another example of why there is so little climate science and so much ‘climate science.’
“To generate the estimates, scientists studied how permafrost-affected soils, known as Gelisols, thaw under various climate scenarios. They found that all Gelisols are not alike: some Gelisols have soil materials that are very peaty, with lots of decaying organic matter that burns easily — these will impart newly thawed nitrogen into the ecosystem and atmosphere. Other Gelisols have materials that are very nutrient rich — these will impart a lot of nitrogen into the ecosystem. All Gelisols will contribute carbon dioxide and likely some methane into the atmosphere as a result of decomposition once the permafrost thaws — and these gases will contribute to warming. What was frozen for thousands of years will enter our ecosystems and atmosphere as a new contributor.”
20
Great outline Peter.
KK 🙂
10
Weasel words (could, are likely) CHECK.
Tipping point (CO2 -> warming -> more CO2) CHECK
Whole planet affected. CHECK
The only big one they missed was calling out some group as Evil Deniers.
Ya gotta say this for the Green/Left; they sure know how to recycle old scares. But that’s all.
Nul points.
110
Nice One’s in the Twilight Zone again.
Oh, I see. I should be scared…. but.. ummm….can’t.. seem…to…stay…awake…..
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
40
.
Didn’t this crap do the rounds a couple of years ago?
Only then it was defrosting methane clathrates that were going to cause the end of the world as we know it. By 2012 no less.
180
Don’t get cocky – still two months to go …
50
Sweet.. that darn CO2 has been locked up for way too long !
70
Free the Arctic 850.
Arctic 850 are Innocent.
Justice Now for Arctic 850.
90
I can just hear Pete Seeger in the background ……… We shall overcome some day ….
20
Like messages from the Politburo in the Cold War, or four hour harangues from Castro in his prime, it is of worth reading between the lines on this one.
Nitrogen is an inert gas, but is also the basis of fertilisers. In other words, the peat of the permafrost is a rich, natural, organic, fertiliser. It is also carbon rich, being made up of decomposed organic matter. If this all caught fire, then it would release huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Only if it defrosts, it will probably form a peat bog so it won’t catch fire. Even then the most extensive areas will not defrost even with 10 degrees of warming – because they are in Siberia where for many months temperatures are well below minus 10 Celsius.
Well down the article is the previous concern about all this peat defrosting – the huge amounts of methane supposedly trapped. Has this problem now disappeared?
It is another example of why a proper perspective on CAGW is needed. A “scientific” study does not assess the magnitude and likelihood of future catastrophic events. Sensationalism to gain has taken the place of critical analysis.
50
Wouldn’t this be an example of CO2 release following temperature rise by, say 800 years, just as skeptics have been saying, independent of mankind’s influence? I thought natural CO2 sinks were meant to be a constant in alarmists’ version of the Carbon cycle, but now when it suits you, you wish to invoke natural sources as a means of accelerating CO2 release. So you have been internally inconsistent logically, reinforced the skeptic position that natural sources of CO2 fluctuate and are orders of magnitude greater than anthropogenic sources, and ably demonstrated that scientists have such a small increment of the knowledge required to define all the parameters involved in climate, let alone discerning “drivers” from consequences. Nice one!
100
Winston
When you put it like that, you make the alarmists sound rather clueless…
Cheers,
Speedy
30
By “carbon” I suppose the article you cite refers to carbon dioxide (CO2)?
Given a total atmospheric CO2 content at approx. 3.16×10^15 kg (about 3,000 gigatonnes), this means the release of 850 billion (850 thousand million) tonnes from the Arctic permafrost is a fractional addition of approximately 1/10,000 (0.000268).
Given that the atmospheric sensitivity to CO2 is unknown, this utterly miniscule amount is almost certainly an irrelevance in its putative ‘warming’ effect.
I’ll add a further 10^10 “Ha” to KinkyKeith’s (4.1)
70
“fractional addition of approximately 1/10,000 (0.000268).”
decimal is correct.. fraction should be around 1/3,700 though…… still…….. miniskuool !!!
30
and the effect on the temperature, even under the climate hypochondriacts’ highest sensitivity, would still have 3 spacing zeros after the decimal place.
(and yes, I spelt that exactly how I wanted to.)
20
Andy,
Just what is a climate “Hypochondriactor”?
KK 🙂
00
KK, You’ll have to refer that one to the Macquarie dictionary.
People like Mann, Flannery, Trenberth etc would come under the description, I reckon.
10
Thanks AndyG55. Dozy mistake. Long night, early morning!
00
“Dozy mistake. Long night, early morning”
Been there.. actually… am there 🙂 !!!
00
Manfred
Yep. But you forgot to mention there’s 50 times the tonnage of CO2 in the ocean as there is in the atmosphere. And that the solubility of CO2 in water is inversely proportional to temperature. And, therefore, we are doomed to a runaway greenhouse. In fact, it should have happened a long time ago. Any guesses why not?
Should be worth a nice old research grant in that eh?
Cheers,
Speedy
30
26 Oct: Reuters: Ronald Grover: Gore’s Current TV hires bankers to assess future: source
Current TV, the liberal cable news channel started by former Vice President Al Gore, has hired JP Morgan and The Raine Group to assess strategic options that may include a sale or strategic partnership with another media company, according to a person with knowledge of the operation.
The channel, founded in 2005 by Gore and businessman Joel Hyatt, is also seeking new funding and talking with venture capitalists and other parties, the person said on condition of anonymity because the talks were private…
After a series of programming changes, Current TV programming includes a lineup of talk shows hosted by former New York Governor Elliot Spitzer, former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, and other Democratic politicians.
In March, Current TV fired commentator Keith Olbermann after what it described as a difference in “values.” It has since hired California Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom to host a weekly show…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/27/us-currenttv-deal-idUSBRE89P13V20121027
are these the best shows they can spruik to find a buyer?
10
Pat,
Our actual knowledge and science suffers from capitalists who’s only interest is how to con for the next big score.
Our current crop of consensus is just keeping ignorance rampant and using the uncertainty card to keep their careers alive in a whole world of bull crap.
20
Conservative media: successful
Liberal media: big flop
It’s been this way for years. It all leaves me wondering how the damned liberals get into and then stay in power.
40
Unfortunately it seems that the Clover Moore sock puppet, Alex Greenwich, has won the Sydney by-election quite easily.
20
Luv Democracy in action dont cha??
16
Farry O’Barrell could change the Ward system for Sydney Council if he really wanted to but like his mate in Melbourne (Ted Ballyhoo), he’s useless when it comes to the real issues.
Oh alright, he fixed the Coastal Retreat laws – well I think he did.
60
I really don’t think O’Farrell really intended to ‘Get Clover’ with his new laws but to put in common sense policy. It is ridiculous that you can give 100% to both jobs, which require that.
20
To be fair, both O’Farrell and Baillieu came into tough situations, set up by Labor. Both need to take more of a leaf out of Campbell Newman’s and Jeff Kennett’s book. They have done some good things as well.
20
Hey, Juliar.
While I live in NSW, It looks to me that Baillieu has, by dint of doing nothing, condemned Vic. to another ALP government next year. No doubt he believes that this ‘don’t rock the boat’ policy will still get him and his party through the next election with a bigger majority.
His problem is that the electorate is going to blame him for the stultified mess that is Vic. presently. You continue bad policy, you get the blame for bad policy. Ted Baillieu is yet another of those whom Mrs. T would have scornfully described as “sopping wet”.
O’Farrell is a huge disappointment to me. He has a record state majority and has also done next to nothing. Yet more road and rail transport projects on the never-never, the vast majority of ALP appointed department heads still in their jobs, a continuation and escalation of the war on the state’s motorists by the dumber than dumb Duncan Gay (yes, that is his name!). He either believes in this war or is too gutless to take on the the big hitters in his department.
I could go on but you get the drift. One bunch of useless sponges succeeded by another bunch of useless sponges, neither worth feeding.
10
I think investing in big infrastructure projects are very important, which both the Baillieu and O’Farrell Governments have done. Although I don’t support all of Baillieu’s decisions, one must remember that he came in with a $6 billion whole in GST revenue, Labor left the state’s finances in bad shape and they wasted a lot on projects such as Myki (a failed ticketing system) and a Desalination plant. Costed the state billions of dollars. People can criticise Ted, but he has had a very tough situation dealt to him and so has O’Farrell. These predicaments and an overall decline in state revenue don’t leave much room to so anything spectacular.
10
Is your meteorologist ignorant and is he lying to you?
When he describes wind speed and wind shear, does he include the rotating planet?
No.
What he has neglected is that through rotation and velocity differences, the actual winds have vastly more velocity.
What he actually is showing is the difference of our planet in sequence to the atmosphere on the planet surface.
Add into this planetary tilting and you have circulation at tremendous velocities that have NOT been calculated at.
lalonde-joe/world-calculations.pdf
lalonde-joe/world-calculations-2.pdf
00
“
Er … the above has nothing to do with winds. The atmosphere rotates with the earth, but there is slippage at the boundary layer – the Coriolis force. This combines with thermal forces to produce the trade winds.
The diagrams seem to be about rotation speed relative to insolation. Perhaps part of an explanation as to why climate models that apply the solar constant to a flat earth are bunk, because they leave out angle of incidence (cosine law), axis tilt and relative speed.
Never understood why the so-called “climate scientists” did this. Ok, they may have been programming in something like Fortran 80, but you would have thought some of their graduate gameboy programmers could handle a bit of trig.
I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that some of them still don’t understand that climate mechanisms are not all to do with radiation, but include convection, pressure etc. Similar situation with water vapour.
And Joe’s comment “Too little [water vapour] and the surface ground temperature is hotter and too much means the surface ground temperature is cold” is a simplification because it leaves out psychrometric effects.
50% RH and 34°C is “cooler” than 90% RH and 29°C.
20
Thank you Martin!
You have an exceptionally good grasp on science and the effects.
One thing though, if the planet were to stop dead, the velocity of rotation inertia would generate the winds from the rotation world calculations at the very different velocities.
The interactions is far more complex when including solar angles and density differences of water to air.
We currently walk in the atmosphere even though our bodies are full of water which gives us density in the atmosphere.
Current scientists cannot understand that our environment is 1000 times more complex than they are willing to admit.
Averaging an orb for a calculation with many differing factors is fool hardy at best.
And for what?
To fool the masses?
20
Fool hardy indeed. Early navigators (of sea, and later air) were able to do “great circle” calculations without digital computers.
The GCM modelling was premised with “anthropogenic co2 causes temperature to rise” which is less sensible than “ice cream causes drowning”. At least the latter has an obvious correlation. (Doesn’t seem to apply in Australia though, but apparently we do have a correlation between crocodile attacks and consumption of alcohol.)
The GCM modellers started off fooling themselves, but then the gravy train started to flow.
40
@ Joes’s World
No doubt you have reasons for your views on Capitalism, just as I have mine for the exact opposite view. We won’t change each other’s opinions.
I just want to say that your experience does not match my own. The wealthy Capitalists I have known have been generous people.
I do not know Bill Gates, or Waren Buffett, but I see they have each given more money more generously than most of the world’s nations have throughout their entire history. I believe that integrity requires me to stand up and reiterate the facts when these contributions are ignored.
100
Leo,
On some levels you are correct…
But have they also not been fooled into believing global warming and wanting to “cool” our planet by mass media promotions?
30
It goes to show why it’s a good idea to avoid attacking the person along with the mistaken belief. If you want to change opinions you need to actually hold a discussion and you can’t discuss anything when you’ve just thrown a bomb at someone. On the other hand, it seems like some need the bomb thrown at them for the sake of making a point to other people. It’s not easy, this business of winning minds away from a fictitious problem to which they’ve been happily married for years. Jo’s been carrying on the crusade for a long time.
And before you say it I know I’m sometimes guilty of bomb throwing myself. 🙁
00
For when you are bored:
Every now and again I like to access the the BBC “science and Environment” web-page [I leave the word science uncapitalised to reflect the apparent BBC attitude to the two subjects], and try and guess whether a new article will reference global-warming or “climate change”.
Latest example: “Rarest dog: Ethiopian wolves are genetically vulnerable”. Apparently there’s only about 500 left, which means their gene-pool is getting dangerously shallow.
It’s not a terrible article. Mildly interesting. The full paper is pay-walled. But I just knew that an article on genetics might prove irresistible to the BBC. [Or perhaps ones that don’t mention the c-word are more likely to be ignored.]
Read down, and, lo!, like an alcoholic pouring gin on the cornflakes at breakfast time:
“Another major threat to their future comes from habitat loss and fragmentation, which may be accelerated by climate change.”
50
Little more than a byword. Almost a throwaway line. Thats a lot milder than anything we’d have got in the days of ex Greenie Science correspondent Richard Black.
00
Fauxbel Prize Winners
Checking out Michael Mann’s facebook page today, he seems quite miffed that EVERYONE is calling themselves a Nobel Prize winner, but they only attack ME!!!!
and here are some of those scientists that Mann despises for copying his idea of cutting and pasting his own little fake Nobel Prize certificate.
Henry Pollack
http://travel.usatoday.com/cruises/post/2012/08/antarctica-cruise-nobel-prize/822879/1
Richard Conant
http://www.qut.edu.au/about/news/news?news-id=32089
Daniel Kammen
http://www.facebook.com/events/468445386519602/
Grace Akumu
http://www2.webster.edu/depts/artsci/Global_Thinking/vol5_issue1/akumu_nobel.htm
Mohan Munasinghe
https://www.britsafe.org/news/british-safety-council-shares-platform-nobel-prize-winner
Rolph Payet
http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/global-community
CU-Boulder Research Faculty
http://www.colorado.edu/news/series/cu-boulder-nobel-laureates
Kevin Trenberth
David Karoly
Bryson Bates
Neville Nichols
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2012/4/nobel-rot
John Houghton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Houghton
Andrew Weaver
http://www.uleth.ca/notice/display.html?b=14&s=11052
20
The weakness of the ‘Tu Quoque’ logical fallacy stated to be:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html
Without doubt, one of the feeblest and most revealing forms of self-justification.
30
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/mp-ros-bates-takes-leave-as-michael-caltabiano-scandal-widens/story-e6freoof-1226504218444
Taking a dive in the fourth round
00
,
10
Are we on the verge of a global apostrophe, Greg.
90
Yep, concise and to the point.
I might just question your punctuation however. 🙂
40
My punctuation was “questionable”?
30
Nah Winston,
Yours was perfect. 🙂 I just think Greg went over the top with his punctuation.
20
?
30
Damn good point Rereke.
I absolutely agree.
My mistake.
10
!
10
Guys, I like all your comments on my “,” posting, well done.
At the same time it was neither a joke nor an error. It was a (clever? yes, of course) trick to get all the subsequent comments on this thread in the chronological order in my mailbox, so as I could read all of them in the chronological order without getting through the entire page again and again.
You know, this horrible “reply” button.
Maybe there is another way, but I have not found it.
Please, share with me, how you manage this problem (in case you do not want to write a real comment). By getting through the entire page again and again, right?
10
Good gracious Greg, garrulous guys get gratification gouging gratuitous gaudy grammar.
Clearly, clever(?) creative chronological comments cause casual commenters considerable consternation.
Please prevent possibly pertinent posts presenting poor punctuation.
10
Life is full of paradoxes. WUWT, at the moment, has a long thread about Dr Mann and his new ‘See you, Sue You’ litigation and his apparent claim to Mannian Laureate status (h/t to Aldimer Latimer)
Some of his staunch, albeit dwindling, supporters have latched onto the Viscount Christopher M’s claim for equal status as a fellow prizewinner and giggle!
Lord M has the sense of Humour (I’m a Nobellist – Wink, wink – No I’m not)
Spikey Mikey (and supporters)- notwithstanding the ‘they’ll be asking to see my birth-certificate next’ retort – have ‘indistinguishable-from-zero’ humour (r<0.01) despite owning 97% of the Joke.
Life is indeed strange.
30
It’s also interesting to see the lack of reporting of the Nobel Committee’s response to questions about Manns claim that he was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, along the lines of the Nobel was awarded to the Organisation not individuals.
Hey look, the ice is melting in Antarctica…..
00
Darn the curse of Madame Malaprop – sorry Latimer. I’ll get my coat
00
You need to watch this as it’s very relevant for Australia.
The UN Will “Inspect” American Elections –
10
Westy,
As I have been saying all along, fear the UN. It is not your friend.
00
Well today Their ABC is in full charity work mode on Insiders. 2 Fairfax Journos and a Global Mail Journo.
Charter busting at its best.
Your money, their agenda.
10
More left turns than a Daytona 500.
20
Definitely and episode that should be renamed “About Abbott”
10
Oh my, another classic from Hugh Riminton.
According to Hugh Gillards MMRT is only going raise a fraction of the projected $2Billion.
Seems Hugh studied the same stream of economics in his Masters Degree (Peacekeeping Policy) as his wife Kumi Taguchi (ABC) who also believes zero is a fraction of $2Billion.
fraction
— noun
maths
1.a ratio of two expressions or numbers other than zero .
2.any rational number that is not an integer.
Looks like someone’s going to need to have a chat with MacQuarie Dictionary for a revision of the meaning of fraction.
70
I reckon Swan is secretly hoping for 10x the return from this quarter, spread over the next 2 quarters. Hugh would I’m sure be very relieved to hear that the Treasurer was so optimistic!
10
CLIMATE OF DOUBT (PBS FRONTLINE) – documentary about how the sceptics are winning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMTVGBGs_40
01
Vess,
I just managed to finish watching that one. It’s a hatchet job – guilt by association – Check! Consensus politics over merits of argument – Check! Big oil funding – Check! “What if you’re wrong argument” – Check! you can see where people have had their responses cut off in mid sentence.
Oh, and lets roll out the token christian conservative climate scientist too while we’re at it.
And golly gee – how dare people request information around public funded research via a Freedom of Information Request – how Dare those peasants ask for such things.
Has it occurred to you that maybe – just maybe, the political movement that almost succeeded in punching this rubbish through was utterly dishonest when they refused to broadcast their own doubts and that maybe they would’ve been better off being honest about the areas still not understood?
That bit about the declines being cherry picked contradicts Dr Phil Jones Interview a few years ago where he state “There is no statistically significant warming over the last 10 years”. So is Dr Phil jones cherry picking as well?
What a waste of an hour of my time……
60
Yes, I agree with most of the things you say. You wouldn’t find some serious science in that doco.
However it is increasing becoming obvious to everyone that the warmist case does not hold water and that is a good thing.
30
What was interesting is the current spin,
Apparently the only real reason that people have tuned out to the warmist message is because of the GFC…..
Of course, there are 1 in four spaniards at the moment looking at windmills who are probably wondering whether maybe that money would have been better spent elsewhere.
20
tragic:
28 Oct: Guardian: Robin McKie: David Attenborough: force of natureDavid Attenborough may have lived the perfect life, travelling the world and seeing its wonders before tourism ravaged them. He talks to Robin McKie about his early regrets, battles with climate-change deniers, and his favourite place on Earth
Coral reefs are now being destroyed at a staggering rate…
Reefs are dying because ocean waters are being acidified as carbon dioxide levels rise in the atmosphere as a result of human industrial activity…
It is a simple question of numbers, says Attenborough. “There is no problem on Earth that could not be solved quite easily if you could reduce world population. The reason that oil palms are being planted all over the place is because there are so many mouths, so many people in the west offering to pay for these forests to be cut down and palms planted for margarine, for plastics.”…
In the past, he was criticised for not making clear his position on global warming, and for not taking on those who deny that climate change is occurring. However, in the past few years, he has been far more explicit in his warnings about the dangers our planet faces as it warms up and the polar regions melt.
Not surprisingly, these attempts at enlightenment have brought him into conflict with those who reject the idea that the Earth is in peril. For example, in the final episode of his last major series, Frozen Planet, Attenborough highlighted the impact of global warming on the polar regions. He pointed out that summer sea ice cover has declined by more than 30% over the past few decades and is causing major disruptions to the wildlife.
Nigel Lawson, former chancellor and leading climate-change denier, was unamused…
So what does Attenborough think about climate change deniers like Lawson? What should be done to counter their highly selective views about global warming?
“Well, it is difficult to know what to say except that people like him have to be allowed to make these claims so that others can assess them. Any idea of suppressing their views would be disastrous. We need to be able to see just how wrong-headed they are and how selective they are in picking data to support their ideas. They pinpoint examples to say global warming cannot be happening because it got colder in some area of the planet. That is the sort of thing they say. But, of course, that completely misunderstands the global nature of the crisis we are facing. We have to keep pointing that out. Certainly I think that most people would recognise that Lawson is up a gum tree.
“The truth is: the natural world is changing. And we are totally dependent on that world. It provides our food, water and air. It is the most precious thing we have and we need to defend it.”…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2012/oct/26/richard-attenborough-climate-global-arctic-environment?newsfeed=true
“the natural world is changing”…who wouldn’t have thought that?
10
26 Oct: Bloomberg: Allesandro Vitelli: NYSE Euronext to Shut Carbon Market After Failed Auction Bid
NYSE Euronext and France’s Caisse des Depots et Consignations will close Bluenext SA, their joint carbon exchange in Paris, on Dec. 5 after the bourse failed to win a bid to run European Union permit auctions from next year.
Bluenext was one of several exchanges competing to sell emission permits on behalf of 25 member states in the third phase of the 27-nation bloc’s carbon market starting in 2013. The EU in September contracted Leipzig, Germany-based European Energy Exchange AG to sell the offsets.
“The market environment for carbon has been difficult for us,” Philippe Chauvancy, a company spokesman for Bluenext, said today by phone from Paris. “The fact that we didn’t get the Phase 3 auction was a big blow.”…
*** There is no outstanding open interest in any derivatives contract, Chauvancy said…
The Paris-based bourse settled a tax liability with French authorities for 31.8 million euros ($41.1 million) after an audit covering 2006 to 2009 relating to alleged tax frauds by participants in the market, NYSE said in a July 2011 filing. BlueNext halted trading for 15 days in 2011 after an estimated 2 million permits were stolen in hacking attacks on accounts in Austria, Greece, Italy and the Czech Republic.
“The market never really got over the episodes of permit theft and value-added-tax fraud, and these hit Bluenext particularly hard as they were mostly perpetrated on spot transactions,” Sikorski said…
Richard Adamonis, a spokesman for New York-based NYSE Euronext, declined to comment. Calls to Maria Scolan, a spokewoman for Caisse des Depots’ CDC Climat unit, were not answered.
“We will contact our members next week to make plans for an orderly closing,” Chauvancy said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-26/bluenext-carbon-exchange-to-shut-after-losing-eu-auction-bid-1-.html
00
26 Oct: Bloomberg: John Hughes: Airlines See Passage of U.S. Measure Opposing EU Emissions Rule
“U.S. policy makers are solidly and unanimously opposed to the application” of EU emissions requirements to U.S. carriers, Pinkerton said. “Having the EU unilaterally apply what is essentially a tax to U.S. carriers and passengers is absolutely a violation of U.S. sovereignty.”…
If enacted, the law may increase pressure on EU leaders to make accommodations on the requirements that U.S. airlines meet emissions requirements or risk a trade war…
EU leaders cannot easily back down from the emissions requirement because it is law, said Felix Leinemann, the Washington-based first secretary of the transport, energy and environment section for the EU. The EU emissions regulation isn’t a tax; it’s not discriminatory and it doesn’t impinge on sovereignty, he said.
“The European Union takes climate change very seriously,” Leinemann said. “Why should aviation be excluded?”
If the EU does scale back the requirement to a lower threshold, environmentalists “want certainty of what the EU scales back to isn’t challenged again,” said Timothy Johnson, director of the London-based Aviation Environment Federation…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-26/airlines-see-passage-of-u-s-measure-opposing-eu-emissions-rule.html
00
Have a look at this list for coal fired power plants, and before you scroll down, read carefully the introductory sentence at the top.
List Of Coal Fired Power Plants
Note in that opening sentence, it says ….. Greater than 2000MW.
There’s 190 names on that list.
120 of them are located in China.
Now, they needed to add that rider, because the list would be pages (and pages and pages) longer.
This site started out in early 2010 as Carbon emitting (sic) sites. As it was added to, it grew bit by bit. Then, when it started to get longer they changed it to Coal fired power only. It grew. Then they changed it to plants greater in size than 1000MW. And still it grew. Then they started to add in some of the Chinese plants and it grew, and grew, and grew. Then they changed it to plants of greater size than 2000MW, and still it has that 190 names, 64% of them from China, and these are just the ones they know about.
Barely 2 years ago, when it was 1000MW, there were only 125 names on the list, 75 of them from China, and keep in mind that this is just greater than 1000MW.
With the ramping up of coal fired power in China, that list had to be changed, because, while those large scale plants (2000MW+) are being brought on line at a huge rate, plants of the size between 1000MW and 2000MW (not listed) are also being constructed at the same, or even greater rate.
Those newer 2000MW plants in China mostly entail the use of 2 turbine/generator complexes, and those generators are 1000MW each. Bayswater (circa early 80’s) has 660MW generators, (4 of them) so, as you can see, technology has advanced considerably.
Those new plants in China run larger generators, hence producing more power over the whole year, they burn less coal, do it more efficiently, and because of that, they emit less CO2.
And here we are in Australia, hoping to reduce our CO2 emissions from coal fired power especially, by small percentages.
No wonder China wants our Steaming Coal.
And still, China with a population of 1.35 Billion has barely 8% of its total generated power being consumed in the Residential sector, averaging out to around one home in five across the whole of China having any electrical power at all, let alone a constant and regular supply. In the larger cities, power is available, but the vast bulk of Chinese have no power at all. With all that new power coming on line, those people in China might get to that stage where we are here in Australia with 25% of all generated power being consumed in the Residential Sector, and the U.S. where 38% of all generated power being consumed in the Residential sector. For China though, that is a long long way off yet.
You may notice what could be perceived as a discrepancy between Residential consumption in Australia (25%) and the U.S. (38%) and that U.S. figure of 38% is around the Developed World average. That perceived discrepancy for Australia can be better explained with the differentiation between electricity consumption and energy consumption. Here in Australia, we are large consumers of Natural Gas for energy purposes, and surprisingly, wood burning as an energy source, and I have explained that in this earlier Post at Joanne’s site.
Tony.
80
26 Oct: Bloomberg: BP Cancels Florida Ethanol Plant, Extends Renewable Exit
By Christopher Martin and Mario Parker
BP Plc, Europe’s second-biggest oil producer, is abandoning a cellulosic ethanol project in the U.S., its second move in a year to scale back in renewable energy.
The company canceled plans to build a $300 million cellulosic ethanol plant in Highlands County, Florida, to focus on “more attractive” projects, according to a statement on its website today…
The company decided in December to wind down its solar business, which had become unprofitable after prices plunged.
“Ethanol is not something a lot of people are interested in investing money in,” Mark Schultz, an analyst at Northstar Commodity Investment Co. in Minneapolis, said in an interview today.
“Corn-based ethanol hasn’t been profitable for about a year,” he said. BP is “seeing that this isn’t the right street to go down anymore.”…
BP announced plans in 2008 to build the plant, which would have produced 36 million gallons of fuel a year…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-25/bp-cancels-plans-to-build-florida-cellulosic-ethanol-plant.html
00
This is news to me, especially at this time of the season. Can’t get into the BBC report. Anyone have any reliable news?
BBC News – Antarctica runway melting: Search for new landing strip
… Australia is searching for a new aircraft landing site in Antarctica because the current runway is melting due to global warming. Only a fraction of the planned flights have been able to land at the multi-million dollar facility which is there to re-supply scientific bases in Antarctica. As the authorities looks for an alternative, they are having to turn to Chinese ships for help. …
(128 words by bbc.co.uk
20
Someone forgot to tell the BBC that Antarctica is in the Southern Hemisphere and that it is an inherent characteristic of Antarctic Ice to melt this time of year as summer approaches.
30
Yep,
It’s October…therefore on it’s way through to Summer in the Antarctic.
It’s truly gob smacking how much these people just arrogantly ignore the bleeding obvious!
Wanna bet that something reasonably close to the opposite is occuring in the Arctic?
30
From memory, another thing that they failed to tell the BBC is that resupply in Antacrtia is done by ship, the landing strip they are refering to was built for Antarctic Tourism and that the Aurora Australis (the current re-supply ship) is currently icebound some way short of Casey Station. Not that they should have expected that, who would have guessed that this would occur in the same season that the expidition studying the sea ice in Antarctica was stopped 8 miles short of where the original expidition was able to reach.
30
The plane is used the move personnel and key scientific equipment and special supplies.
00
With over 14million sq km of sea ice + about the same in land ice?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
And nowhere for an airfield ??
And the current temp well below freezing?
http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/antarctica%20environment/weather.htm
(also search “Pegasus Field Temperature”) currently -14C
I would certainly want to see some data to back up that seemingly ridiculous claim.
10
This melting runway story – see my post –
“Stale Antarctic melting ice story from last summer suddenly goes viral on Fairfax media all over Australia”
is a rehash of stale old news from last summer. I have some links & comments here.
IMHO a deliberate ploy to “coverup” the fact of their ship being somewhat icebound.
Australia’s Antarctic supply ship “RSV Aurora Australis” has been icebound or hindered by sea-ice for at least a week now. Near Casey Base.
40
I like this one. http://www.antarctica.gov.au/webcams/aurora
Notice that it is heading away from the Antarctic.. and not going anywhere fast !!!
00
Sure looks like melting weather to me !! NOT !!
http://www.timeanddate.com/weather/antarctica/casey
00
Latest Situation report for RSV Aurora Australis:
Sat 27th Oct, 2012 @ 13:00 (Eastern Standard/Summer)
Position; 65° 1.000′ S, 117° 19.000′ E
Current speed; 0.4 (knots)
Distance in last 24 hours; 0 (nautical miles)
Weather conditions; Overcast, snowing. 30kts wind from the south east.
Air temperature; -12 (degrees Celsius)
Sea temperature; -1.85 (degrees Celsius)
Sea conditions; Calm.
Ice conditions; Pack ice, mostly first year floes heavily rafted and covered in deep snow.
Report:
Currently we’re not moving, waiting for visibility to clear enough to see if there are any leads to follow.
Winds peaked last night from the east, south east at about 40 knots and have eased overnight, swinging to a more southerly aspect. Hopefully this will help loosen the pack around us over the next 24 hours.
Location:
https://secure3.aad.gov.au/proms/public/schedules/VoyageTrackSingle.cfm?bvs_id=19047
10
courtesy of the CAGW scammers, coming soon to a street near you no doubt:
27 Oct: UK Telegraph: Claire Duffin: Street lights turned off in their thousands to meet carbon emission targets
Huge swathes of Britain are being plunged into darkness as more and more streetlights are switched off by councils and roads authorities.
They are making the move despite concerns from safety campaigners and the police that it would lead to an increase in road accidents and crime.
The full extent of the blackout can be disclosed following an investigation by The Sunday Telegraph – which comes on the day that clocks moved back an hour, making it dark earlier in the evening – and found that:
3,080 miles of motorways and trunk roads in England are now completely unlit;
a further 47 miles of motorway now have no lights between midnight and 5am, including one of Britain’s busiest stretches of the M1, between Luton and Milton Keynes;
out of 134 councils which responded to a survey, 73% said they had switched off or dimmed some lights or were planning to;
all of England’s 27 county councils have turned off or dimmed street lamps in their areas…
Local authorities say the moves helps reduce energy bills, at a time when energy prices are continuing to rise…
However some councils admit they may not see savings for another four or five years because of the cost of installing new lights, dimmer switches and complex control systems.
And some councils – as well as the Highways Agency, responsible for motorways and major A roads – say that the lights are being turned off to meet “green” targets to cut carbon emissions, by reducing electricity use…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9637929/Street-lights-turned-off-in-their-thousands-to-meet-carbon-emission-targets.html
00
The world is hell-bent on suicide.
00
Yeeha! Time to get out those telescopes people, as they cut light pollution.
04
That will make it easier to watch pedestrian deaths climb, as drivers won’t be able to see them. Good thinking!
00
How does turning off the power at night reduce carbon emaissions anyway? I thought the power stations had to operate at same output rate 24/7
10
28 Oct: The National, UAE: Vesela Todorova: Global warming – the full picture
The last time the world’s climate scientists produced a major report, it had the effect of ending the scientific debate about whether man-made climate change was a real phenomenon…Due to be published in October 2014, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) Fifth Assessment Report is expected to be the most detailed on climate change ever produced, and for the first time answer important questions about how each region will be affected…
Comments are allowed if scientific language is difficult to understand or if statements need to be qualified with nuances.
But changes to the text must be scientifically justified. Government cannot remove sections because they don’t like the science.
“There are a few limited changes,” Prof van Ypersele said. In past reports, a “few dozens of lines” were changed, but “never … a change affecting a scientific conclusion”.
***The summary is approved by consensus, a process that usually takes three to four days and at least a night of talks…
http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/environment/global-warming-the-full-picture
“at least a night”???
00
Another scientific consensus — just what we need… 🙁
10
.
Two Month weather forecast
by the
Chief Climate ScientistJacaranda.Mid November to December 2012 (SE QLD & Northern NSW) will be higher than average rainfall. Due to early fall of flowers (that set earlier than usual) to enable seed growth ready for the oncoming early wet period.
Further report for January & February 2013 rainfall once the
BOMDelonix regia (poinciana) andBOMMangifera indica (mango) have revealed their secrets. Data from fruit set after current flowering.Bom Qld says:
Called an each way bet!
00
Heaven forbid that the results of millions of years of evolution would be a better predictor of climate/weather trends than the BOM.
How dare you infer such a thing.
What’s next, infering that the ABC lacks balance and critical reporting…. 😮
10
And you think Australians are stupid when it comes to politics. The Americans leave us for dead.
Watch this.
The First Lady Debate
Tony.
30
back shed Tim vs Mrs Abbott !!
Where is Tim at the moment by the way.. in the shed while McTernan ‘helps out’ with the red Liar ???
30
Dont worry, if the polling trends are in any way accurate, Australians are starting to show they are becoming less politically stupid. 🙂
And then there is this weeks 50/50 Newspoll. Second one in a month i think? 🙂
12
I’m not sure I’d put too much stock in that – Gillard is in very similar circumstances to Anna Bligh – but Anna had much less scandal. I predict a similar fate – she’s gone already. The baseball bats are leaning against the veranda post, just waiting for the opportunity.
Reckon Craig’ll be charged just nicely before the next election, maybe a conviction of ex labor President Williamson too, and potentially even a glimpse at why a young solicitor might falsely witness a power of attorney? Ad this to a few Liberal Adds “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead” combined with pictures of Electricity Bills stamped “UP 115%” and I think the governments weak recovery will rapidly slide back into oblivion.
Julia needs to slip down to Toyota to buy the new post election party room.
00
And on the same day that Newspoll shows a 50/50 split, Bolt alerts us to today’s Essential poll that has a 54/46 split to the Coalition, with Labor going backwards.
I still cant find anyone admitting that they voted Labor last time, and I sure as hell cant find a soul who is going to vote Ginger next time either.
And as a JN aside, I’m just waiting for the likes of Flannery or Combet to come out and link the Frankenstorm in the US to global warming……
00
Don’t get too smug, Tony. It’s in your voting booths as well as ours. Human nature isn’t different just because you’re an Australian. 🙂
And yes, we have some blithering idiots walking around loose. I sometimes wonder how they manage to get their cloths on and tie their shoes every morning.
20
PS: I’ve been watching the First Lady debate for some time. Ann does wonderfully against Michelle sitting in that empty chair.
20
Evening All
Something in the vein of Steve Wright.
(If the ABC was Relevant, Part 55)
(If the ABC is independent why do they want my taxes?)
• Last week I went to see a recycled plastic surgeon.
• Last week, the Thought Police tried to give me a speeding ticket. I told them my brain was stuck in carbon neutral.
• I believe that 50% of global temperatures are higher than average.
• I tried to pay the carbon tax but when I went through my pockets I couldn’t find any climate change.
• I’m not holding my breath for a carbon tax refund.
• Last week, I went to the drug store for a packet of heavy-duty placebos.
• My girlfriend got a job as a climate model. She wears stilettos to reduce her carbon footprint.
• She wears diamonds but only if they’re carbon-free.
• In the future I predict everyone will experience a sense of déjà vu.
• If global warming was a real problem they’d do climate teleconferences.
• I went to the zoo to see this schizophrenic bear. It was a bipolar.
• The head teacher at my old school was a Precautionary Principal. I flunked out but I got some carbon credits.
• In the future I predict everyone will experience a sense of déjà vu.
• I predicteed the world will end last week. Everybody else had the future booked out.
• I got a job as a climate scientist but they had to let me go. I kept on finding out it wasn’t worse than we expected.
• They asked me if I believe in climate change and I said all the time…
Cheers,
Speedy
140
That was an interesting experiment. Of course it was for entertainment & we dont know how many denied knowing of the Debate. Program makers no doubt had plenty examples to select their results from, or kept going until they did.
But if found out theyd no doubt plead all harmless fun. Lewandowsky on the other hand …
20
That’s with ref to Tony’s First Lady debate of course, at #29 above
10
Headline News from around the World.
Oct 23 – Monckton Derails Al Gore Climate Change Claims at Public Seminar
00
MaxL said: “Good gracious Greg, garrulous guys get gratification gouging gratuitous gaudy grammar.
Clearly, clever(?) creative chronological comments cause casual commenters considerable consternation.
Please prevent possibly pertinent posts presenting poor punctuation.”
=============================================
Great, Max! (,,’,,) 😉
00
Oh, and don’t mention the hurricane. I did once, but I think I got away with it. 😉
20
This story makes me so disgusted to be part of the human race.
Gangs Plan Hurricane Looting Spree Via Twitter
Tony.
00
Indeed, a sadly modern take on an old problem.
00
Hi all, Anthony Watts is getting a funded WUWT-TV broadcast soon, Jo and David were invited by the way. I don’t know the details, but I believe it will contrast with Gore’s 24 hour broadcast. Maybe Jo can find out more details and how it will affect Australian views, it will be on the Internet.
00
Even the BBC can’t get a clear message to the people –
‘BBC News – Mecca seeks ‘green Hajj’
… Mecca into an environmentally sustainable city. Mecca Mayor Osama al-Bar says he wants to make mosques in the area “eco-friendly”. “We have invited international bidders to build a gigantic solar power station, which will be used in illuminating mosques, hotels, streets and tunnels across Mecca,” he explained. Mr al-Bar said an underground system was being planned to serve the entire city, …
00