Now she gets it — fifty years after school:
DAVOS, Switzerland (Reuters) – The world needs an open dialogue about climate change to heal the gap between sceptics and believers since time is running out to cut the emissions that drive global warming, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Thursday.
This may seem important after three decades of skeptics being called deniers, and being shut out of every debate, decision and research grant. But it has all the hallmarks of relevance-deprivation-syndrome. The US people elected a skeptic, and he and Saint Greta have stolen her limelight:
The first two days of the annual Davos gathering were dominated by the back-and-forth between the 73-year-old former businessman Trump and 17-year-old campaigner Greta Thunberg, with corporate leaders caught in the middle, concerned that as well as words, there was a need for concrete decisions.
Statements like this provide cover for the reality which is rampant social ostracism, exclusion, coercion and bullying. But it’s soothing theatre for the Davos crowd who would love to be seen to be diplomatic. They are clapping their own generous image.
She drew applause from the Davos audience when she said opposing sides in polarised debates such as that on climate change had to learn how to talk with each other again.
They won’t be going home and inviting skeptics to dinner.
If Merkel was serious she would be seeking out and holding talks with skeptics — with groups like EIKE in Germany (or any of the many names they could provide from industry and science). We’ll believe she means it when Merkel speaks out against the namecalling and treats any skeptic with respect — other than those who are also leaders of the free world.
Frau Merkel can get in touch with me anytime she wants to. I have an extensive library of “sceptic” evidence that I can distill into lay language. While I did have high school German, I’m not especially fluent in it (it’s only been about six decades … … …). Alternatively, she could school herself just by visiting Jo’s site, and/or Anthony’s, and/or any of the other fine places that promote the skeptic (sorry, had to put in the American spelling) position.
Now, if she wants to meet in Munchen (I’d do an umlaut over the ‘u’ if my keyboard had it) during Oktoberfest, I can certainly arrange that. We could start a few days before Fest begins, then break, then a few days after the hangovers have dissipated, we can resume.
Regards to all,
Vlad
500
I very much doubt that Frau Merkel is genuinely interested in talking to any skeptic or even someone in the middle. To what degree is she interested in listening to those opposed to open ended refugee intake etc? Pretty much zero.
320
bemused
“I very much doubt that Frau Merkel is genuinely interested in talking to any skeptic or even someone in the middle. To what degree is she interested in listening to those opposed to open ended refugee intake etc? Pretty much zero.”
Brilliant comment.
Thanks for bring up the refugee intake.
That decision proved that Merkel is a Jerkel.
70
Yeah. She’s concerned because “The world needs an open dialogue about climate change to heal the gap between sceptics and believers since time is running out to cut the emissions that drive global warming,”
Right.
That says it all. She’s going to give Sceptics a chance, another chance, to be converted to her point of view. There’s no room for any sceptical viewpoint.
10
They are losing elections. So any offer of “talking” is about creating the impression that they are sane and inclusive. There opponents are not. This is not so. The Merkels of our planet can only ever see their own navels.
290
Dr Merkel is a physicist and well acquainted with scientific methodology.
She is quoted as saying, “…open dialogue about climate change to heal the gap between sceptics and believers since time is running out to cut the emissions that drive global warming”
Merkel reportedly asserts a desire for dialogue. Science has never been about ‘dialogue’ but about meticulous observation, repeatable method, and incontestable, compelling empirical evidence. Merkel knows that as she indeed knows that the political premise she advances for dialogue — “time is running out” — is a spurious strawman. Indeed, it sounds like a threat.
What she means is that her political time has run out, and Germany’s time is running out, courtesy of Energiewende policies.
De-industrialisation, division, destitution and despair, the destination of the UNEP eco-globalist doctrine in 2030.
260
For people who are flogging lies and propaganda and desperately trying to hide the facts….fear of ‘time running out’ before exposure of the truth and their real agenda… is always with them.
There’s really something wrong with the world though when they even spell out the enormity of the deceit and their nefarious intent …and the world just yawns.
It probably means that worldwide the Long March of the Left through schools and universities has been spectacularly successful ..so that its products have no knowledge of history….no perspective….no thoughts that are their own…absolutely no sense of individual worth outside the hallowed group…and it started in Frankfurt.
100
Of course time is running out: the world is starting to cool. The Big Lie is on the verge of being found out.
So Merkel is running `interference’ with a distraction.
You can have as much dialogue as you like: the Sun doesn’t care.
Climate on this planet changes when Old Sol dictates. Mankind’s emissions especially CO2, have no effect …
The CIMP6 models may show it (I’m an optimist but I’m not holding my breath), so yes, time for the liars is running out.
50
Yep. Cooling has begun so the big Climate Lie will be found out Really Soon Now.
The Sun does what the sun is going to do when the sun is going to do it. No possible amount of emissions reductions will slow down the Sun. We should pull out of Paris.
In some areas. such as Antarctica, the cooling has been in action for some years.
Maybe Frau Merkel has noticed already.
https://notrickszone.com/2020/01/20/north-atlantic-sea-levels-have-been-falling-at-a-rate-of-7-1-mm-yr-since-2004-in-tandem-with-2c-cooling/
https://notrickszone.com/2020/01/24/nasa-data-13-of-13-antarctic-peninsula-island-stations-show-cooling-trend-over-past-21-years/
71
Bang on sophocles!
Beaten by the bell of ‘intersectionality’, the intersection of a cooling World, with the unpredicted pause, the economic ruination of intermittents, the emergent truth of Christina Figueres, the Green “new” deal —- rancid murderous socialism rebadged as eo-socialism — the inevitable and rebellious rise of popular nationalism reasserting culture, customs and tradition against the faceless, homogenised, UNEP neo-Marxist secular globalists.
Those totalitarian UN globalist shysters, wrong side of history with an unwinding ratchet.
81
Depraved,
I think she means scientists, being one herself, not armchair experts.
00
While I agree with you, know that I am a scientist as well.
And a connoisseur of all things barley-pop.
And, according to the discussion below, apparently also of wheat-pop.
Though my understanding of “weiss” was only in terms of meaning, ‘white’. So I have been corrected on that score.
20
I DEFINITELY prefer the American spelling, “skeptic”, Whenever I see “sceptic”, in my mind I pronounce it “septic”, and think of septic tanks and sewage,
11
… then perhaps you should try harder to keep your mind above your navel 😀
00
If you wish to practice your personal perversion, it’s up to you. This blog is not too fussed about how you want to spell it so long as it is comprehensible to us. So prefer away …
I have a strong if not pedantic preference for the correct spelling, sceptic because I speak, read, and write English, as prescribed in the Oxford University English Language dictionaries, grammars and usage publications. To me, American is a foreign dialect. 😀
sceptic entered English from the Latin scepticus through the French sceptique. It’s part of the language’s heritage from William the Conqueror [1066 and all that ] …
00
It was a knee jerk response to avoid being drawn in.
Hopefully, it will lead to more listening and thinking by those who have believed the alarmists up to now.
I have noted a number of journalists note that past predictions are not coming true.
The polar bears are fine, global sea ice is back to near normal and reefs recover quickly from bleaching.
People just need to look at the statistics to see that nothing is going on beyond natural variability.
430
Stephen Wilde:
There is also her problem that the electorate has started swinging against her party, and most of that swing is going to the Right. I have emphasised that because the media have reacted as if the AfD means to reopen Auschwitz, when they mean no such thing. They would probably pass as Conservatives in the UK (although the local ABC parroting the BBC thinks that that means Auschwitz will re-open after Brexit).
She may well be trying to leave an option open to dump the Greens and remain as Chancellor.
121
On a previous thread I46 made a brief but very relevant comment.
There is no discussion needed with Frau Merkel when the whole point of her talking is to cover over the truth with another pile of verbiage.
The comment below links to the original observation by I46.
http://joannenova.com.au/2020/01/sydney-on-blackout-watch-people-told-to-close-windows-and-doors-turn-off-non-essential/#comment-2262054
We need to adopt a social strategy that reflects the aspirations of people who have their feet on the ground.
Government by the U.N. and EEU has proven to be ugly and enslaving and stands in sharp contrast to the atmosphere of hope and appreciation evident in the new USA.
We in Australia have had three months of government smoke and it remains to be seen whether this can be a turning point for us.
Lets get rid of the smoke and the mirrors.
KK
250
Testing.
63
I find the whole bloody hoax “testing”,
120
Testing what and why?
60
More like failing. The whole CAGW show is like a science experiment failing but they keep repeating it expecting it will work but never does. That’s akin to the definition of insanity.
150
It was Willi Dansgaard’s 1970 `Climate Forecast’ which straightened me out about a decade ago.
It was the result of a vector sum of two Solar Cycles: the De Vries cycle (c. 180 – 220 years) and the other the Gleissberg Cycle (c 75 – 150 years). They are two mild solar cycles so any climate changes from the algebraic sum of the two won’t be sudden nor extreme. And so they haven’t been.
There is no Climate Crisis. Not yet. Nor would there be one if the geomagnetic excursion hadn’t started happening too. That is likely to be extreme, ushering in freezing temperatures through another Maunder-style minimum. But that is a decade or two away yet.
There is no local or remote control for the sun. So Paris’s so-called `decarbonization’ isn’t going to work at all. Humans do not control the climate. Ain’t that sad?
50
Germany has a failing economy with the auto manufacturers fighting the latest EU emissions diktat and the highest electricity power costs in the world because of Frau Merkel’s love of green power.
Maybe she is beginning to see the light but she need to listen to the so called skeptics and some real engineers rather than the UN Church of Climatology ‘experts’. She will find that very hard to do considering her background in the now defunct Communist east Germany.
290
That might be so but she is just one person. The EU monster will continue to push the CAGW scam and milk it dry – then the fun starts.
150
Nero fuddling while berlin burns?
110
She speaks with forked tongue.
130
[snip crass] this is the same German rhetoric used 75 years ago on excluded peoples that offered work, accommodation and nice showers.
196
She seems to have done pretty well in life for an East German who allegedly refused to be a Stasi informant.
120
She did extremely well for herself in communist East Germany, then quickly became a ”Conservative” leader in unified Germany.
Those Commos must have been easily fooled, eh?
162
LOL crass, considering her views and impositions on humanity that word was a compliment.
61
I’m willing to take any statement at face value, until such time as the issuer negates any statement they make.
And, I would wager that a few litres of Augustienerbrau Munchen, Maximator, would “help” her see the skeptic position has some validity.
Not to mention Erdinger Weissbier Dunkel (my favorite!) makes most everything plain and simple (if your eyes can still focus … … … )
120
How can it be both weiss und dunkel?
30
Quite honestly, I do not know. I am simply reading the label, and upon opening the bottle, consuming the contents, and WOW! is it a delicious brew!
I tried several Weissbier’s a few decades ago, enjoyed them all, but found that the darker (non-stouts) were my ‘cup of tea’, as it were. It was a freak accident that I came upon the Erdinger, and as you, found the ‘contradiction’ interesting, but my first taste said, “Yep! This is MY beer!”
May you enjoy your favorite brew with your favorite friends,
Vlad
30
Thanks – I’ll definitely follow your recommendation and keep a look out for it! 🙂
20
It is a dark (dunkel) wheat beer (weissbier). And , yes , it is delicious, although my favourite is Maisel’s Weisse Original , from Bayreuth
10
Weissbier can mean beer made from wheat. Dunkel means colour, usually caused by more roasting of the malted grain.
20
Weissbier, literally “White beer”, means wheat beer, and is traditionally served in 500ml glasses. Great stuff to drink on those long and warm German summer evenings in their fantastic biergartens. An alternative is a Radler.
30
What gap, what debate? Sceptics do not believe man made Global Warming. It is not true.
As the biggest and most costly world project since WWII it should be proven. It should be proven, not alleged. And every proof, every prediction has failed. Worse, the scientists who agree make all their living from man made Climate Change. Sceptics universally do not.
Consider the 32,000 who signed the Oregon petition in 1998 who did not believe a word of it. It is more certain now that this is a hoax.
Why should the world have to pay $1.5Trillion a year for someone’s belief, not fact.
The supporters of man made Climate Change are employees, governments, bankers, socialist left parties, global elites and global companies supported by very specialist scientists who are paid for their opinions.
It has to stop. Why not now? Greta knows only what she is told, like two generations of people. And Merkel is the worst offender after Al gore.
461
An the biggest makers of windmills are the Germans. Followed by Chinese partners. They cannot afford windmill sales to stop. At least 400,000 of them. Especially with German car sales in trouble. Pretending to care is Merkel’s job.
370
That’s the nub of this whole thing isn’t it!
As soon as their ‘coming ice age alarm’ was over and a natural warming event occurred…the Left grabbed the opportunity to turn the tenets of science that underpinned all the great science of the 20th century into post-normal science …a type of social science…nothing to do with the natural sciences.
The social scientists have always wanted to have the same cred as natural scientists..as described by Allan Bloom in ‘The Closing of the American Mind’…..but they have none of the knowledge and rigor…so they ‘moulded’ natural science into post-normal ‘science’…political ‘science’with a dash of social work… that doesn’t require the knowledge and rigor…just feelings and beliefs…and the noble pose…plus a willingness to do whatever it takes as a means to their ends…which are always Socialism.
Former Communist David McKnight [who was apparently still a Communist after the Soviet tanks moved into Hungary ]…also revealed what it’s really all about when he was an advisor to Rudd…waxing on in his Beyond Left and Right essays about the unprecedented opportunity CAGW provides for the …
‘resurgence of Socialism’….
…that the ‘massive dislocation and deprivation…the social conflict and economic disruption’ would all be worth it because…
….’the collectivist and egalitarian values associated with socialism will acquire a new relevance in the emerging political situation.’
‘the cost of energy will need to be enormous’, said he.
And once they’d taken that step… the rejigging of science itself…then declared their holy consensus on the high priests’ hockey stick….they felt no need to prove anything and the desperate imperative became to do whatever it takes eg peer review corruption…threats and intimidation…refusal of access to raw data… to ensure no real scientist would ever be permitted to disprove their hypothesis.
Hence the incitement to mass hysteria…which in my NON-expert opinion is behind much of the arson of this Summer…and sackings of dissenting scientists like Peter Ridd and Murry Salby…and others worldwide.
130
Truth said:
Former Communist David McKnight … he was an advisor to Rudd … his Beyond Left and Right essays about the unprecedented opportunity CAGW provides …
Great comment.
This McKnight critter spent a lot of time on Mornington Island, recording the results of
the complete destruction of the Social Structures and the Diet of this benighted people.
Wiki spin on McKnight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_McKnight
21
So. She wants to speak with skeptics, eh?
And her opening line contains “time is running out to cut the emissions that drive global warming”.
So she begins with 2 presumptions: 1. time is running out and 2. CO2 emissions drive global warming.
Sounds pretty closed minded to me.
At least Trump had the good sense to get the USA out of that Paris Treaty abomination.
Now the UN is criminalizing National Sovereignty by declaring the everyone in the world has unlimited emigration rights if they claim to be escaping global warming and that it is a criminal offence to deport them if they somehow avoid the law and are caught.
The best position for any Sovereign Nation is to tell the Green Hats and Blue Hats to find someone who cares and not let the door hit them in the @ss on their way out.
441
Sceptics are still untermunchen in her mind….dont be decieved…
130
Lance: So. She wants to speak with skeptics, eh?
Don’t jump to conclusions. She says she does. Whether she actually does is a very different thing. As I said in the post, she only wants to talk to one skeptic and that’s Trump.
160
I’m certain you are correct.
My bad. Should’ve turned on the /sarc/ tags prior to commenting. 🙂
Not certain that Trump wants to speak with her, though.
USA doesn’t need anything she is selling. I hope that becomes abundantly clear to her.
She’s feeling the impact of “Bilateral Trade” and “Pay your share of NATO costs” on top of the levelizing of tariffs.
So sad. too bad. I do hope she has an “awfully nice day”.
In Southern USA, one would say “Bless her Soul”.
120
For those who do not speak “Southern”:
“Bless your heart or Bless your Soul” is a phrase that is common in the Southern United States. The phrase has multiple meanings. It can be used as a sincere expression of sympathy or genuine concern. It can be used as a precursor to an insult to soften the blow.
It is also sometimes used to mean “you are dumb or otherwise impaired, but you can’t help it” by individuals who wish to “be sweet” and do not wish to “act ugly”
IOTW, a socially acceptable way of saying “P@ss off and D@ie”.
60
I believe she meant that she wishes to speak AT sceptics, not to/with them.
160
Here’s a warmup primer for Frau Merkel.
She might want to be prepared for the meetings she says she wants.
“Wrong Again. 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions”
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictionshttps://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions
140
“The world needs an open dialogue about climate change to heal the gap between sceptics and believers since time is running out to cut the emissions that drive global warming,…”
Such verbiage sounds to me like this “open” dialogue will consist of the alarmists browbeating the skeptics into submission.
230
Just like the ABCs Conversation
Brainwashed host, a forum of alarmist pseudo scientists, a stacked audience.
Then the host asking leading questions and then cutting of the real (sceptical) scientist without any chance to completely state his/her case
Or just plain browbeating
It’s now the forces of truth and freedom versus the new evil eco fascist empire
60
OT.. But NSIDC now (day 23) has Arctic sea ice extent higher than any year in the last 10 years
also above 2005, 2006
180
W0t a surprise! Not 😀
Told you the cooling is a-coming in.
10
She probably wouldn’t like hearing this
“The enemies of the environment: the Greens”
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2020/01/24/the-enemies-of-the-environment-the-greens/
110
Merkel wants dialogue but says time is running out? It looks like her mind isn’t open but is locked tight.
Don’t forget she’s been beating the drum about man-made warming for years. And note that she talks of “climate change” not ” man-made climate change”, implying that the terms are synonymous.
180
Like fellow traveller Greta, Frau Merkel would like to put them up against a wall and play ‘tickle me elmo’ with them.
70
New feminist Tickle me Elmo just says ” That was not consensual ”
H/T BB.
😉
10
I used to purchase Merkel hydraulic seals from Germany, they are of very high quality and provide a long service life.
Were they from Communist East Germany?
60
A high quality system sealing things up with no leaks, sounds like East Germany to me.
61
Merkel is a fairly common German name.
Her maiden name was Kastner.
32
She doesn’t want to talk to sceptics. She wants to lecture them as to why they should shut up and go away. It has not occured to her for an instant that they might have something instructive to tell her, and she wont hear it when they do.
320
notice how billionaires never offer to spend their billions to solve ‘climate change’ ; their solution is always crippling taxes on the middle classes.
if it’s an “existential crisis” why do they only ever treat it as a money making / control issue.
190
If she is looking for a compromise, the answer is nuclear.
If not, what is her motive in these talks?
100
The Germans were the only ones who could make Nuclear Power work without
catastrophic accidents, but even German Engineering genius couldn’t overcome
the Storage of Nuclear Waste problem.
26
As far as I am aware, there have been no “catastrophic” accidents in France, where nuclear provides around 80% of their electricity
50
France has done pretty well …
10
I’ll be a skeptic until they can show me evidence that doesn’t include a theory and a computer version of fortune teller.
171
Actually I knew a bloke decades ago
Who used his computer to
Provide astrology type
Fortune telling
He made a good living from it
Till people ( mainly women )
Discovered they could do it themselves
For free online !
100
The real compromise is to switch from mitigation (cutting emissions) to adaptation (whatever the cause). Here is how CLINTEL put it in a letter to the WEF:
“Despite heated political rhetoric, we urge all world leaders to accept the reality that there is no climate emergency. There is ample time to use scientific advances to continue improving our society. Meanwhile, we should go for adaptation; it works whatever the causes are.”
This means, among other things, not shutting down the German coal fired power plants. I cannot see Merkel going for that. She is the “Climate Chancellor” after all, just ask her.
230
The skeptics were always happy to engage. It was those who who supported the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis that claimed the science was ‘settled’ and shut them out. Very unscientific.
170
And so called sceptics, which is an accurate description of all scientists, do not believe in man made Global Warming because it’s not true! Merkel is portraying it as a simple disagreement where you can meet in the middle and perhaps build fewer windmills. We need to be reconciled? Manipulative rubbish from someone with a half her life pushing Global Warming and German windmills.
180
Merkel is a politician.
She has staked the GE economy, tax base, social control, etc on AGW.
I’m not sure even she actually believes in AGW except as a means to acquire power.
AGW is “only” about acquiring political and economic power by convincing otherwise free people to surrender their sovereignty and liberty to a bunch of condescending pundits.
The best defense against AGW is to tell them: “Prove it. With Facts. Not Models. Not manipulated data, but actual, provable, facts. Do this first. Then we can talk.”
290
No one at Davos believes AGW is true. Not a single person. It is a means to an end, like social justice. Disruption. Softening up Western Democracies . Even China gets billions in carbon cash for building hydro they were going to build anyway. The rest have their hands out, as Mugabe did in Paris.
There are two issues the billionaires and political masters really care about. Climate Change and destroying national borders, especially in Europe. Chaos. They have produced the biggest windfall in cash and power since the GFC. And who went to jail over the multi trillion dollar fr*ud called the GFC. Certainly not the greatest proponent of fake mortgages, Goldmann Sachs. Turnbull’s firm.
No borders destroys the nation state, feeding political and financial and now military power to the gnomes of Zurich and the 10,000 unelected bureaucrats in the four cities, viz. Brussels, Frankfurt, Luxembourg City and Strasbourg who earn more than Boris Johnson. Run largely by the Germans and the French. It’s as if WWI and WWII had been lost.
Again only the UK and Russia stay out. Brexit. Donald Trump. These things give us hope. AGW is not a plot. It was a plot. Now it is financial and political reality, without ever being true.
260
TdeF:
I agree …totally!
61
10 Green thumbs Lance !
50
““Prove it. With Facts. Not Models. Not manipulated data, but actual, provable, facts. “
And we have seen how well that goes for the AGW operatives, be they paid or not, that come here.
Invariably, they are totally bereft of any actual scientific proof.
Just regurgitating the same old failed propaganda junk as though it actually means something.
92
And where 32 years ago man made Global Warming was a theory and people like Michael Mann projected data into the future, that future is now the distant past. All of it was wrong. Therefore it was wrong at the start, in the middle and today.
It has been a very costly historical fr*ud which has destroyed our manufacturing, our refining, our smelting, our jobs and now has our agriculture and our coal mining and natural gas in its sights. This disproven story of Global Warming, rapid sea rise etc. has achieved its goal, wrecking Australia’s independence.
As for diesel powered French submarines for $60Billion, Tony Abbott was right. They are far worse than what we have already. We are mugs. And the Germans and the French know it. Bunnies in the headlights. Conspiracy? Of course, but it remains very successful. And we have the pink bats, solar panels and windmills and bushfires to prove it.
150
I agree 100% with this too…and Australia alone is the country that will be crippled by it.
Tony Abbott was right on just about everything…which is why not just Turnbull ..Morrison and the rest of the Liberal Left…but Obama and the poobahs of international Socialism were determined to get rid of him.
The gnomes of Europe look after each other.
Our own leaders here are doing us deliberate harm…sacrificing Australia to please Merkel and the rest of Euro-Left…and it will never be enough.
40
The new energy graphic on the AEMO website should be pushed back at the journalistic cohort that keeps on telling us how important and good “renewables” have become.
The variable contribution of “renewables” would be struggling to cover the power needs of the nation’s road traffic signals and not much more – and then, only when the wind was blowing and
the sun was shining.
150
It is, regularly, in The Oz comments. Also when the alarmists claim, as they regularly do, that renewables are cheaper. At least the majority of commenters in The Oz seem to understand.
20
“Merkel says she wants to talk to skeptics. We’ll believe it when we see it”
Any mention of listening?
130
“Any mention of listening?”
Merkel says she wants to talk at skeptics !!
161
Well you’ve got to stop screaming and make an intelligent argument of course?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoRTcEog5lk Although these guys have talent.
18
Well you’ve got to stop screaming and make an intelligent argument of course?
We have been waiting a long time for the Global Warmists to stop screaming and yelling, and produce a sensible scientifically based argument.
Still no evidence, just baseless conjecture protected by hysterical propaganda.
120
[snip. nil contribution -j]
17
Extraordinarily funny just what lengths you will go to to avoid posting any evidence. 🙂
Science.. you don’t have any. And you never will.
20
Congratulations Vishnu. If they are your idea of talent, why don’t you load a second bullet and shoot yourself in your other foot too?
Yuk!
10
It’ll last about 2 seconds before, to her horror, she finds the sceptics walking all over the catastropharians with real world science. Which shows conclusively not much is actually happening, certainly nothing concerning.
When she realises that the climate activists are charlatans and she’s spent a trillion euros of German taxes on their nutty ideas she’s going bury this whole idea in the deepest hole she can find. A trillion euro grifter industry will be after her with baseball bats if she doesn’t. And the irate green fanatics might just be armed with something worse than baseball bats.
130
“Delingpole: George Soros Donates $1 Billion to Combat ‘Authoritarianism.’ Seriously?”
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/24/delingpole-george-soros-donates-1-billion-to-combat-authoritarianism-seriously/
80
“The Carbon Tax, Dicksplained.”
Link at
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2020/01/24/the-carbon-tax/#comments
40
What conversation, IPCC style global warming violates the law of conservation of energy…. end of discussion.
50
The irony, perhaps, is that Merkel studied physics for her undergraduate degree and quantum chemistry for her PhD. If there was any politician who should be able to see through the BS, it is her.
160
We have a biologist here that believes alkaline is more acidic than alkaline so anything is possible .
70
“…had to learn how to talk with each other again.”
Too little too late.
You’re the ones who said we need to “shut up”.
You’re the ones who refused to debate.
You’re the ones who said we were evil, said we were deniers, said we were paid shills.
And now, when you find the tide turning, now you want to “talk”?
GAGF.
No action is required, so doing nothing suits me fine. So no, no conversation, no dialogue, no compromise. Just like you wanted when it was going your way. Suck it up, princess.
240
Hi Jo
As sceptics, we are only too eager to listen to those who support the anthropological global warming theory.
For a long time, we have asked them to provide proof, but as well as that we are eager to heart them explain the gaps in their beloved theory. The missing hot spot. The paleoclimate. The Vostok ice cores. The history of atmospheric CO2 levels. The Medieval, Roman and Greek warming periods. Etc.
And why climate scientists have to resort to data fudging to produce the data they need.
We’re definitely listening – but the alarmists are not answering the questions. Perhaps they think that abusing sceptics is easier than scientific debate – and in that respect, at least, they’re right.
Cheers,
Mike
140
The debate is over and done,
As the warming was caused by the sun,
With more cooling in store,
Seen in cycles before,
Which means that the skeptics have won.
240
Yes, won the argument but lost the war. The bulldozer which is the EU/UN/Davos/Democrats/Merkel/Macron group are just avoiding any discussion of science as it is clearly all wrong. No warming. No seas rising. No increase in hurricanes. Polar bears are fine.
So just act as if you won. And tell the opposition you are willing to meet them in the middle, perhaps. As if it was just a difference of opinion, not the greatest scam in human history and still continuing. A bit like Hitler and his peace negotiations with England, France and Russia. Now the French/German EU openly wants an army. What a surprise! And the enemies are the US and Russia and now the UK. And Italy wants out, as before.
180
Powerful vested interests are behind the ” globalists ” not dis-including Wall Street. They want carbon taxes and emissions permits trading. ExxonMobil has a carbon capture division and is a huge LNG player. The Russians and Qatar trouser hundreds of billions from gas revenues. The less coal and nuclear, the more LNG gets sold to help amortize their massive investments in LNG infrastructure. Conveniently when you add the costs of capturing and storing carbon emissions from a coal plant, why it’s cheaper to burn natural gas to drive turbines! Exxon and Shell have oodles of gas to sell you, as does Gazprom. Now the EU is trying to force China to impose a domestic carbon tax. There is a company in Switzerland called Climeworks which is building machines to extract CO2 from the atmosphere. A dumb idea, carbon sequestration, but hey there’s money to be made! Ka ching!
60
If I was sure that most warmist could under stand Texan (an old 75 yo hick farm boy) speak, then I would remind them of the last 40 to 50 years of claiming global warming/ global cooling/ gw, again/ claims of future sustainability, millions dead/ melting ice caps, all of which NEVER HAPPENED, then future social, economic, racial environmental JUSTICE .…. and much more. All for something in the near or far FUTURE, when our weather forecasters can’t predict anything beyond several days or weeks without their beloved satellites. Most of the farmers and ranchers rely on the Farmers Almanac, anyway. So forget the UN and their “forecasters” and the brain dead ClimateGate weaners, the ‘climate’ will do as it pleases, with or without our spending $Ms or $Bs of hard working US Tax payers $s. So “KISS OFF” Greta.
130
-39 C on the Antarctic icesheet at noon today during the peak of Summer.
Not going to melt this millennia
130
Okie translation:
“Yep. I Hear ya. Your Daddy said you wasn’t too smart”
20
“Catastrophy FUD list:”
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EO_i9z5VUAAgOAe.jpg
30
it’s just the latest, deceptive CAGW meme:
behind paywall:
22 Jan: Financial Times: “Citizens’ assembly set to offer UK government climate advice”
Justifying the potential inclusion of climate sceptics in the group, Jim Watson, one of the expert advisers and a professor of energy policy at (UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources)…
22 Jan: Guardian: UK citizens’ climate assembly to meet for first time
Randomly selected 110-strong panel will try to come up with a plan to tackle global heating
by Sandra Laville
Ordinary people from across the UK – potentially including climate deniers – will take part in the first ever citizens’ climate assembly this weekend…
Of the assembly members, three people are not at all concerned, 16 not very concerned, 36 fairly concerned, 54 very concerned, and one did not know, organisers said…
The selection process meant those chosen could include climate deniers or sceptics, according to Sarah Allan, the head of engagement at Involve, which is running the assembly along with the Sortition Foundation and the e-democracy project mySociety…
“It is really important that it is representative of the UK population,” said Allen. “Those people, just because they’re sceptical of climate change, they’re going to be affected by the steps the government takes to get to net zero by 2050 too and they shouldn’t have their voice denied in that.”…
The key subjects to be considered will include transport, agriculture, domestic energy, and how consumerism is driving global heating…
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/22/uk-citizens-climate-assembly-meet-first-time
The selection process meant those chosen could include climate deniers or sceptics, according to Sarah Allan, the head of engagement at Involve, which is running the assembly along with the Sortition Foundation and the e-democracy project mySociety…
“It is really important that it is representative of the UK population,” said Allen. “Those people, just because they’re sceptical of climate change, they’re going to be affected by the steps the government takes to get to net zero by 2050 too and they shouldn’t have their voice denied in that.”…
The key subjects to be considered will include transport, agriculture, domestic energy, and how consumerism is driving global heating…
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/22/uk-citizens-climate-assembly-meet-first-time
17 Jan: BBC: Climate change: Citizens’ assembly prepares to tackle climate change
By Roger Harrabin
The idea for this unprecedented assembly was conceived by MPs on six parliamentary select committees who want to learn more about the public’s opinions on climate change…
***It will not debate the scientific consensus that climate change is dangerous…
The gathering will include views of all hues – from people who don’t ***fear climate change to those who definitely do…
One of the project’s leaders is Lorraine Whitmarsh, professor of environmental psychology at Cardiff University…
Will climate sceptics be involved?
Ms Whitmarsh explained: “There will be sceptics who don’t even believe climate change is caused by humans. But even they may want to consider evidence that some climate polices (such as active transport) will have health benefits attached.
“There will be other people who are very worried about climate change – but they may turn out to be unwilling to take on some of the financial consequences involved.
“It’s going to be really interesting.”…
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51111796
30
the reality:
10 Jan: Edie.net: Citizens climate assembly panels finalised
by David Blackman
Leading academics together with figures from industry, the environmental movement and thinktanks have been named as advisors for the upcoming UK citizen’s assembly on climate change…
The 110 assembly members will consider how net-zero can be achieved by 2050 and make recommendations on what the government, businesses, the public and wider UK society should do to reduce carbon emissions.
To assist the assembly members, two panels of stakeholders and researchers have been announced.
The advisory panel will offer feedback to the assembly’s expert leads, who have already been appointed, on key aspects of its design, like who is invited to speak, the topics of discussion, and the balance of information provided.
Industry figures on the advisory panel include acting Energy UK chief executive Audrey Gallacher and RenewableUK’s head of policy and regulation Rebecca Williams.
The broader business community is represented by the Confederation of British Industry’s senior policy adviser on energy and climate change Tanisha Beebe, and consumers by Dhara Vyas, head of future energy services at Citizens Advice.
Environmentalists on the panel include Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace and Chaitanya Kumar, senior policy adviser at Green Alliance.
The 13-member academic panel is made up of researchers working on areas of climate change, who will review written briefings for assembly members and to support the expert leads in their role.
The four expert leads, who were announced last year, are Chris Stark, chief executive of the Committee of Climate Change; Jim Watson, professor of energy policy at University College London; Lorraine Whitmarsh, director of the UK Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations and Professor Rebecca Willis of Lancaster University, who specialises in energy and climate governance…
https://www.edie.net/news/9/Citizens-climate-assembly-panels-finalised/
40
‘Citizens climate advisory panel’ completely loaded with green left climate alarmists no surprises there.
And researchers working on areas of climate change ‘desk scientists’ no doubt wouldn’t know one end of a thermometer from the other.
Uk is right into this stuff and wants to be a world leader in the field of climate change and ‘zero carbon emissions’ etc. Now where have I heard that before ..
GeoffW
80
The point of Brexit was to free Britons from EuroSlavery but this certainly doesn’t seem to be good news.
Spooky.
KK
81
The point of Brexit was to free the U.K. from strict EU Food Quality Laws
It’s now a race to the bottom eating Chlorinated Chicken.
Nigel Farage was funded to draw support away from the National Front, which was polling
well in the run up to the 2016 Elections.
He split their vote and accomplished his mission.
Corbyn was a better choice than Boris, that’s how bad Johnson is, and it will get a
lot worse over there in a hurry.
113
At this rate you won’t graduate political science 101.
The old empire is getting back together, in a purely commercial sense, so Boris will be seen as a hero who saved them from the clutches of Brussels.
81
The Empire died in 1945, it won’t be reforming, and Australia would be foolish
to ever trust the British again after they left us in the lurch in 1966,
not to mention 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, 1941, & 1942.
37
In the new world order all those things will be forgotten, merely historical footnotes.
30
Ouch. I fell off my chair laughing.
Hatrack — you’re unbelievable.
Loosen that band around your head or take it right off — it’s squeezing your brains out.
30
“The point of Brexit was to free the U.K. from strict EU Food Quality Laws”
Given that most people (especially the younger potential voters) expected the EU Referendum to result in our remaining, I would say you are wrong in your assumption.
Had there been a Referendum on entering the EU, I would have voted against.
So, when given the opportunity to express my opinion, I went to the Polling Station and cast my vote to “Leave”, even though I expected a majority vote for “Remain”.
Imagine my surprise when the result was announced.
The result was said to be due to younger voters so sure of a “Remain” majority that they couldn’t be bothered to get out and vote!
Which was later confirmed by interviews with whining dimwits.
(I was against joining the EU because it is an undemocratic organisation. And, bureaucratic as our system may be, we are able to win out against it via democracy.
I find it preferable to a United States of Europe where bureaucracy tops democracy.)
50
“It’s now a race to the bottom eating Chlorinated Chicken.”
No. The EU Laws are going to be carried over into UK Law.
“There are legal barriers to the imports and those are going to stay in place.”
“We will defend our national interests and our values, including our high standards of animal welfare.”
Theresa Villiers, Environment Secretary.
BTW Chlorinated Chicken is not banned because of the use of a chlorine solution, it is an effective means of killing salmonella.
The EU is concerned about the welfare of chickens – the hygienic conditions in which they are raised. Chlorine solution encourages a slipshod approach to poultry farming.
40
“Corbyn was a better choice than Boris
Corbyn is a Socialist; they wreck the economy immediately.
Boris is a Conservative; they wreck the economy eventually.
40
The German Greens party and Greenpeace organisation are probably the most powerful in Europe. No doubt they are being covertly funded by players ranging from the Kremlin to German billionaire wind baron Aloys Wobben of Enercon. Russia’s Gazprom sells $100 billion of gas annually. You think they might be against coal? Germany has an incredible 29000 needless wind turbines, which have made Herr Wobben worth over $5 billion. That buys a lot of influence. He needs to keep the scam going. The Economist magazine constantly cheerleads the climate change and renewables agenda. They are 43% owned by Italy’s billionaire Agnelli clan. They have a mixed industrial products empire worth $24 billion. I couldn’t find any direct renewables investments there, except a small software subsidiary involved in wind power generation. But there must be some connection. Follow the dinero.
Closer to home, Papua New Guinea has a $19 billion LNG installation owned two thirds by ExxonMobil. Mostly exporting LNG to Asian utilities where it competes with Australian thermal coal. Hmmm. Less coal means more markets for LNG. I can see Exxon shareholders cheering that on.
150
Thanks for the overview: it’s an important part of the mess.
70
Zane –
re The (CAGW-infested) Economist:
Oct 2015: Guardian: The Economist becomes a family affair
Italy’s Agnellis are the latest wealthy dynasty – in the wake of the Murdochs, the Barclays and the Sulzbergers – to take control of a global media brand
by Karl West
Pearson, the education and publishing giant that has held a non-controlling 50% stake since 1928, is selling the holding for £469m. The deal will make Italy’s Agnelli family, founders of the Fiat car empire, the largest shareholder, with fellow owners reading like a Who’s Who of British business dynasties, including the Cadbury, Layton, Rothschild and Schroder families…READ ON
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/15/economist-becomes-a-family-affair-agnellis
the Agnelli’s are becoming big players in the EV space, as they say!
29 May 2019: Fortune: Why Electrification Is Powering Fiat Chrysler’s Renault Merger Ambitions
By David Meyer
Fiat has recently been finding that, in the current regulatory environment, keeping it old-school is an expensive business. The European Union has since 2015 been phasing in tough new carbon emissions targets for automakers. There are stiff penalties for exceeding those limits, but manufacturers can pool their efforts, and earlier this month Fiat revealed that it had bought emissions credits from Elon Musk’s electric carmaker Tesla for around $2 billion…
Fiat unveiled a concept electric car in March—the modular Centoventi platform—and it plans to show off an electrified version of its iconic Fiat 500 next year, but the process can be accelerated by joining forces with a more advanced player…
But even if this merger doesn’t go ahead, FCA (Fiat Chrysler Automobiles) will need to enthusiastically join in the wider auto industry electrification trend, one way or another. As Manley put it earlier this year: “The reality is those platforms and that technology we used does need to move on. They can’t exist as you get into the middle-2020s.”
https://fortune.com/2019/05/28/fiat-chrysler-renault-merger-electric/
1 Nov 2019: WaPo: Bloomberg: Billionaire Agnellis Grab a Massive Sweetener
By Chris Hughes
Strategically, Fiat brings the U.S. market and the chance to accelerate the development of electric vehicles…
Wind is/has been in other hands:
3 Oct 2019: OilPrice: Italy’s “Lord of the Wind” Gets 9 Years For Financing Mafia
By Irina Slav
Italy’s “Wind King”, or the “Lord of the Wind” Vito Nicastri has been sentenced to nine years in prison for channeling profits from his wind power business to Cosa Nostra’s Matteo Messina Denaro…READ ALL
https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Wind-Power/Italys-Lord-of-the-Wind-Gets-9-Years-For-Financing-Mafia.html
above links to:
3 Apr 2013: BBC: Italy seizes record assets from wind farm tycoon
So heavily was Mr Nicastri involved in renewable energy, Italian media dubbed him the ***”Lord of the Wind”…
The seizure “impacts in a significant way on the economic power of Matteo Messina Denaro, who is considered the ***lord of that land [Sicily]”, the anti-mafia agency said…
30
I like to listen to this Texas loudmouth on matters automotive. He knows the guts of cars.
There may have been good Fiats. I’ve had good Europeans, notably the Renault 10 back in the 60s and a couple of Peugeots later, but here Scotty explains the real problem with great brands. Never mind EV or advanced tech or green tech…now that cars are a bin to dump a whole lot of sub-prime debt and dump it fast, the real problem with the world’s fleet is QUALITY.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbqibbNaNuQ
Want to save the planet? You can’t.
Want to save the planet from needless waste and over-production? Build quality and detach major goods from the banksters’ debt cycle. When the Detroit shonks took the humble train to Washington to beg the newly elected Obama for forgiveness and bailout they did not take the humble train back to Detroit. That was over a decade ago…and now we need a whole new car fleet for the whole world because – dang! – that last lot just wasn’t green enough!
Expect your plasticky lithium-mobile to achieve clunker status around 2030. It just won’t be green enough. Or something.
20
Good stuff. That adds another name to the mix, Elon Musk and Tesla, which despite losing money has an incredible stock market capitalisation of $100 billion. It’s the second highest valued automotive company in the world after Toyota, which actually makes money. Musk is dependent on EV subsidies from malleable governments, so I can see him behind much of the green propaganda and a strong proponent of carbon taxes. Green is the colour of money, after all.
20
So Merkel wants to ‘talk’ to skeptics. You can bet it’s not about any compromise.
It’s just a political stunt on her behalf !!
80
Most informative Zane . .
GeoffW
40
I’d be happy to explain to her what she gets wrong about CO2 driving global warming.
She can fly to Seattle and then get to Snoqualmie Pass, 50 miles east. I can drive there. She can get a ride with Washington Gov.Jay ‘Climate Change’ Inslee.
We’ll have a look at all the snow and I will ‘splain stuff to them. Jay has money so he pays for lunch.
60
Climate change was mentioned 900,000 times on social media last month, says The Australian in a story today. Somebody is paying a lot of trolls, and then there are the gullible and brainwashed. Repeat a lie a thousand times… What happens if it’s repeated a million times???
110
My only connection to the mainstream is a quick check of headlines just to see either if something big has happened or something big has been faked. Frequently I use Murdoch’s give-away news.com.au just in case I need to click. Now, if The Guardian had a love-child with the most juvenile university hand-out, it’d be news.com.au. It doesn’t even try. Maybe that’s Rupert’s way of pushing us to his paid sites: You want centre-right without teenie-bopper journos? For that you pay!
This morning’s issue was interesting because it had a feature on the climate of Australia as experienced by the earliest European settlers. What? After all that “science” about “Australia on fire” and all those deliciously red, brown and purple graphics…we were going to read about the monsoon failures which killed millions in India and threatened to wipe out the new settlement at Port Jackson?
I clicked. Silly moi.
It seems the big problems of this unknown continent were all storms. Some of them not even here but on the “southern ocean”. Yep, storms and unseasonal cold. There are hints about “volatile” and “extreme” climate…but don’t expect mention of anything extreme except those volatile storms and high swells.
This is how the globsters are going to “engage” with us. They will offer to talk about what “we” want to talk about. Want to talk history? No probs, let’s talk about storms and the First Fleet. Have all the storm you want, you poor silly skep. If eleven million perished in India and the birds were dropping dead from the sky at Port Jackson…sorry, that got stuck down the memory hole and the can’t get it out. Now, what other storms would “we” like to discuss?
Note Merkel’s reason for “healing the gap”. It’s because time is running out to cut the emissions causing global warming! Yep. It’s not about us getting heard. It’s about us getting herded. It’s about us coming back into the corral. Let’s put our differences behind us, go make mooing sounds with the rest of the cattle. News feeding time is 6’clock.
If you’ll forget Mutti was a Gruppenfüherin in the FDJ with all kinds of Stasi connections Mutti will forget your naughty climate opinions. We all make mistakes. Time to come together.
Moo.
110
Germany has proportional representation. The Greens get 10% of the vote, they get 10% of the seats in parliament. This amplifies their power considerably. Other parties need to court them to pass legislation.
60
The world needs an open dialogue about climate change to heal the gap between sceptics and believers since time is running out to cut the emissions that drive global warming
Merkel’s words do not indicate any desire for interactive dialogue and exchange of opinions and ideas. She is essentially saying that the sceptics must be convinced to fall in line and do what we tell them because time is running out to cut the emissions that drive global warming. She is a believer that the increase in CO2 partial pressure will have catastrophic consequences.
80
The Borg !! or else. !
41
She’s actually saying: /sarc/
“Crap. Brexit. Bilateral Trade. Nato costs. Tariffs. [snip].
If those independent fools don’t get on board, and that right soon, I’m screwed”.
Further on:
Without everyone else’s money, Socialism is Doomed in the EU, and the Socialist or [snip] Domination of the World is not guaranteed, so my personal demons remain unabated. Therefore, I must browbeat Western Civilization into committing Cultural Suicide. Thus speaketh The One Who Cannot Be Blamed, for I am a World Citizen.
And…. bought off by the Soros Family.
Oh, that Damned Trump. If he’d only Listen to my Impeccable Logic. We’d All be Free. Or at least paid for by Others.
/sarc off/
[snipped because of 18C concern] ED
60
Now see here Sceptics, be reasonable, see it our way.
60
Peace in our time. Sure. Heard it before.
50
Saint Greta needs a good old fashioned spanking.
80
It’s curious
The saints of past religions
Made a practice of flaggelating themselves.
‘Saint’ Greta & her minions
Never do that.
Instead they seek to flagellate
Those who are skeptical about
The Global Warming cult !
60
Yeah except the self flagellators got the spanish royalty to persecute the deniers of day, and the religious zealots said “hey it wasnt us wot done it”…despite setting it up for the govt of the day to do their dirty work….
30
Who would speak for the sceptics? Would there be any areas which could be considered as facts by both sides? Would either side accept the outcome if the debate went against them?
18
What debate?
Science is not a debate. Science has to be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt and there has not been a single prediction right in 32 years.
In fact they have given up, so they want to paint it all as an unfortunate difference of opinion. It isn’t. It never has been.
And they want to keep building windmills and collecting carbon taxes anyway. All a big misunderstanding. Like WW2.
150
Do you anything to support these 2 assertions
“Science is not a debate” – ?
“Science has to be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt” – ?
[Edit — repeat punctuation. – Jo]
111
It’s a statement of fact. You have a hypothesis. It is tested by its predictions. If you can predict what happens, your explanation is likely right or at least a good usable model. If it fails, it is not right. There is no debate. Every prediction of man made global warming has been wrong. There is no debate. AGW fails every test and passed none.
And if you make a single prediction which turns out wrong, your theory can be near destroyed. However it may be useful practically if it can predict 9 out of 10 things. This is the business of models. They are judged on their predictions. The shadow of a doubt comes if you want to claim that the model is perfect, like Newton’s Laws of Motion, conservation of mass, conservation of momentum, conservation of energy, stoichiometry in chemistry (conservation of atoms). They have been shown to fail only when velocities approach the speed of light as in something measured in light years or the scale is so tiny that matter is hollow, the realm of quantum mechanics. And then we have models too.
90
Sounds like something Richard Feynman would have said.
20
Peter, Science is NOT a debate, the physical laws of the universe like conservation of energy don’t change just because your ideology says they do. What is, is. Reaching an understanding of “what is” may involve some debate but the fact remains the fact regardless of any debate. This is why WHO says something is so, is irrelevant, because the person who wins in science is the person that describes what is, not the person with the best qualification. I could have an argument with the most famous climate scientist in the world and my argument would win, if my description of climate matches the real world and the climate scientist doesn’t. Indeed I should win the argument if I can disprove just one aspect of the climate scientists argument. For example climate science assumes energy available for warming is infinite – and it’s not…. so game over for climate science until they show where the energy comes from.
So the climate debate doesn’t define the science of earth’s climate, the climate will do what it will regardless of any debate we might have.
Science has levels of certainty.
Speculation – where AGW is
Hypothesis
Theory / Theorem
and
LAW
Only LAWS of science are considered settled, things like energy conservation, Ohms Law every thing else is a work in progress.
Just one experiment that disproves a hypothesis is required to invalidate the hypothesis or even a theory (established science). AGW has failed many experiments so this is why AGW doesn’t even rise to a Hypothesis. The missing hot-spot for example invalidates the Hypothesis of AGW sending it back to speculation. Satellite observations show in the real world IR out increases with warming while the models show decreased IR due to positive feedback with warming. Hypothesis is falsified sending AGW positive feedback hypothesis back to being a mere speculation.
Science is about what actually happens. It’s not the process of discovery.
20
Except it seems to keep warming, and things seem to keep melting, and species and phenology changing their seasonality. So inconvenient. Must dig up all those b/s sceptic predictions that we’d be in a bone crushing ice age by now. LOL !
214
Sure, that was wrong too. No sceptic argued for an ice age. Sceptics disagreed with that too.
90
I think you misunderstand skepticism. Things have to be proven. Simple. Every scientist is a skeptic by profession. It is not an insult but a statement of fact. AGW had to be proven and after 32 years it is a total failure. So was global cooling. Things go up and down all the time, but there were specific predictions and they were wrong.
As for the mechanism of warming by increased CO2, it is universally agreed that the 50% increase in CO2 is not enough to produce noticeable warming. This is not debatable. So the proposition was that the warming evaporated water which enhanced the warming. This is the proposed hot spot of steam over the equator. The problem is, it’s not there. Fail.
And the proposed global cooling was just an observation which was true mid century. It did not continue.
110
“I think you misunderstand skepticism.”
That’s because he has little to no understanding of science.
40
Oh mate you need to get out more – of course you all have and hahahaha
https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/david-archibalds-funny-sunny-prediction.html
Rolling around the floor laughing
24
Using GISS temp is the funny part, thinking it represents actual global temperatures.
So funny
40
Hotwhopper ? Hahahahaha!
She is a nut . Needs to get the knots out of her knickers .
Not even as reliable as SKS .
10
who says SKS is reliable?
10
There has been no warming over Australia this century
The only real global warming in the last 40 years has come from El Nino events, so not CO2 related, purely solar energy entering the oceans, which this mythical CO2 back-radiation cannot do.
There is no empirical evidence of any warming by atmospheric CO2
If you think there is, then produce it.
30
I have many times but you can’t read
12
Oh and I almost missed it – a back radiation denier too – gee wonder what my pyrgeometer is measuring and how you do a radiation balance without it. Oh those balmy overcast nights (giggle).
Tell Roy Spencer, sceptic and beloved keep of the UAH – he’ll set you straight.
Better tell Peter Fitzroy that you’re a complete kook then. He’ll be disappointed. I should have seen it – a slayer – oh for heaven’s sake.
ANd Peter – Andy Griffith has invented Jacks Beanstalk – an internal mode of variability (El Nino) that keeps warming. Perpetual motion machine. Energy from nowhere. Oh I think I’ve cracked a rib from laughing.
25
Still running away from producing any empirical evidence , hey 🙂
You have never presented any evidence of any kind.
So funny. all you can manage is childish bluster.
30
“pyrgeometer”
Only frequency of CO2 emission it might pick up is the 10μm range, which overlaps the far stronger H2O range
You need to learn what your instrument is actually picking up. 😉
Mean free path of that frequency range in the lower atmosphere is 10m or so, so immaterial
And it is so weak that a) it can’t warm anything, and b) any possible warming is immediately cancelled by the gravity based thermal gradient.
It has now been proven that the atmosphere is in thermal equilibrium, which means that the gravity based thermal gradient is the over-riding force in the atmosphere.
That negates any possible warming from CO2,
Which is why you are totally incapable of actually producing any empirical measurements of your mythical CO2 warming.
30
Oh dear – we know the radiation profile of the atmosphere. Ask your Mum about using google scholar.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
Knowledge of pyrgeometer specs – 0.0 . Keep playing so we can get the full dope reveal. Spot test – name a common pyrgeometer and spectral characteristics ….
Thinks he knows more than Roy Spencer.
Andy Griffith does a King Canute and wishes the energy away. “Begone evil radiation”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmInkxbvlCs LOL !
11
Oh dear, vishu shows he doesn’t understand how radiation works at all.
So funny
Here’s a nice one for you, first I could find https://www.directindustry.com/prod/delta-ohm/product-25140-603292.html
Range 5.5 – 45μm
CO2 radiation is at 2.7, 4.3, and 15 μm, the 15μm coinciding with much broader H2O.
You do the mathematical logic, if you can 😉
Great that you can pick up H2O wavelength, hey dopey
And you STILL cannot produce any evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2
And you STILL haven’t comprehended the basic fact that even if the mythical GHE did exist, it would be countered immediately by the over-riding gravity thermal gradient
That is a basic fact now that we know the atmosphere is in thermal equilibrium.
You cannot measure any CO2 warming in the atmosphere, because IT DOESN’T EXIST.
Your waffle and twaddle act just goes on and on as you tries to avoid the issue.
Hilarious. 🙂
10
That perhaps makes you a Nett energy denier, Nett energy flow is always from hotter to colder. So called back radiation is a useless and totally pointless thermodynamic concept because Nett flow is ALWAYS from hot to cold. There is no Nett back radiation the BEST CO2 can hope to do is modulate the flow of energy from hot to cold, it CANNOT reverse it…. ever. So it is true to say that back radiation doesn’t exist because in regular thermodynamics it doesn’t.
Perhaps you are an entropy denier too that somehow thinks energy entering the system as diffuse (well mixed) flow can somehow accumulate in one spot to create bigger storms when such a thing is literally impossible.
30
“and things seem to keep melting”
misinformed as always. !
Current Arctic sea ice extent is above every year of the last decade.
30
But well below the average of the preceding 20 years and the trend, which is the important metric is towards lower sea ice coverage.
22
Wrong, the late 1970s was a short period of extreme, anomalously high extent, up there with the extents of the Little Ice Age
The real fact is that the current level is probably still in the top 5% of the last 10,000 years sea ice extent
40
Melting.. belly laugh…
Do you gave ANY idea how much energy is required to melt ice and what the piddling 0.6W per square metre of forcing is capable (or should I say incapable) of.
There were multiple papers on this all of which got emails from me. One guy attributing 300 Cubic km of ice loss to 0.6W per square meter AGW forcing. Melting that much ice in the melt season required more than 50Watts per square metre. No-one in climate/environmental science ever bothers to check the energy balance before they claim the impossible in their press releases.
AGW if it even exists, at the intensity climate scientist claim, which is No where near proven, represents a change of just 0.17% in the earth’s energy balance, it’s a tiny 0.0017 rounding error that can’t appreciably add to any energetic real world phenomena like say, melting ice because entropy forbids that energy from being concentrated.
20
The debate has gone against the AGW meme since you got here.
Do you accept that you have been wrong, and have absolutely no evidence to back up your position?
60
Mate you’re in a teensy echo chamber, safe with fellow tribalists. Offer a seminar at BoM or CSIRO telling them where the science is wrong – I’m sure they’d love to host you. Thye might jeez we never thought of that and all cave in. But you’d need to keep to facts and not rant. Not gonna happen is it. Easier to pound the keyboard in your Mum’s basement.
——-
All fake bluff Vishnu. Come back when the CSIRO and BOM want to “hear from skeptics”. Why do you suppose they never do “town hall meetings”. Scared eh? – Jo
316
That’s just gratuitous insult. Besides, their science is wrong because all the predictions have failed. Every single one. I suspect no one much in the CSIRO Or BOM actually agree with CO2 driven warming, but they have mortgages too. You saw what happened to Prof Ridd.
110
Vishnu there is going to be a Royal Commission and they will call up the Klimatariat, because they are the experts, and they will say this bushfire season is not unprecedented, nor the drought which preceded it.
The Commissioner will then conclude this bushfire season has nothing to do with global warming and the Guardian will go berserk.
61
You cannot produce any of that science can you.
You have been asked time and time again.. but remain empty.
You have no facts, so all you can respond with is petty jibes.
30
Not so Andy, but confronted with facts or physics you tend to spout unsubstantiated nonsense I find it most difficult to understand how you could be so ill informed with respect to greenhouse gasses and their effects. But for their reality the average temperature of the Earth would be -23 Celsius. Put it this way. Mars is an empirical example. It has a CO2 atmosphere but it is so sparse on Earth we would classify it as an industrial vacuum. Because it is so sparse the greenhouse effect is minimal and temperatures swing from just above zero maximum during the day and -80 Celsius at night, and that is at the equator. How do we know. Again empirical measurement from landers and rovers. Without greenhouse gasses the Earth would experience the same massive temperature swings.
12
Waiting for your “facts” of physics.. you have shown little understanding of them so far.
Empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2… WAITING
Just because you do not understand the basics of physics, no need to keep regurgitating AGW rubbish. Time to learn passed the basics and learn to think for yourself.
Without an atmosphere the Earth would experience the same massive temperature swings.
It is the atmospheric mass that retains the energy.
That is proven by the fact that the atmosphere is in thermal equilibrium, measured, and proven.
30
Apart from the greenhouse gasses the atmosphere is transparent to radiative energy. The troposphere is not isotropic and its change in temperature with height is a function of convection, the lapse rates. Convection and evaporation are a function of surface heat which varies with geographic position and orbital position of the Earth. Now the vertical thermal equilibrium you mention means that there is no net transfer of heat. Rising warm air is balanced by descending cooled air while the latent heat of evaporation is compensated by the latent heat of condensation. What you are missing is that net thermal equilibrium is independent of the initial temperature. If the surface temperature increases or decreases then so does the initial temperature of rising air. UAH and RSS measurements clearly show some warming of the lower atmosphere from this, but as expected nowhere near the overstated output of global warming models.
Now top of atmosphere measurements of the energy budget indicate that the level outgoing IR radiation is increasing compared to incoming solar radiation. Empirical measurement ok. This can only happen as a response to an increase in Earth’s temperature and whether you like it or not this implies an increase in back radiation from greenhouse gasses. Certainly nowhere near the dire predictions of doomsayers, but present none the less. Now the impact of increased greenhouse gas partial pressure is indeed arguable. But denying that greenhouse gasses exist is frankly irrational.
10
More opinion based rehash of the old semi-science bluster.
This does NOT represent evidence of any kind.
Waiting for empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2
NOT forthcoming. !!
And if you think Earth’s temperature can only change because of changes in internal mechanisms you really have gone down the fantasy science rabbit hole.
OLR is increasing totally in line with atmospheric temperature.
There is no deviation, there is no energy being “trapped”.
Atmosphere in thermal equilibrium also shows that no energy is being “trapped”.
There is NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of warming by atmospheric CO2
If you think there is, then produce it, and stop waffling !!
20
indicate that the level outgoing IR radiation is increasing compared to incoming solar radiation.
So the planet is cooling.
Ok, you just destroyed the whole AGW farce, through one step of cognitive dissonance. 😉
30
At http://joannenova.com.au/2020/01/merkel-says-she-wants-to-talk-to-skeptics-ill-believe-it-when-i-see-it/#comment-2263052
Brian engages in prolonged, tortured Verbalism.
This, therefore so and so, but alternately ,,,
Rubbish.
10
” . .where the science is wrong . .”.
You betray your ignorance ; science is a process, not a result.
On ya bike Noddy! 🙂
50
Dear Jo – Well have you asked to present? Until you have the refusal letter (which hey would be great PR for you – at least 6 posts worth) it’s a bit of surmise.
But hey debates are rubbish really if in short form. Just do a gish gallop and it’s all over. If you want to get somewhere you need long-form debates – a few hours worth like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfdaAGZvYsA and no dirty tricks. Just reasoned discussion.
Sam Harris himself will even let his opponent retract a point hastily or angrily made. We don’t want gotchas – we need to know what people really think and what the science shows and can be defended.
But I agree the left is awful these days with de-platforming. I guess a request to BoM or CSIRO would set off perimeter alarms galore from the group politik.
Perhaps universities still have enough decency to host such an event. Topic is so big that you’d need a series.
12
“Just do a gish gallop and it’s all over.”
That does seem to be your approach to debate on this blog.
Forget about posting any evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2..
…. just hope to bluster your way around your incapability of doing so.
“what the science shows and can be defended.”
You haven’t presented any science, and you certainly couldn’t defend it if even you could get up the courage to eventually try to.
10
I have but you’re illiterate
22
Not illiterate. But certainly ill informed and totally lacking in scientific knowledge.
11
And yet NEITHER of you can produce one piece of empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2
We are all still waiting for you to display something, anything that is actual science.
Is it cowardice, or ineptitude that is stopping you.
20
Produce it again, then
so we can all have a good LAUGH at your ideas about what is actual “science”
We are waiting.. waiting.. zzzzzzz
21
Your questions make it quite clear that you do not propose any role for scientific enquiry. Indeed you seem to be quite unfamiliar with the concept.
40
behind paywall. don’t know where this piece goes, but found these excerpts:
24 Jan: WSJ: For Liberal Elites at Davos, Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others
The leaders gathered in the Swiss Alps call to mind the rulers of George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’
By Gerard Baker
In addition to marking the 50th anniversary edition of the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos, this past week also marked the 70th anniversary of the death of George Orwell.
In the literary and media world, much has been made of the contemporary relevance of the life and work of one of the masters of 20th-century English literature. In our age of “fake news,” the erosion of truth, the manipulation of language for political purposes and the rise of illiberal authoritarianism, it is “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” his dystopian novel…
Half a century ago, the debate among this elite crowd represented a fair diversity of views. If anything, the consensus, such as it was, tended toward a conservative one: The dominating issues were how to restore growth in a stagnating world, how to revive capitalism.
Today, Davos reflects perfectly the stultifying ideological consensus that this globalized, deracinated economic and cultural leadership promotes. There is almost universal agreement on the urgency of the issues at hand: combating climate change, promoting racial and ethnic diversity, supporting the rights of migrants and the free movement of labor, empowering women, promoting transgender rights.
Of course, these are almost exclusively liberal-left ideas, and the loudest voices in global business are liberals—the likes of Laurence Fink at BlackRock, David Rubenstein of the Carlyle Group, Sheryl Sandberg at Facebook, Marc Benioff of Salesforce…
Anyone who deviates from the left’s global agenda is marginalized…
https://www.wsj.com/articles/for-liberal-elites-at-davos-some-animals-are-more-equal-than-others-11579895493
30
The debate?
“06:43 PM ET 02/10/2015
Economic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man’s stewardship of the environment. But we know that’s not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.
At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.
Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.
Figueres is perhaps the perfect person for the job of transforming “the economic development model” because she’s really never seen it work. “If you look at Ms. Figueres’ Wikipedia page,” notes Cato economist Dan Mitchell: Making the world look at their right hand while they choke developed economies with their left.”
50
“The Yellow Brick Road to Climate Change
January has certainly been a defining month in the quest for truth about climate change, and the custodians of that “truth” aren’t looking that flash at the moment. Indeed in the month of January some of the major doomsday prophecies unravelled and the prophets themselves seemed to undergo vows of silence. Kevin Rudd, Penny Wong, Tim Flannery — who are never lost for words — seemed, well… totally lost for words!
Like Dorothy, Lion, Tin Man and Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz, we’ve all been dancing down the Yellow Brick Road of “settled science” in search of answers from the Emerald City, only to find that what we suspected all along — the Wizard has been telling us fibs.
But who exactly is the Wizard? And where did this seeming-madness all begin?
Undoubtedly there are many “wizards”, but the man behind the green curtain, the man who managed to get the climate industry to where it is today is a mild mannered character by the name of Maurice Strong. The whole climate change business, and it is a business, started with Mr Strong.
Maurice Strong, a self-confessed socialist, was the man who put the United Nations into the environmental business, being the shadowy-figure behind the UN secretaries general from U Thant to Kofi Annan. His reign of influence in world affairs lasted from 1962 to 2005. Strong has been variously called “the international man of mystery”, the “new guy in your future” and “a very dangerous ideologue”.
Strong made his fortune in the oil and energy business running companies such as Petro Canada, Power Corporation, CalTex Africa, Hydro Canada, the Colorado Land and Cattle Company, Ajax Petroleum, Canadian Industrial Oil and Gas— to name just a few.His private interests always seemed to be in conflict with his public persona and his work on the world stage. Strong’s extensive range of contacts within the power brokers of the world was exceptional. One admirer christened him “the Michelangelo of networking”.
Maurice Strong described himself as “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology”.
In 1972 he organised for U Thant the first Earth Summit, The Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. This led to the formation of UN Environment Program with Maurice Strong at its head. Later, as the UNEP boss he organised the first international expert group meeting on climate change.
This led to exotic UN sponsored organizations such at Earth Council and Earth Charter, The World Resources Institute, the World Wildlife Fund and later The Commission for World Governance and the UN’s University for Peace. Strong was the driving force behind the idea of world governance by the United Nations when he dreamt up a world tax on monetary transactions of 0.5% which would have given theUN an annual income of $1.5 trillion. About equal then to the income of the USA.
The stumbling block was the Security Council, and their power of veto. He devised a plan to get rid of the Security Council but failed to get it implemented. Then came along the idea that global warming might just be the device to get his World Governance proposal up and running.
In 1989 Maurice Strong was appointed Secretary General of the Earth Summit and in 1992, addressing Earth Summit II in Rio, he told the thousands of climate change delegates:
It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class— involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work place air-conditioning, and suburbanhousing — are not sustainable.
There goes the Sunday roast, a house to live in, the car, the occasional hamburger and generally, life on earth as we know it. But what Strong didn’t tell the delegates was that he was involved in the purchase of the Colorado Land and Cattle Company, which he bought from Adnan Khashoggi, an arms dealer who had strong connections with the Bin Laden family.
This 200,000 acre cattle property, called the Baca had two hidden secrets. One was that it sat above vast underground water systems, which Strong wanted to remove. He formed the American Water Development Corporation to exploit the water by pumping it out for commercial intent but was stopped by the locals as they feared it would destroy the delicate environment.
The second secret was that Maurice Strong had been told by a mystic that:
The Baca would become the centre for a new planetary order which would evolve from the economic collapse and environmental catastrophes that would sweep the globe in the years to come.
As a result of these revelations Strong created the Manitou Foundation, a New Age institution located at the Baca ranch — above the sacred waters that Strong had been denied permission to pump out. This hocus-pocus continued with the foundation of The Conservation Fund (with financial help of Laurance Rockefeller) to study the mystical properties of the Manitou Mountain. At the Baca ranch there is a circular temple devoted to the world’s mystical and religious movements.
The valley in which the Baca establishment is located is also traditional home for various Navajo tribes. They believe that their ancestors were led underground here by “Ant People” and according to Navajo tradition they were warned of a coming cataclysm by “sky katchinas” (sky spirits). No wonder Strong wanted to buy the Baca.
Meanwhile Maurice was also busy founding the Earth Council Institute in 1992 and recruiting world luminaries such as Mikhail Gorbachev, Shimon Peres, Al Gore and David Rockefeller. In 2000 Earth Charter was formed as a further push by Strong to create a world governing body.
Unfortunately, in 2005, the most powerful man in the push to save of humanity — by steady promotion of the theory of human induced greenhouse gases — was caught with his hand in the till.
Investigations into the UN’s Oil-for-Food-Program found that Strong had endorsed a cheque for $988,885 made out to M. Strong — issued by a Jordanian bank. The man who gave the cheque, South Korean business man Tongsun Park was convicted in 2006 in a US Federal court of conspiring to bribe UN officials. Strong resigned and fled to Canada and thence to China where he has been living ever since.
Strong is believed to have sanctuary in China because of his cousin, Anne Louise Strong, a Marxist who lived with Mao Tse Tung for two years, and when she died in 1970, her funeral was arranged by Premier Chou En-Lai. Anne Louise Strong was a Comintern member — an organization formed in 1919 as the Third International, with one of its aims to use “by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie…”
Maurice Strong, as an 18-year-old Canadian from Manitoba, started work at the United Nations in 1947 as a junior officer in the UN Security Section, living with the UN Treasurer, Noah Monod. Following his exposure for bribery and corruption in the UN’s Oil-for-Food scandal Maurice Strong was stripped of many of his 53 international awards and honours he had collected during his lifetime working in dual role of arch conservationist and ruthless businessman.
The exposure and downfall of climate change’s most powerful wizard? Dorothy and Toto would have loved it!”
100
Worth bottling!
20
What a load of utter tosh from Reuter’s suggesting Donald Trump is sparring with an imbecilic 17 year old. Putting her on an equal footing with him. It’s just so sick and insane you really know the lunatics are in charge of the asylum.
200
Fully agree. This is fake news. Trump ignored her and never mentioned her. He talked about all the legions of profiteers with their dismal science.
190
His exact words were to “reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of apocalypse”. How is that about Greta? This Greta story is fake news, like all Greta stories. She is truly Lenin’s useful idiot. And the UN and EU and Davos agree. Why else would she be given such a platform repeatedly? She is their great hope for more money from the next generation.
Greta knows only what she is told and says only what is written for her and her father and an Indian activist from the UN write her responses. She is a credible actress with passion. The incident where she sat in first class on the train home but they took a photo of her on the floor to create this image of suffering. Except the train company called it out. Stage managed and advised by a lot of people, including Hollywood actor activists like Arnold Schwarznegger.
140
“reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of apocalypse”
So the press automatically thought he was talking about Greta..
Sort of an admission that they know that is she is, wouldn’t you say. 😉
130
Quite right Ceres. Trump never met her at the event and since he gave his speech first how on Earth could he be sparring with her.
00
End of Debate.
40
Like all the other German surrenders, they have conceded but they didn’t lose and the war continues. It’s a war for control of Europe and then of the world by a business and political alliance of the French, Germans, Iranians and Chinese. And most of Europe is under their control, even Italy. Again.
83
TdeF:
There are rumblings that (following Brexit) Spain and Poland want to leave the EU.
Possibly because they foresee demands for more money to prop up the system. Also I note that The Netherlands have problems funding their guaranteed retirement pension scheme, and may to either cut the pension or increase the contributions, neither of which will be popular. (This comes about 35 years after a Dutch visitor (on business) expressed some scepticism about the scheme lasting, although I would think that by now he would be on the teat).
80
OT but do NASA really believe CO2 is a cooling gas ?
https://coldclimatechange.com/carbon-dioxide-is-a-cooling-gas-according-to-nasa/?fbclid=IwAR1icH76kuoKyiQQ-04I700Mz2hJ1BFSVP2vAks5SJRIyTzm7wwW50W2O7s
30
No – https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/28/a-misinterpreted-claim-about-a-nasa-press-release-co2-solar-flares-and-the-thermosphere-is-making-the-rounds/
30
Looks like WattsUpWithThat are big pushers of the Greenhouse Effect.
If that’s correct, then a spot of ”dialog” with Merkel could see them on her side.
21
followup to WSJ’s piece on Davos – comment #47:
27m30s to 32m46s: Woke Capitalism – Goldman Sachs. China exempted. ends with Alaska’s Republican Governor, Mike Dunleavy, on Goldman earlier claiming they will no longer fund fossil fuels.
Youtube: 36m22s: Fox News: Tucker Carlson Tonight 1/24/20 FULL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNhWNM5R6uU
30
Greta exposed again …
https://www.michaelsmithnews.com
30
https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2020/01/greta-inc-rebel-media-exposé-on-the-people-behind-greta-the-climate-child.html
30
“… since time is running out to cut the emissions that drive global warming,”
Hang on a minute.Isn’t this the question up for discussion?
60
If Angela Merkel was truly interested in hearing sceptics’ views…they could ask her
… why after numerous billions spent…Germany’s 34% intermittents [wind and solar] still can’t do without 66% of hostage baseload generation…comprising Coal… Gas…Nuclear…Hydro…Biomass…to keep their system strong and stable.
…why the huge quantity of CO2 emitted by transport and burning of biomass is not counted…
…why …as a former scientist… does she condone the consensus that was/is the antithesis of science…the anti-science shutdown of questioning on the consensus and of debate thereafter…’losing’….hiding of raw data…the sham inquiries…the corruption of peer review…the cavalier lack of adherence to their own standards for weather stations…when the T increases they want to use to upend civilization and destroy whole countries….are so tiny as to be almost imperceptible….and why is the hypothesis she’s so certain of …so fragile and weak as to warrant the sacking of dissenting scientists..
…how that consensus could possibly have been legitimate when so many of the vital aspects of climate had either not been researched at all…or hardly at all…still evidenced by IPCC reports’ mantra ‘poorly understood’ ‘little understood’…all through the bodies of the reports.
Eg cloud research not done…temperature of 70% of earth ie oceans not known [unreliable and known to be inadequate XBTs and buckets having been the methods]……oscillations , ocean upwellings and other ocean dynamics worldwide….climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 etc etc….all hardly researched…
….by how much have the far more potent GHGases ….SF6:23000X the potency of CO2 and resident >1000years in the atmosphere and NF3: 17200x potency of CO2 and resident 100years in the atmosphere….from manufacture of Germany’s turbines and solar panels….increased global temperature…and how much more damage will they cause by the time Global Socialism has ensured the whole world is powered by wind and solar….why specifically is she unconcerned about THEM.
…how massive will the humungous overbuild of wind and solar have to be in order to handle …amongst other impacts…the unprecedented waste problem Germany et al are brewing….how many citizens’ lives will Germany defile in order to accommodate it…
…Y is she…Merkel …so alarmed … so concerned about CO2…and yet apparently totally unconcerned about the Arctic ice …glaciers and permafrost ….that are massively blanketed in soot [not CO2]mainly from sources other than coal…like the burning of rainforests for palm oil for Europe…and certainly not from modern coal-fired power stations….the soot that diminishes earth’s vital albedo so that the sun’s radiation is absorbed instead of reflected…melting the ice…leaving warmer dark water where once there was reflective ice…the water then absorbing more heat…melting more ambient ice and setting up a self-perpetuating global warming cycle.
Scientists testified about the soot to Congress a decade ago…even godfather of CAGW James Hansen has said that the soot was a more urgent problem than CO2….that this soot was causing up to 50%…some say more… of the GW …and could be relatively easily mitigated[ much more easily than CO2] for almost immediate effect….yet the soot just builds.
The Australian fires …thanks to our feral arsonists and Greens…will no doubt add to the soot problem in the Antarctic.
….Ms Merkel should be asked to explain how the CO2 molecule …the warming effect of which diminishes with each new increment…how it overwhelms cloud effects …orbital shifts …ocean dynamics…the powerful oscillations…the Sun’s effects which are really what impact earth’s climate as NZ physicist [ working at Texas State ]…Dr Brian Tinsley has shown.
…Ms Merkel should be asked to specify exactly what period of the CO2 era….1850 to now…shows significant global warming that’s not natural…that can only be attributed to CO2.There isn’t any period she could point to except the 20 year blip in the scheme of things…from ~1979 to 1999 …ie the all-natural period that began with the natural ocean upwelling…the Great Pacific Climate Shift of the late 1970s that ended that new ice age alarm… then lifted GT to a new plateau …and ended when the 98/99 uber El Nino lifted GW again …followed by the pause.
….Merkel should be asked is that natural warming what she would call unimpeachable scientific evidence ….on the basis of which democratic nations should be coerced into relinquishing their sovereignty…security and freedom…to be fleeced and have their children’s futures future stolen… Global Socialism?
80
Ah let’s not worry about respect – both sides have been derisory and rude as you can get. How about concentrating on getting somewhere (and you can swear at us if you like).
So in the interests of getting somewhere, we perhaps could find out what it might take to convince each other or seed some doubt.
A list of what we might agree on – correct me if I’m wrong but I thought Jo accepted CO2 as a greenhouse gas worth about 1C for a doubling of CO2 but doesn’t except the water vapour feedbacks.
Coal vs new nuclear vs wind and solar anyone?
Yours probably disrespectfully, but yo’all are sure interesting nonetheless (well some of you).
FIGJAM (truck I’m good – just ask me)
212
Lets cut to the very bottom of this argument.
Is warming happening ?
Well the BOM should be able to provide good observations
Of a warming temperatures all over Australia
To support this assertion.
However we now know that 326 of the BOM’s network of 720 weather stations
Have NOT
Do NOT
And CANNOT
Provide accurate temperature observations.
Think about that Vishnu !
The BOM’s data is fake !
And around 60% of the Southern hemisphere is ocean
With very few weather stations
So the Australian network of weather stations
( but producing a lot of fake data )
Is crucial to any accurate conclusion about the southern hemisphere
And thus about the planet !
80
That’s right. We’ve got no way of knowing. Warming could be happening (though it’s of no importance since temperature can only do two things and some multi-decadal warming is as inevitable as some cooling). Basically, you’ve got a few stations for a vast area to guess at something which doesn’t matter.
We can’t know what’s going on even on the most superficial level (leaving out cloud, UHI etc) because the BoM lost whatever modest ability it had to measure temp and precipation. I know from last week they can lose a flood when it’s pouring and find one when it’s bone dry. God knows what happens behind those unsupervised temp screens. I guess having smaller boxes makes things a bit hotter but also cools by discouraging possums. We’ll never know.
60
Funny that UAH sez it’s warming though – so inconvenient. But yawn do your own analysis and tell us – you really don’t know either….
04
Don’t step completely out of character. Remember you are supposed to be a bit of a skeptic, albeit with a touch of the IPCCs!
Miss the bit where I said it might be warming but doesn’t matter? As for doing my own…Why add to the fund of climate Lysenkoism? Because I “really don’t know either”. I only know it doesn’t matter if one nag gets its head slightly in front during a slow two-horse race. UAH says it’s warming? Probably true. I wouldn’t cross the street to find out. On the other hand, I’d go to a lot of trouble to check out manipulation and fakery of climate history for creepy political purposes.
If temps are up since the late 19th century and sea levels are up since the 1700s (but not since Med or Roman Warmings!) I couldn’t care less. Neither should you care.
I haven’t encountered the skep who thought we should be in a bone-crushing ice age by now, though I’ve run across a few who believe some sort of major cooling has started. (I’m open, barely, but not at all convinced.)
On the other hand, I’ve found one or two experts on the other side who vaguely assert we would be in a cooling phase or even at Holocene’s end but for our naughty emissions. They’re like the types who explain away the LIA as forest regrowth after the Black Death. They get their climate from The Guardian and their history from Steve Reeves toga movies.
50
Try David Archibald or Graeme Bird
02
Still waiting for your empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
You are still EMPTY.
20
Funny you should mention UAH, because it shows that the only warming in 40 years has come from El Nino events.
Doesn’t that just bust your mythical CO2-warming non-science. 😉
40
Sigh pity about the trend. And matching overall the other temperature analyses. Be careful you’re about to stand on a gotcha land mine – are you saying the that internal variation is going to find free energy and make a long term warming. Really? Ask Mum.
11
Yep, only warming is from El Ninos, so nothing to do with atmospheric CO2
Pity for you, isn’t it.
Are you saying the only warming in the fabricated urban heat based fabrications only shows warming during El Ninos?? Interesting. 😉
You do realise that when you homogenise and infill and fabricate a large proportion of the data, any real signal of anything gets totally obliterated, don’t you !
Or is maths another of your very weak points.
Still waiting for your empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2
Why are you ducking and weaving, when it should be so easy for you.
All you have so far, is childish non-science bluster.
10
What on Earth are you on about. The ENSO is simply transfer of warm water from East to West and then back again. This transfer creates droughts in Australia or in North America as the cycle turns but it does not alter the Earth’s total temperature one whit. Urban heat effect is a fabrication? Codswallop! But I do thank you. Your comment about childish non science bluster from someone that does nothing but had me falling off my chair laughing. I have no knowledge of Vishnu’s mathematical and science background or capability. However from your posts it is clear that your’s is totally lacking and that you are incapable of reasoned discussion.
11
Poor Brian,
You really are clueless, aren’t you
Still waiting for your empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2
“Urban heat effect is a fabrication? “
No its very real, its all the rest of the junk that they put in as well.. Of course there is massive warming, from UHI, and on top of that, fabricated and homogenised to that UHI, and then mal-adjusted to meet the AGW agenda.
The whole surface data mess is a fabrication, bearing basically zero correspondence to reality.
I told you your maths ability was rock bottom, and you went right ahead and proved it. Well done 🙂
21
“but it does not alter the Earth’s total temperature one whit”
LOL, now you really are fooling yourself.
What do you think the 1998 spike and the 2015/16 spike is in the UAH data.. fairy dust ?
You really are showing your abject ignorance now.
Please keep going 😉
11
Brian its obvious that ENSO is the temperature control knob, El Nino warm and La Nina cool.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2019_v6.jpg
10
Vishnu:
I agree that CO2 could cause some warming, although only by 0.07℃ by a doubling (to 820 p.p.m.).
After all the Mesozoic period had the dinosaurs roaming around with CO2 at 1600-1950 p.p.m. (Cretaceous) or 2200-2700 (Jurassic). If the Earth’s temperatures went up by 3.5℃ for each doubling (including the 3 times jump from water vapour as imagined in Climate Models) then dinosaurs would all have died from heat stroke long before the asteroid (when the Earth would have been 15℃ warmer than now).
And during the Cambrian there was an explosion of life at 7,000 p.p.m. when (by Climate models) the Earth would have been over 40℃ warmer than now. As many of those genera have survived to the present day, it seems unlikely to have been that warm.
60
Oh for heaven’s sake what piffle – factor in the solar output then and report back.
Try this for some education – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBF6F4Bi6Sg&t=435s first 10 minutes
The old solar output trick eh?
15
Solar output… hmmm.. ok !
And potholer.. not remotely science, just propaganda nonsense and non-fact for the died-in-the -wool alarmist.
40
That would be peer-reviewed journal literature from diverse sources as opposed to your wonky opinion from your poorly lit basement.
All listed on his posts – unlike your screamo bleats of protest. Not an argument mate.
02
Present it, instead of blustering about it.
Still waiting for your empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2
Stop your silly ducking and weaving, it makes you look like you know that you have nothing to offer in the way of actual science.
20
Free Speech has arrived.
http://joannenova.com.au/2020/01/merkel-says-she-wants-to-talk-to-skeptics-ill-believe-it-when-i-see-it/#comment-2263203
10
So the sun is getting hotter, so the cooler output was offset by the higher CO2 levels?
How does that explain how over the Jurassic with the sun getting warmer and the CO2 rising, the temperature dropped? And the same event appears in the latter part of the Cretaceous, with rising solar output and rising CO2 but the temperature dropping.
And if you do the calculations you will find that the “forcing” by CO2 dropped as time went by.
40
Yep – the temperature is actually a combination of solar output, greenhouse gases, aerosols and atmospheric dust, continental configuration (Pangea) and Milankovitch.
So you have to crunch the maths – things can be rising but still not enough. However when you do combine at a basic level you get more than plausible result.
If there was no sun there would be no greenhouse forcing.
12
Please show us empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2
Atmosphere is provably in thermal equilibrium.
That means that any tiny imaginary warming from CO2 would be immediately countered by the gravity based thermal gradient.
Perhaps that is why you are incapable of finding any actual empirical evidence. 😉
20
No point – you’ve already proved you can’t and don’t read papers. You just bleat and rabbit little memes you’ve picked up.
Not one science paper from you shonky-tonks.
“Atmosphere is provably in thermal equilibrium.” well that explains the lack of weather and wind on the planet. Your drivel is a gift.
12
Your EVASION tactics are hilarious.
Please keep going.
EVERYONE is watching you.. 😀
Sorry you don’t understand thermal equilibrium.. not my problem. ! 😉
Now…
Please show us empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2
20
“If there was no sun there would be no greenhouse forcing.”
There would be no heat at all, except from internal energies and gravity.
Finally you may just be understanding the effect of the SUN.
The SUN, with all its various outputs + maybe some energy from below, + GRAVITY !
CO2 does not produce any energy of any kind.
It is a non-entity when it comes to heating anything.
20
‘ … greenhouse gases …’
Water vapour is top dog, sir.
10
Why does Jo allow this continued access to the blog.
The content is irrelevant, aggressive, insulting and not based on science.
Is this really “free speech”?
KK
?
10
The greenhouse effectiveness of CO2 as a function of atmospheric partial pressure is pseudo logarithmic. All this means really is that there is only so much infrared at the CO2 excitation frequencies and eventually the absorption windows become saturated. But to be fair Graeme, during the Cretaceous when the dinosaurs shuffled off this mortal coil, temperatures were around 12 degrees Celsius above the present despite then fact that he sun was slightly cooler.
03
Measurements show that it levels off at 280ppm. (too much science for you to comprehend, Brian ?)
But that is immaterial, because the gravity thermal mechanism is now proven to be the over-riding factor in energy transfer in the atmosphere.
11
Antarctic sea ice is about average.
https://sunshinehours.net
70
And Arctic sea ice extent is above all the last decade according to NSIDC data.
60
“FIGJAM (truck I’m good – just ask me)”
Sounds like a reflected view from inside a small bubble?
60
Could not have been a though bubble, though, could it.
Totally absent thereof.
40
Vishnu the blocking high in the Tasman Sea, is it a global warming signal?
https://www.weatherzone.com.au/synoptic.jsp?d=0
60
Don’t know. you have to careful about attributing everything to AGW – need a mechanism.
12
“need a mechanism.”
You mean like a verified, measured mechanism for warming by atmospheric CO2..
… or one of your unsubstantiated fantasy mechanisms, with zero backing of any real physics ?
10
I’m having problems with Dr Baker’s hypothesis, that the sun is a major driver, what do you think?
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6576740/change-in-the-weather-just-around-the-corner/?cs=14264
40
At the same time I’m prepared to concede a point, the North Atlantic Oscillation is not influenced by the sun.
https://phys.org/news/2019-01-debunking-solar-cyclenorth-atlantic-winter-weather.html
40
Vishnu, if you want to get somewhere try being a bit more respectful.
All this is, is a simple matter of science and not belief. The IPCC models gave all been proven inaccurare and there is no scientifically proven runaway global warming, as claimed by alarmists.
QED
60
Oh you might need to be updated on models.
Alarmists – yep awful as are ice age sceptic alarmists.
15
“be updated on models.”
Yep, they have just made them even worse, when compared to reality.
60
‘ … ice age sceptic alarmists.’
None of us here believe that an ice age is imminent, the best we can expect is a return to the 1950s cool period.
60
“the best we can expect is a return to the 1950s cool period.”
That could have quite a detrimental effect on global food production.
So let’s hope not.
50
True, but it could be worse.
In my conversations with warmists I’m playing down catastrophism and remind them of the UK winter of 1962-63 when the Beatles were playing at the Cavern. It was incredibly cold outside, ice formed on the English Channel, but the people survived and will do so again.
Vishnu would say its complete rubbish, that is history, never to be repeated in a warming world. So while we wait for the Thames to freeze again (this time without coal fired power stations on its banks) it would be good to come up with a hindcast as an indication of what is coming.
40
El Gordo – not complete rubbish and they should play down the catastrophism. But that would leave nothing to glue yourself to the street for. Just between you and me while Jo isn’t looking – the links between AGW and changes in current extreme events are poor – even the IPCC says low confidence. I get in trouble from my warmists mates on drought pointing out the palaeo droughts Vance et al and Coates-Marnane et al show droughts worse than the climate change runs. But hate to say you might see the Thames freeze if you disrupt the polar vortex enough.
BTW I’m with these guys – https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/12/04/why-climate-alarmism-hurts-us-all/#5f664e2e36d8 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1f4BKsFrCA&t=781s
22
So you are a lukewarmer pushing nuclear power?
20
El Gordo old mate – it’s true none of you here. But here ain’t everywhere.
I was going to add in AndyG but would be not nice. I need to be nicer to Andy – I sort of like him. He tries hard and is cute for a curmudgeon.
Gotta have an outlet for the Mum jokes though.
22
Another ZERO EVIDENCE rant, hey. :-).
Means we are all still waiting for his evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2
Its almost as though he KNOWS it does not exist,
… and is running around in ever decreasing circles,
which will eventually end up with him disappearing up his own rear end.
20
UK Met say bushfires will get worse under global warming, Vishnu do you accept their argument?
‘The recent high temperatures and drought in Australia arose from weather patterns associated with natural climate variability, but can be expected to have been hotter because of human-induced climate change.
‘Ongoing climate change is projected to increase fire weather in Australia and elsewhere.’
30
If they can present a science argument for more heat waves, evaporative demand and drought – well yes it would add “something”. But main game is fuel loads and internal climate variability (ENSO, IOD, SAM etc). It’s a question as to what “something” is – 5%, 10%, 50%, 100%
23
At the Royal Commission do you think we should leave out any reference to projections based on imminent global warming?
10
No empirical evidence.. you never have any, because it doesn’t exist.
Atmosphere is in thermal equilibrium, measured and proven.
That mean “hot spot” cannot exist,
neither have warming by atmospheric CO2
Game over
61
“we perhaps could find out what it might take to convince each other”
We are still waiting for you to produce some empirical evidence of CO2 warming of the atmosphere..
How is your utter and complete failure to produce any, meant to convince anybody ??
50
Sorry unlike others here you have proved disingenuous. I have given you probably about 20 key references before. Your predictable response to scream nonsense and make up pseudoscience babble. Nothing incisive or with a back and forth aspect to a discussion. You want me to waste my time posting links so incrementally you can just screech. Not playing unless you get better. Brian above has told your El Nino comment was beyond stupid.
13
Unlike all other AGW fakers, you have proven you are totally unable to produce any empirical evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2.
We are STILL WAITING….. your evasion is totally hilarious.. 😀
Stop stalling and present some of your science.
30
“Brian above has told your El Nino comment was beyond stupid.”
Comment from brain about stupid.. LOL. Talk about irrelevant. !!
He should be in a room of mirrors !!
He has proven, that like you, he has minimal scientific understanding,
and cannot produce one bit of evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
STILL WAITING !!
21
Andy Griffith doesn’t even understand ENSO – I’m still kacking. Mate you made a horses bass of yourself there.
Anyway ask Mommy for some cookies and milk.
And BTW have you seen the latest real deal climate post. Tell them your theories – expand your horizons – leave the comfort of the echo chamber and show my how good you are with the big boys.
02
The hilarious EVASION child-troll tactic continue… 😀
Vishnu.. all waffle and bluster, but NO SCIENCE.
Comprehension of science very limited, barely to junior high rote learning level
We are still waiting for you to produce some empirical evidence of CO2 warming of the atmosphere..
10
Andy Griffith doesn’t even understand ENSO – I’m still kacking. Mate you made a horses bass of yourself there.
Anyway ask Mommy for some cookies and milk.
And BTW have you seen the latest real deal climate post. Tell them your theories – expand your horizons – leave the comfort of the echo chamber and show my how good you are with the big boys.
02
Still empty, hey vish
Sorry you don’t understand anything about the atmosphere, just waffle and twaddle.
We are still waiting for you to produce some empirical evidence of CO2 warming of the atmosphere..
10
Yes Brian had a brain. That’s the point.
02
You obviously don’t
Or have never actually learnt how to use the tiny one you might have (no evidence of that either)
STILL WAITING.. waiting… , yawn !
10
Here Vishnu have some science …
https://twitter.com/NikolovScience/status/1102585718633713665
20
Twitter warns me this is a hackers web site that steals my password. Fair dink !
Models are doing pretty well on planet Earth though – check the lastest real deal climate post.
02
NO, climate models are basically useless.
Scatter gun.. and they still miss the barn.
And they certainly don’t provide any evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2.
10
Err nope. The data are in – you lose big time. Read it and weep and look at the correlation with UAH too. Woo hoo !
02
Yep no warming in UAH except at El Ninos.
So sad for the AGW meme, wouldn’t you say. 😉
Glad you are saying that the surface data matches UAH, that means there is
No warming from 1980-1997
and no warming from 2001-2015
Y’see that is what happens when you use substandard data like the surface stations do, and then manipulate the stuffing out of it to create a fake data set..
You destroy all the information.
But that understanding of data manipulation is WAY beyond your feeble mathematical and statistical comprehension.
You use it to hide the fact that the only warming is at El Nino events
Why is it that you are totally incapable of producing any empirical data for warming by atmospheric CO2 ?
Because there isn’t any, and you know it, don’t you 😀
Stop running around like a headless chook in avoiding that fact, it just too funny to watch!
20
You’ve won this round Andy, and I’m presuming ‘before El Nino’ means taking it out of the equation?
10
o/t except that Merkel and the CAGW mob are still hoping Donald Trump doesn’t get a second term:
31m57s to the end: Pt 2 on the 2016 Obama Admin meeting with Ukrainian officials, one of whom has now admitted he was asked to find dirt on Trump. guests – Byron York, Sara Carter & Lee Smith.
Youtube: 40m17s: Fox News: The Ingraham Angle 1/24/20 FULL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erJUljUOJwI
40
Still trying to figure out Merkel’s seemingly contradictory statement. Perhaps “heal the gap” is the key. This sounds like the standard speech after an election victory. So maybe she just means make us skeptics feel better even though we lost (in her eyes anyway). She does say dialog, not debate. Maybe she just wants to talk to us, to soothe our supposed wounds.
But then the “time is running out” makes no sense.
I give up. First step in dialog is to ask her what the heck she means?
70
My comment to Stephen Wilde at 2.1.
She may sense that the Greens aren’t the most popular or reliable partners in the Coalition and wants to be able to switch to others to prop up her Coalition.
60
Split the Deniers is my guess.
If she can put together a gaggle of credentialled venal windbags and the Media
puff them like Greta Thunberg, then they’ll declare the ”Debate” over.
11
All this talk about ’emissions’. Measuring ’emissions’. Reducing ’emissions’.
What about measuring CO2 and seeing if what we and the US and UK and France and Germany and other countries are doing and showing that it is effective. Even showing that it has some effect. I’ll bet there is no discernible effect at all.
So why are we doing it?
If wrecking Australia is worthwhile, surely it has to have some benefit? So where is it? Why is no one asking whether we are getting anything for the $6Billion a year in payments for windmills? Or pink batts? Or solar panels? Or desalination plants?
Why is no one questioning what is being done? Now we are told hamburgers are killing the planet. It’s not science. It’s not religion. It’s vandalism by our political masters, no longer servants.
Cui Bono? Not Australians, that’s for sure. Maybe the Germans and the French and the merchant banks.
40
And as CO2 is going up steadily and air temperature is not, how is that explained? And how does a 50% increase in CO2 heat the oceans? Science was thrown out long ago. No real scientist believes a word of it. Those who do are paid.
40
Those supporting the climate change myth are not interested in the facts and truth. It’s a waste of time trying to explain to them why they are wrong. As far as they are concerned the debate is over, done and dusted. They have moved on and all they care about is how to reduce our emissions to 0% as quickly as possible at all costs. Logic to them is irrelevant. 0% emissions is their idol. If they could achieve it by sacrificing babies to their idol they would. What really annoys me though is the other sort of people who are appeasers. Morrison is one of them. He must know that reducing our emissions will do absolutely nothing to the climate yet he pushes that agenda as though it’s the only thing we can and must do to keep the “peace”. It’s a recipe for disaster.
30
Does anyone have a link to Merkel’s Davos remarks that Jo Nova cites?
Clearly she doesn’t want a ‘dialogue’: She just wants climate sceptics to agree that ‘time is running out’. But thus us precisely what the sceptics don’t agree.
70
Frank Davis –
below is Merkel’s speech in German, but with clear English translation on top. by tomorrow, there should be a full official transcript, which I’ll post if someone doesn’t do so earlier.
Jo’s brief Reuters’ piece by Joseph Nasr, editing by Thomas Escritt, merely states:
“She drew applause from the Davos audience when she said opposing sides in polarised debates such as that on climate change had to learn how to talk with each other again.”
note the “such as that on CC”.
CAGW comes up around 5m in. the applause, the timing of which seems planned, given she only takes a breath at that point, is about 15m56s and she then goes on to the high electricity prices in Germany, etc.
her desire is for all the CAGW believers in the world – including everyone at Davos apparently – to go out and convince those people, especially in rural Germany or rural anywhere (think Yellow Vests) – who don’t go along with CAGW policies or think they aren’t necessary right now – that CAGW is real and requires action now.
Youtube: 46m56s: Angela Merkel, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany: Special Address | DAVOS 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7McxPMjXuw
DW didn’t pick up on any interest in speaking to sceptics; if they had, they would have pounced on it:
23 Jan: Deutsche Welle: Merkel in Davos: ‘Our mistake was not being prepared for refugee crisis’
https://www.dw.com/en/merkel-in-davos-our-mistake-was-not-being-prepared-for-refugee-crisis/a-52126398
40
A German colleague has an interpretation that makes sense. Merkel wants to include skeptics in a dialog on how to get to zero emissions by 2050, or some such. Her political view is that since we are going to do this everyone should be at the table. What a joke!
60
22 Jan: BusinessInsider: 119 billionaires, 53 heads of state, and an $8.3 million security bill: A look at Davos by the numbers
Taylor Nicole Rogers
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/davos-by-the-numbers-billionaires-private-jets-security-bill-2020-1?r=US&IR=T
30
Don’t forget when Madame Merkle says she is open to talking to Non-believers she use to work for the East “We haff our ways” German Stasi. It has been described as one of the most effective and repressive intelligence and secret police agencies ever to have existed
60
Her rationale for wanting to open dialogue between believers and sceptics reveals why any conversation will be a waste of time.
The reason for wanting a conversation is because apparently we only have a few years left to survive because of carbon dioxide emissions that drive global warming. The assumption is that the warmist alarmism is true and sceptics need to converted before it is too late.
There will be no conversation, just more lecturing, and probably coersion by the climate priests who are gaining more control over public and corporate institutions. Merkel is like the witch of Narnia, intent on keeping the world captive to her cold and colourless worldview.
40
Lunacy is alive and well in Scotland, they are culling 13.9 million trees to put up wind farms.
81
They’re still smarter than us though.
We’ve got the most useless flammable trees on the Planet, and
we’ve made a Cult out of preserving them and extending their Range.
Believe it or not, some people are even suggesting employing Armies of people to rake up
the leaves, twigs, and bark these trees drop, to prevent the trees burning.
21
The Green Army, with Abbott at the helm, would employ 10,000 foreigners to clear away the undergrowth.
It would consist of guest workers, backpackers and wannabe immigrants, do you have a problem with this strategy? The only other alternative is to gouge out all the gums, except those in pocket national parks and wildlife corridors, pretty much log the rest.
31
Do you have any idea how much Forest Biomass and how much tree waste is out there?
A million people working a 40 hour week forever wouldn’t get there.
10
Here’s the link to the information page of the predominately German-language EIKE (European Institute for Climate and Energy) web site.
The site offers original content in German as well as many translated articles around the world for those who have only German in their trust. Of course it can take a while to translate other articles and to get permission to republish so there’s a lag for the foreign articles.
On Australia Day, it’s worthwhile to note great Australians also being recognized. The late Bob Carter was a well-regarded advisor to EIKE … and they miss him a great deal.
You can use translate.google.com for the German-language content to get the gist.
40
Merkel studied Agitprop under the Soviets and practices it well.
The call to unify believers and infidels is one to silence one so that only the other can be heard. It’s initially done by lies, bribes and threats. Then they get serious and try to unperson troublesome individuals.
If they do not then leave voluntarily, can be made to disappear in a barrage of process. There is always some law, some judge or magistrate, who will bow to political will and apply laws unjustly. While engaged in the battles of process is its expected that the troublesome individual will no longer have time to oppose the rulers.
When a nation can be heard to speak in only one voice then that voice is the echo of a tyrant.
si vis pacem, para bellum
70
Germany also imports wood pellets from Russia to burn in biomass power plants. These CO2 emissions are conveniently ignored by the EU.
40
Sure, they’re all hypocrites and liars.
What’s the End Game, that’s the issue?
These Critters endless inconsistencies are only a Sideshow.
20
I totally agree, and it’s really the shadows you have to watch out for.
Especially shadows that have poorly defined edges, they’re most dangerous.
KK
22
Thank you, PB.
20
You want to talk?
1. Then don’t make predictions that don’t come true.
2. When you make predictions don’t say they might come true.
3. Don’t live your life like you don’t believe a word you’re saying.
4. Don’t tell me to listen to children regurgitating points 1-3 as they need to eat their greens and get to bed and we’re done here.
50
Well gee wilkers – the lastest real deal climate post seems to indicate things are coming true. That’s a bit convenient – David Archibald said it was going to be in a massive cooling by now? What happened?
02
Gee wilkers.. Vishy STILL hasn’t got any evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2
How long can he hold out. 😉
How much more bluster and waffle will we see.
10
What happened is you don’t want to make predictions about climate as a gathering of weather data when you look back at the historical evidence of Ice Ages and interglaciations one of which we’re still experiencing thank goodness. Particularly so when you can’t backcast them with any model known to man or even predict the weather next week. Don’t go there unless you want to look as silly as the hubristic climate changers and their computer models and perpetual tipping points.
10
At this point you are trolling. You have had more than enough papers from me, when you have gone back and made an intelligent reaction (and after the ENSO goofup and slayer revelation, well that seems unlikely) we can move on. Like mate that ENSO goof was indicative you are clueless. So let’s see a nice orderly summary and we’ll chat – and still waiting for you to rock over to real deal climate blog and show them who is boss. Surely their latest post is an affront to you?
01
At this point you STILL haven’t produced one single paper with empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2
Nothing, Nada, ZIP
An empty chasm.
Your understanding of ENSO is that of a child.
You really think El Ninos don’t cause atmospheric warming !
WOW.. your full ignorance is totally exposed.
STILL WAITING for your evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2
You poor empty child-troll.
10
Magnificent – so ENSO causes atmospheric warming you say. And this goes on year after year and the global temperature increases over time as a result.
Snigger … Brian tried to tell you … giggle. So you’ve discovered Jack’s Beanstalk. A source of free energy.
00
“You have had more than enough papers from me”
Never any relevant papers.
Your mind is in a deep delusional fantasy.
Come on petal, choose just one, to show us all how little you are and how scientifically insignificant your mind really is.
What are you so scared of ?
Don’t be a COWARD all your life.
STILL WAITING for your empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2
10
Oh I get it – Andy is a replicant. That’s some incredible drongo AI – I get it now. That’s brilliant – drongo-bot.
Probably explains the ENSO goof – he/she/it didn’t notice the ambiguity even when explained.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Umc9ezAyJv0
So Andy or should we call you Leon – how do you feel about boiled dog for dinner? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Umc9ezAyJv0
01
I’ve said it elsewhere, the alarmists can’t debate the science with realists because all it is, man made CO2 causing warming is a dubious conjecture posited only on computer generated modelling and statistical manipulation of the T data sets and not least fiddling, forgetting, redrawing historical T records.
That’s why they won’t debate.
20
>Merkel says she wants to talk at skeptics. We’ll believe it when we see it FTFY we are a force to be reckoned with.
00