JoNova
A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets To report "lost" comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support.jonova AT proton.me
Statistics
https://asiatimes.com/2025/03/the-end-of-capitalism-or-the-end-of-civilization/
And yet Herrmann argues that there is no choice other than radical and seemingly unimaginable change if we are to survive in anything like a civilized condition:
There is no alternative for the industrialised countries. Either they end growth voluntarily, or the era of growth will end violently, when everything that forms the basis of our way of life has been destroyed.
For what it’s worth, I agree. I am not a climate scientist, but I recognize that there is an intellectual division of labor that is a central component of modernity. None of us is capable of knowing everything about the increasingly complex world in which we live.
But if something like 99% of climate scientists agree on the causes and likely consequences of climate change, I am happy to take their word for it. What possible basis could I have to disagree?
She also wrote Get older, dare to do something new (2008) – about breaking retirement stereotypes.
Grumpy old people telling the young they are ruining everything and the end of the world is just around the corner is a stereotype I have. Just sayin’
51
Remarkably pure silliness.
110
“if something like 99% of climate scientists agree”
Uff da! Where did the 99% come from? I’m not sure what a “climate scientist” is but likely the percentages ought to be reversed.
100
One source of many: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966
There hasn’t been a paper questioning the efficacy of greenhouse gases in a premier journal for years.
015
Yes, the peer review system is 100% pure propaganda.
What’s amazing Simon is that you think this looks scientific?
190
That GHGs are real is not the issue. The 97% claim is that the CO2 increase is at least a partial cause of the warming. Nothing about “consequences” or a need for action which is what is said above which is truly silly.
40
Consense isn’t Science, period.
50
Simon, the letter you reference is entitled “Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature”.
We have repeatedly pointed out that “consensus” is not a part of the scientific method.
Consensus is not science and does not decide scientific fact.
Why do you and your comrades keep raising that?
BTW, the figure that used to be quoted was 97% and that waa also thoroughly debunked. See https://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/cooks-97-consensus-is-a-case-study-of-agnotology-ignorance-and-misinformation/
Also note:
50
Simon
I know for a fact that the UK Met office would not sanction their scientists writing articles that might question the notion of man made climate change. There is group think involved plus analysing “man made” climate change is where a lot of their funding is intended for, that comes from the Govt. Not everyone at the Met Office is 100% convinced but they wouldnt dare question the consensus.
60
The 99% is a misstatement of several questionable studies claiming to find that 97% of published climate scientists accept that the CO2 increase is causing some of the warming. None actually polled scientists.
60
The other 1% do not have to rely on agreeing with the “consensus” because their employment demands it.
00
My latest strategic analysis:
EPA questions 31 major energy regulations
By David Wojick
https://www.cfact.org/2025/03/15/epa-questions-31-major-energy-regulations
EPA has launched a huge regulatory reform process reconsidering 31 of its biggest energy related regulations.
A lot of the war on coal is under the gun plus some really bad automotive stuff. Much of it is climate related so including the bogus CO2 Endangerment Finding is very important. If that goes away a lot of the rest might be easily killed. Examples include coal and gas killing CO2 limits on power plants. Then there are the impossible CO2 limits on cars and trucks that are designed to force people into electric vehicles.
The really good news is the scope is way broader than just climate. It includes sweeping rules like the completely unscientific PM2.5 limits. There is also my personal favorite the rule on mercury emissions from coal fired power plants where EPA said there was no evidence but we are going to regulate it anyway.
Each of these “reconsiderations” will require a full scale rule making so there is a huge amount of work to do. Who will do this work is an interesting question given the pending job cuts plus the fact that most EPA folks love these bad rules. New hires and contracts may be coming but these multiple rule making processes will take a year or more to play through.
I think EPA has at least three different strategies for killing these bad rules. Some are easier than others and which is best for each case remains to be seen.
The most laborious strategy is a rule making based on new science. This involves a lot of research and a completely new set of technical support documents. It may well be required for reversing the Endangerment Finding but since it was done in 2009 there is plenty of newer science to draw on. That the predicted harms failed to occur is especially useful.
The somewhat easier second strategy is to simply compile the arguments against the questionable rule that were filed as comments during its rule making. In this case the new finding is that the prior finding was mistaken. It may be necessary to throw in a bit of new science but most of the research has already been done.
Mercury from coal is a likely prospect here as EPA previously admitted that they could find no physical evidence that the minor mercury emissions from coal burning were the cause of the mercury found in some lakes. The filings against this foolish rule were extensive.
The wacky PM2.5 rule is another likely candidate as PM2.5 is not even a specific substance, just a particle size. There are whole books about how ridiculous this EPA rule is.
These first two strategies use scientific arguments while the third uses a legal argument. In this case EPA simply says it did not have the legal authority to issue the rule in question. Administrator Lee Zeldin has repeatedly said that prior EPA’s have gone way beyond their mission and statutory authority. This sets the stage for rescinding prior rules as illegal.
Interestingly the recent Supreme Court rejection of the prior “Chevron doctrine” makes this legal argument stronger. That doctrine basically said the Courts must defer to the Agencies when it comes to interpreting the law. It follows that EPA rules previously deemed allowable under Chevron may no longer be allowable and EPA itself can make that determination.
Then too if the Endangerment Finding is repealed the other climate rules might all lose their legal basis. Endangerment is a necessary condition for regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act.
What is certain is that 31 big fights lie ahead making this EPA combined action a truly breathtaking event. Stay tuned to CFACT as this supreme battle unfolds.
Please share this article.
120
I think that during the rulemaking process, when the EPA has finished collecting data, it can issue a “dear colleagues” letter, stating that rulemaking is underway,
that the preponderance of the evidence indicates the rule will be repealed, and therefore the agency is adopting a position of non-enforcement until the actual rule is promulgated.
This will greenlight producers starting the processes on hold due to non-compliance, like auto model planning, with less risk and some comfort for financing. The method was used to intimidate industry by the prior administration, even for rules that later didn’t pass court muster. Administrators have a great deal of power regarding enforcement intensity, or forbearance.
70
Let the new rule making begin!
00
I think NOAA wants us to stop cooking…
NOAA study says cooking contributes substantially to ozone pollution in L.A. area
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2025/03/13/cooking-ozone/4191741900746/
50
Nonsense stories like this might be a last desperate attempt by NOAA to make themselves appear worthy and useful as this woke agency is soon to be subject to massive job and funding cuts by TRUMP and DOGE.
Tony Heller has documented data fraud at NOAA.
https://www.tftc.io/us-temperature-record-adjustments/
Most news reports about cuts to NOAA make out it will be the end of the world but they’ll just have to learn to do their designated job honestly and efficiently and not engage in global warming propaganda.
https://apnews.com/article/noaa-job-cuts-weather-forecasts-trump-doge-musk-7e35e9d5d757d8fc3f0f50b2bd71c87d
20
Climate Change is people.
20
https://youtu.be/4UPDUpjkHg0
00
And the WEF want’s us to stop growing our own Vegies
https://slaynews.com/news/wef-demands-global-ban-home-grown-food-meet-net-zero/
It would be nice if a stray comet might accidentally strile one of these meetings and take the whole Davos mob out.
I think more than half the worlds prblems would be taken care of if this did happen.
Oh well I can at least dream.
10
The Misdeeds of AHPRA
The Australian Medical Professionals Society and the Australian Doctors Federation are holding a conference in Sydney on Saturday 03 May to examine wrongdoing by the health regulator, the Australasian Health Professionals Regulatory Authority (AHPRA).
https://www.accountabilityaustralia.com.au/
Registration is now open.
70
AMPS has done a courageous job over the past few years in contesting the gross overreach of AHPRA. They have been both ignored and vilified by the medical bureaucrats. Maybe there time has come as the world is realising how terribly wrong the response to Covid was. But I won’t hold my breath waiting…….
00
Just when many sensible organisations are abandoning woke, now chess.com wants to go woke and rename the bishop chess piece.
https://x.com/chesscom/status/1900630055677497379
It may not surprise you to know that chess.com is headquartered in Berkeley, California.
And why stop at the bishop? There are gendered names like the king and queen and the knight…
Styxhexenhammer comments:
https://youtu.be/b98u6sFAvfM
30
Update on the Mann vs Steyn case:
Trial of Mann v. Steyn: Post-Trial Motions Edition
From THE MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN
Francis Menton
Way back in the ancient year of 2012 — before this blog had even been started — Penn State climate “scientist” Michael Mann brought a lawsuit for defamation against Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg, as well as against two websites (National Review and CEI) that had hosted the blog posts of those two individuals. Mann asserted that his reputation had been damaged by the Steyn and Simberg posts, which had compared Mann to fellow Penn Stater Jerry Sandusky.
…
In the succeeding years, the case went through a truly unbelievable history of procedural twists and turns, including multiple motions to dismiss and appeals.
…
So the contours of the “final judgment” in this case are coming into view. Mann will be awarded $1001 against Simberg, and $5001 against Steyn. NR will be awarded $530,000 against Mann, and Simberg and Steyn will be awarded some additional tens of thousands from Mann [for legal misconduct by Mann and his lawyers]. Mann will be in a very substantial financial hole, with the defendants having little incentive to compromise with him, and every incentive to go after his bank accounts and his house.
…
Publicly, Mann will go forth continuing to claim that he “won” the case by virtue of the jury verdicts.
…
The most fitting end to this case will be when whoever in the federal government pays for the University of Pennsylvania “climate science” centers pulls the plug on all the funding. That can’t come soon enough.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/03/16/trial-of-mann-v-steyn-post-trial-motions-edition/
50
According to real-world experience wind turbines’ life span is just 15 years. The first wind turbines installed in Germany 15 years ago are being dismantled.
50
Unfortunately they never remove the massive concrete foundations so the land, which is usually prime agricultural land, is permanently degraded.
The foundations can interfere with groundwater flows and cause contamination.
https://www.windconcerns.com/winds-assault-on-our-water/
20
A short life and not a productive one. The out-put of energy during the life
of this Ozymandius does not equal the energy that went into the wind turbine’s creation.
30
ABC have just put out this story re Sydney’s hottest min temp for March.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-16/sydney-swelters-hottest-march-night-record-149-years/105056792
Yet the official min temp for that night was 25.4C which only equals the 1876 record as shown on the official BoM website.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/IDCJDW2124.latest.shtml
How do you tell the ABC that they are ‘misinforming’ the public? Anyone know?
30
A saying about leading a horse to water comes to mind when it comes to their ABC.
10
Appropriate treatment of a lowlife politician. From 2023.
Good to see some Aussie spirit left.
30
The staggering cluelessness of the Left.
A US Demonrat senator sold his Tesla to protest against Musk and bought himself a gasoline car instead…
20
Yes with the woke disinvesting in Tesla vehicles, and the realists not investing in Tesla vehicles, the secondhand market, along with the new market should be tanking by now.
20
What second hand market?
00
So many heroes of the Left and especially the Labor Unions, Mexicans and Blacks and women have jumped ship in a National 5% swing to the Right that many Democrat politicians are publicly shifting to the center.
Even Gavin Newsom (Newscum) claims he never used ‘Latinx’. A blatant lie. Some rats have not jumped ship but just run to the Starboard side, torching their old words and electric cars. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have gone silent, pretending to be Conservative while checking the exit door.
00