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
Gosh! Did this just appear? I was trying to go back to the previous thread after accidently knocking the report button when I nodded off!
70
Maybe you have PMS or ESP or PVC or maybe I’m a bit tired and should nod off too?…sorry 🙁
40
I’m not quite sure Yonnie! I was mowing this afternoon…maybe the fresh air was a bit too much for me?!
20
Annie,
Jo is sneaky! That’s all. 🙂
40
Yes I got a surprise also. I was waiting to ask a question here. I did not find the Weekend Unthreaded when I checked 2 hours ago.
If others don’t mind:
Opinions requested.
I have not thought to ask this question before. Maybe it has been answered here or elsewhere.
My question is this : Does the Greenhouse Gas Effect Theory make any predictions which can be tested empirically?
60
Well it sort of,… nearly,… when a peer reviewed paper that puts media personality and ‘official climate science’ promoter Bill Nye in the spotlight.
In the States Bill Nye is the ‘Science Guy’ on TV and radio who supposedly educates Americans on scientific matters. Unfortunately he desided to ‘prove’, on TV, that CO2 heated up greenhouses. Apparently it did so. They wrote a peer-reviewed paper on it, and it was published. But then it was found he cheated.
Oh dear Bill Nye the fraudster guy!
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/08/09/paper-proves-bill-nyes-faked-greenhouse-effect-experiment-is-based-on-the-wrong-basic-physics/
The comments at tallbloke are very educational and some explain that through history the ‘greenhouse gas’ theory has failed.
60
What this paper shows is that in the atmospere (ground level to the ozone layer) the bulk movement of heat is carried out by covection and not radiation. Convecting air masses is what gives us our weather. From the upper tropospere and upwards it is radiation that dominates, and most of that is going off planet.
E.M. Smith sum it up in this little piece –
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/06/01/le-chatelier-and-his-principle-vs-the-trouble-with-trenberth/
and
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/collapsing-thermosphere-is-a-driving-event/
10
Thanks tomOmason,
For your references, which I will read over the next few days.
I am familiar with the “Greenhouse in a laboratory Jar” demonstration by Bill Nye the Fraudster Guy. It is both depressing and instructive that a Science Communicator, which is what I think he purports to be, is prepared to deliberately fudge his simple demonstration so as to convince us of what he perceives to be a greater truth.
Similar fudged demonstration by Dr Maggie Aderin Pocock on BBC video.
Sorry I cannot copy link but easily Googled using “Greenhoise in a bottle”
Anthony Watts has posted up an experiment to show that a light bulb can indeed heat itself by its own reflection in a mirror. Although the idea seems preposterous, he does show an effect, under certain conditions. I certainly think that Anthony has tried his best to be accurarate and scientific but I believe that he has made a simple mistake in his method. When I tried it with a different method, the heating is only evident when the mirror reflects more high temperature light from the filament onto the target. No heating observed from reflection of the heat from the target back to itself.
10
E. M. Smith aka Chiefio has said it more than once.
My take on what he said, and in broad terms, is that from ground level to about the ozone layer (sometimes above) bulk air movements in the form of damp convecting air masses dominate (IMO massively), these are restrained within the atmospheric regions known as polar cells, mid-latitude cells and Hadley cells. They move heat (in bulk) from ground level to the upper layers.
From the base of stratosphere upwards IR radiation dominates (IMO massively).
The zone between the ozone layer and the bottom of the stratosphere has both effects dynamically happening. Also in this region are the very dynamic jet streams.
Don’t think it is like this? Then go study a few clouds (and fly a glider.) You’ll be ahead of the IPCC and their models.
10
A glider pilot? 🙂
10
Peter C @ #1.3.
Does the Greenhouse Gas Effect Theory make any predictions which can be tested empirically?
I only came across your question this evening Peter but it seems there is a dearth of denizens who are prepared to give an opinion or to put their expertise on the line in trying to answer this very important question which lays at the very heart of the whole global warming scam / belief / science / dissension and creation of hostile attacks on non believers or questioners of the current CAGW meme.
Now all this is my opinion only, there to be shot down by far more knowledgeable denizens
The short answer to your question is YES!
The long answer is they can’t prove the short answer[s] as they don’t know for sure within a couple of magnitudes what they are or could or should be.
And if the proposed answer was proven out in a satisfactory way, it wouldn’t be accepted by the Climate Catastrophe Cultists in any case as they would lose everything if they accepted it as proof unless it fell exactly in line with the predictions of their climate catastrophe ideology.
This proof is the really important item that lays at the very heart of the whole climate warming and potential climate catastrophe predictions.
It is climate sensitivity number, the increase in global temperatures due primarily, so the theory goes, to the the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Theory says that a doubling of CO2 from it’s pre industrial levels of a claimed 280 PPM pre WW2 without any feedbacks being included in the calculations should increase temperatures by about 1 [ one ] degree C.
CO2 being regarded as the prime and most influential of the various green house gases as it’s increase in concentration implies that the various feedbacks such as water vapour, changes, water vapour being THE green house gas and responsible for over 80% of the effects of the various greenhouse gases in keeping the Earth at a habitable temperature level for life on this planet.
For a good outline plus other references Judith Curry [ @ Climate Etc ] had a good post on the climate sensitivity of CO2 with references to Roger Pielke Sr, back in 2010 that goes a long way to explaining in layman’s terms the role of and the status of CO2 without feedbacks on climate sensitivity and the role it plays in calculating the potential global atmospheric temperatures
According to the climate scientists the increased CO2 creates feedbacks from the effects of the warming due to increased CO2 on the concentrations of other greenhouse gases, its effects on the oceans, the land surfaces, the biological systems, water vapour levels and now finally being recognized and of increasing importance, the effect of global cloud cover from the increased retention of solar energy and it’s re-radiation in longer wave lengths in the infrared bands, the heat bands by the increased CO2 levels. and it is with clouds that there only needs to be about a 3% change in global cloud cover to create a warming world ie; less cloud cover or a cooling world ; ie more cloud cover , particularly the lower levels clouds near the durface.
That bit as to whether clouds warm or cool is still being fought out but the “consensus” [ ??? ] emerging is that increased low cloud cover cools and high level cloud cover does both depending on the where and when.
And global cloud cover from sat pics has increased over the last couple of decades.
After that the fun and arguments really get going and it is where the models come very, very thoroughly unstuck to the point of being not only totally useless but grossly misleading.
All those other factors, the feedbacks and the forcings, most of which are not yet calibrated with any certainty at all and some of which are still only guessed at or completely unknown and unsuspected, as all the known forcings ;ie feedbacks and other significant influences all start to interact and get in the way of one another or reinforce one another.
The IPCC modellers have taken the position that basically every forcing is a bootstrap operation, they all reinforce one another leading to ever increasing temperatures until we all go to hell in a blast from a green blob explosion.
The truth is as it is now being slowly admitted even by die hard climate science warmistas, is that many of the forcings are neutralising one another or can be opposing under one set of climate factors and reinforcing under a different set of climate related factors and can also be both, depending on where and when and at what latitudes and longitudes theoe forcings are interacting in the current time frame.
In the end the global temperatures have failed very markedly to follow the increases that theory says must occur to match the continuing increases in global CO2 levels.
Global temperatures which have flat line trend going on for close on 16 or 17 years are now dropping out below the error bands of the modelled responses to increased CO2 plus forcings / feedbacks .
No doubt someday and probably very soon this flatlined trend in the global temperature changes will be recognised as the mark of the complete failure of the exclusively CO2 based greenhouse theory that placed total reliance upon increasing CO2 to arrive at the conclusions that our use of fossil fuels was going to lead to a global catastrophe.
Some further reading on Climate Sensitivity
; From the Hyper Physics site; Greenhouse Effect
Climate4You;Greenhouse gases
________________
Wikipedia ; Climate Sensitivity
[quoted]
Equilibrium and transient climate sensitivity
The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) refers to the equilibrium change in global mean near-surface air temperature that would result from a sustained doubling of the atmospheric (equivalent) carbon dioxide concentration (ΔTx2). As estimated by the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) “there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely less than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C.”[4] This is a change from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), which said it was likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5 °C with a best estimate of about 3 °C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5 °C. Values substantially higher than 4.5 °C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values.[5] The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) said it was “likely to be in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 °C”.[6] Other estimates of climate sensitivity are discussed later on.
[ / ]
In reference to the above, there is an increasingly large volume of climate sensitivity work which is closing onto a climate sensitivity, after 30 years of getting it all totally wrong and a few tens of billions of dollars down the modellers hatches, the temperature increase from a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 levels of around the 1.2 C to 1.6 C or on the lowest estimates of the IPCC’s AR5.
As it has taken some 75 years to go from 280 PPM to 400 PPM an increase of 120 PPM over that 75 years, a doubling of the 280 PPM from it’s original claimed 280 PPM to 560 PPM is going to take about 175 years or another century from now before the CO2 is twice it’s pre industrial levels.
Since the end of the LIA in about 1830 global temperatures increases are averaging[ it changes in steps or at break points, both up and down ] around the 0.6 C increase per century. So since the end of the LIA we have had around a degree or so of warming and from that we can expect another [ if the theory is right and it is already so wrong it is to all purposes invalid ] 0.6 C increase in global temperatures by 2115 or thereabouts.
Or at least that is how the alarmist would see it if they weren’t so damn dumb that they can’t apparently even use a calculator at all.
__________________
http://www.mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/2007-schlesinger-et-al-clim-sens.pdf
From Hansen in 1982 when there was still some honesty in Climate science; Climate Sensitivity to Increasing Greenhouse Gases
_________________
A second measurement which an prove or disprove the claims of a warming planet and which is partially greenhouse gas related as well as being measurable is the planets net radiation budget as measured by satellites which ascertain the amounts of incoming solar radiation to the planet less the outgoing long wave radiation .
But I will leave that to another oppurtunity.
But in the meantime you can watch a animation from NASA’s Earth Observatory on the net radiation changes as seen by satellites through the seasons from July 2006 to June 2014, To me from the colour charts that there appears to be a net increase in outgoing radiation ; ie a cooling planet over that time period. and that is also the data that the satellites are indication; outgoing radiation is exceeding incoming radiation by a minute amount per square metre but a collossal amount of energy overall.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=CERES_NETFLUX_M
___________________
For fun reading and a very easily read, very educational series of articles.
Global Warming:
A Chilling Perspective
51
Good post on WUWT on the effects on temperature when the logarithmic characteristics of increasing CO2 are taken into account when calculating the future possible increases in temperatures.
The diminishing influence of increasing Carbon Dioxide on temperature
In short we have already experienced most of the increases in global temperatures that theoretically can arise due supposedly to increasing CO2 from that original claimed pre -industrial base level of 280 ppm of CO2.
Along with all the other greenhouse gases, water vapour being the real biggie in this pile, plus the numerous feed backs that first three hundred parts of CO2 above zero CO2 are the critical levels of atmospheric CO2 that makes the Earth warm enough to be habitable for life.
The next 120 ppm taking global CO2 levels from the 280 PPM to around the current levels of 400 ppm average have a rapidly declining effect on global temperatures as the real effects of the logarithmic decline of increasing CO2 in it’s ability to absorb certain solar radiation bands and re-radiate the energy gained as long wave radiation ;ie; heat, kicks in.
The warming effects of increasing CO2 declines logarithmically and rapidly as the solar radiation bands that CO2 absorb are fully absorbed by the increasing CO2 concentrations leaving an increasing lot of CO2 molecules to roam around looking for something to do. other than to get all biological and seriously boost plant life and plant growth and probably oceanic algal [ ocean plants ] growth as well.
With little or minimal solar radiation left available in the CO2 absorption bands after absorption by the first and lowest base levels of atmospheric CO2, most solar radiation having already been absorbed there is no longer a very large source of solar energy available for the increasing amounts of CO2 gas to absorb and then reradiate as long wave radiation ;ie heat and the consequent supposed global warming of the climate alarmist credo.
So as atmospheric CO2 increases to greater concentrations there will be steadily declining warming effect on the global temperatures from the increasing levels of CO2.
In fact once past 450 ppm it is postulated that there will be almost no further temperature increases that can be ascribed to increasing CO2.
The CO2 solar absorption bands will be fully taken up by CO2 at about 450 PPM so no further take up of solar energy by increasing CO2 above 450 ppm or thereabouts and no further re-radiation of long wave radiation from the extra levels of CO2 and no further warming from increasing CO2.
Other factors will no doubt also have a role here but thats is still being heatedly argued in climate science circles.
.
All this presuposes the theory of CO2 being the main driver of the warming of the planet is correct. And we now know that in actual practice it might only be an increasingly minor factor in global temperature influences as CO2 levels climb past 400 to 450 PPM
10
Good theory. Would be something if that was the way it worked.
Unfortunately the big fly in the CO2 ointment is the massive overlap in IR absorbtion by water. Also water in the atmosphere (3-10%) is just a bit more common than CO2 (0.0% or darn near).
00
Does the Greenhouse Gas Effect Theory make any predictions which can be tested empirically?
Of corse it doesn’t, the success of the replication of Professor Wood’s experiment invalides the whole idea.
10
Antarctic Vortex Spotted!
“It really is a revolution in the climate sciences”, said Dr David Jones, chief analyst of the National Climate Centre at Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology in Melbourne.
“We can’t just look at natural variability or greenhouse climate change in isolation – we also have to factor in ozone.”
60
First thing to do is check the data see if there has been a huge drop in rainfall.
yes Perth has been a bit low.
Melbourne had a drought period from about 2003-2007, but the last few years have been average or above.
Adelaide, again a couple of drier years 2005-2009, but again, back up near average over the last couple of years.
The big problem is finding long enough sequences to make any real judgement about what “normal” is.
Sydney for example shows that the period 1950 – 1985 may have been a time of INCREASED rainfall, and if that was similar in other places, then saying that the last 30 years had less rainfall is really a pretty trivial thing to say.
90
And here is one from central Victoria..
And mid-west NSW
Neither of these look like there has been any particular drop in rainfall, and again maybe show a hint of an increased rainfall period around 1950-1985.
Make up your own minds.
Again, trying to find one with a long enough record without gaps.
Many I looked at had gaps over the last decade or so.. how does that happen if you are being serious about collecting data !!!
PS.. this checking comes because of a line in the link HJ posted which says
“The last thirty years have recorded a dramatic 20% loss of the average rainfall along Australia’s southern fringe,”
I am often very suspicious of ANYTHING these guys from BOM say. !!!
110
“Many I looked at had gaps over the last decade or so.. how does that happen if you are being serious about collecting data !!!”
It’s very simple.
You take the auto gauges off line during major rain events for a couple of days.
They do it around my way on what seems to be a little to regular to be accidental.
The final “trick” being not to make up the shortfall in that sites record by NOT using what the back up gauge recorded.
(Why have a back up gauge?)
When I personally questioned that “policy” I was told, wait for it, “those readings couldn’t be used because they would fudge the official record”.
WT!
The same answer was given to the local paper when a reporter asked the same question.
And yes, the BOM actually said “fudge”.
I still have the clipping.
91
‘I am often very suspicious of ANYTHING these guys from BOM say. !!!’
They have a tendency to be biased.
The IPO doesn’t get any mention and may offer a clue, it was warm and now its into a cool phase.
00
The Griss @ 2.2
“The last thirty years have recorded a dramatic 20% loss of the average rainfall along Australia’s southern fringe,”
The BOM is correct!
BUT there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
The BOM is arguably indulging in the lot with that above statement.
Thirty years ago or whatever you like around that time slot takes us back into the 1970’s which were certainly the wettest period I have experienced in my 76 years.
Flooding or excess water over vast areas of southern and central Victoria and SA were a characteristic of the early and mid 1970’s with 1973 and 1974 here in western Vic giving us about 34 inches and 28 inches of rain.
Some other years in the 1970’s and 1983 after the severe 1982 drought were also very wet but were not in that same category as 1973 and 74
Average rainfall for us here in Horsham is about 400 mms or 16 inches.
This last 30 years is also the approximately 30 year long warm, dry phase for Australia of the PDO.
And looking at the PDO index graph it ties in very closely indeed with our annual Wimmera as well as southern Victorian rainfall patterns [ which generally also relate to SA rainfall patterns ] with a positive section of the graph correlating with dry periods and the negative phases correlating with the wet periods here in the Wimmera.
So the BOM is right but only IF they are highly selective and choose a period of very wet base years which they can compare the recent past and current PDO positive phase dry rainfall periods with.
31
That was what I was trying to get across by looking at longer records.
The fact is that the period 1950-1980 was a “wet” period, between dry periods.
As you suggest.. BOM’s statement is, AS USUAL, a mis-representation of the real situation,
…..and has nothing to do with any imaginary anthropogenic influence on climate,
but is purely part of the natural periodic change in the climate.
(darn, this computer doesn’t have spell checker turned on to fix up my wobbly typing, anyone know how to turn it on?)
21
They also say that Melbourne and Adelaide dams are at low levels.
Perth will always have issues, not sure there is anywhere for more dams. Any WA guys like to comment?
But about Melbourne and Adelaide
1. Adelaide gets a lot of its water from the Murray River. They don’t really have large storage dams.
2. Melbourne has needed more storage for many years, they have insufficient storage for the growing population, end of story.
The Mitchell River dam should have been built.
Its an INFRASTRUCTURE problem due mostly to rising population and environmental green tape..
The Green Blob should get the **** out the way and let these dams be built !!!!!!!
153
Here in Ballarat we had the Gong Gong reservoir built in 1877 and White Swan reservoir in 1953….it’s 2014 FFS!
Also in the past decade of alarmism we get constant warnings of looming water shortages since the climate/weather has altered so dramatically, well a bit of local information then, note lake Wendouree is in Ballarat.
– 1869 drought, lake Wendouree dries up, 1870 lake fills and flooding.
– 1901 – 1910 regular winter snow fall recorded.
– 1915 drought, lake Wendouree dries up, fills up 1917.
– 1945 drought, lake Wendouree dries up, fills up 1947.
– 1956 Melbourne Olympics rowing, kayaking and Canoeing events held on lake Wendouree.
– 2006 drought, lake Wendouree dries up, Yonniestone walks across it.
– 2011 Heavy flooding in Ballarat.
This is just a rough history but you get the idea, I believe it’s called natural variability but don’t tell Gaia that. 😉
180
There’s been no shortage of rain hereabouts this winter. I say this with feeling as I have had a basinful of cold and muddy conditions. A lot of our work is on hold thanks to an excess of mud. If Melbourne is lacking water it is a lack of storage and not a shortage of rain in these thar hills.
I seem to remember the so called drought in England was due to a lack of infrastructure rather than a long term lack of rain.
70
The South-east and east anglia were drier than normal. The SE suffered from enormous amounts of water being drawn from the chalk downs for building the Channel tunnel, then not being replaced due to the ’98 el Nino. Additionally, the Victorian- era water pipe system was seriously leaking, in places 40% of water never reaching the consumer. Yorkshire and London in particular had this problem. It took several years of above-average rainfall to replenish the chalk downs aquifers and it’s only the past couple of years that seasonal streams have re-appeared at the foot of the Downs in my part of east Kent. A dry ditch in my garden when I bought my house at the foot of the downs in 2004 is now a wet ditch in times of heavy rainfall and the Winter months. Vast amounts of victorian piping have been renovated by inserting polymer liners in the old pipes, actually allowing a greater volume of water to flow, and new mains have been built to supply a growing population.
To ensure no shortages, a massive water transfer system from the wet North-West to the dry (>25″ precipitation/year) would have to be built thereby moving the water to where the people are.. Successive governments, happy to spend untold £billions of taxpayers money on useless windmills, are still scratching the heads over this one.
120
That should read, “the dry south-east where all the people are.”
20
the Griss August 9, 2014 at 9:35 pm · y
They also say that Melbourne and Adelaide dams are at low levels.
Perth will always have issues, not sure there is anywhere for more dams. Any WA guys like to comment?
Griss you present what is presented, not what is! Go measure what is!!!
But about Melbourne and Adelaide
1. Adelaide gets a lot of its water from the Murray River. They don’t really have large storage dams.
2. Melbourne has needed more storage for many years, they have insufficient storage for the growing population, end of story.The Mitchell River dam should have been built.
Its an INFRASTRUCTURE problem due mostly to rising population and environmental green tape..
The Green Blob should get the **** out the way and let these dams be built !!!!!!!
Ok, but how and why to do that? Give up on what should be. Concentrate on what is, and what may be.
30
One of the many pet hates I have with the “watermelons” is their total opposition to dams.
Here’s a very recent classic example of just what dams are for.
There most definately would have been the usual rabid protestors during construction.
One wonders if they are still rearing their ugly heads in opposition of the dam now?
http://www.nbnnews.com.au/index.php/2014/08/06/5-year-old-shannon-creek-dam-near-grafton-pays-off/
20
The Greens have been against dams for a while, remember the Gordon River Stage 11 dam was stopped due the actions of the Greens, Bob Brown et al. helped by the Hawke Govt using the external treaty obligations and overriding state rights. But for electricity production they don’t want hydro, don’t like coal and nuclear is a no no too. At the moment there isn’t much else that will produce baseload power to warm their caffe lattes etc., and solar, wind, hot rocks and wave power haven’t produced the goods. We should follow Frances example and go nuclear, set-up an industry to make, lease, and re-process fuel rods and use the Simpson desert, or somewhere to safely store the waste.
40
No Robert, there is absolutely no need to go nuclear in Australia.
We have very large supplies of good quality coal. That is what we should be using.
Cheapest, most reliable energy source around… with the benefit of adding CO2 to the atmosphere, albeit in very small amounts.
80
Griss – I can advise that the Victorian Desalination Plant does NOT, as stated by Wikipedia, supply water. It is mothballed and has been since completion, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to the citizens of Victoria per year – in order to maintain its availability – if needed. To date it has not been necessary. The previous government wanted to build a large dam nearby. but was stopped by the Green/Zealot coalition unfortunately. Life of dam = 50+ years. Life of desal plant = 25 years at best. Cost of desal plant = at least double cost of dam (conservative) over 25 years. Just doesn’t add up to anyone with a brain and a pulse.
50
And because they refuse to build the dams that should be built, next time they have a drought (it is Australia. y’know……,
….they will have to fork out a whole heap more cash to bring the desal plant back on line.. probably just in time for the next major deluge.
The whole desal issue in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane is set up as a recurrent farce.
50
From what I can gather, the only time the Brisbane desal plant was used was in the week after the Brisbane flood.
Other water treatment plants got flooded, so they used the desal plant for water supply!!
40
“CO2 fear is not working to plan. OK, so let’s try Ozone again. There’s a lot of younger people that have not heard about this totally awesome global threat. Give it another shot. Droughts are a topic now.”
“But cooling of the Ozone layer enhances the effect of Ozone destroying substances, such as Chlorofluorocarbons. How does that fit with Global Warming?”
“Don’t worry; it’s a just a Press Release for funding purposes.”
101
“Droughts are a topic now.””
I don’t mind BOM bringing up the topic of droughts..
It almost certainly means that there will not be a rain deficit for quite a while.
81
Maybe the hole in the ozone layer is a chimney and that’s where the missing heat has gone.
30
Don’t laugh.
That was seriously suggested by some climate science whack job a couple of years back.
In a normal sane world most of the worst of the climate catastrophe whacko’s would have been quietly retired to a nice comfortable home with a wardrobe of white very long sleeved coats and a 6 metre high barb wire fence all the way around to keep them in.
70
Again lies by the IPCC
Again we learn that more CO2 is good for humanity like CO2 has always been good to life during the entire evolution of species
http://climateaudit.org/2014/08/07/wg2-misleads-on-undernourishment-trend/
100
Good? Apart from Calcium for our bones and water, we are 86% Carbon by weight, the same as plants and all life on earth. CO2 is not just good for us, we are made entirely from CO2 and water. We are carbon life forms. The Greens give self loathing new meaning. They are the pollution. Without CO2, life on earth as we know it would not exist. In fact CO2 was critically low for plants and the slight increase is fantastic. The very idea that a trace gas could change the temperature of a planet is a fantasy. The temperature is the nett of radiation in and out and from satellite measurements the radiation out is just fine, so the whole idea is nonsense.
70
Ummmm… NO.
For reference, the percentage by mass of elements in the human body:
Elements in the Human Body
Chemical Composition of the Human Body
Try roughly 18% Carbon not 86%. The element that has the largest contribution to the chemical makeup of the human body is Oxygen at 65%. Also Carbon is an element, CO2 is a gaseous compound made up of the two elements Carbon and Oxygen.
We are Carbon based life forms, yes. We produce Carbon Dioxide as a part of our respiratory process. We are NOT “made entirely from CO2 and water”.
All this “Carbon sequestering”, “Carbon footprint”, etc. crap has gotten so out of hand that far too many people have lost sight of the difference between Carbon the element and Carbon Dioxide the compound.
02
“the largest contribution to the chemical makeup of the human body is Oxygen at 65%”
Robert, as I said you have to take out the H20, which is all your Oxygen. Dried we do not weigh much and burn like paper. So using your figures.
So as the O is in the form H2O and I explicitly excluded water, add another 2/18 for the hydrogen so 73% H2O. Then take out Calcium at even 4%. Now you have Carbon at 18/(100-77-5) or 18/18 or 100% carbon. However all the carbons are pretty much hydrocarbons, fats, acids, muscle tissue, tendons, so variations in length of chains of CH2. So I think your Oxygen is too high as we need a another few % for the H2 in hydrocarbons.
My point is that plants are all CH2 or 12 + 2*1 or 12/14ths carbon by weight, apart from water. 86%. Your get all your food from plants or from animals which live on plants or animals which live on animals which live on plants. You are made entirely from plants and plants are made entirely from CO2 and H2O. A favorite line is that I am a second degree vegetarian. I only eat animals which eat plants. (except for fish which are almost entirely carnivorous)
10
Actually your figures drop the Calcium to 1.8%, half my figure
To use your first reference on elements alone
Oxygen 65% I presume in the form H2O
Carbon 18.6% I presume in the form CH2 chains
Hydrogen 9.7%
Calcium 1.8%
Now some simple arithmetic.
H2O is 2+16, so the 65% of Oxygen in the form of H2O should add 2/18*65 of Hydrogen or 7.22% Hydrogen
The hydrocarbons are all CH2 chains, so 12+2 and the Carbon should add 2/14th of Hydrogen or 2.57%.
So if I am right the total amount of Hydrogen should be 7.22+2.57 = 9.77%. Voila! Either a wonderful coincidence or I am right.
Everything is precisely as I said. You, Robert, are made from plants which are made from CO2 and in photosynthesis, they produce hydrocarbons like CH2 from which all your muscles, cartilege, nerves, all tissues are made.
20
Also I wrote made from CO2 and Water. I stand by that. I did not say made of CO2 and Water.
Your figures show that you are 75% water. You are made of H2O and CH2 and Calcium. That’s 93.3%.
You could say truly that you would not be there without the water but there is almost no Oxygen otherwise.
I do not know about you, but I find this really challenging and far from obvious.
Our preconception from childhood is that trees and plants are made from dirt and people are made from dirt too. Dust to dust. It is just not true. The trick is the phrase “made from”. We are just not “made from” dirt. Children need to repeat the Van Helmont experiment to understand. Then we would not have this CO2 hatred in the alleged Greens. It is self loathing.
20
It is ironic, that plants use sunlight to convert CO2 to CH2 chains, hydrocarbons from which we are made but that the O2 goes into the atmosphere for us to breathe. In breathing we reverse the process and use the O2 to burn the hydrocarbons in plants, getting back that original energy from sunlight and the original CO2.
Eventually we turn back into CO2 and CH4, feeding another cycle, not just carbon but a life which revolves around the processing of CO2 to O2 and back to CO2. Even our industrial energy is mostly old sunlight, burning a million years of rotted plant matter every year.
Dirt is largely oxides of metals like silicon, aluminium, iron. We do each have about a six inch nail of iron and small amounts of potassium, sodium, sulphur and chlorine. NaCl and KCL run our electrics and both are critical for nerve activity. HCl digests our food.
However we are far from rocks and hardly anything is made from the stuff of dirt. Earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust is really incorrect. CO2 to life to CO2 is much more accurate.
So while this is a long comment, I have not read anywhere else that we and all plant life are in a closed CO2 cycle. If there was no CO2, we would not exist.
10
It isn’t “my” Oxygen, I didn’t write those articles I simply found them as a reference to show your numbers are garbage.
Not according to biology, it is NOT precisely as you said though it is apparent by your long and vacuous comment that you have convinced yourself it is so and nothing anyone else says will convince you otherwise. As you explicitly state:
You PRESUME, you do not know.
Now having recently been through my chemistry courses with a number of friends who are biological chemists please stop wasting my time.
00
Gee, I’ve come over all warm and fuzzy with such wonderful news. (do I really need to add /sarc)
President Obama has been hosting a summit of African leaders these last few days, and has announced new initiatives to bring electrical power to Africa. His plan for 10,000MW (Nameplate) for Africa seems on track with a geothermal plant for Ethiopia, some wind plants, a couple of mini hydros, a run of river hydro, and a couple of solar plants, heading towards that hoped for target of that 10,000MW.
(Hey, New South Wales alone has more than 10,000MW of Nameplate coal fired power.)
He’s also looking for the private sector to stump up a hoped for $38 Billion extra for more initiatives.
Currently in Africa, more than 600 Million people have no access whatsoever to any electricity.
The total generated power for all of Africa is 655TWh and that is for a population of 1,150 Million people.
So then how much power is that then?
Let’s look at the U.S. The two States with the largest power generation are Texas (433.5TWh) and Pennsylvania. (227.1TWH)
So, here we have just 2 States generating a total of 661.2TWh of power, a little more than for the whole of Africa.
The population of those TWO States is 39.2 Million people. That’s 3.4% of the population of Africa.
10,000MW of clean power will really make a difference.
Why am I not surprised.
Tony.
240
Poor President Obama just cant win.
He is criticised for stuffing the Middle East situation by supporting the wrong sides. He is criticised for wanting to double the power cost to US consumers.
Don’t you folk realise how busy this man is – he has been printing money at a rate of knots!!!!!
60
Speaking of “folk’s”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-03/obamas-folks
When President Obama explained so eloquently on Friday that the US “tortured some folks,” we got an eery sense of deja vu about his phrasing. Sure enough, as The Washington Post reports, it was very much not the first time that he’d used the word “folks.”
March 2014. Folks discussed: Hardworking folks, folks cooking meals for the troops, folks at the top, chairless folks, folks who need a raise.
Talking to an audience in Connecticut, Obama discussed income inequality — “there are folks at the top who are doing better than ever” — but “we understand that some folks are going to earn more than others.” But he was fighting to give “hardworking folks” a pay increase. Folks like the “folks who are cooking the meals of our troops, or washing their dishes, or cleaning their clothes.”
He also apologized because he knew “the folks here don’t have chairs.”
February 2014. Folks discussed: Folks who worked at Costco, folks who earned tips, folks with pockets.
This one is pretty easy to piece together.
October 2012. Folks discussed: Rich folks, middle class folks, Chinese folks, gangbanger folks, folks who mess with Americans.
During a presidential debate, Obama says that Mitt Romney wants “to make sure that folks at the top play by a different set of rules.” He, on the other hand wants “give middle-class families and folks who are striving to get into the middle-class some relief.” Different folks.
He later accuses Romney of investing in companies that “are building surveillance equipment for China to spy on its own folks.” And he makes his case on immigration: “What I’ve also said is if we’re going to go after folks who are here illegally, we should do it smartly and go after folks who are criminals, gang bangers.”
On Benghazi, he reminded Americans of his longstanding plan. “[O]ne of the things that I’ve said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them.”
August 2011. Folks discussed: Korean folks, folks outside machine shops, non-farm folks….
=========
After this article appeared, he suddenly stopped using the work, ‘folks’.
50
Using the word “folks” or “folk” was also something Kevin Rudd constantly used when referring to the electorate. I would suggest the both men share a common pathology, that being narcissistic personality disorder.
They both:
1. Crave power, but only for its own sake, and once there at the highest office in the land become bored with the “lack of intellectual challenge” of the tasks at hand, and relentlessly whinge, moan and gripe at the responsibilities required of them.
2. Have an over-weaning and intense fixation on their public image, brazenly courting the entertainment circuit at every opportunity for empty publicity ops with like minded airheads (Rove MacManus and Oprah respectively) where friendly banter with uncritical allies substitutes for penetrating journalistic inquiry.
3. Have an overtly elitist mentality which comes through in referring to the great unwashed as “folk”, which I think unconsciously reflects the fact that they look down from Mount Olympus on the common man as unworthy of such august figures as themselves. The hillbilly connotation doesn’t hurt either, mind you.
4. Love of “selfies” (often at completely inappropriate moments- like Nelson Mandela’s funeral- yikes!), not to mention alerting the media of every shaving cut, thought bubble or bowel movement as though their every utterance or bodily function was elevated to a matter of national importance.
5. The ability to lie without conscience out of expediency, and not bat an eyelid when doing so. So when Obama does his autobiography mentioning a white girl he once went out with and painting her as racist, the mere fact that she wasn’t, and that the situation never actually occurred was quite OK, because it was perfectly appropriate to slander someone because “his royal highness” wanted to make a race based political point.
6. Complete lack of self- awareness, most especially in their personal limitations, the blame for which is universally and immediately transferred onto others.
00
Sweden is joining Obamas powerafrica run by USAID.
At same time as the US Africa summit there was an activity by General Electric / The Economist.
Listen to GE CEO Jeff Immelt
http://geafricaascending.economist.com/
Australia in Africa?
30
Surely 38 Billion can do better that 10 GW?
70
Here we go. . .
The weekly ‘teeth grinding in frustration’ articles from io9.
Reality Check: Most Scientists Never Believed In “Global Cooling”
http://io9.com/reality-check-most-scientists-never-believed-in-globa-1617925806
So, as I can gather, (as they say) scientists never believed in the global cooling scare of the 70’s, even though it was plastered all over media.
Here we are 40 years later and the warmists deny ever believing it.
In another 30 years will they deny ever believing in global warming?
And then this one. . .
Should Environmentalist Politicians Focus Less On Climate Change?
http://io9.com/should-environmentalist-politicians-focus-less-on-globa-1618462794
“Attempting to browbeat people who have illogical or ill-informed beliefs into changing their minds is not only an exercise in futility, its also incredibly distracting and counterproductive. You won’t win by calling them stupid, instead everyone will lose.”
“Its harder to push your agenda when there isn’t a crisis – even if the crisis has paused for the past 17 years… Good thing we have models which show there is still a crisis they can use.”
You mean those same models that didnt predict the pause? And you call us stupid?
As always, read the comments for the frustration and lolz.
160
That last one explains how the models predict. Agenda in = Crisis out.
80
Stop me if I’m wrong but doesn’t that statement admit their failure?
I guess no crisis = a crisis now.
100
If you’ve ever felt like finding out who a particular troll actually is, this might be of interest.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/08/07/how-to-hunt-somebody-down-on-the-internet-part-1/
Pointman
60
Is this the technique that Gee Aye used in identifying MTR?
40
What is mtr?
20
Ah never mind I remember.
Not telling.
11
Why not telling?
00
he says asking someone who hides behind a fig leaf.
00
Pointman,
“Fist” is a term I recognize. It’s well known by anyone who’s used the radio telegraph code (misnamed Morse Code). Do you by any chance fall in that category?
Now if you would release the code for your “spiders”…
Needless to say there are several people I would like to track down. Unfortunately, as you said, the effort is considerable with no guarantee of finding them. But it sounds like you have some technology that could help.
30
QSL
20
QSL right back.
Actually though, my experience was military and QSL was not something we used. After my hitch in the Army I had been through quite enough of the noise (QRM, QRN) in my ears and so I never went on to do anything with the code until I learned to fly; where my ability to read the code greatly surprised my instructor when I could read off the Morse identifier of any nav aid without hesitation. They’re set up for easy reading by anyone and transmit clean machine generated code at only 5 words/minute. So how could I miss it the first time?
AR
00
There appears to be a pointer problem at http://sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html.
The “Notching up open review improvements” web pointer directs me to the same page as the “More strange adventures in TSI data” pointer.
Anything new to report on the “Notch-Delay Solar Theory”?
More strange adventures in TSI data: the miracle of 900 fabricated, fraudulent days. Answers the fallacious charges of Lief Svalgaard and Willis Eschenbach in comments in a recent post at WUWT. The repetitious, tendentious, and aggressive nature of their comments mark them as something other than truth-finding. Web page »
•Notching up open review improvements — a correction to Part III. Originally we thought a notch in a linear invariant system necessarily implied the existence of an associated delay. However electrical engineer Bernie Hutchins showed that a notch was causal, not non-causal as we had calculated. We had calculated the response of a notch to a train of rectangular pulses, not to a step function as intended (due to a subtle misapplication of the DFT). That error is now corrected. In our opinion this is a triumph of open science, because many eyeballs found a problem that review by peers had not.Web page »
20
The “Notching Up Open…” Should probabily point here “http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/notching-up-open-review-improvements-a-correction-to-part-iii/”
Notching up open review improvements — a correction to Part III. Originally we thought a notch in a linear invariant system necessarily implied the existence of an associated delay. However electrical engineer Bernie Hutchins showed that a notch was causal, not non-causal as we had calculated. We had calculated the response of a notch to a train of rectangular pulses, not to a step function as intended (due to a subtle misapplication of the DFT). That error is now corrected. In our opinion this is a triumph of open science, because many eyeballs found a problem that review by peers had not. Web page »
CC Squid, thanks for pointing out the link fault. I’ve just sent your points to David. As to progress, good question! We have a lot more to say on the solar model project. David has been writing a paper to submit to a journal, and several unexpected domestic issues — leaky pipes etc — have slowed us down from doing posts as well. We’ll get back to going through the papers and updating the model as soon as we can. We want to go over the evidence for the delay, I want to talk about Nukes, and develop themes like the difference between a physical model and a “wiggle match” and why the solar model is a simple physical model. – Jo
40
I can not duplicate your pointer errors on the http://sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html site.
“Notching up open review improvements” takes me to
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/notching-up-open-review-improvements-a-correction-to-part-iii/
and
“More strange adventures in TSI data” takes me to
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/more-strange-adventures-in-tsi-data-the-miracle-of-900-fabricated-fraudulent-days/
You may want to try clearing the web browser cache (history, cookies, etc.) as these often cause problems.
You are perfectly correct about the Lief Svalgaard, Willis Eschenbach posts at WUWT – repetitious, tendentious, and aggressive in nature.
30
To Kevin Lohse.
I remember after the drought of 75-76 that the then labor government said that a water network was going to be built that would transfer water to all parts of England, Scotland and Wales thus preventing the a re-occurrence of all of the problems we had experienced. Well, needless to say, it never was built and it never will.
70
Just appoint a new minister for drought…that should do it!
51
According to the net there has been much flooding in Southern England yesterday (Friday) and today. There were floods in February which may have increased run-off.
50
That’d be “Bertha” passing through then.
30
For those of you who do not know me, I write about what’s really going on in K-12 education all over the world and the documented vision of political, social, and economic transformation tied to it. Book and everything and that research recently definitively tied the Core Skills and 21st century Learning template in Australia to the Common Core in the US through GELP–the Global Education Leaders Programme.
To appreciate just how important creating shared false beliefs is to the new vision going forward I though I would introduce Jo’s readers to Investigative Case-Based Science Learning being pushed all over the world. Here’s the Singapore ebook published in June, but prepared in the good ol USA. http://sciencecasenet.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Compiled-draft_E-BOOK-version_30-Jun-2014_FINAL.pdf
That kind of coursework is intended to guide student perceptions so that the reality never actually disturbs the cultivated mindset that believes change is mandatory.
51
The remains of Hurricane Bertha are going to hit Southern England tomorrow morning.
Some idiot is bound to say this is further proof of ‘global warming’.
My bet is it will be a damp squib, I think that’s a safe bet, as equally safe as some idiot linking it to “further proof of man made climate change”.
50
Belgium and The Netherlands as well. First a summerday with about 25°C and then Bertha comes with thunderstorms. After that at least a week with unsettled weather and below average temperatures. It does not look good for summer here. It maybe that we have to wait till september before summer returns here
30
Why don’t Greens like nuclear power? I actually don’t know the answer to this one. The obvious answer – that CO2 is just a convenient excuse for pushing their political agenda – I mean, surely they can’t all be dishonest!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/09/dont-mention-the-nuclear-option-to-greens/
70
The leadership of the green movement are Malthusians, so they oppose anything that will get in the way of a massive reduction in population (Motto: Just enough of me, way too much of you). The troops are mostly useful idiots and if they think about why they oppose technology at all, would exhibit a variety of ill-informed, illogical thought-bubbles that are just enough to justify to the themselves opposing things like nuclear power.
We were all teenagers at one stage. We know how it works.
70
I am not a fan of nuclear energy as well. Tsjernobyl etc.
Plus the waste
11
Reinder,
I came across an excellent article back in early 2009 about Chernobyl, and also of TMI, (Three Mile Island) which explained in (relatively) simple terms why something like what happened at Chernobyl is impossible in the time we now live in, and how so many things were done, intentionally ignoring the rules.
Three Mile Island and Chernobyl: What Went Wrong And Why Today’s Reactors Are Safe
Also, at the time of TMI, when newspaper editors were looking around for reporters to cover the incident, they sent those reporters who admitted to having recently watched the movie The China Syndrome, because they were the ones who knew what was happening. Amazing how Hollywood
influencesbecomes real life.Tony
70
Fukushima Japan? No thank you. I am against nuclear energy as long it is not fusion energy
03
Tony,
Thanks for the interesting article. I’ve done some rather extensive research into Three Mile Island and in spite of the fact that in the end no one was hurt there is one thing that still scares me to this day. And I say that who is quite willing to see nuclear reactors built.
Here’s what bothers me. The operators at 3MI could not believe their problem was as bad as it really was and continued in that denial for literally years, believing the problem was minor when in fact they had a core meltdown and it came close to melting through the bottom of the reactor vessel and dumping radioactive material on the floor of the containment building. It was not until a camera could be manipulated down clear to the bottom of the reactor and showed them fuel in a puddle on the bottom that the operator finally would believe there was a serious meltdown.
I can’t say how close it came to melting on through to the floor. But the long running assumption that it wasn’t as serious as it was is a human factors problem that exists with anything dangerous, from driving to flying to nuclear reactors. The industry has learned a lot about better safety measures since then but no one has ever learned how to make a safer human. And when automation is increased the humans tend to turn over to the computer their responsibility for knowing what’s going on and staying in control. This isn’t a joke at all. Aviation has already proved the point. And a detailed study in the U.S. shows that when air bags became standard on cars, drivers began to take more chances, believing the air bag would save them.
There haven’t been any other 3MI type problems since then. But there have been problems, some of them attributable to inadequate maintenance or other human failure. San Onofre comes to mind.
How do we solve this problem? I’m willing to support nuclear energy but I’m not willing to tell people there’s no risk when I know there is.
50
The China Syndrome made reasonable drama but was fiction. So if the media was biased by a complete fiction we have yet another human factors problem. But we knew that already, did we not?
40
On the other hand, Three Mile Island tried to emulate it.
20
I see that Abbott has dropped his long held promise to repeal 18C that is contravention of free speech. He’s pandering to a minority group and that is not democracy!
Well, he has well and truly earned the ire of the IPA. So sad…no party to vote for at the next election.
I believe the IPA should form a political wing to fill the void. I also believe that there will be more disaffected voters at the next election than ever before in our history.
I’m going to run it by John Roskam next week, as no party seems to value freedom and all this global warming rubbish is an attack on such.
100
Better to move the closest existing approximation in the right direction. The amount of effort required to form a meaningful party is enormous, and in a first-past-the-post system, completely wasted. John will tell you the same thing. The IPA is doing great work where they are now.
On the other hand, did you catch this on Bolta? Bob Day, the independent senator is putting forward a private members bill to repeal 13C:
link.
20
(18C. Got confused with the equivalent Canadian section 13 that has just been repealed).
40
The coalition, in a sense is our political wing already. Just a matter of swinging in a new direction. Almost started up a party around five years ago. Was discouraged because it would have split the right. Now PUP has arisen, will be short lived and a void open.
Still have the name registered to protect it and all it would take is one Federal MP to come on board. I spoke with an MP at a private lunch in the Speaker’s private dining room in Qld Parliament House last year.
60
I agree that PUP will be short-lived, mainly because Palmer is such a loose cannon, and he may even end up in gaol. That said, David Leyonhjelm and Bob Day are a real force in the senate. Mainly because, I think, they have clear and well-stated, consistent positions.
60
Yes, I’ve heard what Bob Day is proposing and it could be very interesting. Just imagine if Bob did get it through both houses in spite of Abbott’s “captain’s call”?
That would be the end of his leadership.
40
It would be a good result, but I doubt it would bring down Abbott; it’s not seen as a huge issue except in our circles and anyway he is well known to be a supporter of repeal. So they could hardly bring in someone who was not.
30
If the repeal got up Abbott would be humiliated, Labor and the MSM would make a meal out of him also.
A lot of unhappy chappies on the front and backbench I’m told.
40
I don’t know about that, yes it would be in a sense humiliating but would enact the repeal in a way the Coalition could claim no-fault, given their stated preference at election time it would be easy to say “We must be consistent, Senator Day forced our hand”. The fallout could be easilly redirected to others, and the fallout in the left would be short lived. Tactically this could be easilly swung to Abbott’s advantage, he wins on the right (that gets the repeal) and he wins on the left, by say proposing some ammendments to keep the lovies happy.
Personally I’d keep it and enact it while Shorten is busy giving his testimony to the royal commission.
20
Don’t forget the aliens. And it’s all Tony Abbott’s fault whatever the reason.
30
Espdcially for Emma, and her dislike of having a summer in the Arctic
30
Good Canada Free Press article:
Is it the Sun?
via Catallaxy
80
1828 newspaper report of enormous icebergs floating south of South Africa.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/page/4230474?zoomLevel=2
Column 1. “A curious circumstance happened to the Wanstead on its passage out. In lat 44:50S long 17:20E she fell in with an extensive archipelago of icebergs, some of which were 300 or 400 feet high, and more than a mile in circumference. For a distance of more than 280 miles she ran through this dangerous mass of floating ice, the last mountain of which was seen in lat 41:30S long 22:00E.”
Google map – http://goo.gl/maps/EkBPk
A more recent report of an iceberg near South Africa –
http://www.earthweek.com/online/ew071012/ew071012d.html
30
What more proof do you need?
They were burning coal like crazy in 1828.
I remember it well. It was just incredible how much coal was burning – I expected the sky to fall in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
70
If iceberg African tourism is driven by the PDO then we would expect to see another incident of icebergs reaching 44 degrees south between 2016 and 2020.
20
mixed messages!
9 Aug: Weather Channel: Laura Dattaro: Climate Change Now Has A Logo
PHOTO CAPTION: Milton Glaser, who designed the famous I Love New York logo, created this logo as part of a campaign to raise awareness about the urgency of climate change.
Climate change now has a logo: A plain green and black circle, designed by the same artist who created the wildly successful and equally simple “I [heart] NY” logo in 1977. The circle is brightest and greenest at the bottom, darkening into pure black at the top.
The logo represents Earth, with the bright green symbolizing life and the smoky black showing the deadly effects of climate change, according to an interview with the logo’s creator, Milton Glaser, in the architecture and design magazine Dezeen. A giant poster featuring the logo has been hung outside of New York’s School of Visual Arts, where Glaser is chairman. It’s also being distributed on pins, five of which can be purchased for $5…
An animated version of the logo appears on an accompanying web site, Itsnotwarming.com…
Some have taken issue with the language, including environmental magazine Grist, which published a column on Saturday arguing that spreading the phrase “it’s not warming” will add confusion to the conversation and aid in the misunderstanding of climate science…
http://www.weather.com/news/science/climate-change-now-has-logo-20140809
20
***don’t back down….& the CAGW scam will die…because that $100 billion a year can only happen if the trillion-dollar carbon dioxide trading scam gets off the ground. if you have retirement funds, inform your fund managers, in the strongest terms possible, that you object to any ETS aka “Emissions Trading Scams”:
8 Aug: Times of India: Vishwa Mohan: India asks rich nations to ‘walk the
talk’ on climate change issues
India on Friday said it was time for developed nations to “walk the talk” in
addressing climate change with four BASIC nations jointly asking rich
countries to take lead in dealing with the pollution induced global warming
in accordance with their “historical responsibilities.”…
Highlighting how seriously the developing countries are working on cutting
emissions of greenhouse gases, vice chairman of the National Development and
Reform Commission of China, Xie Zhenhua said, “Around 60% of the cut in
emission is contributed by the developing countries.”…
***The four nations also issued a joint statement after the conclusion of the
two-day meet on Friday, reaffirming their position that the future global
climate deal must fulfill the principles of equity and ‘common but
differentiated responsibilities’ (CBDR) under UN convention.
Idea of reaffirming this well understood point at all successive ministerial
meetings of this block is to ensure that the differentiation between
developed and developing countries finds its place by all means in the 2015
global climate deal in Paris.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/India-asks-rich-nations-to-walk-the-talk-on-climate-change-issues/articleshow/39893544.cms
30
what a joke!
10 Aug: UK Daily Mail: Miles Goslett: Prescott flies 40,000 miles – that’s nearly twice around the world – in five months… to lecture on climate change
Since February the ex-Deputy PM has attended all-expenses paid summits in Europe, North America, India and China
He has discussed new legislation which could restrict the ability of others to fly or drive cars in future
Lord Prescott did not return calls for comment on his trips
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2720903/Prescott-flies-40-000-miles-s-nearly-twice-world-five-months-lecture-climate-change.html
40
can anyone explain why Australia got involved with sanctioning Russia…for what, i can’t tell?
9 Aug: Bloomberg: Exxon Drilling Russian Arctic Shows Sanction Lack Bite
By Stephen Bierman and Eduard Gismatullin
Sanctions, what sanctions?
Exxon Mobil Corp. will start drilling a $700 million well in the Arctic Ocean tomorrow, Russia’s government said, showing that for all the talk of action against Vladimir Putin’s oil industry, the largest U.S. energy company is undeterred…
Exxon isn’t the only western oil company involved. BP Plc, the U.K.’s second-largest oil company by value, has an interest through it’s 20 percent stake in Rosneft…
In addition to the political background, drilling in the Arctic Ocean is controversial because campaigners say it threatens a unique ecosystem.
“The West Alpha platform is fast becoming the most controversial oil rig in the world,” Gustavo Ampugnani, an Arctic campaigner at Greenpeace, said in an e-mailed statement. The companies’ plan “to drill in the ecologically sensitive Arctic is nothing less than absurd.”…
Exxon and Rosneft have also invested in a new platform this year to expand oil production at the Sakhalin-1 project in Russia’s Far East.
David S. Cohen, U.S. Treasury Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, declined to comment on Exxon’s work in Russia on a call with reporters this week.
“We are in close contact with U.S. businesses with respect to all of these sanctions” programs, Cohen said, while declining to discuss the details of those conversations with specific companies…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-08/exxon-drilling-russian-arctic-shows-sanction-lack-bite.html
9 Aug: ABC AM: Imposing sanctions on Russia will result in economic heartache for Australia, former ambassador warns
A former Australian ambassador to Moscow and Ukraine says imposing sanctions on Russia will only result in economic heartache for Australia…
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has threatened banning the sale of uranium to Russia if troops crossed into Ukraine.
But former Australian ambassador to Russia and Ukraine, Cavan Hogue, says it is not constructive for Australia to be entering into a tit-for-tat trade ban with Russia.
“What’s in it for us? It’s essentially a European problem. We seem to be doing it because we want to go along with Europe and North America,” he said.
“So I think we would have probably been better served by just keeping our big mouths shut.
“How much of this is for domestic purposes and how much of this is really supposed to have some effect, I don’t know.”…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-09/former-ambassador-moscow-ukraine-warns-against-russian-sanctions/5659946
23
It’s not just a European problem when Russian sponsored insurgents shoot down an airliner with many passengers bound for Australia,sanctions probably won’t work,I wouldn’t have a clue ,but I’m not going to criticise any political leader for having a go. I was on a Malaysian Flight ,24 hours in front of MH 17, flying over Ukraine and Cavan Hogue can stick his opinion in a dark hole near his rear end.
33
There are two sides to every story.
Check this out.
http://scgnews.com/flight-mh17-what-youre-not-being-told
51
And at the other end of the world from OZ, a study that refutes Mann’s hockey stick. … “Reconstructed temperature in left graph starting from ~25,000 years ago during the last ice age…”. “A new paper published in Quaternary Science Reviews reconstructs land and sea surface temperatures in Norway since the last ice age and shows land surface temperatures during the early Holocene ~7,000 years ago were approximately the same as at the end of the record in ~2010. The data also shows sea surface temperatures near Norway were warmer during the Medieval Warm Period 1000 years ago and Roman Warm Period ~2000 years ago in comparison to the end of that record in ~2004.”
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.at/2014/08/new-paper-finds-another-non-hockey_9.html
30
That doesn’t explain how the Sahara was green and fertile about 7-9000 years ago; reference the Tassili frescoes indicating human occupation in the now least hospitable corner of the Sahara.
Archaeological evidence is of 2 periods of lengthy occupation divided by a cold period.
40
I will simply reply, that the Sahara is now greening as documented here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
“Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall. …
… Images taken between 1982 and 2002 revealed extensive regreening throughout the Sahel, according to a new study in the journal Biogeosciences.”
… water-holding capacity of the air is the main driving force,” Claussen said.”
May G_d bless us with more CO2 and more global warming!
30
Unfortunately, I don’t think HE will do this.
IF he exists, then HE sent us this slight warming and laid down those old coal beds for us to use.
I bet HE would be rather p*ssed off that there is a major movement (the catastraphorians) that want to throw HIS gift back at him.
Hence HE will say, “okay, if you want to reject the energy and warmth I send you….. back to the LIA you go “!!!
30
I always enjoy your comments! May Thoriam be with you.
10
Sailing down the Main River I saw 12 wind turbines (in 3 groups) all of which we’re turning. 2 were turning very slowly and one was turning at the regular speed but in the reverse direction. Left handed turbines?
It was also interesting that few houses had solar panels. Those that had went right overboard with 36 seeming a minimum. Some has 90 odd up to 144. It would seem that not many householders would be losers if the German government slashed the solar subsidies.
00
Andrew Griffiths –
for someone posting on a sceptic website, it seems u haven’t been following any the facts, but hey, that’s your right.
30
Lord Monckton has just posted on WUWT that the comment pediod for the EPA rules of fixed power station emissions (the effective outlawing of coal power), a policy that may kill millions given inadequate power and even one particularly brutal winter.
I know there are a few Americans in these here parts, so those of you that can, should comment.
For what it’s worth, here is one point that I think is particularly egregious. The EPA through its endangerment finding has completely ignored the danger of too LOW CO2. Using those same models (Ie 3.3 degree per doubling) it follows that halving the current 400 PPM would result in a catastophic fall of temperature of 3 degrees and the low CO2 would devastate food production reducing it by half, Alaska and the great lakes region may not even be habitable in such a scenario.
Now I know this is as bunkum as warming claims, but it IS the basis of the endangerment finding, and we must stick to the EPA storyline.
The EPA has therefore failed in it’s duty to completely define the threat posed by CO2, that is the threat posed by LOW CO2. However the threat posed by LOW CO2 would result in a finding that CO2 is an essential constituent of the atmosphere, and it’s my contention that the EPA couldn’t hold a simultaneous position that CO2 is an essential constituent, and a pollutant, or at least a competent judge couldn’t hold both those positions simultaneously. In completing the picture the EPA would be forced into a position where it would have to define an optimal CO2 level. I don’t think that can be done.
Finally, given that limiting CO2 limits food production and (according to the EPA) results in atmospheric chilling with the deaths that cold, and food limits entail, may be charged to the EPA admistrators who egregiously failed to consider the LOW CO2 case. The deliberate harm being done to the US population by EPA limiting food supplies and driving the temperature toward a colder climate is surely harmful to the American People, and as such is likely unconstitutional, and possibly actionable by the public.
82
It is self-evident the EPA is well past its sell by date and has been hijacked by ecoloon activists. The fact that Obama is deliberately circumventing Congress to get the EPA to enact his current very deliberate policy of making energy supplies scarce, expensive and unreliable, and this is all to try and solve a non-problem.
I note you had a couple of thumbs down, which are obviously from ecoloons, unless they are from someone upset by your use of the word it’s (the second time), when it should be its.
70
Ok, Ok, I fixed the second it’s when I did the first, I guess one should re-read context huh, but thanks for the spelling lesson. Unfortunately when one makes a spelling mistake and catches it too late you can’t go back and correct, it’s like working on an old typewriter, before the invention of whiteout – and even then there were erasers!
Jo, if there is one feature I’d like to see, it’s the ability for the author to edit, though I suppose that can be put to nefarious uses.
10
The evil powers that be know that CO2 is good for humanity. That is why they are against it. A warmer climate leads to less energy costs. A mild winter saves me about 400 euros compared to a cold winter. More CO2 leads to more vegetation and crop yields thus less undernourishment and hunger in the world. But more food means lower prices on food. That is not what the greedy elite wants. They want foodcrises. Most of the times it leads to conflicts and even war, but that is what the elite likes. Then they can sell weapons etc. This whole illuminati global warming CO2 scam is so totally evil. And more than half the world is sleeping
60
Re: Halley UK Research Base, Antarctica
I’m concerned for the fate of the overwintering personnel at this base, following the recent August 2014 reports of the 19 hour power and heating failure on site.
There is a curious lack of transparency about the actual reason leading up to their crisis. Some “stiff upper lip” upbeat Facebook comment from their on-site renewable energy engineer only cultivates my intrigue.
It seems that diesel (hey, isn’t that the horrible global-warming fossil fuel?) is their only potential saviour.
What renewable energy solutions are immediately available to the base via its resident on-site renewable energy specialist engineer? If not total, what partial solution to this acute crisis does renewable energy offer?
This must represent a globally defining moment for renewable energy to be counted as a reliable alternative to carbon/nuclear fuel sources.
No solar power because there is no sunlight during the current Antarctic winter. There seem to be no wind generator turbines in photos of the base. Wave energy harnessing is tough when the waves are solid ice for many kilometres from your base!
Fossil fuel to the rescue; I sincerely hope so, for their safety’s sake!.
50
The problem is likely the fuel, they had a very cold spell and that possibly caused flow problems in the fuel lines. If the power went down then it might be difficult to heat the fuel/lines to reestablish fuel flow. It’s a big potential problem with diesel in the cold.
Not that I’m saying that’s what happened, just pointing out the problems just getting a diesel engine started in such a cold place. Strangely it might pay to modify one of the diesels to run on LNG
20
Here is a puzzle.
From BOM Climate Data Online for each month so far of 2014, temperatures. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/
Stations 86071 (Melbourne Regional) and 86282 (Melbourne Airport).
Look at the difference between them. Note that the BOM claims Australia warmed about 0.7 degrees C last century.
Here we have monthly differences of up to three times that amount, from stations a mere 20 km apart.
What is the true error of these measurements? (I have carried too many significant figures in the table below, it would seem.)
Tmax Tmax
MelbR Tulla 2014 Melb-Tull
28.57 28.87 J -0.30
28.36 28.78 F -0.43
25.42 25.51 M -0.09
21.14 20.11 A 1.03
19.28 18.43 M 0.85
15.76 14.65 J 1.11
14.67 13.52 J 1.15
Tmin
MelbR Tulla
17.12 15.21 J 1.91
16.76 14.28 F 2.48
15.31 13.57 M 1.74
13.27 11.65 A 1.63
11.13 9.52 M 1.62
9.81 8.02 J 1.79
8.38 6.44 J 1.94
I wonder which station is used for claims like Melbourne’s record hottest extreme month?
(Note: Some of these temperatures are shown in italics on the BOM web site, which means that they are not yet through the error checking process and finalised. However, January and April at each site, at least, are not in italics, so have been cleared.)
(However, this can also be expressed as meaning that they are yet to be ‘adjusted’.)
30
To round off the weekend; an anti-climatic Dilbert cartoon by Scott Adams: It’s better to execute an imperfect plan today than a perfect plan next week.
30
New trend underway!
The skeptics have dealt with the Climate Catastrophe alarmists and are coming out on top by every indication so far with a lot of help from Nature in the raw.
The end is near at least for the alarmists something they believed would never, could never happen to them
So next point of call for the Skeptic brigade is the Green blob in all it’s hypocrisy and near criminality.
Have noted a big step up in commentary around the blogs in the last few months on the duplicity, hypocrisy and outright fabrication of facts ie lies that the Green blob has so industriously pursued over the last three decades.
Skeptics already have some help from an unexpected quarter. The Indians are pulling the plug of Greenpeace’s grossly inflammatory excesses as it has been calculated that Greenpeace and the raft of other nefarious NGO’s are costing India about 1.5 to 2% of it’s economic development each year.
It will be a long hard road but the now hubris laden Greens are helping a lot by busily sowing the the seeds of their own future destruction through blindly, ignorantly and arrogantly trying to impose their dictatorial human hating corrupt ideology onto those who are increasingly unwilling to kowtow and make large sacrifices to the increasingly odiferous Great Green Blob
50
Have you and David seen this remarkable correlation?
“Solar physicist Dr. Leif Svalgaard has revised his reconstruction of sunspot observations over the past 400 years from 1611-2013. Plotting the “time integral” of sunspot numbers from Dr. Svalgaard’s data shows a significant increase in accumulated solar energy beginning during the 1700’s and continuing through and after the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1850. After a ~30 year hiatus, accumulated solar energy resumes a “hockey stick” rise for the remainder of the 20th century, followed by a decline beginning in 2004, all of which show remarkable correspondence to the HADCRU3 global temperature record:”
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/08/its-sun_9.html
30
Flim flam has had you all fooled,y’all thought he was just a wacko alarmist,turns out he’s an award winning scientist.Still stranger things have happened,I just can’t remember when.
The oldest custodian of science in Australia has chosen Tim Flannery as the first recipient of its lifetime achievement award from its rebadged research institute.
Australian Museum director Kim McKay said the nation’s scientists needed to be celebrated, and the work of former musuem employee Dr Flannery, an internationally acclaimed researcher, explorer and conservationist, was an obvious first choice to honour.
30
It’s like a lifetime guarantee. A Lifetime Achievement expires as soon as the achievement fails to achieve anything.
20
Or a bit like a Lifetime-Guaranteed job at the ABC.
10
Flannery has a had a long and successful career in science.
But you wouldn’t know that, of course.
00
Yes, I heard that he did really well with those creatures that hop around.
But, he is not a climate scientist.
00
Oh so not true TBS, Flannery is much more than “creatures that hop around” expert, he is also an accomplished hydrologist his claim to fame in this area was the construction of a multitude of desal plants to shore up our dwindling water supplies once the biblical drought begins 6 years ago.
He is also a world acclaimed sea level expert and was the first in his field to predict the sea level rise that was goind to cover our roof tops pre 2010.
However his greatest claim to fame would have to be his ability to write fictional sci fi books.
00
Among the curious things that sometimes arrive in my News Max newsletter is the following, which I quote verbatim. It looks like even Death Valley refuses to cooperate with the global warming scam.
Just thought it might be worth a laugh, although a low temperature record for Death Valley at this time of year is a bit unusual.
30
Jo, at the end of the first page of the August 2 post titled: Broken models predict extreme cold snaps. (CO2 causes every sort of weather.) you offered the tantalizing suggestion “read more“.
I couldn’t stand more than a couple of lines of the “more”. Please don’t do this to me again.
10
at least Berdik didn’t write unsung ***hero. as for his invention “catching fire”, please provide the evidence:
10 Aug: Boston Globe: Chris Berdik: The unsung ***inventor of the carbon tax
An 86-year-old MIT professor finally sees his idea catch fire—without credit for his work
David G. Wilson’s latest invention sits in the corner of his MIT office. It’s a silver-domed solar cooker for use in African villages that lack electricity. Wilson, a native of England, and an 86-year old professor emeritus of mechanical engineering, has never lacked for big ideas…
In 1973, OPEC’s oil embargo had Americans lining up for blocks at gas stations that were running dry. Amid calls for gas rationing, Wilson proposed an alternative: Spur conservation by taxing fossil fuels, but keep the revenue out of government coffers by returning it all in equal dividend checks to every adult. Starting in early 1974, Wilson wrote articles, gave talks, and even testified about his tax plan before Congress. While the proposal appeared later that decade in writings by other scholars, none of whom cited Wilson, it never went anywhere as a policy and eventually faded from public discourse.
Today, the alarm over resource scarcity is muted, but Wilson’s scheme has resurfaced, with powerful new bipartisan support and a new purpose—slowing carbon emissions and climate change. The backers of a revenue-neutral carbon tax on fossil fuels include renowned climate scientist James Hansen as well as conservative economists, although there’s still fierce opposition and debate (see sidebar). Nobody mentions Wilson in these discussions, but after four decades, his big idea is back with a vengeance…
IDEAS: When did you first hear someone promoting this sort of idea in the context of carbon emissions and climate change?
WILSON: In the 1990s, I was coming to my retirement age, and at intervals, I was asking if I could work in energy policy with people at MIT. They always turned me down. One of them cited Peter Barnes, who wrote a book called “Who Owns the Sky” [in 2001]. And to my amazement it was almost exactly my policy. So I invited [Barnes] to MIT to give a talk, which he did. I asked him how he came up with this scheme, and he couldn’t explain it. So I wrote to him later to explain how I came up with the scheme and never got a response. I also wrote to Jim Hansen to congratulate him on adopting this scheme and said that it was something I’d been working on and I’d love to help. [Note: Barnes did not respond to two requests for interviews; Hansen, reached by e-mail, said he did not recall where he first heard of the idea.]…
http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/08/09/the-unsung-inventor-carbon-tax/f1xFyWmaXf2XzW3nVxrNJK/story.html
10
Way back on the July 26th thread of Jo’s titled
Half the world is immune to “expert consensus” they don’t think scientists know what they are talking about
I had a post at #17 which started as
So it is with some interest that I read today this post from the Pittsburg Post Gazette via the GWPF site
PG poll: Scientific consensus on climate change has not permeated the public
[quoted ]
This is contrary to some polls suggesting wide support for steps to counter the phenomenon. David W. Moore, director of the iMediaEthics survey, said the results suggest that, because of flaws in methodology or wording, some other surveys have overstated the degree of public knowledge on the issue, and the intensity of support for measures to curb carbon emissions. [See Mr. Moore’s essay in today’s Forum section, “Climate Partisans.” The poll report is available here, along with a description of the methodology.]
&
Specifically, half of the respondents were asked: “Would you approve or disapprove of the federal government requiring power plants to reduce greenhouse gases, even if it would mean higher utility bills for consumers, or are you unsure?” The other half were asked: “Would you approve or disapprove of the Obama administration requiring power plants …”
The results differed significantly with the use of the name Obama eliciting a margin of support of 42 percent to 28 percent, compared with 36 percent approval and 32 percent disapproval for the federal government. That may seem counterintuitive, given the president’s overall job approval ratings, but Mr. Moore explained that while the use of the Obama name reduced support among Republicans, it increased support, by a greater margin, among independents and Democrats.
Republicans disapproved of “federal government” regulation by a margin of 51-27; but opposed “Obama administration” regulation by a margin of 48-18. Independents disapproved of “federal government” regulation, 28-26, but that turned around with the mention of “Obama administration.” In that case, independents approved of the prospective regulation, 36-27. For Democrats, the mention of Obama had an even more positive effect, boosting approval from 50-16, to 64-13. In both cases, about a third of the sample said they were undecided.
Pointing to another way that wording can prejudice polling results, Mr. Moore noted another survey that asked people repeatedly about “the problem of climate change,” conditioning them to consider it a problem regardless of their views before taking the survey.
Beyond the uncertainty that wording can introduce into a survey, Mr. Moore and the iMediaEthics poll drilled down further to assess how much people actually cared about the proposed regulation, asking if they would be upset if the regulations were imposed or not. In his analysis of the results, Mr. Moore pointed out that, “Many respondents immediately acknowledged that they wouldn’t be upset if the opposite happened to what they had just said. The net result, 30 percent strongly favored the Obama administration trying to curb greenhouse gases; 22 percent strongly opposed the idea, with the rest not caring one way or the other.
[ / ]
In a survey you get the answers to the questions you ask!
10
Fairfax/Australian/Guardian carrying yet another attack on the PM re G20/CAGW. no doubt ABC will follow suit. Guardian even includes this Plibersek bit:
Tony Abbott under pressure to put climate change on G20 meeting agenda
The authors include Doherty, Prof. Gus Nossal, Fiona Stanley and the editor-in-chief of the Medical Journal of Australia, Prof. Stephen Leeder…
Last week the deputy Labor leader, Tanya Plibersek, told a meeting of US business leaders: “Nobody expects the G20 to be the meeting where people make binding commitments or talk about how exactly each country is going to reduce its climate emissions, but what the G20 can be is a statement that the G20 members understand that this is a pressing economic issue.
***“By contrast the United States is setting a very good example in this area.”
REALITY CHECK FOR PLIBERSEK – SETTING ASIDE THE MASSIVE EXPANSION OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING UNDER OBAMA, WHAT ABOUT THIS?
18 July: AP: Jason Dearen: Obama opens Eastern Seaboard to oil exploration
The Obama administration is reopening the Eastern Seaboard to offshore oil and gas exploration, approving seismic surveys using sonic cannons that can pinpoint energy deposits deep beneath the ocean floor.
Friday’s announcement is the first real step toward what could be a transformation in coastal states, creating thousands of jobs to support a new energy infrastructure. But it dismayed environmentalists and people who owe their livelihoods to fisheries and tourism.
The cannons create noise pollution in waters shared by whales, dolphins and turtles, sending sound waves many times louder than a jet engine reverberating through the deep every ten seconds for weeks at a time. Arguing that endangered species could be harmed was the environmental groups’ best hope for extending a decades-old ban against drilling off the U.S. Atlantic coast…
Oil lobbyists say drilling for the estimated 4.72 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 37.51 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that lies beneath federal waters from Florida to Maine could generate $195 billion in investment and spending between 2017 and 2035, contributing $23.5 billion per year to the economy…
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-newsbreak-obama-opens-east-coast-oil-search
OR THIS?
24 July: Whitehouse Press Release: Message to the Congress — Amendment Between the United States and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
FROM BARACK OBAMA TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
I am pleased to transmit to the Congress, pursuant to section 123 d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the text of an amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for Cooperation on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defense Purposes of July 3, 1958, as amended (the “1958 Agreement”). I am also pleased to transmit my written approval, authorization, and determination concerning the Amendment…
The Amendment extends for 10 years (until December 31, 2024), provisions of the 1958 Agreement that permit the transfer between the United States and the United Kingdom of classified information concerning atomic weapons; nuclear technology and controlled nuclear information; material and equipment for the development of defense plans; training of personnel; evaluation of potential enemy capability; development of delivery systems; and the research, development, and design of military reactors…
The United Kingdom intends to continue to maintain viable nuclear forces into the foreseeable future. Based on our previous close cooperation, and the fact that the United Kingdom continues to commit its nuclear forces to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, I have concluded it is in the United States national interest to continue to assist the United Kingdom in maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/07/24/message-congress-amendment-between-united-states-and-united-kingdom-grea
environmentalists in US & UK are highly critical of Obama on all these issues, but not Labor/Greens/ABC/Fairfax, who remain mesmerised by who they think he is, & ignore what he actually does. no wonder they still believe the CAGW team can predict the future.
20
The “head tilt” has been mentioned a few times now in this thread, so I thought it would be a nice distraction to take a vote on who of some of our favorites has the most moronic tilt.
10
Sorry, that was the previous thread, but hey!
10
Haha Did you have a long lunch BS? 🙂
The ‘head tilt’ was mastered by one of my favorite actors Chris Burke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Burke_(actor) a nice guy and 100 times more switched on than Emma what’s her face.
00
Read this article and it must be the education I’ve had from jonova.com
Near the end. ““Art is a funny thing, either you love it or you hate it,I’m just glad we had the opportunity and it’s quite hard to get your foot in the door with all the government grants and tender processes.””
00
Australian Sen. David Leyonhjelm Crafts a ‘Libertarian Moment’ Down Under
From the American Libertarian magazine Reason.
00
MSimon
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
August 17, 2014 at 5:02 pm · Reply
00