…
9.2 out of 10 based on 16 ratings
|
|
||||
|
According to a new study released by Nature Climate Change we are, remarkably, at the very peak of conditions for wheat growth worldwide — and it’s all downhill from here. (What are the odds?) The last 15 years, which have been the “hottest on record” and saw massive human CO2 output, were the peak time for wheat. But all that is about to fall off a cliff if we do … more of the same. To demonstrate that millions will starve: take projections of extremes from broken climate models, and put them in wheat crop models, and then assume we take no adaptive measures for the first time in human history. Ignore that even the IPCC doesn’t think extreme events are necessarily changing: “Climate models are unable to predict extreme events because they lack spatial and temporal resolution. In addition, there is no clear evidence that sustained or worldwide changes in extreme events have occurred in the past few decades. “ There’s been no increase in drought globally in the last 60 years either. Pouring free fertilizer into the sky, along with better agricultural practices, has produced a global boom in crops (See CO2science for scores of studies on biomass […] February 21st, 2015 | Tags: Crops, Peak Grain Production, Plant growth | Category: Agriculture, Flora, Global Warming |  Print This Post | | Peter Oborne resigned from the UK Telegraph because it was scandalously holding back negative stories about HSBC, a major advertiser. His plea is an eye opener: The coverage of HSBC in Britain’s Telegraph is a fraud on its readers. If major newspapers allow corporations to influence their content for fear of losing advertising revenue, democracy itself is in peril. So much for the illusion of free press. A friend said this has nothing to do with a science blog. I said, Why not? Science journals are publishing houses too, and worse, their main advertiser is also their biggest subscriber. The journals live where a monopsony meets a monopoly. The largest customer of many science journals are government funded university libraries and academics. The advertisers are often the same organizations. A new Nature journal was even set up this month in partnership with a university. Independence is not just a blurry line out there, it’s deep fog. There is dominant government funding from beginning to end. The government doesn’t have to heavy hand the journals, as HSBC did. It doesn’t need to be overt at all. In fields like climate research nearly every single employee in the chain of […] Reports are coming in that the BOM and ABC are spinning the Queensland cyclone. This is the thread for those comments. I’ll add more detail as the situation “clears”.
8 out of 10 based on 77 ratings When it comes to our rare high-quality historic records, and the real long term trends of Australian weather, the silence is striking. There are some excellent historical records of long term temperature data from the late 1800s in Australia, which lie underused and largely ignored by the BOM. For the BOM, history almost appears to start in 1910, yet the modern type of Stevenson screen thermometer was installed across Australia starting as early as 1884 in Adelaide. Most stations in Queensland were converted as long ago as 1889 and in South Australia by 1892. Though states like NSW and Victoria were delayed until 1908. Here’s a photo of the ones in Brisbane in 1890. Brisbane was recording temperatures with modern Stevenson screens in 1890, as were some other stations, but the BOM often ignores these long records. The BOM don’t often mention all their older temperature data. They argue that all the recordings then were not taken with standardized equipment. The BOM prefers to start long term graphs and trends from 1910 (except when they start in 1950 or 1970, or 1993). The BOM was set up in 1908. Before that there were Stevenson screens going in […] February 19th, 2015 | Tags: Australian temperatures, BOM, Evidence, Hughes (Warwick), Marohasy (Jennifer), Pidgeon (Lance) | Category: Global Warming | Print This Post | | Welcome to “science journalism” at The New York Times where climate forces are not so much about sunlight and cloud cover, but about “deniers”, “doubters”, and “disinformers”. While our climate is supposedly the crisis the world must face, the NY Times solution is not to investigate and debate the leading ideas, but to ask what names we toss at Nobel Prize winners who don’t endorse the approved establishment line. Pravda would be proud. Most surveys and polls show 50% of the population are skeptical. A real newspaper that was leading and shaping the public debate would find the most informed views from both sides and put them forward, shaping and hammering out the public debate. Instead, the NY Times discusses petitions pushing namecalling. Justin Gillis asks: What to Call a Doubter of Climate Change? What indeed, I wonder? Does any single real person doubt that the climate can change? I have not met such a person (though many believers of the dominant government-endorsed paradigm seem to think the climate was stable and perfect before emissions of man-made CO2). The UN redefined the boringly obvious term “climate change” to be a coded shorthand for “man-made global warming”. Justin Gillis […] … The Australian Academy of Science (AAAS) updated their “Science of Climate Change” document. It’s more glossy unscientific propaganda. Garth Paltridge wonders in The Australian if the Academy will come to regret it. As usual, it’s what they don’t say that matters. They don’t mention how badly the current models have failed, and they hide that climate models give contradictory rainfall projections and just cherry pick one that gives the answer they want. They repeat the meaningless argument that their models don’t “work” without CO2. Perhaps they should let the taxpaying voters know that their models don’t “work” with CO2 either? None of the models can explain what caused the Medieval or Roman warming when CO2 was “ideal”. They conceal that the model forecasts rely on assumptions of feedbacks that the empirical evidence shows are wrong. “Basically the Academy has fallen into the trap of being no more than a conduit for a massive international political campaign ” Climate of cherry-picking Garth Paltridge The Australian The problem is that, after several decades of refining their story, the international gurus of climate change have become very good at having their cake and eating it […] February 17th, 2015 | Tags: Australian Academy of Science, Paltridge (Garth), The Australian | Category: Global Warming | Print This Post | | The pace and volume of the cheerleading is picking up. Over the weekend, the Vatican announced that climate is now a Catholic issue, and they are setting up an enviro “think tank” (what does God think of Climate Change?) The Australian Academy of Science produced its new advertising to feed the cash-cow called climate-grants (details on that later). The zombie issue of imaginary climate refugees resurfaced — 45 Fijian Villages are “projected” to be relocated in the next five to ten years; which bureaucrat says this, and will they apologize and quit 10 years from now if this turns out to be a wild exaggeration like the last claim? It’s On. In 2015, we are going to be swamped with climate-spin. The UNFCCC meeting in Paris is a major money and power-grab, and those with snouts in the trough know that their future fat cheques depend on how well they push propanganda, silence critics, and shout down intelligent debate. At one stage they were asking for 1.5% of global GDP (about $2,500 per Western family of four annually). How much will they take? As much as we let them. We can protest now, or protest later, but why wait? They […] … 7.7 out of 10 based on 21 ratings UPDATE Dan Kahan has replied in Comment #54. So much for the theory that skeptics are dumb or uninformed. Fox News reports that a new study shows that when people are quizzed about climate science, the skeptics outscored the believers. Dan Kahan at Yale did the study on 2,000 people, but with only nine questions, so there is limited insight here, but it fits with his previous study which found people who knew more about maths and science were more likely to be skeptical. Readers of skeptical blogs (who chose to respond to surveys and list their qualifications in comments) are likely to have hard science degrees. The world is slowly waking up to the fact that the skeptics are more knowledgeable about science. In a proper science quiz, the gap would probably be even larger. On two of the nine questions, skeptics got the science right. But believers “outscored” skeptics at repeating the propaganda (which shouldn’t be a question in a survey about scientific knowledge). I’d like to see all nine questions (can anyone find a preprint or the paper?) Skeptics get science right: One question, for instance, asked if scientists believe that warming would […] February 14th, 2015 | Tags: Skeptical Scientists, Survey | Category: AGW socio-political, Global Warming, Politics | Print This Post | | Heatwaves are a wonderful headline generator. That’s because the term sounds scary, yet the “wave” itself is undefined. A hundred different types of heatwave are theoretically possible, but they all sound the same in a headline. It means an activist team could pick and choose the particular one that scores a “record”. Heatwaves can be 3, 4, 5, 7 or 10 days. They can be measured by town, city, state or national data and they are can be above 35, 37, 40 degrees or… pick a number. A heatwave can be measured as days above some percentile of average. That means a few warm days in a cold town can be defined as a heatwave. Geoff Sherrington, drawing no dollars from the taxpayer, takes a simple and obvious approach, and looks at 5 capital cities with the BOM raw and adjusted ACORN data. He considered 4, 5, and 6 day heatwaves to see if there was a trend. With 5 cites, 2 data types, 3 lengths of heatwave, Sherrington created 30 graphs. After testing all those different combinations of heatwaves, there were only three graphs out of 30 that showed an increasing trend. Over half of the heatwave graphs showed […] February 13th, 2015 | Tags: Heatwaves, Sherrington (Geoff) | Category: Global Warming | Print This Post | | Renewables, are not just inefficient, unnecessary, and deadly to wildlife, but they were also a disaster of planning and management. The list of dollars and euros destroyed in the Glorious Renewables Quest has gone “nuclear”. The World Economic Forum estimates $100 billion Euro has been wasted, but its even worse than it looks. I had to read their opening sentence twice. I thought it read “European countries could have saved approximately $100 billion if each country had invested in the most efficient energy source.” I was thinking they could have saved that sort of money by using coal instead of windmills… but no, those huge savings would be over and above those ones. The WEF is talking about money saved if “badly managed renewables, had been “well managed ones”. The inefficiency here is the scale only big-government could achieve. The Energy Collective Europe Loses Billions in Badly Sited Renewable Power Plants European countries could have saved approximately $100 billion if each country had invested in the most efficient capacity given their renewable energy resources, that is, by installing wind turbines in windier countries and solar power plants in sunnier places. But why would we be surprised? […] February 13th, 2015 | Tags: Big-Government, Europe, Greens (fake), Renewable Energy | Category: Big-Government, Energy, Global Warming, Renewable | Print This Post | | Get ready: “Australia records its third quietest start to the cyclone season in 50 years.” ABC news, Jack Kerr Bravo, I thought. ABC covers a good-weather story… but no, lo, for the climate oracles tell us this is ominous and bigger nastier storms are coming. Be afraid! This weather is weird? There have only been four occasions since the mid-1960s when cyclones haven’t crossed the mainland before February. Only four. Golly! This year is almost as “bad”as the worst of the prehistoric era, i.e. ’68, ’80, ’88). It’s not like the good ol’ days — when people used to get decent cyclones all the time: Back in 1870, when Cairns started life as a gold port, four to five severe cyclones would hit the Queensland east coast every decade. By 2010, that average was down to less than two. Lucky them. To see the effect of man-made global warming, look hard at this graph below. Spot the… trend. A high bar means a long slow quiet start to the cyclone season. At the start in 1964 CO2 was a wonderful 320ppm. Now it is at 400ppm and obviously (when seen through a computer […] February 12th, 2015 | Tags: Cyclones, Storms | Category: Global Warming, Media-matters | Print This Post | | Bernie Lewin and the GWPF have launched an excellent historical paper” “Hubert Lamb And The Transformation Of Climate Science. For those who don’t know Hubert Lamb was the founding Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (the infamous CRU of ClimateGate). He was also a skeptic.When he died the then director called him “the greatest climatologist of his time”. He spent most of his career convincing the world that Earths climate was constantly changing. The irony then, was that the UN then redefined “climate change” to mean man-made climate change, and honored him with a building stocked with researchers who spent a lot of the time playing down all that natural variation. He earned the good will and reputation, and the UN spent it. Lewin captures the repeating patterns of history. For decades Lamb fought the dogma that claimed the Earths climate was unchanging. He succeeded and was rewarded, but then the dogma was reborn in another guise: .,. “..Right through to the end of the 20th century the claim was that both models and data were showing the enhanced greenhouse effect emerging out of the background ‘noise’ of natural variations. Thus […] Contact lists for our politicians were posted here early Sunday. The Daily Telegraph reports that MPs got close to 300 emails per electorate on the weekend, 20 – 1 in favor of Abbott. My message Friday and the message of emailers was that a shift to Turnbull would split the party. Passion against Turnbull runs deep. Multiple Liberal MPs received close to 300 emails, per electorate, from the party faithful at the weekend with support for Prime Minister Tony Abbott running at “20-1”. It can also be revealed in February 2009 when Mr Turnbull was Opposition Leader he trailed Labor 58 per cent to 42 per cent on the Newspoll two party preferred vote. The Liberal Party’s primary vote was just 32 per cent. Backbench MPs across Australia contacted by The Daily Telegraph last night confirmed constituents had launched an uprising against the change. 9.6 out of 10 based on 76 ratings […] The Climate Council calculate the “odds” that one warm year could be as hot as it was. But those “odds” depend on a logical fallacy, major, inexplicable adjustments and models we know are broken. There are invisible assumptions underlying that claim which are documentably untrue. The “odds” might as well be lotto results. The fallacy is argument from ignorance, a failure of logic and reasoning like saying “X is true, because we can’t think of anything else“. To estimate meaningful odds, scientists would have to understand the major driving factors of our climate, well enough to be able to assign probabilities to outcomes. But their models are hopelessly broken, they can’t predict a decadal average on a global or continental scale. They can’t hindcast the past “bumps” without using major adjustments to make the raw observations fit the models. They don’t know why the medieval warm period was warm, they don’t know why the Little Ice Age was cool. They don’t know why the world started warming 200 years before we poured out industrial levels of CO2. They don’t know if the mystery factors driving our climate for the last 4.5 billion years are still operating. If we can’t predict […] February 9th, 2015 | Tags: Climate Council, Climate Models, Logic & Reason | Category: Global Warming | Print This Post | | UPDATE: Spill vote is now Monday, not Tuesday. Turnbull has not resigned, but announced he will challenge if the spill vote passes, and is mocking Abbott. — Bolt Polls show Turnbull would deliver only a 6% bounce in the honeymoon. Not even enough to win a snap election. UPDATE#2: The spill vote defeated 61:39. Abbott stays on as PM, but will have to do something differently, or he has only bought time until the next one. Firey emails are crossing my desk today of people vowing to quit the Liberal party. Malcolm Turnbull lost his leadership in 2009 because he wanted an emissions trading scheme. But that extraordinary wave may get reversed. Australia may still end up with an emissions trading scheme which will send billions in brokers fees to bankers, won’t change the climate, and will be almost impossible to unwind. It’s not about free markets, it’s about fake ones. What’s worse than a carbon tax? A carbon market. In 2009, a week after ClimateGate, and two weeks before Copenhagen, the furious outcry from Coalition party supporters and skeptics turned the Liberal party upside down. The skeptic message has spread since then. In 2014, even […] February 8th, 2015 | Tags: Australian Politics | Category: Big-Government, Global Warming, Politics | Print This Post | | Never ever take the thought police seriously. I’m not sexist, I’m not racist, I’m not ageist. We just hate old white men. Comedian: Neel Kolhatkar, Melbourne. | Youtube. UPDATE: I’m reminded of this Sydney Morning Herald article two weeks ago. “Seven words you didn’t know were racist”. (Kaffir Lime. Peanut Gallery. Barbarian. Paddy Wagon. Gyp. Bugger and Sold down the River.) We can always rely on the SMH. h/t warcroft 9.4 out of 10 based on 35 ratings February 8th, 2015 | Tags: Political Correctness, YouTube | Category: Free Speech, Funny stuff, Global Warming | Print This Post | | The thread for discussing “the spill motion”. Will we get a new PM next week? The attempted spill of the Australian PM is on. Some skeptical MPs and commentators have been aggressively and publicly attacking Australian PM Tony Abbott, yet he’s has been one of the most skeptical PMs in the Western World. The climate debate is heating up again with Paris on this year. Seriously — is any alternative better? Potential candidates include Julie Bishop, Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison. According to Dennis Shanahan both Turnbull and Morrison have said they will not challenge. The WA MP rebels (both skeptics) are apparently angling for Julie Bishop, a fellow West Australian. Malcolm Turnbull is Australia’s version of David Cameron. Will Turnbull, ex Goldman Sachs, former opposition leader who died on the sword of an emissions trading scheme, be our PM next week? If Turnbull did run and win, the only bright point is it will be the best thing for those hoping to set up the equivalent of the UKIP in Australia. It could be the trigger for the conservatives to split from the Labor-lite Liberals. The passion against Turnbull runs deep. The Nationals have vowed that Turnbull would have […] The UK Met Office went to some effort to graph the last 160 years, from hottest calendar year to coldest. Name the scientific reason: 1. Because the order of the calendar years is important. The graph reveals mysterious patterns — Years ending in 3, 4, or 5 are more likely to be hotter. Years containing a six are statistically more likely to be green. OR 2. Because climate models show a linear rise in temperatures, and no “pause”, and this graph does too. Glance at it sideways and be afraid! The Met Office used to say one year doesn’t mean anything, only long term trends matter. Now they graph the noise. … Thanks to Barry Woods for pointing me at this, and carefully putting the years back in their chronological order in the graph below. See the pause? See the noise? 8.7 out of 10 based on 98 ratings February 6th, 2015 | Tags: Hadley, Satire & Parody, UK, UK Met Office | Category: Global Warming | Print This Post | | |
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets
   
 
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2026 JoNova - All Rights Reserved |
||||
Recent Comments