An update on the graph that is death to climate models
Good people of Earth are spending thousands of billions of dollars to prevent a future predicted by models that we know don’t work. The debate is over, climate spending is an unscientific, pagan, theological quest to change the weather. Just another iteration of what Druids and Witchdoctors have been promising for eons. Don’t expect the vested interests that profit from this Golden Climate Gravy Train to tell you this.
The top 23 global coupled climate models don’t understand the climate and can’t predict it. Our CO2 emissions are accelerating, the effect should be amplifying, but millions of weather balloons and satellites that circle the Earth 24 hours a day show unequivocally that the models are wrong.
TROPICAL MID-TROPOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE VARIATIONS MODELS vs OBSERVATIONS 5-Year Averages, 1979-2016 – Trend line crosses zero at 1979 for all time series
The Climate Study Group have placed this graph in an advert (why do skeptics have to pay to get graphs like this — a public service — printed?)
Acolytes and fellow parasites will say that surface temperatures measured by NASA and Hadley show the models are consistent within the bounds of estimates, and error bars, blah, blah, balony blah.
Grown ups will reply that the Hadley Met Centre uses thermometers near airport tarmacs and air conditioners (when they are lucky enough to even have thermometers). It’s a shonky, degraded dataset with barely any data before 1950, and it starts with freezing tropical islands and boats roaming around on land and then adjusts up the kazoo to make it even worse. The NASA set uses the same bad equipment, holey data, and adjusts by the kazoo squared. The past is constantly changing, the trends are fitted post hoc to the models and the results don’t fit historical records, or satellite data and the weather balloons.
They will protest and say their trends fit the RSS satellite data. They won’t tell you that UAH satellite dataset is better because it agrees with the weather balloons, tosses out inconsistent satellite measurements, uses three channels not one, and uses satellites free of diurnal drift to estimate errors in others. The RSS set is internally inconsistent, starts with model estimates, not observations, leaves in an error that creates artificial warming, then corrects it just in time to stop the exact same error from creating cooling. What do you call a dataset with part-time non-random errors? Junk.
The Christy Graph has all the data we need. It’s as close as we’ll ever get to proof the models are guesswork that failed.
Stop pouring trillions of dollars into a hole.
Thanks to Tom Quirk, John Christy and The Climate Study Group.
Thanks to the Californian conflagration, Global Climate Superstition is here again to tell us that fires in coal plants cause fires in forests. Scientists, on the other hand, find that as emissions got higher there was a fall in wildfires globally, droughts didn’t get worse and winds have slowed.
The witchdoctors play on the Back in the days when people rowed their battleships to war, the megadroughts were really mega. Despite all the mechanization (or probably because of it) global biomass burning was lower in the last century than anytime since Julius Caesar.
If CO2 is the driving force behind fires apparently we need more of it.
When it comes to fire, temperature is not as important as wind speed, fuel load, and the density of arsonists.
Last we heard, winds were slowing globally at a rate of 0.5km/hour. The great Global Stilling can’t be bad for fires (though it can’t be good for wind farms). Perhaps a slightly slower wind is irrelevant. But then if half a kilometer per hour of wind doesn’t matter, why does half a degree of warming? Judging by the actual area burned by fires, not.
As Willis Eschenbach points out California is only warming by 0.02°C per decade, and the rain has only declined “by a totally meaningless five-hundredths of an inch (1.1 mm) per decade.”
The area being burnt around the globe has been … shrinking.
Figure 2. Wildfire occurrence (a) and corresponding area burnt (b) in the European Mediterranean region for the period 1980 – 2010. Source: San-Miguel-Ayanz et al. [37].
As Doerr and Santini say, it’s not just the recent past, but the long term trend too:
Analysis of charcoal records in sediments (Marlon et al) and isotope-ratio records in ice cores (Wang et al) suggest that global biomass burning during the past century has been lower than at any time in the past 2000 years.
Could this be a coincidence? Perhaps fossil fuel powered trucks, bulldozers, helicopters and chainsaws, plus fossil-fuel-launched satellites are better at making firebreaks, identifying spot fires, and stopping fires from spreading?
When wowsers banned alcohol in the US, the price of beer rose sevenfold. Nick Cater points at rising coal share prices and ponders that the Green divestment plan to reduce coal use works just as well as prohibition did. Divestment shrinks capital inflow to coal mines, so there are fewer new mines, and less coal available. But people still want just as much coal as they ever did, so the price of coal goes up instead of down. Good news for coal investors. Too bad about those on the poverty line. Put some more dung in the barbie…..
Once again Green economics amounts to Wish Fairy Declarations. The first Law of Free Markets is Supply and Demand. The Greens might have changed the “supply” slightly (temporarily, and only in some countries) but demand hasn’t changed, so supply will rebound.
To help the poor afford coal the only ethical thing to do is invest in coal mining:
Nick Cater, The Australian
History is unlikely to be kind to them. Coercive attempts to stop the use of fossil fuels are delivering the same perverse economic consequences as the attempts to close down American saloon bars in the 1920s. The consumers pay more for a substance they choose not to live without, while the producers count the profits.
A report released last week by international financial analysts Redburn predicts a similar result from the activist-driven campaign against fossil fuel companies.
The attempt to starve coal producers of capital has impeded their attempts to build new coal mines but it hasn’t got in the way of profits. The price of coal has risen to a six-year high, which is good news for the coal business but bad news if you’re living in, say, India’s Bihar state, where three out of four households don’t have electricity.
“Energy prices will need rise to the level at which the marginal consumer of fossil fuels is incentivised not to be a consumer,” Redburn reports. “In other words, the 1 to 2 billion people on the planet with zero or unreliable access to modern energy would remain priced out of the market.”
Guide to being ethical — do NOT what the Greens do:
Redburn’s analysts turn the tables on so-called ethical investors by forcing them to confront the consequences of fossil fuel divestment, a phenomenon that has swept university campuses, shareholder meetings and boardrooms, much as anti-alcohol mania did a century ago.
“Given the pernicious consequences of energy undersupply, we would go so far as to argue that the socially responsible investor has a duty to ensure capital is available to the fossil fuel industry, for as long as it is needed,” they write.
One pities those who may have taken their financial advice from Choice, which in 2014 seized on a dismal report from the Australia Institute to predict that fossil fuel shares were heading south.
The closures and “heartbreaking” decisions are escalating as electricity contracts for businesses are being renegotiated in the new era of higher wholesale electricity prices. Family run operations that have survived for 40 years are being destroyed. Years of work, investment and training are being erased.
“This is the biggest business crisis I’ve seen in my lifetime,” said Peter Strong, chief executive of the Council of Small Business Australia. “The GFC was managed and it affected everybody, but this is only Australia and we cannot see a solution.
“What we’re hearing is terrible. We’re seeing closures have already started, I fully expect there will be more closures and staff put off. When you’re running a small supermarket, where do you find an extra $70,000?”
Businesses are more exposed to the rapidly rising wholesale electricity costs than householders are, and long term contracts are being renegotiated. As they do, rises of 120% are hitting small businesses.
The price hikes hitting businesses of up 120 per cent — dwarfing the 20 per cent increases faced by households — have been partly blamed on the closure of cheap coal-fired power stations, including Hazelwood in Victoria and Playford in South Australia.
Another key driver has been the high price of gas, partially due to a shortage of east coast domestic supply.
Managing director [of Plastic Granulating Services] Stephen Scherer said his monthly electricity bill had increased from about $80,000 to $180,000 over the past year-and-a-half,…
Blame Tony Abbott, what else?
Sadly Peter Strong thinks the problem is a mythical creature called a “policy deadlock”. The only deadlock in Australia is the poison grip of rampant renewables subsidies which have relentlessly increased year after year without missing a day:
The small business lobby group says urgent action is needed to resolve the decade-long national deadlock on energy policy in the face of what’s being described as a bigger crisis than the GFC.
Mr Strong hit out at the Liberal backbench for being too focused on “ideology”. “The dissenters in the Libs need to shut up and go away,” he said.
“Tony Abbott in particular is the reason nothing has been done. The Finkel Report is a good report and it needs to be actioned. To promise power prices would go down [through scrapping the carbon tax] and to have them go up 110 per cent is one of the biggest policy failures we’ve ever seen.”
Abbott couldn’t have solved the electricity rises unless he axed the RET. Axing the carbon tax helped, but was not enough.
Someone needs to write to Peter Strong. Ask him what kind of electricity and policy kept small businesses running for 40 years.
Unreliable renewables are destroying businesses, the last thing we need is more of them.
Some days I wonder if I should spread stories that make us sound like a recidivist third-world backwater struggling to maintain our voltage. But the ABC is already smashing away.
Just when you think there couldn’t possibly be another drawback to solar panels, lo! Solar Panels are pushing up the voltage at midday often as high as 253 Volts when it supposed to be more like 230 to 240V. This means appliances are using more electricity, that makes bills even higher. It may also be breaking appliances (making other bills go higher too). We’re not really sure about that, but when that study is done, it’ll already be 1.8 million panels too late.
Non-solar users are paying for this surge (and the appliances) — for every 1% increase in voltage, the costs go up 0.7%. Then, to ice that gravy-cake, the inverters on solar panels are also shutting off at 253V, meaning that poor home owners who paid thousands are not generating power for the grid. All up, solar is bad for you, bad for them, bad for our light-globes.
The warning comes from groups running the electricity networks in Australia.
Spot the key word missing from the ABC headline — starts with ‘s’, ends in ‘lar’:
Travel 40% of the way through the article to find the key point:
Andrew Dillon, spokesman for Energy Networks Australia, the peak body for Australia’s poles and wires companies] said the rapid uptake of rooftop solar systems was a particular issue for the networks, because solar systems are supplying extra electricity to the grid, and boosting voltages.
But to be fair, the ABC did highlight “solar” in the three key points at the top — wait for it: “Voltage” can be a problem, but solar panels can only be victims. No sacred cows are sacrificed in this story.
Key points
Higher voltage on power supply to homes is a major concern, researchers say
Impact on home appliances and potential ‘burnout’ needs more research
Could be causing a significant amount of solar energy to be wasted
Solution: give us more money, try another experiment
“There are technologies we could adopt today, to be able to manage the voltage challenges we have from solar better than we are now,” he said.
“The problem we have is we are not willing to pay billions of dollars further on the network … [we’re] after a smart, cost-effective transition.”
Some poles and wires companies are trialling voltage reduction on a large scale, and there is evidence that this could cut electricity consumption.
Don’t mention the third way: Stop subsidizing weather-changing-white-solar- elephants, and ask solar owners to cover the costs to stabilize the system as is. We could make a case that solar owners should be subsidizing bill payers who have been carrying the cost.
Higher voltage means higher bills
The results of a recent trial, by the Victorian network United Energy, showed that when voltage was reduced at 20 substations in and around Melbourne, every 1 per cent reduction in voltage saw, on average, an estimated 0.69 per cent reduction in demand for electricity.
But there is also research by the Queensland network Energex showing the scale of the problem the networks are facing.
When Energex reviewed almost 34,000 of the electrical transformers on its network in 2014, it found 76 per cent of the transformers were set too high, and were sending too much voltage through to households.
“Lucky”, a quarter of transformers in Queensland might be working properly. Err, “congrats”.
High voltages turn solar PV in white elephants
Above 253V solar panel inverters themselves shut off, making the panels into white elephants just at the point when they are generating the most electricity.
High volts could mean wasted solar
There is one area where high voltage is definitely causing headaches, and that is for people who have installed rooftop solar systems.
Pensioner Paul Ryan installed solar panels on his house in the Victorian town of Warragul more than a year ago, but for much of that time they have not been working. The system often has to shut off to protect itself from high voltages coming in from the grid.
“It turned out to be a bit of a white elephant in a sense,” Mr Ryan told 7.30.
Rooftop solar systems are designed to operate at a few volts higher than the grid, so they can feed electricity back into the local network.
But with network voltage supplied to households already running at the high end, solar energy feeding into the grid can boost the volts even higher, and over the 253-volt limit — causing solar inverters to shut off.
The whole point of solar panels is to stop storms and hold back the tide which makes them a white elephant from the moment they are installed. The high voltage cut-off makes white elephants into double elephants.
Not something you want on the roof.
With 1.8 million solar systems installed in Australian homes and businesses, a significant amount of renewable energy may simply be wasted.
Not to mention the significant billions used to install equipment that was never going to achieve anything bar making expensive green electrons that we didn’t need in the first place.
The next ice coming to Europe might look something like the last ice age shown in this simulation. A time when Venice will be top of a long paddock that stretches to Albania.
In school children are taught to hyperventilate about the last 30m retreat of glaciers that never stayed put ever.
Instead, they could be studying this… (click to start)
At the 24,000 year BC point glaciers have wiped out Zurich, Bern, Geneva.
Image the effect on people if this were shown everytime a Swiss Alps disaster story was run?
About 25000 years ago, Alpine Glaciers filled most of the valleys and even extended onto the plains. Using a computer model that contains knowledge on glacier physics based on modern observations of Greenland and Antarctica and laboratory experiments on ice, help from traces left by glaciers on the landscape, and one of the fastest computers in the world, this animation is an attempt to reconstruct of the evolution of Alpine Glaciers in time from 120000 years ago to today.
Glacier recession has led to an upward migration of Alpine plants at a rate of 0.5 – 4 m per decade. In the long run, lowland plants will displace Alpine species to ever-higher altitudes until they simply have nowhere to go at all, effectively forcing them into extinction.
But one day, sometime, they will come back. Then what?
The Rhone Glacier, Glacier hotel and Furka Road, Valais, Switzerland. Circa 1890 – 1900.
REFERENCE
J. Seguinot, S. Ivy-Ochs, G. Jouvet, M. Huss, M. Funk, and F. Preusser. Modelling last glacial cycle ice dynamics in the Alps, *The Cryosphere*, 12, 3265-3285, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-3265-2018, 2018.
Wind turbines either kill or scare away three quarters of buzzards, hawks and kites at three sites in India. That makes them the new “top predator” in the ecosystem according to new research. Perhaps not the niche that Greens were expecting wind farms to occupy.
It’s not all bad news though, fan-throated lizards are pretty happy about not being dinner.
The term is not scary — at last not in a visceral, skin-crawling sense. Scientists have shown that the likely 2 degrees of global warming to come this century will be extremely dangerous, but, you know, “2 degrees” is hardly a phrase from nightmares and horror films.
How about “rat explosion”?
As the climate warms, rats in New York, Philadelphia and Boston are breeding faster — and experts warn of a population explosion.
Climate change only makes bad things live and grow stronger:
The physics of climate change doesn’t have the same fear factor as the biology. … so populations will crash or explode as anthropogenic climate change continues to make wet areas more sodden and dry areas, more parched.
What genius research is this:
… rats have a gestation period of 14 days. The babies can start reproducing after a month. That means that in one year, one pregnant rat can result in 15,000 to 18,000 new rats.
Holy Rodent! Someone has discovered exponential growth and applied no limits. And E.Coli shall take over the world in the next 48 hours, except they never do.
It’s the Mathusian Growth Model, without even Malthus’ limits.
But it’s not just rats, think locusts and marauding urchins!
Rats are just the beginning. Biologists have calculated that with the expected warming this century of 2 degrees Celsius, populations of dangerous crop-eating insects are likely to explode as temperate areas warm, reducing crop yields by 25 to 50 percent. Similar horrors lurk offshore, where biologists have found that a population explosion of purple sea urchins — “cockroaches of the ocean” — is choking out other denizens of Pacific kelp forests.
Forget rodents, we are being over by pop-psychologists:
The worst thing about ignorant, uninformed waffle is that the people doing it are Professors of Psych:
In recent years, psychologists have accused conservatives of being more innately fearful than liberals, but that never quite squared with the fact that conservatives express less fear over environmental problems.
There’s a difference between fear of real things, and fear of fake ones. Anyone who studies conservatives knows that they are afraid of losing jobs, quality of life, and the building blocks of a fragile, brilliant civilization. Anyone who studies the modern incarnation of “progressives” knows they worry about forests that are greening, crops that are increasing, and whether we have got the labels right on toilet doors.
Naturally, we all can’t wait to go back to a time when CO2 levels were perfect and rat plagues never happened.
Unpermitted words have a Weapons-Grade power over useful words at a rate of a billion to one
Speak a Forbidden Term and your entire career can be neutralized instantly. It doesn’t matter how many other useful ideas or contributions you make. Any breach unleashes a tidal wave of unrighteous indignation. Then the honest players fold like daffodils in a breeze and leap to carry out the judgement of twitter mobs. Why do good people help the Lynch Mob every time?
The permitted word list is defined by the PC mob, it changes at random, and post hoc, and only applies to people who threaten collectivist power. Eminent scientists can be called “deniers” as if they are mental morons, they can be likened to pedophiles, asbestos-pushers and Hitler, and that’s not only OK, those people get lavish taxpayer funded careers and prizes. (Not mentioning any names Stephan Lewandowsky and Robyn Williams.)
Freedom of Speech is under threat — we have to stand up to this
Tuesday, Ross Cameron said the four forbidden words “slanty-eyed, yellow-skinned“. Rude, yes, dynamite, no. They were better left unsaid, and potentially offensive, but not a sackable offence.
Suddenly the experienced former MP and long time commentator was a Proven Racist, which, like a dose of social Ebola, means he had to be excised lest his condition infect the rest of the show, or even the entire channel. Lordy, deranged Twitter Mobs might call Sky The-Channel-of-Racists! But here’s the thing, they already do that anyway.
As Andrew Bolt points out Ross was defending China. Co-host Rowan Dean told him off for sounding like an advert.
Ross Cameron has made decades of contributions to the national dialogue, with millions of useful words, but none of that counts if we reduce a whole person to a binary dot. In a one-nil national debate you are either a person or a racist! Thus everything he ever says on any topic can now be met with the inane “rascist” namecalling. That is, as long as we let namecallers control the conversation.
Think about the incredible power of these four words. Who died? Which trade deal was axed? The over-reaction (by non-Chinese people) is a patronizing put-down, as if the Chinese are such weak petals they can’t handle a colorful description or an old demeaning cliche.
Kevin Rudd thinks it’s all so important he declared Rupert Murdoch practically employed Ross Cameron to say this. “They knew exactly what they were doing”. Apparently defending China for 6.9 out of 7 minutes is an “extreme right wing view”. Shows what KRudd knows about politics.
Instead of sacking him, Outsiders could have invited some actual Chinese people on the show to reply. Ross could’ve explained himself face to face (if they wanted that, but they probably have more important things to discuss). Let him face that music. Why not find out whether Chinese people preferred Ross’s commentary to Rowan’s. That’s what a national conversation looks like. Not like a witchhunt.
Ross Cameron on Outsiders
A seven minute long monologue from Ross about the importance and achievements of China. Forbidden words at 5:20.
The Punishment Does Not Fit “the Crime”
Sacking him feeds the DeletePeople Movement, giving them a power they don’t deserve and destroying any chance of a sophisticated national debate.
A few weeks ago a CSIRO boat mapped out a string of 3 kilometer high seamounts that no one knew about. They are 400km east of Tasmania and sit in water 5 km deep (so no one is going to run into them, even in a military sub.)
But remember, even though 80% of the ocean floor is unmapped, and we haven’t even logged, named or noticed thousands of volcanoes, we *know* that they are not heating the ocean, changing ocean currents, or affecting our climate. Skillless models tell us so. (Pay us your money).
“We’ve only mapped a tiny fraction of the ocean floor,” said Andrew Fisher, a marine geologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who was not involved in the new discovery. “We have more detailed maps of Mars, Venus and the moon than we do of the seafloor. Other planetary bodies can be mapped in high resolution with satellites, but on Earth, the water layer gets in the way. The only way is to go out with ships.”
More than 80 percent of the ocean remains unmapped and unexplored, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That’s because it’s difficult and time consuming to create detailed seafloor maps. Sonar-equipped research vessels like the Investigator must make a series of passes over an area in a process Fisher likened to mowing a lawn.
The lost world was uncovered during detailed seafloor mapping by CSIRO research vessel Investigator while on a 25-day research voyage led by scientists from the Australian National University (ANU).
This should end all the Pacific Island climate claims right here. A new study of over 700 islands for decades shows that even though seas are rising faster than any time in the last million years, somehow no islands with people on are shrinking. This means there are no climate change refugees from any vanishing island. Plus it’s more proof that highly adjusted satellite data is recording sea levels on some other planet.
Over the past decades, atoll islands exhibited no widespread sign of physical destabilization in the face of sea-level rise. A reanalysis of available data, which cover 30 Pacific and Indian Ocean atolls including 709 islands, reveals that no atoll lost land area and that 88.6% of islands were either stable or increased in area, while only 11.4% contracted.
Look how closely these researchers are tracking the shores. Below on Tuamoto, French Polynesia, scientists can tell you that islets 12 and 14 (see pic) have disappeared since 1962. So we can track roving blobs of sand about 20 to 30 meters across.
….
No habitable island, none, got smaller:
The researchers reckon that 10 hectares is about the smallest island you’d want to plonk a resort on, that’s about that is about ten Rugby fields. Conveniently for us, no island bigger than 10 hectares shrank despite the world adding two thousand coal fired plants and a billion cars.
It is noteworthy that no island larger than 10 ha decreased in size, making this value a relevant threshold to define atoll island areal stability. We therefore propose to use this threshold, first, to define the minimum island size required for human occupancy or exploitation, and second, to assess atoll and atoll countries and territories’ vulnerability to climate change. Using this threshold for future island development (e.g., resort island) would considerably limit the risk for new developments to be negatively affected by island areal and positional instability, on condition of also avoiding any human intervention that may alter island sediment budget (e.g., sediment extraction) and natural dynamics (e.g., obstruction of sediment transport and deposition by constructions)
See the graph. All the larger islands are staying the same size or growing.
Decadal change in island land area for 709 Pacific and Indian Ocean islands. Click to enlarge.
Coming next, panic that rising oceans are shrinking because islands are expanding. And if you can follow that, there is a job waiting for you at the UNEP.
Who are these environmental stars and global suckers?
The 16 countries with targets in national policies and laws that are compatible with their NDCs are:
Algeria, Canada, Costa Rica, Ethiopia,
Guatemala, Indonesia, Japan, FYR Macedonia,
Malaysia, Montenegro, Norway, Papua New Guinea,
Peru, Samoa, Singapore and Tonga.
“We found only six countries that have set economy-wide targets beyond 2030 in their NDCs – Iraq, Cameroon, Brunei, Armenia, Bhutan and Palestine. Only 16 countries plus the EU currently look beyond 2030 in their national laws, policies and directives…”
The committee writing the report seems to have a thing about “economy wide” targets probably because they are the most expensive, profligately wasteful and pointless schemes, like the Australian carbon tax which cost $5310 per ton of carbon reduced. Economy wide schemes punish sectors which are already efficient, don’t cut much carbon, but they do employ many friends of Big Government.
The report was done by ..”the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, both at the London School of Economics and Political Science, and the World Resources Institute.”
I don’t think they realize how useful this kind of report is for skeptics.
Nachmany, M. and Mangan, E. (2018) Aligning national and international climate targets, London School of Economics and Political Science. http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publication/targets/
With boring regularity, when voters are asked to rank their choices, “clean” energy is not a top priority. Only 7% of Australians want the government to promote renewables ahead of other major issues. It’s the same old, same old for years, yet the media and both parties are locked in a death spiral trying to turn it into an election issue. Real people put living Standards above Virtue Signalling, says Alan Moran.
Essential Report Oct 2018: Rocketing into top place is the cost of living. Stuck in the dull middle is renewables.
Essential poll 2018. What Australian want the government to address. Click to enlarge.
Split voters into left and right, and remarkably they all want the same things. (So we’re all still human, though it says something about the type of questions asked.)
Conservative / liberal voters want to be able to afford stuff, stay alive, have a home:
Liberal voters put renewables at number 10 out of 13.
Essential poll 2018. What Australian want the government to address. Click to enlarge.
Labor voters want to be able to afford stuff too:
Even Labor voters are only putting renewables at number 6.
Essential poll 2018. What Australian want the government to address. Click to enlarge.
The polarising media makes out we are all so different, but it’s remarkable how closely the answers matched. Nearly the same order, nearly the same percentage. Conservatives spread their answers more (are less homogeneous). They care more about state debt and terrorism, but whatever.
The message to Conservatives for the 58th time is that they can drop the whole Paris thing, the media will go crazy, but the public won’t. Obviously it’s no accident that Abbott, Trump and Dean all won. As for the 17% of conservatives who want renewables, that’ll vanish the moment our nation starts a discussion about how expensive they are, and how pointless. Over to you Scott….
He’s in Perth Tuesday night. I’ve seen him speak before and he was excellent. I’ll be there. Tickets to Perth here.
“British Conservative Member of the European Parliament Dan Hannan explains why London will soon be closer to Perth than Brussels, and outlines historic opportunities ahead for West Australian entrepreneurs.” With introduction by Andrew Hastie MP.
Dan Hannan In Australia: Melbourneon Wednesday 31 October in conversation with John Roskam and Nick Cater.
David Evans speaks to Emmett at Resolving Reality radio on why he shifted to being a skeptic (4:15 mins), and on the current state of the climate debate and where climate modelers get their “implacable confidence” from (5:20). David discusses the impasse — the standoff. It’s possible that climate modelers can have the physics right but the model paths wrong.
Quite a bit of the interview is aimed at people new to this debate. Regular readers might enjoy more on the Sun’s role (22 minutes). And some of the history, like the rich pickings of working for the Gravy Train (32:15 minutes).
At 33:00 David discusses the audacious threat to national sovereignty and the near miss of 2009. Useful history to remind us of what is at stake. David goes on to discuss the systematic demonization of non-PC views — he argues that climate change was the test case for the newer more aggressive model of stamping out discussion in so many areas.
David’s research work continues, he prefers to keep a low profile and stay out of the “blood sport” online. I’m not going to put a date on it, original discovery doesn’t work to a timetable, but there is a big book coming, and since the last report of David’s work here, he has added several layers and spent time making sure he understands exactly how the establishment model works. (I say model, singular, because there is only one big overarching theory that bounds the GCM models.) His point about the impasse between skeptics and believers is new, as ultimately is his focus on unravelling the core reasons for the implacable faith that the modelers have in the GCMs which keep failing. We will be revisiting this, opening a new front in the climate debate when we are ready.
Some days I wonder if I should spread stories that make us sound like a recidivist third-world backwater struggling to maintain our voltage. But the ABC is already smashing away.
Recent Comments