Recent Posts
-
In trying to be a small target, the Liberals accidentally disappeared
-
Tuesday
-
Monday
-
The best thing about the Australian election was that Nigel Farage’s party won 30% in the UK
-
Sunday
-
Saturday — Election Day Australia
-
Vote for freedom…
-
Friday
-
Bombshell: Sir Tony Blair says climate policies are unworkable, irrational, and everyone is afraid of being called a denier
-
Thursday
-
Blackout in Spain to cost 2-4 billion Euro, likely due to solar plants — blind and biased ABC says “cause is a mystery”
-
Wednesday
-
Days after Spain reaches 100% renewable, mass blackouts hit, due to mysterious “rare atmospheric phenomenon”
-
Tuesday
-
Help needed: Site under DDoS attack from hundreds of thousands of unique IPs this week — especially China and the USA
-
Monday: Election Day Canada
-
When the Labor Party talk about “The Science” the Opposition can easily outflank and outgun them with bigger, better science
-
Saturday
-
UK Gov spends £50 m to dim sun to create slightly less beach weather
-
Friday
-
The cocoa price crisis is a Big Government price fixing disaster, not a climate change one
-
Thursday
-
Blame the Vikings! Moss found in East Antarctica lived in warmer summers a thousand years ago.
-
Wednesday
-
Tuesday
-
Monday
-
Easter Sunday
-
Saturday
-
Good Friday
-
In crash-test dummy land, we solve teenage girl climate anxiety with $500b in fantasy weather experiments…
-
Thursday
-
Nothing says “Safe and Effective” like destroying all the data from Australia’s giant abandoned vaccine study
-
Wednesday
-
Who owns the oceans? The UN wants to tax ships to reduce carbon emissions — a $40b windfall for unaccountable global bureaucrats
-
Tuesday
-
Monday
-
Sunday
-
Saturday
-
Conservatives promise to axe the car tax that would have added $10k to petrol and diesel cars
-
Friday
-
The monster Green Tariffs we put on ourselves are worse than a foreign trade war
-
Thursday
-
Trump goes gangbusters on coal power and coal mining to supply AI energy demand
-
Wednesday
-
Instead of $8b in rebates, Labor could have built gas and coal plants and actually made cheap electricity
-
Tuesday
-
Labor wants the working class to help rich people buy batteries
-
Monday
-
Sunday
-
We couldn’t kill the worlds corals if we wanted to: They already suffered for two thousand years and recovered
-
Saturday
-
The Climate Crisis was Christopher Columbus’s fault — “a mutant offspring of European Scientific racism”
|
…
9.5 out of 10 based on 10 ratings
A 28 year old guy in British Columbia thought it had some message about climate change if he sealed himself in a primitive biodome with 200 plants. But the sun didn’t shine, the plants didn’t photosynthesize enough, and he “felt sluggish”. CO2 levels were a bit high so he had to abandon the experiment just 15 hours later — calling it “a huge success”. As you would, if you had no connection to actual hardship, or actual success.
The BBC thought this badly planned, unscientific stunt failure was newsworthy and lauded him his 15 seconds of fame and advertising for the cause. Proving that any kind of measurable achievement is irrelevant. If it promotes the religion, anything will do.
I challenge anyone to find a lamer stunt in the history of climate panic
 … A self-styled “whimsical scientist” who locked himself in an airtight dome with 200 plants to raise awareness of climate change has ended his experiment.
He thanked fans and described the experience as a “huge success”.
While still inside the dome, he explained his mission in a Twitter thread, writing: “#ClimateChange is real, we’re causing it, and it’s a real big deal.
Hmm. He doesn’t say what his “abort” value was in ppm.
“The messed up thing about my experiment is that some of my abort values (eg If CO2 is too high I escape) are just everyday experiences for many people on this planet. Everyone deserves clean air, but not everyone has it.”
So he pushed his body to withstand levels of CO2 that other people experience every day. Indeed “many” people. Give the man a medal.
It is hard to find a bar set lower than that. It might mean more if he had half a lung, or was really an axolotl.
Despite his three-day attempt falling short, Kurtis Baute says the message about climate change remains the same.
Yes, the message about climate change is that the scientists who are drawn to it are publicity hounds who are not good with numbers.
Plus the whole lack of a cause and effect thingy, or any reason for being, reminds us of the IPCC. “Congrats”.
Keep reading →
9.4 out of 10 based on 82 ratings
Fake News Lesson: How to turn the views of a minority into National Headlines
Yesterday’s ABC headline tells the world that Australian company directors have started to “care” about climate change. What the ABC don’t mention is that only 17% of them actually ticked the box saying they think the Government should make “climate change” the top long term priority. While more directors were concerned about climate change than any other single issue, most directors thought other things were more important.
For every director who said the government should put climate change at number one, there were more than three who didn’t want that.
The Australian Institute of Directors surveys its 43,000 members every six months on lots of questions. In this round 1,252 members took part and answered something like 40 questions. Only 39% put “climate change” in the top five “long term” issues. So 61% of respondents didn’t think climate change even ranked in the top five issues facing the nation in the long run. Are they all skeptics?
The ABC also forgot to mention that in the short term, company directors wanted the government to fix Energy Policy.
This is what non-stop agitprop looks like
First: The loaded headline
Nassim Khadem
Step 2: Frame this as a mass movement. Mention big numbers.
For the first time Australian company directors have nominated climate change as the number one issue they want the federal government to address in the long term, according to a survey of more than 1,200 company directors.
Step 3: Mention big numbers again. Then say the survey demonstrates something that was not even asked.
The Australian Institute of Company Directors’ (AICD) biannual Director Sentiment Index — based on a survey of 1,252 public and private company directors undertaken between September 13 and 27 — shows directors are heeding warnings from regulators about the risks of climate change and the fact that they may, in future, be held liable for failing to act.
It’s handy if you can spook other company directors into the impression that lots of other directors are afraid of being sued.
Step 4: Interview someone who has a conflict of interest and don’t mention the conflict.
Regulators including the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) are among those that have spoken out about the threats of climate change and the risks to companies.
Dr Katherine Woodthorpe, chairman of start-up Fishburners and who until recently was a non-executive director on the board at Sirtex Medical, said company directors were not just being influenced by regulator warnings, but also a push from investors to act.
The ABC apparently forgot to mention Dr Katherine Woodthorpe is Chairman, Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre. She’s also a Non-Exec Director of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, at least according to their website. Both of these groups get less funds if Australians think that weather control with wind turbines is worthless voodoo.
Imagine the outrage if Sky News interviewed the Chair of a coal plant and told you their former employment, but not their current one?
Given the amount of money poured into unreliable energy in this country it would be amazing if there weren’t 200 renewables directors or friends among the 43,000 members. Of those who answered questions — 3% work in the energy sector, 8% for a public sector/government body, and 34% for a non-profit entity.
Only 17% of directors said Climate was a top issue (for someone else to solve)
Directors could pick five issues, but 60% didn’t even put a number on “climate change”.
 Click to enlarge. (People could rate 5 things, so the percentages add up to a lot more than 100%) The top short term issue needing care is Energy Policy
If it served the ABC’s purpose, they could have headlined the story “Company Directors think Government top issue is Energy Policy”.
Then they could have interviewed directors who were moving their plants to get away from nightmare electricity prices. The whole story would have had an opposite meaning. Such is the power of The Editor. Why do we give this power to unaccountable non-independent bureaucrats?
 Click to enlarge. Australians are paying for Labor-Green advertising disguised as “independent” journalism.
Tired of the self-serving Fake News? If you can help support me, together we can push back. (Paypal, or direct).
Thank you!
Hat tip to David B and George.
REFERENCE
Australian Institute of Company Directors Sentiment Index for the second half of 2018. Full 87 page PDF is available.
9.8 out of 10 based on 57 ratings
Welcome to another $3 million-a-day quality moment on Their ABC
Here’s a Nobel Prize winning economist reviewing scientific evidence — something Nobel Prize winners in physics don’t get to do on the ABC. His interviewer is the star economist Emma Alberici.
The guest opens with near apocalyptic predictions:
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: If more and more of Australia are not liveable because of climate change, you’re not going to be better off.
You know, the future of the world, let alone the future of Australia really is at stake when we are talking about climate change.
These days, wild claims are just introductory wallpaper. Meh.
Who knew, the key scientific evidence was reviewed by economists.
The evidence is overwhelming and I was on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that reviewed the evidence back 1995, …
Which tells you everything you need to know about how rigorous the IPCC science reviews are.
But it would be OK if only he knew something about climate science, the IPCC or its predictions:
…and I’ve kept looking at the evidence and you know, the one mistake we made in 1995 was that we didn’t anticipate how fast things were going to change.
Indeed, things changed so fast the IPCC has spent the last twenty years downgrading its estimates of climate sensitivity and future warming:
 Climate sensitivity keeps falling, Scaffetta 2017. Thanks to NoTricksZone. This is not what “faster than expected” looks like
Since 1995, the temperatures didn’t rise for longer than any of the modelers thought was it was possible for temperatures to not rise. Antarctic sea ice set new highs, Antarctic temperatures did nothing, and tropical islands grew instead of shrinking. The hot spot went missing, and never returned, despite multiple search parties combing the data in search of missing upper tropospheric redness. Thus we found out the core assumption driving most of the prophesied warming was wrong. We also found out CO2 didn’t lead temperatures for the last half a million years, instead, the hallowed ice cores showed the exact opposite. The evil pollutant turned up 800 years late to nearly every warming party there was. So much for “cause and effect”.
A thousand tide gauges showed sea levels rose slower than expected, and had even slowed down. Ocean heat went missing too and instead of being where the IPCC thought it would be in 1995, it’s probably twenty-three light years away, approaching Cassiopeiae. Predictions of methane growth failed dismally (see here) after the Russians plugged their leaky pipes. The IPCC did not see that coming. But carbon dioxide emissions grew faster than expected, yet had even less effect.
Meanwhile hurricanes over the US stopped for the longest time on record, and hurricanes all over the world became less energetic.
Emma didn’t ask.
Excuses, Excuses — tomorrow will be sunny with weather variability?
Stiglitz: We didn’t fully anticipate some of the effects like the increase in weather variability, the hurricanes, the cyclones and it is I think, fundamentally short-sighted not, not to be thinking about this but over the long term, the real wealth of a country is based on the skills, the abilities, the innovation of the citizens and that is going to depend on the investments that you put in your people — not on coal, not on iron ore.
You know, I spent a lot of time in China. They are beginning to wake up to the dangers of coal. Air is not breathable, that’s the most concrete immediate effect but they too understand the dangers of climate change.
He spent all that time in China, but sadly Google didn’t let him see the secret coal boom, the collapsing solar industry, nor the coal-volcano-trains. He may have missed that when Chinese Crypto companies want cheap electricity, they are buying coal fired power in Australia.
The Chinese do understand the dangers of climate change. They know it’s a scam.
So, I think there will be a global consensus on eliminating coal and that means it is all the more imperative for Australia to get off coal.
Emma Alberici skips the chance to discuss science or economics and asks him a softball psych question instead:
EMMA ALBERICI: I want to know how you explain the politicisation of climate change as an issue, given so many well regarded economists like yourself indeed — the Nobel Prize in economics has gone to William Norhaus this month, who has pioneered a framework for understanding how the economy and climate interact — and yet on the other side we have this politicisation of the issue such that if you want to reduce carbon emissions, certainly in this country, you’re a green leftie. And if you agree that it is all a bit of alarmist nonsense, then you’re really a true conservative.
She works for a tax-payer funded institute which ignores half the country and calls them names, but this ABC senior star can’t figure out why things are “politicized.”
The Nobel prize-winner doesn’t know either, but speculates anyway:
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Yeah, I really, it is a little bit of a puzzle. You know, there are special interests who make a lot of money out of fossil fuel — coal, oil companies — and they have an economic interest to try to persuade people that its hokum, that it is a liberal conspiracy.
Except that oil companies lobby for and benefit from carbon penalties that punish coal more than them, and which also subsidize unreliable power that needs gas back up. If only Stiglitz understood economics…
If only Emma Alberici were a journalist.
h/t George
REFERENCE
Scafetta et al., 2017 “Since 2000 there has been a systematic tendency to find lower climate sensitivity values. The most recent studies suggest a transient climate response (TCR) of about 1.0 °C, an ECS less than 2.0 °C and an effective climate sensitivity (EfCS) in the neighborhood of 1.0 °C.”
9.8 out of 10 based on 90 ratings
…
9.9 out of 10 based on 17 ratings
A study on Swiss Glaciers shows that the fastest melting was in the 1860s and 1870s, long before the first coal fired power. (See that steep decline from 1850-70 in Part a in the graph below.) In Part b see the glaciers have been going back and forward in cycles that somehow have no correlation with human emissions.
Climate models can’t predict any of these turning points, don’t understand any of these cycles, but “doom is coming”.
Pay up your money to make glaciers grow again.
From the Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI)
 Figure 8. (a) Cumulative glacier length changes for the four glaciers Bossons, Mer de Glace, Oberer (O-) Grindelwald and Unterer (U-) Grindelwald …); (b) glacier length change rate …(c )glacier length changes compared to surface air temperature anomalies for the summer … Panel (d) air temps and stratospheric aerosol optical depth (SAOD) (Click to enlarge and read the proper full caption). In Part c (above) — glacier lengths correlate with temperatures. In part d the brown spikes are the Stratospheric Aerosol Optical Depth [SAOD] — meaning volcanic dust, black carbon, soot. These were bad years to head to the beach.
In terms of speed, note the lack of any spooky “unprecedented” retreat. The glaciers are shorter now, but the rate they are shortening is slower than in 1870.
Unlike CO2, volcanoes and solar activity do correlate with glacier length
See this longer graph — the red line estimate of summer temperature bottoms twice in 1600 and 1810 which also coincides with volcanic activity and solar minima.
It could get pretty expensive to control glacier length since we have to reduce the suns activity and probably set off some nukes in lieu of a handy volcano.
 Click to enlarge. Figure 9. (a) black dots are glacier measurements. Grey columns are times of high volcanic aerosols. The red line is an estimate of European summer temperatures from tree rings. [BB means Biomass Burning if you click and read the proper caption.] Keep reading →
9.9 out of 10 based on 56 ratings
 The flipping of Wentworth just marks a the morphing of the two major parties which started long ago.
The Labor Party now represents the rich and the welfare dependent. The Liberals represent the Deplorable worker and what’s left of the Middle Class and there aren’t many of those in the seat of Wentworth. Turnbull was the perfect fit for the seat as it transited from being a safe Conservative Seat to a safe Collectivist-Virtue-Signalling Seat. He was the Labor-guy badged as a Liberal. Kerryn Phelps is the “ideal” replacement — the Labor-Green candidate badged as an Independent. This made it easier for doctors-wives, lawyers and journalists to vote for an option which was essentially Labor-Green, but had the appearance of being “smarter” and above all the riff raff.
Kerryn Phelps essentially stands for a Get UP approved Labor Green Christmas Wish List: More renewable parasites, death to coal, pandering to collectivist UN committees, a ban on fossil fuel donations (but no ban for government cronies who take big-government funds and donate it to big-government parties.). She wants to restore funding to The ABC because $3m a day is not enough. Heck, they lost 5% a while back.
The vote in the wealthiest electorate in Australia is still underway, but whatever happens, it tells us nothing much about most other electorates. Should the national policy on energy change because of 1,500 voters in the wealthiest seat?
Labor calls for National Energy policy to be set by 1,500 voters in richest seat in Australia
Polls show climate and energy policy was a key factor in voters turning their backs on the government in the blue-ribbon Sydney seat on Saturday and electing independent Kerryn Phelps.
The largest poll ever done in Australia was the 2013 election where the only party ever to run in Australia on a blood oath of “no carbon tax” won 90 seats and blitzed the opposition. What’s changed since then? Electricity prices have hit bleeding point, we have more unreliable energy than ever, and watching Australian black-outs has become an international sport.
Liberals could still win the next Federal Election but almost certainly won’t
The hottest two topics in the electorate are electricity prices and immigration. If the ScoMo team grew a spine they could simply copy the Abbott tested formula. It’d be even more popular now than it was then — see Brexit, Trump and Dean.
The Jellyfish-Liberals are trying to satisfy the centre of the climate debate but polls show there is no “centre” anymore. This is the graveyard where losing teams hunt for votes. The centre used to be the place where most people were, but in the artificially polarized climate debate it’s a vacant lot now. The undecideds split long ago into the skeptic camp or the gullible feedlot.
As long as Liberals pretend wind and solar are useful, they can’t defeat the fake claims that wind and solar are cheap. So they get consigned to be the crew that “cause” expensive electricity with policy uncertainty and because they don’t support more renewables. Jellyfish Liberals are called almost the same names they would be called if they were out-and-out “deniers” of the climate religion. Pandering to the namecallers is a losing game.
Nick Cater:Weird, wealthy Wentworth is not the real Australia
A by-election in Sydney’s eastern suburbs is no place to test the national temperature, any more than dipping your toe into a glass of chardonnay at the Bondi Trattoria can tell you if it’s warm enough for a swim.
Wentworth is a land removed from the daily struggles faced by other Australians, a place where rising electricity prices barely touch the hip-pocket nerve, where God’s own airconditioner blows gently off summer waters, and “action” on climate change, by which they mean “subsidies”, boosts the share portfolio.
Few Wentworth residents could tell you the price of petrol, just as few know the full horror of the word “commute”…
It is home to 210 surgeons but not a single animal slaughterer. If you live in Wentworth, your meat is boned elsewhere.
Wentworth is home to 731 of them [journalists], the third highest concentration in the country, beaten only by the neighbouring seats of Sydney (962) and Grayndler (837).
The Wentworth result shows people are sick of both big parties. But it tells us nothing about solving the energy crisis or changing the climate.
*Headline changed. It was “Labor calls for National Energy policy to be set by 1,500 voters in richest seat in Australia” but after watching the ABC repeat how “polls show” voters care about climate change, the more important message was the line about the 2013 election.
9.9 out of 10 based on 83 ratings
Majority gone. The Liberals are not paying for the last leadership change, so much as the one before.
Picking a Labor guy to run the Party was never going to end well.
Thank Turnbull (and MP’s that voted for him) for turning a 24 seat majority into one seat rule that he then threw away…
Note to Libs: if the ABC approves, you are doing something wrong.
Latest Count
9.5 out of 10 based on 75 ratings
Australia has had the hottest temperatures for a thousand years (according to some). We’ve “shattered records” yet even so, at the peak of this hot era — six times as many Australians were felled by cold weather. Lord help us when the next ice-age comes.
A study on Australian deaths from 2000-2009 found that heat, cold, and temperature variability killed 42,000 people which was about 6% of all deaths. Of those temperature related deaths 60% were due to the cold. 28% were due to sudden changes in temperature. A mere 10% were due to heat.
Greenhouse gases should help prevent 90% of those deaths (they reduce temperature variability too). Looks like we need to burn more coal. For the sake of the vulnerable and needy.
When are our government and our government broadcaster going to start dealing with real problems, not fake ones?
 Attributable fraction of deaths: Heat, cold and temperature variability together resulted in 42,414 deaths during the study period, accounting for about 6.0% of all deaths. Most of attributable deaths were due to cold (61.4%), and noticeably, contribution from temperature variability (28.0%) was greater than that from heat (10.6%).
Don’t assume we just got lucky. According to an ABC heatwave panic story, deaths from heatwaves during this 2000-2009 decade were among the worst.
 … The ABC warns us repeatedly of the dangers of a few hot days
Heatwaves are Australia’s deadliest natural hazard, but a recent survey has found that many vulnerable people do not have plans to cope with extreme heat.
A search for “ABC Cold Death Warning” turns up a story of a dead cook in a freezer.
 ,,,,
10 out of 10 based on 51 ratings
 The Met Office, Hadley Centre response to #DataGate implied they do quality control and that leaves the impression that they might filter out the frozen tropical islands and other freak data:
We perform automated quality checks on the ocean data and monthly updates to the land data are subjected to a computer assisted manual quality control process.
I asked John to expand on what Hadley means. He replies that the quality control they do is very minimal, obviously inadequate, and these errors definitely survive the process and get into the HadCRUT4 dataset. Bear in mind a lot of the problems begin with the national meteorological services which supply the shoddy data, but then Hadley seems pretty happy to accept these mistakes. (Hey, it’s not like Life on Earth depends on us understanding our climate. :- ) )
As far as long term trends go, the site-move-adjustments are the real problem and create an artificial warming trend. On the other hand, the frozen tropical islands tells us how competent the “Experts” really are (not a lot) and how much they care about understanding what our climate really was (not at all). That said, we don’t know what effect the freak outliers have on the big trends, but then, neither do the experts.
Below, John drills into those details which show just how pathetically neglected the dataset is. For data-heads — the freak outliers affect the standard deviation and calculation of the normal range. This is a pretty technical issue here “for the record” and to advance the discussion of what Hadley neglected data means. For what it’s worth, McLean can manually copy the process that is documented as the right way to create the HadCRUT4 set, and he can produce the same figures they get. That suggests he knows what he’s doing. — Jo
__________________________________________
Leaving outliers in the key years means that Hadley won’t filter out real outliers in other years.
Keep reading →
9.7 out of 10 based on 75 ratings
 Charles Duke, 1972 There are only 12 men who have walked on the moon, and only 4 are still living. Selected from the best of the best at the time, with impeccable reputations, why would any of them speak out and risk being called names like deniers of “basic physics”. Yet three of the four have: Harrison Schmitt, Charles Duke, Buzz Aldrin. (Plus others like Australian born Phil Chapman (support crew, Apollo 14) and Walter Cunningham (Apollo 7).
Maybe because they hate watching as the good name of NASA gets subverted into a pagan weather changing cult?
And because these are guys comfortable with risk.
The NASA space program was once one of mankind’s greatest scientific and engineering achievements. In 2012 49 former NASA staff including astronauts, directors of shuttle programs, flight operations, and spacecraft maintenance, wrote to NASA warning that GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) was risking NASA’s reputation by making unproven remarks and ignoring empirical evidence.
Harrison has been a vocal skeptic now for at least nine years. So far the ABC has not asked him why, or anything at all on the topic. But then, he’s only a PhD in Geology, what would he know? If he had a degree in international relations and journalism, or law, he could tell us what the climate is going to do all the time.
Schmitt, Duke, Chapman, Cunningham and Aldrin are only a phone call away from our national broadcaster and the ABC gets $3m a day to cover the bill. How many years will it take for them to get curious enough to ask “why”?
If they were climate believers, how many times would we have heard about it?
by Alan Boyle
 Harrison Schmitt, December 1972 The New York Times’ Nicholas St. Fleur addressed the elephant in the room with an assist from science writer Betsy Mason. Here’s how the exchange went:
St. Fleur: “In 2009, we wrote a story called ‘Vocal Minority Insists It Was All Smoke and Mirrors,’ where we quoted you, Dr. Schmitt. The story was basically about people who think the moon landing was faked, and here’s someone who’s actually been there and walked on the moon. You were saying that ‘if people decide they’re going to deny the facts of history and the facts of science and technology, there’s not much you can do with them. … For most of them, I just feel sorry that we failed in their education.’
“I’m wondering if you see any irony in your remarks there and your views on climate change, as one of the leading climate change deniers, when there was a huge report that just came out last week [talking about] the risk and what is going to happen … as soon as 2040. I’d love to know if you see any irony in your views on people who denied man walking on the moon vs. your views on climate change.”
Schmitt: “I see no irony at all. I’m a geologist. I know the Earth is not nearly as fragile as we tend to think it is. It has gone through climate change, it is going through climate change at the present time. The only question is, is there any evidence that human beings are causing that change?”
Chorus from the audience: “Yes!”
Schmitt: “Right now, in my profession, there is no evidence. There are models. But models of very, very complex natural systems are often wrong. The observations that we make as geologists, and observational climatologists, do not show any evidence that human beings are causing this. Now, there is a whole bunch of unknowns. We don’t know how much CO2, for example, is being released by the Southern Oceans as the result of natural climate change that’s been going on now since the last ice age.
“The rate of temperature increase on the surface of the Earth and in the troposphere is about the same over this period of time, particularly since the Little Ice Age, which was not caused by human beings. Nor was the Medieval Warm Period, preceding that, caused by human beings. So that’s the only skepticism I have: What is the cause of climate change?
Keep reading →
9.2 out of 10 based on 123 ratings
…
8.7 out of 10 based on 26 ratings
 … Ponder the irony — MediaWatch is meant to be a media auditor, but it starts from the assumption that every government run collective is 100% accurate (at least on climate change). And unaudited UN committees are infallible too. Indeed newspapers have a duty to repeat what these committees say without questioning them. Host Paul Barry actually uses the word duty.
Once upon a time, the duty of investigative reporters was to to investigate, now their job is to be glorified marketing hacks advertising the latest government scheme to change the weather. What could possibly go wrong?
How about if governments set up all their institutes to find problems with CO2 and asked none of them to audit the others? What if whole government departments were tasked to slay the carbon dragon, and while exactly no groups anywhere were funded to find out if the sun controlled the climate instead? Using the MediaWatch Wand of Truth, only government scientists can criticize government scientists (and only then for five minutes until their uni trawls through their emails and sacks them). Thus and verily IPCC scientists should be obeyed.
MediaWatch marvels that the Australian Newscorp media can’t be bothered repeating the same overdone fake scare campaign for the 20th time. Could it be that, unlike the ABC, they can’t afford to bore their audience with a teachy-preachy zombie hypothesis?
Let’s vote for our laws of science then?
MediaWatch think science is done by counting papers and government paid scientists. After $100 billion in science funding it’s not hard to come up with 91 supportive scientists who haven’t been sacked yet.
So is McLean to be believed ahead of 91 leading experts and 6,000 peer reviewed scientific papers,…
On the other hand, there are 30,000 independent scientists, thousands of papers, millions of radiosondes and 4.5 billion years of history that show the IPCC is wrong. Skeptics include people with Nobel Prizes in physics, and men who walked on the moon. If Barry had done some investigating he would know that, and he could’ve phoned Ivar Giavar instead of giving the Union of Concerned Nobody’s time to discuss something that happened six years ago. Without any government funding, skeptics outrank and outnumber believers, but we don’t pretend that means something scientific because we know what science is.
Leaving no stone-age-trick unturned, MediaWatch are not just using ad homs, but inconsistent and cherry picked ad homs supported by strawmen and argument by authority. That’s what you get with Big Government funding. Stacked fallacies.
I’m delighted to be featured in the MediaWatch weekly propaganda minute. (at 4mins)
The IPCC demands for cash rest on freak data, empty fields, Fahrenheit temps recorded as Celsius, mistakes in longitude and latitude, brutal adjustments and even spelling errors. — says Jo Nova
Presumably, the MediaWatch team thought this quote looks bad for skeptics. Keep it coming, thinks Jo. Anyone watching with half a brain would notice that these mistakes sound detailed and not good, and that MediaWatch couldn’t find anyone to say that that these errors weren’t there. The meteorology experts got Fahrenheit mixed up with Celsius, can’t spell, and got the long-and-lat wrong? But this is OK because Steven Sherwood, UNSW, says we know about the problems already:
“turns up little if anything new, seems specifically motivated to discredit global warming…
Which only makes us wonder, if they knew — why didn’t they fix it? Don’t expect a government funded audit group to ask a government funded institute. Hadley gets £226 million a year to leave errors intact for 40 years but that’s OK according to MediaWatch. The real failing here is that some people question it. How dare they?
MediaWatch fooled by Hadley bait and switch
McLean found 70 problems, but according to Paul Barry, this is neutralized, because the dataset has 7 million datapoints. Nevermind that problems like site moves and quality control can apply to millions of points. One number is big and the other small and who cares about the units. That’s about as advanced as ABC investigation goes. Apples are oranges and the team with the most oranges gets $446 million to stop a problem that doesn’t exist or something like that…
Being functionally innumerate is practically a part of the ABC job description these days.
Would you like a character attack with that?
The MediaWatch strategy is and has long been essentially selective “Ad Hom” — they attack John McLean for something he said 7 years ago on a different topic. It’s the pagan Ad Hom Rule of Reasoning: if anyone gets any prediction wrong ever, then everything they say after that is automatically also wrong. By that reasoning the IPCC is toast. Climate models have failed for 24 years in a row on rain, humidity, clouds, Antarctica, the upper troposphere and global trends, but John McLean got one prediction wrong about the temperature of 2011, and therefore he can’t be trusted. Shall we talk about the time the Met Office predicted a BBQ summer and got torrential rain?
To sum up the MediaWatch analysis, two thousand Hadley employees rely on frozen tropical islands and junk data but we already knew about that apparently, which makes any problem OK. They junk-data-guys predict global doom and their predictions are right because McLean was wrong on a different topic 7 years ago and his audit was supervised by a man who was sacked and dedicated to one who said the IPCC was a farce? (Vale Bob Carter).
If only McLean had dedicated his audit to Kevin Rudd.
Beat up those Strawmen
To give it a wash of “sciencey” authority, they bring in some experts like Steven Sherwood to blandly declare McLean is wrong without showing any sign that Sherwood has even read the blog posts on it, let alone looked at McLean’s 135 page audit. After dismissing the findings as old news, he discusses something entirely different and waffles about the laws of physics.
“…its naive claims of alternative causes of global warming do not consider the relevant laws of physics and do not make sense.”
Which Law of Physics would that be? The Second Law of Data Collection? Conservation of Thermometer Units?
McLean’s audit was about the data, it was not about the flaws in their climate models. (That’s another story).
Associate Prof Nerilie Abram
“Regardless of whether the PhD thesis work has any merit, the claims that this falsifies IPCC findings is wrong.”
Abram doesn’t seem to realize that the IPCC findings rely on climate models which in turn are trained on the Hadley data. If Hadley exaggerates the warming, so will the models. But then it’s not like she’s a climate expert... oh wait.
MediaWatch could’ve asked Sherwood if we should trust the IPCC when the temperature trends consistently fall below even their lowest estimates. MediaWatch could’ve asked Sherwood if it’s OK to change the scale on temperature graphs to pretend the hot spot was found when it wasn’t. Can we trust him, or, to paraphrase his own words: is he “specifically motivated to believe global warming“?
Hadley Meteorology Office:
…the long term increase in global temperature is unequivocal. This is backed up by other globally recognised datasets all of which are run independently and find very similar warming.
They might be run independently, but they’re all dependent on BigGovernment. As I said yesterday:
They claim they are backed up by other datasets. but all the worlds temperature sets are juggling the same pool of measurements. If the shonky site-move adjustments start with national met bureaus, then get sent out around the world, all the global datasets combine the same mistakes and make similar overestimations.
Look who’s making a conspiracy theory…
News corp treats climate science and the threat to our planet with contempt, why is it so, presumably because Rupert Murdoch is a non-believer.
Naturally, the doubts of thousands of journalists are not because the IPCC keeps getting things wrong, or that climate change causes everything under the sun except “normal weather”, or that we’re perpetually tripping over tipping points, and it’s the last chance to save the world, again. Apparently, thousands of journalists and editors don’t obey the Met Bureau because they obey Rupert Murdoch instead. It’s all projection of the ABC’s failings. Maybe thousands of journalists just think for themselves.
See this weeks MediaWatch coverup for failing institutions
Soon, children won’t know what journalism is.
The ABC gets $3m dollar a day. If you can help support me, together we can push back. (Paypal, or direct). Thank you!
9.9 out of 10 based on 105 ratings
 … Last week we exposed absurd errors, brutal adjustments and an almost complete lack of quality control (was there any at all?) in the key HadCRUT4 data. The IPCC’s favorite set is maintained (I’m feeling generous) by the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Uni of East Anglia’s CRU in the UK.
Finally the Hadley Met Centre team have replied to Graham Lloyd regarding John McLean’s audit. They don’t confirm or discount any of his new claims specifically. But they acknowledge his previous notifications were useful in 2016, and promise “any errors will be fixed in the next update.” That’s nice to know, but begs the question of why a PhD student working from home can find mistakes that the £226 million institute with 2,100 employees could not.
They don’t mention the killer issue of the adjustments for site-moves at all — that’s the cumulative cooling of the oldest records to compensate for buildings that probably weren’t built there ’til decades later.
Otherwise this is the usual PR fog — a few outliers don’t change the trend, the world is warming, and other datasets show “similar trends“. The elephant in the kitchen is the site move adjustments which do change the trend which they didn’t mention.
 .. And while the absurd outliers may not change the trend (we don’t know yet) the message from frozen tropical islands is terrible. These bizarre mistakes are like glowing hazard signs that the dataset is neglected, decaying, essentially junk. What else might be wrong? How do we reconcile the experts urgent insistence that climate change is the greatest threat to life on Earth but it’s not important enough to bother checking the data? We must pay trillions, turn vegetarian, and live in cold rooms, but the actual historic measurements are irrelevant. Were some numbers left in Fahrenheit for 40 years? Nevermind.
They claim that automated quality control checks are done, as are manual checks, but we are still wondering what that means when they haven’t even done a spelling check and nor bothered to filter out the freak outliers which are hotter than the hottest day on Earth. These kinds of checks are something that a 12 year old geek could write the code for.
The Met Office protests that the database includes “7 million points”, but then, they do have a supercomputer that can do 16,000 trillion calculations every second. The ten-nanosecond-test for the new World Record Temperature would have fished out the silliest mistakes, some of which have been there for decades.
They claim they are backed up by other datasets. but all the worlds temperature sets are juggling the same pool of measurements. If the shonky site-move adjustments start with national met bureaus, then get sent out around the world, all the global datasets combine the same mistakes and make similar overestimations.
Graham Lloyd, The Australian
Britain’s Met Office has welcomed an audit from Australian researcher John McLean that claims to have identified serious errors in its HadCRUT global temperature record.
“Any actual errors identified will be dealt with in the next major update.’’
The Met Office said automated quality checks were performed on the ocean data and monthly updates to the land data were subjected to a computer assisted manual quality control process.
“The HadCRUT dataset includes comprehensive uncertainty estimates in its estimates of global temperature,” the Met Office spokesman said.
“We previously acknowledged receipt of Dr John McLean’s 2016 report to us which dealt with the format of some ocean data files.
“We corrected the errors he then identified to us,” the Met Office spokesman said.
9.8 out of 10 based on 105 ratings
The job of ABC environment reporters is not to serve the public and ask scientists hard questions about whether we can rely on their climate models that fail 98% of the time and on every scale in time and locality.
Instead their job is to be fiction writers, converting failing models into vomiting babies:
Under IPCC forecasts babies born today will be 22 when warming hits 1.5C. What will life be like?
By environment reporter Nick Kilvert
Meet Casey X. She was born in Alice Springs Hospital on October 13, 2018.
She came into the world screaming, before projectile-vomiting over the hospital floor and falling asleep.
For this the ABC gets $3 million dollars every day.
We are talking about a half degree Celsius of warming spread over 22 years. This is double the decadal rate currently shown by satellites. But even if we assume that climate models are right for the first time ever, and this dramatic change in trends occurs, it’s still only half a degree more in a world where humans live from minus 50C to plus 40C and every day temperatures vary by 10 – 20 degrees.
Alice Springs 2040, unlivable hell, with no plants, animals and less people
Today — October 13, 2040 — she’s 22, and still lives in Alice Springs. But she’s been thinking more and more about leaving.
Extreme hot days in Alice Springs hit 48 degrees Celsius — nearly 3C hotter than on her first birthday. And heatwaves last much longer.
Keeping things alive in the garden at these temperatures is next to impossible. Plants are pushed beyond their thresholds and die from heat shock. The animals that eat them go soon after.
Death to kangaroos, cows and camels then? Or maybe the native saltbush and scrub will do just fine like it always has, even when Alice was hotter than now 7,000 years ago for hundreds of unending relentless years during the Holocene Optimum.
Is Nick Kilvert talking about animals that eat lettuce and roses in back yards (humans, puppies, feral rabbits?). Or did he just segue from gardens to all plants, to all animals? Ahh details. Who needs em.
Ghost towns coming:
When she flicks over to the weather from reruns of Spicks and Specks, there’s fewer regional towns on the map than she remembers.
Reef turns to algae and deadly jellies rampant
Moving to Darwin is out of the question. So is north Queensland. It’s too hot and there’s no jobs in hospitality. Tourism is suffering along with the reef.
Most of the reef is dead or dying in the north. Some of the hardier coral species have survived, but the diversity and colour are gone and no-one wants to snorkel in algae.
There’s still some OK patches of reef further south, but if warming goes up to 2C, scientists say it’s all going to go.
To escape the heat, moving to south-east Queensland seems like her best option.
It’s a choice between the Gold and Sunshine Coasts, but deadly Irukandji jellyfish are showing up more often in the summer on the Sunshine Coast.
The only thing we know for sure is that never ever in a million years does CO2 do one beneficial thing — like green the world, stop deserts, grow more food or help plants survive droughts.
Shall we kill people or save them?
On average, every 12 hours for the last ten thousand years, the temperatures vary in Alice Springs by around 16 degrees C. Somehow humans survive this extreme hourly climate change, mostly by switching on the air conditioner. But if it gets half a degree hotter over 20 years, humans will have to leave.
In Australia’s five largest cities, 475 people die from heat-related deaths each year — more than double the year she was born.
Because Nick Kilvert was trained by the Australian Government in school, at uni and at the ABC he does not yet know how to do internet searches for things like “winter deaths”. If he did, or if he was especially lazy and just emailed Jo Nova to do his research for him, he would be able to tell the paying taxpayers he is supposed to serve that every year in Australia the big climate killer is winter which causes 7,000 excess deaths.
So while warming might kill 200 people a year in 2040, it will save far more people than it kills.
The only possible way this outcome of saving lives can be avoided is if we follow the ABC neo-marxist plan to make electricity unaffordable. Air conditioners save 20,000 lives a year in the USA, so that’s probably 2,000 lives a year in Australia.
A lack of air conditioning will kill more people than global warming. Obviously what we need, if you care about lives, is more Victorian Brown coal plants.
Australian rainfall increasing. Stop that now!
Nick Kilvert is an environment reporter who may or may not realize that Australian rainfall has increased. If CO2 has any effect on rainfall, it’s made more of it. But whatever, as luck would have it, more rain definitely won’t fall in the right place or at the time — thus we get more droughts and more floods. And we know this because skillless climate models say so.
She was 14 the last time the Todd River flowed. But when it did it was a raging torrent.
Apparently that’s a thing. Hot air can hold more moisture. So it takes longer for it to get saturated enough to rain. But when it does …
Does he realize that “more moisture” in the air means there will be less extreme heat and cold? (That’s what the greenhouse effect is supposed to do).
Mostly though, it’s just dry. Alice was already hot and dry, so it doesn’t really have anywhere to go but hotter and drier.
Cotton crops along the Murray-Darling in southern Queensland and New South Wales aren’t planted when there’s long drought. And the wheat belt suffers.
Russia’s wheat industry is going gangbusters though. Good for them.
If you get the urge to take Nick Kilvert investment predictions and do the opposite, check out Cool Futures.*
What the ABC doesn’t mention: Climate change means more rain in Australia
The big question: If we cut ABC funding back to the level of starving bloggers, will Nick Kilvert learn to use the BOM website?
Back when CO2 was ideal Alice Springs had a shocking run of dry years. Lord save us all from extra rain in Alice Springs.
One hundred years of data shows Alice Springs was always dry with intermittent flooding. Obviously this data needs to be adjusted.
The ABC is unaccountable and out of control.
If you think that should change, please help support independent commentary with some emergency chocolate through Paypal or direct deposit and mail.
*Declaring a conflict of interest, David and I are involved already with Cool Futures and hope one day to profit from it. I’m looking forward to the day when Nick Kilvert declares a conflict of interest and admits he, and all the climate scientists and renewable firms he does free advertising for, get fatter salaries from fatter governments. Will he ever report how incompetent big government is?
9.5 out of 10 based on 84 ratings
…
10 out of 10 based on 12 ratings
This is Expertise the UN can bank on
In the GWPF 2018 Lecture, Richard Lindzen pointed out the genius of Arctic climate models
First, for something to be evidence, it must have been unambiguously predicted. (This is a necessary, but far from sufficient condition.) Figure 1 shows the IPCC model forecasts for the summer minimum in Arctic sea ice in the year 2100 relative to the period 1980–2000. As you can see, there is a model for any outcome.
It is a little like the formula for being an expert marksman: shoot first and declare whatever you hit to be the target.
 Graph of the Year: Arctic sea ice predictions of the worlds top models in 2011. Spaghetti. This will definitely happen according to the worlds top scientists at NASA, CSIRO, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab (NOAA), National Centre for Atmospheric Research, The Hadley Meteorological Centre, the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology – Germany, the Institute of Numerical Mathematics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the University of Tokyo, JAMSTEC (Japan), the Climate Research Division of Environment Canada, The Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research in Norway, the Institut Pierre Simon Laplace (IPSL), plus experts from Centro Euro-Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici; Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV).
Twenty one IPCC expert models can’t fail, unless of course, the world cools.
REFERENCE
Eisenman et al (2011) Consistent Changes in the Sea Ice Seasonal Cycle in Response to Global Warming, Article, Journal of Climate 24:5325-5335
9.8 out of 10 based on 79 ratings
“Lucky us” Google has appointed itself as the unelected Decider Of Truth (and hopefully election results)
Google says it is unbiased, but a leaked memo explains to staff that free speech can be “a political weapon”, is a “utopian idea” and “users behaving badly” will allow “crummy politicians to expand their influence”. And we can’t have that.
For your own safety, you are not encouraged to think, judge or read the wrong views.
by Allum Bokhari
The 85-page briefing, titled “The Good Censor,” admits that Google and other tech platforms now “control the majority of online conversations” and have undertaken a “shift towards censorship” in response to unwelcome political events around the world.
It acknowledges that major tech platforms, including Google, Facebook and Twitter initially promised free speech to consumers. “This free speech ideal was instilled in the DNA of the Silicon Valley startups that now control the majority of our online conversations,” says the document.
Research into what? Good excuses?
Responding to the leak, an official Google source said the document should be considered internal research, and not an official company position.
One of the reasons Google identifies for allegedly widespread public disillusionment with internet free speech is that it “breeds conspiracy theories.” The example Google uses? A 2016 tweet from then-candidate Donald Trump, alleging that Google search suppressed negative results about Hillary Clinton.
(Trump’s suspicions were actually correct – independent research has shown that Google did favor Clinton in 2016).
That it panders to Big Gov, is an entirely predictable outcome for a group that desperately doesn’t want Big-Government to hit it with anti-trust rules, break it up, or remove its legal immunity, and treat it like a publisher, which it obviously is. It would also kinda like to be the approved spokesengine for the Chinese government.
Shocking Internal Google Docs Prove Their Orwellian Goals and Desire to Squash Free Speech, by Cassandra Fairbanks.
Google explained that in some cases this freedom has had positive outcomes, using the Arab Spring as an example. The document then goes on to list the negative outcomes that have “undermined this utopian narrative,” listing the 2016 election (along with a photo of President Donald Trump), the trolling of actress Leslie Jones, YouTuber Logan Paul, and the rise of the alt-right as some examples of where free speech has went wrong.
The company followed that up by saying “as the ‘we’re not responsible for what happens on our platforms’ defense crumbles, users and advertisers are demanding action.” This seems to be an admission that they should no longer be protected under section 230.
Google determines that the problem is that users, governments and tech firms are all behaving badly.
It lists the ways in which users are “behaving badly” as hate speech, reprisals and intimidation, trolling, cyber harassment, cyber racism and venting. …
One of the “problems” that they found is that “everyone has a voice.”
Spread the word. Google is filtering your search results.
h/t David E and Willie Soon.
9.6 out of 10 based on 96 ratings
So smart and yet so stupid
 Global Warming for the Two Cultures by Richard Lindzen Prof Richard Lindzen, a giant of the skeptical debate delivered the 2018 Annual GWPF lecture this week talking about two cultures of two different educated elites. Those at the higher intellectual level may be more prone to groupthink than ordinary folk…
The two different kinds of elites and a vast gap between them
Lindzen quotes C.P.Snow who was both a scientist and a writer and who lived in both elite worlds — the scientific and the arts.
C.P. Snow felt only 1 in 10 of the most highly educated in the western world had even a basic grip on physics:
A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare’s?
I now believe that if I had asked an even simpler question – such as, What do you mean by mass, or acceleration, which is the scientific equivalent of saying, Can you read? – not more than one in ten of the highly educated would have felt that I was speaking the same language. So the great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their Neolithic ancestors would have had. — C.P. Snow
Lindzen fears little has changed and warns that the gulf in understanding between each elite culture is open to malicious exploitation. When science is used as a vote winning issue, non scientists have to pick sides and then belief and faith inevitably trump understanding.
The “trivially oversimplified false narratives” help reassure the non-scientists that they are not completely stupid. Even the smart-but-dumb folk love being told how smart they are. (Don’t we all?) So when a complicated debate is reduced to a binary “yes-no” situation, like renewables “clean”: fossils “dirty”, educated elites get drawn in…
Why the educated elites are vulnerable to being fooled
Richard Lindzen:
… ‘ordinary’ people (as opposed to our ‘educated’ elites) tend to see through the nonsense being presented. What is it about our elites that makes them so vulnerable, and what is it about many of our scientists that leads them to promote such foolishness? The answers cannot be very flattering to either. Let us consider the ‘vulnerable’ elites first.
- They have been educated in a system where success has been predicated on their ability to please their professors. In other words, they have been conditioned to rationalize anything.
- While they are vulnerable to false narratives, they are far less economically vulnerable than are ordinary people. They believe themselves wealthy enough to withstand the economic pain of the proposed policies, and they are clever enough to often benefit from them.
- The narrative is trivial enough for the elite to finally think that they ‘understand’ science.
- For many (especially on the right), the need to be regarded as intelligent causes them to fear that opposing anything claimed to be ‘scientific’ might lead to their being regarded as ignorant, and this fear overwhelms any ideological commitment to liberty that they might have. None of these factors apply to ‘ordinary’ people. This may well be the strongest argument for popular democracy and against the leadership of those ‘who know best.”
To paraphrase Lindzen, educated elites are gullible suckers because they spent too much time at uni, and they are rich enough to afford to hold stupid ideas. They want to believe they understand science but the level of their understanding is “Bumper Sticker 101”. Smart people have smartish friends, and they are very afraid of looking stupid.
Ordinary folk are more immune to it, because they already know university profs look down on them, so they don’t need to impress them. They can’t afford frivolous quests, like trying to change the weather with a light globe. Ordinary folk ask good, basic questions. These are also hard questions which produce waffling, dissembling and running away, or namecalling, and no one needs a PhD to decide which scientist is right then.
His lecture at the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
9.8 out of 10 based on 114 ratings
Another Hazelwood-size batch of renewables coming on line in Australia by 2020.
That’s 1600MW of random subsidized energy dropping into a market that is artificially priced to value weather-changing potential over reliability. Now, even the bosses of two gentailers which both benefit from renewables subsidies are warning things are chaotic, going to get turbulent and more expensive. Why do they admit this? Probably because they want the government to add another layer of policy interference to reward “firm capacity” which they both also own.
Instead, lets get the government and the RET octopus off our grid. Surely we can set up a market that allows players who want electricity at 9am tomorrow to pay more for generators which can actually guarantee to be there. All the market players who don’t care when or if electricity arrives can buy the unreliable energy. Which businesses, industries or homes can use electricity that arrives at midday and random other times, remembering that wind power drops to 5% of capacity for days sometimes:
Perry Williams, Matt Chambers, The Australian
Power giants AGL Energy and Origin Energy have raised concerns over a surge of wind and solar generation creating a new wave of volatility in Australia’s electricity grid due to a lack of firm capacity to back it up.
“I think there is increasing risk within the national electricity market because the lack of a good mechanism means the firming generation that’s needed is not being built as quickly as the renewable generation is being built,” AGL’s interim chief executive Brett Redman told The Australian.
“That does start to drive towards a lot of volatility in the market and volatility is the enemy of existing baseload generation.”
 Solar Farm, Canberra Brett Redman — AGL’s interim chief — says there is a risk things will get “choppy” in the next ten years:
“And choppiness or turbulence is a different way of saying higher cost.”
Origin Boss, Frank Calabria said $10b in new solar was already approved, which could be built in 18 months:
…this was a problem because it had not been coupled with a policy that recognised the intermittency of renewables, as recent problems in South Australia had illustrated.
Spot the contradiction, renewables are “low cost” but the turbulence they add brings “higher cost”. Our market is screwed:
“Lower-cost renewables tend to push the higher-cost sources of dispatchable power – coal and gas – out of the market early,” Mr Calabria said.
“Today, we see several markets where the prices are hollowing out, sometimes to zero, in the middle of the day …this is exactly what we say as a lead-up to (the closure) of ageing plant like Hazelwood and Northern.”
They want more government interference to compensate for too much government interference:
“Until the politicians realise that to get to those targets they need a firm firming capacity – and they are nowhere near that at the moment – the market will be in chaos and that’s where it’s at.”
 … Photos copyright Jo Nova 2018
9.6 out of 10 based on 72 ratings
|
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
The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX
|
Print This Post | | 
Recent Comments