Recent Posts
-
Sunday
-
Saturday
-
If only we’d built those offshore wind turbines, eaten more cricket-burgers, we could have stopped the floods, right?
-
Friday
-
If UK had never tried renewables, each person would be £3,000 richer
-
Thursday
-
New AI data centers will use the same electricity as 2 million homes
-
Wednesday
-
No one knows what caused the Blackout but Spain is using more gas and nukes and less solar…
-
Tuesday
-
Monday
-
Sunday
-
Half of Australia doesn’t want to pay a single cent on Net Zero targets
-
Saturday
-
Secret comms devices, radios, hidden in solar inverters from China. Would you like a Blackout with that?
-
Friday
-
LSE junk study says if men didn’t eat so much red meat we’d have nicer weather
-
Thursday
-
Now they tell us? Labor says new aggressive Net Zero policy they hid from voters “is popular”
-
Wednesday
-
British politics in turmoil after Reform’s wins — Greens Deputy even attacks Net Zero from the left
-
Tuesday
-
Monday
-
Sunday
-
Children of 2020 face unprecedented exposure to Extreme Climate Nonsense…
-
Saturday
-
60% are skeptics: Only 13% of UK voters say Net Zero is more important than cost of living
-
Friday
-
Climate change is causing South Africa to rise and sink at the same time
-
Thursday
-
Why is the renewables industry allowed to sponsor political advertising in schools and call it “education”?
-
Wednesday
-
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
|
Things are really getting serious now. There is not only extinction and endless droughts, but there are depressed dogs. Unprecedented depressed dogs. The chain of effect goes like this: electric heaters cause climate change which makes winters wetter in England and owners don’t like mud, so ipso, ergo, garbo, dogs get stuck indoors, go stir crazy and rip furniture.
I presume the answer to this is to sell the car, cancel the heating, and wait for the world to warm cool for your dog to get happy?
Leading pet behaviourists told The Independent that the number of depressed and unsettled dogs they have seen in recent months is unprecedented.
Carolyn Menteith, a dog behaviourist who was named Britain’s Instructor of the Year in 2015, says Global Warming might be causing pets to become depressed:
“I’ve never seen our dogs or horses this bored before in 20 years.
Yes, this is the worst in recorded history, or 20 years, whichever comes first.
Horses that have lived happily outside before are saying ‘I actually can’t cope with this mud and wet anymore’…”.
For me, the unprecedented thing here is the talking horse.
Is that climate change too?
Keep reading →
9.4 out of 10 based on 91 ratings
BREAKING BUN FEST: Hysterical. The contradictions in the propaganda are biting back viciously. Isn’t karma a bitch?
If climate change is solved and beyond debate, who needs climate scientists?
CSIRO has announced it will axe 300 to 350 climate jobs, which will “wipe out” the climate division. The head of the CSIRO wants to focus on climate adaption and mitigation instead. Suddenly a lot of Profs who told us the debate was over are squealing that it needs more research. Climate science was “beyond debate” and in need of action, but now we “need to know more about the basic operation of the climate”. Oh the dilemma!
The head of the CSIRO is doing what the Greens say they want — moving beyond the debate and putting more money into adaption and mitigation. Where’s the Greens statement applauding him…?
With up to 350 scientist jobs under fire at maybe $250k per year (including super, admin, and other on-costs), that means there is around $90m at stake.
This is a CSIRO management decision:
“Climate will be all gone, basically,” one senior scientist said before the announcement.
In the email sent out to staff on Thursday morning, CSIRO’s chief executive Larry Marshall indicated that, since climate change had been established, further work in the area would be a reduced priority. — SMH
CSIRO chief executive Larry Marshall said the changes would see the organisation move away from measuring and monitoring climate change, to instead focus on how to adapt to it.
“It’s inevitable that people who are gifted at measuring and modelling climate may not be the same people who are gifted at figuring out what to do about it how to mitigate it,” he said.
“Some of the climate scientists will be able to make that transition and some won’t.” — ABC
Scientists are tying themselves in knots to explain why it’s appalling that there is a loss of safe, low turnover jobs to study something that is “proven”. Gee, just as well they aren’t coal miners.
Professor Penny Sackett –a former Australian Chief Scientist who now works for the Climate Change Institute at ANU.
“I am stunned by reports that CSIRO management no longer thinks measuring and understanding climate change is important, innovative or impactful. Paris did not determine whether or not climate change is happening, scientists who generate and study big data did. The big question now, which underlies all climate adaptation work, is ‘How is the climate changing?’”
So we don’t know how the climate is changing? So Penny, when did you mention that all the predictions of floods and droughts and terrible storms were uncertain?
Prof Will Steffen suddenly admits “we” don’t know the basic operation of the climate system:
Keep reading →
9.2 out of 10 based on 195 ratings
A remarkable tribute, composed, scored, and performed on a grand piano. I did not know there was such a thing as a clock tune. The things we learn when we work with polymaths… — Jo
A clock tune in honor of a true man of true science
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The generous businessman who sponsored the successful case against Al Gore’s sci-fi comedy horror movie An Inconvenient Truth in the London High Court in 2007 contacted me recently to say we should take steps to honor the memory of the late Bob Carter, whose testimony alongside that of Dick Lindzen was decisive in defeating Her Majesty’s Government and obliging it to circulate 77 pages of corrective guidance to every school in England before the movie could be shown there.

Hear the Peal | Download the Score
I have many good reasons to be grateful to Bob Carter. On my first speaking tour of Australia I was recovering from 20 years’ grave illness and it was not clear that I’d be fit enough to survive the month-long tour. Bob Carter shared with Ian Plimer the task of serving as my warm-up act. Both were ready to step in and take over if my health failed.
Then and often thereafter, I came to know and love Bob and his wife Anne, both of whom were the soul of gentleness, kindness and truth.
Bob was visibly saddened by the shameful and mendacious abandonment of any semblance of scientific rigor or method on the part of so many academic colleagues when it came to the profitable scam that is “global warming”.
More than any of us, he felt the totalitarians’ sullen, vicious assault on science and reason personally. He was wounded by it. Often and often he agonized over how men of science could have sunk so low.
Yet he remained generally cheerful, and was the sharpest brain and the clearest voice of sanity and reason against the Green Blob. His talks were models of clarity, incision and wit.
That great man was treated with bitchy pettiness by his university in his closing years, solely because he refused to be Assimilated by the Borg. In an act of extreme childishness, his right to use his own university’s library was summarily removed.
 Click to down the full sheet music in PDF.
And the poisonous totalitarians who have all but silenced free speech worldwide on the climate issue by their vile personal attacks on any who dare to speak out against the Party Line could not let Bob Carter alone even in death. A number of disfiguringly spiteful attacks on him have been published.
The truth is that Bob Carter made Them uneasy. His assertions of the truth were so clear, so difficult for Them to challenge, that They came to fear him, and – as is usual with Their wretched kind – with fear came hatred.
I had the privilege of spending two weeks in Paris with Bob at the U.N. climate gabfest. One of the hate-speakers in the soulless le Bourget conference center, seeing me pass by, said, “All we have to do is wait. You’re all old. You’ll all die. And what you stood for will be forgotten. And we’ll have won.”
How ironic that, after that remark, Bob Carter should have been taken from us so soon after the Paris nonsense ended.
What then, is to be done to remember that great man? Well, just about the last thing I heard him say was that he liked my piano-playing in the foyer of the Hotel California, just off the Champs Elysees, where the skeptics were all staying.
In the German-speaking princedoms of Baroque Europe, by an elegant custom, composers honoured the dead by composing clock-tunes in their honor. These clock-tunes – or Turmuhrglockenspielmelodie – can be heard to this day from clock-towers all over Germany and Austria, ringing out their merriment every quarter of an hour.
I have decided to revive that charming tradition of recalling those in eternity by counting the hours that no longer imprison them. I have composed a clock-tune in Bob’s memory, and as a very small mark of gratitude for his unfailing kindnesses to me and my lovely wife.
Keep reading →
8.7 out of 10 based on 101 ratings
Remember how skeptics are dying out?
Tens of thousands of Republican voters in Iowa chose the most skeptical candidate they could find. The new landscape of Republican contenders is dominated by skeptics, but the voters wanted the most skeptical. Senator Ted Cruz is flagrantly outspoken, is well read, and brings rare debate on climate issues to Congress.
Voters came en masse for the Iowa Republican caucas. Normally 120,000 Republicans vote in the Iowa caucus, but this time 180,000 turned out. One polling station ran out of ballots. Ted Cruz received more votes than any other candidate has ever received in Iowa.
The last few fringe skeptics of climate change must have all moved to Iowa right?
This is how skeptical Cruz is:
 Ted Cruz is the candidate the climate Extremists hate the most.
See the Gullibility Index
The ABC and SMH described Cruz’s win, but did not mention that he was a skeptic. He is just someone who appealed to the evangelical base.
Cruz is not liked by the establishment Republicans at all. Should be interesting!
h/t Jim Simpson.
8.9 out of 10 based on 67 ratings
While the Paris agreement was toothless the bite may well come from a pincer movement with domestic laws. Paris was voluntary and non-binding but may be used to provide a means for National laws that are binding to take effect. The laws within each country may have been put into effect earlier with specially prepared clauses that could be triggered or enabled by the Paris agreement.
Strangely Democrat members, elected democratically, don’t appear to have any problem with this. It doesn’t matter if the elected representatives get bypassed, I suppose — the ends justifies the means, the climate needs to be saved, and the voters are stupid.
I am reminded of Al Gore visiting Australia the week before the Senate was doing climate deals with Clive Palmer. Was that a similar strategy — mix and mesh local and international laws to achieve what cannot be achieved in a democracy via the old fashioned way of convincing the voters. Similarly Chiefio and American Thinker were discussing the TPP agreement and how it ominously meshed with the Paris deal too. The implications of that need to be hammered out too. These local laws that depend on international agreements can suddenly empower those benign looking voluntary deals.
A few weeks ago, a group of 13 prominent environmental law professors and attorneys released a 91-page report outlining this new approach, which would allow EPA to use existing laws to quickly and efficiently regulate all pollution sources, in all states
Here’s how it works: A rarely used provision of the Clean Air Act — Section 115 — gives EPA the authority to mandate that every U.S. state cut its emissions by whatever amount the agency determines is necessary to protect public health and welfare if two things happen.
First, EPA must receive a report or studies from an “international agency” showing that U.S. air pollution is anticipated to endanger public health or welfare in a foreign country. The many reports put out by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change over the past few decades meet this requirement.
Second, EPA must determine that the foreign country harmed by U.S. pollution has given the U.S. “essentially the same rights with respect to the prevention … of air pollution occurring in that country.” In other words, there needs to be reciprocity. That’s where the newly signed Paris agreement becomes important. The Paris agreement satisfies this reciprocity requirement because there are now nearly 190 countries planning to reduce their emissions, at least in part, to protect one another’s health and welfare.
The means justifies the ends…
Through the completion of an international climate deal, this plan would effectively allow the president to sidestep Congress and take full control over each states’ energy sector. It would give the White House enormous power. States’ rights activists would rightly scream bloody murder.
But while these arguments are justified, the fact is that Congress has proved unwilling to address the looming threat of climate change. Section 115 may not be the best way to do that, but right now it’s the only one.
No Brian, Section 115 is not the only way to address climate change. There’s the old fashioned method of persuading the voters…
Read more: politico.com
h/t Chris D
8.4 out of 10 based on 55 ratings
…
6.7 out of 10 based on 43 ratings
Another survey that proves Australians still tick “yes” to motherhood statements. (Especially when there is no cost involved, and all choices are “Free”)
A James Cook University researcher has found more than three quarters of Australians regard the Great Barrier Reef as part of their national identity and nearly 90 per cent believe it is under threat from climate change.
But what the media-release doesn’t say is that after 25 years of hearing how the climate apocalypse is coming, people think climate change is going to be slightly worse than beach litter.
In terms of extreme threats, 6% more people think Climate Change will be worse than flotsam and jetsam. As a multibillion dollar marketing campaign endorsed by the UN, WMO, IMF, and western media — that’s got to hurt. Climate change is not much more scary than litter, ships, or runaway fertilizer.

Figure 3: Respondent perceptions of threats to the Great Barrier Reef as scored on a 10-point scale (1=not at all threatening and 10=extremely threatening). The “Top 2%” refers to the percentage of respondents who selected a 9/10 or 10/10. The “Top 5%” refers to the percentage of respondents who selected a score of 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10.
Australian government research at its best?
““We’ve described the personal concern and connection Australians have with the Great Barrier Reef “
Because no one has done that before, right.
How much do Australians care? Look right at the end of the press release:
– 44% of Australians have visited the Great Barrier Reef
So 56% of Australians have not. The PR team tries to reframe this statistic:
Keep reading →
8.4 out of 10 based on 58 ratings
If there were grand profits to be made from renewables the big rapacious energy giants would be buying in to solar and selling out of coal and oil. They’ve done their research. The fantasy fear campaign would have us think that Big-oil is afraid of renewables, but they truth is that if renewables were worth a lot, big-oil would have bought them.*
This week Exxon released their report on the energy outlook for the decades to come. Not much has changed since the last report in 2014, even though 40,000 people met in Paris and did historic breakthrough type things.
Exxon says oil and gas will still dominate energy in 2040
By DAVID KOENIG The Associated Press
The way oil giant Exxon Mobil sees it, the global energy landscape won’t be radically different in 2040 than it is today.
Oil and gas will remain king, accounting for an even slightly larger share of the energy supply. Coal will fall behind natural gas to become the third-largest source of energy.
Exxon forecasts that emerging renewables such as solar and wind power will triple but remain small — just 4 percent of the world’s energy. And carbon emissions will continue rising until around 2030, when cuts in industrialized nations gain traction lead an overall reduction.
Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon, told his shareholders in May last year, that ‘his firm hadn’t invested in renewable energy because “We choose not to lose money on purpose.”
That was apparently met with loud applause.
The main Exxon predictions for the world are that oil use will grow by 25%, natural gas will grow by 50%, coal will slip a bit, but all the trendy renewables will be producing only 4%:
Keep reading →
8.7 out of 10 based on 99 ratings
Right now there is a very odd divergence of satellite and surface thermometers. It started about two years ago. It is not like the El Nino of 1998, where all four rose together, and satellites recorded a higher spike than the surface records. This time around the satellites are lower. In the graph below, David Evans uses the older UAH official set, not the new “beta” version which would show UAH much closer to RSS and would make this divergence look even more stark.
According to the theory of Man-Made Global Catastrophe, the satellites, which record temperatures in the lower troposphere, should be warming faster than the surface. Where is that trend?
El Ninos slows ocean turnover, keeping a layer of warm water at the surface instead of stirring it in with the cooler water below. For some reason the thermometers near airports, carparks and cities are picking up the ocean warming better than the satellites. Hmm?
 …
I’m wary of concluding anything at this stage. There was a big gap in 2007 which resolved in two years. This gap is longer, but may resolve soon too.
Then of course, there’s the point that even the past can change, and — who knows what the current divergence will look like with five years of hindsight and post hoc corrections? Remember how the 1970s kept warming for three decades afterwards?
9 out of 10 based on 109 ratings
The global “pause” has been running for nearly 19 years. But a whopping 30% of all the human emissions of fossil fuels, ever, has come out since the year 2000. Nearly 40% of all our emissions since 1990.
All that CO2, and nothing to show for it. Half of all human emissions of “carbon pollution” have occurred since 1987.
 …
…
Here’s your handy reckoning table for human emissions from 1751 – 2014. (I know you’ve been waiting for it). Next time you need to know what percentage of the total human emissions of CO2 has been emitted since, say, Ash Wednesday, Cyclone Tracy, or Napoleon, or whatever, this is the table you need. When we hear that it’s the warmest summer since 1939, this table tells us what the CO2 levels were in 1939.
Keep reading →
8.7 out of 10 based on 113 ratings
Global Worriers can explain everything with CO2 (hammer: meet nail, meet hail, meet ET too).
The holy matrix theory strikes again. (h/t to Phys 1)*
With our university approved CO2 helmet we can explain things, like why there are no aliens. And we know there are none because we’ve had mass radio for 100 years out of the last 4.5 billion** and no one has picked up Alien FM. Plus we’ve landed some kind of gadget on nearly 1,000, almost 100, not quite 10, well 2 whole other planets and we haven’t found a single Klingon. Indeed we haven’t even found a cousin of e-coli. And some of the probes on Venus hunted for a full 120 minutes before they were vaporised.
Though naysayers about our knowledge of alien life point out that if intelligent life also went on to develop fibre optics, Wifi, and then entangled quark phones (or whatever) the radio transmissions window may last 500 years (or less) and thus we’re looking for intelligent life which may be a million years ahead of us which also happens to be a million light years away (and whose radio signals are still comprehendable spread over a sphere which is now two million light years in diameter?). Pfft. I say. Details. Who can argue with CO2 causing extinction of all intelligent life?
The Brilliant Gaiian Bottleneck theory reckons that intelligent life has to get smart fast enough to control the climate and stabilize things before they get killed off by climate change.
In studying how life might develop on other planets, the scientists realized that early critters likely had a hard time quickly evolving to their heating or cooling planets and did not survive. So essentially the reason we haven’t found any aliens yet is that quite simply while the percentage of life-sustaining environments could be high enough, they’re not around long enough for them to evolve from the pools of primordial life. — PopHerald.com
Because humans need a stable climate to evolve in, right. Like this?
 Vostok Ice Core temperature proxy — the stability that humans evolved in.
It’s adaption or climate control
What’s more likely, that biology adapts to the environment, or that biology controls the planetary climate?
Keep reading →
9 out of 10 based on 72 ratings
…
7.5 out of 10 based on 23 ratings
Tell the world, 2015 is the hottest year since 2010.
The fuss made over contested decimal points in highly adjusted datasets of irrelevant factors only shows how unscientific the public debate is. It probably wasn’t the hottest year in the last 150, and even it was, who cares — that doesn’t tell us anything about the cause. (Remember when cause and effect used to matter to a scientist?) Natural forces like the Sun and clouds can cause hot years too. Even if it was “the hottest” in a short noisy segment, the world has been hotter before (and life on Earth thrived) and the climate models are still hopelessly wrong. If CO2 was a big driver of the climate, 2015 should have been a lot hotter.
1. It wasn’t the hottest year. Satellites have better, broader coverage, surveying almost the whole planet (rather than selected car parks, runways, etc. like the surface thermometers). The satellites say that both 1998 and 2010 were hotter. In any case, these kind of piddling noisy differences are just street signs on the road to nowhere — what matters are the long term trends, and the predictions of climate models. (If the models worked, “scientists” wouldn’t need to do a gala performance about nothing eh?)
 2015 is the hottest year since 2010. So what?
2. 2015 was a failure for Global Worriers — not hot enough. Compared to 1998, the IPCC-endorsed climate models all say it should be warmer than it was. We had another El Nino in 2015, and since 1998 humans put out more than a third of their all-time CO2 emissions, yet 2015 was cooler than 1998 and 2010. CO2 is not driving the climate.
3. It’s been hotter before, and for thousands of years. It’s normal. Even if 2015 had been the hottest year in modern records (which start in 1850), the world was still hotter many times in the last ten thousand years. Antarctica didn’t melt. The Great Barrier Reef survived, and so did polar bears and penguins. Warm weather is not an apocalypse, and it wasn’t caused by CO2.
Get a grip at the way temperatures rose and crashed in Greenland (below). Current temperatures are probably similar to the Medieval Warm Period (this graph ends around 1900AD). The spikes here only represent Greenland, not the whole world, but the message is clear. Climate change is normal, and what’s happening now is not unusual.
 UPDATED: Ice core data is marked red to show where the modern global warm period begins (specifically 1705AD – 1855AD, long before CO2 levels rose). This graph ends in 1855, so none of the warming after that is shown.
4. Where is cause and effect? The latest batch of global warming started long before CO2 started rising. None of the scientists can explain why global warming started nearly 200 years before the first coal fired power station. Either coal affects the space-time continuum, or perhaps they read the tea leaves wrong?
 Temperatures bottomed out around 1700AD according to scores of proxies (See Ljundqvist and Christiansen Fig 4a.)
 [Graphed by Joanne Nova based on data from Jevrejura et al located at this site PMSML] 5. Since we are in a 300 year warming trend, it is inevitable that “hottest ever” records will be broken.Back in WWII we could have had the same headlines. If you were alive from 1938 to 1948, you could have heard about five of those records being broken. (H/t and graph thanks to Geoff Sherrington with red annotation from me.)
 Every year with an arrow is another “hottest ever year”.
6. Shattered? What kind of scientist is shattered that it was a tenth of a degree warmer than the last area-averaged, homogenized, adjusted record? They should be shattered that they still can’t explain the pause, the medieval warm period, the little ice age, or the missing hot spot.
MIT Professor, Richard Lindzen, says these “hottest year” claims are “spin on nothing”
Thanks to Climate Depot:
“And the proof that the uncertainty is tenths of a degree are the adjustments that are being made. If you can adjust temperatures to 2/10ths of a degree, it means it wasn’t certain to 2/10ths of a degree,” he added.
“70% of the earth is oceans, we can’t measure those temperatures very well. They can be off a half a degree, a quarter of a degree. Even two-10ths of a degree of change would be tiny but two-100ths is ludicrous. Anyone who starts crowing about those numbers shows that they’re putting spin on nothing.”
The things the media won’t tell us
Joe Bast, Heartland Institute
Bast: “The “news’ story makes no mention of the Congressional investigation of NOAA underway, finding evidence that NOAA falsified its temperature data. No mention that the surface station data aren’t actually global and are known to exaggerate warming trends. And are contradicted by the truly global satellite data, which are in turn validated by weather balloon data. Or that saying “reliable global record-keeping began in 1880” conveniently puts the beginning of the data series at the end of the Little Ice Age. Heartland’s James Taylor tried to inoculate the press from NOAA’s virus with a piece last week at Forbes.com “2015 Was Not Even Close To Hottest Year On Record”.
UPDATE: Top Graph updated to add the word “satellite” instead of “main” which reflects that this is just the main satellite sets. To see all of the main surface sets, including the satellites (notice how similar they are) see this graph published 2 days later. Thanks to DavidR. I prefer this clarification.
UPDATE #2: Thanks to Josh and Twinotter for pointing out the x axis title on the GISP graph was out by 50 years. The wording “Years Before Present (2000AD)” was incorrect and has been changed to “Years Before Present (1950AD)”. The change doesn’t affect the message or meaning here, but I’m grateful. The graph is more accurate. Thanks also to Just-a-guy for his analysis.
9.3 out of 10 based on 131 ratings
This has got to be the best obituary I have ever read.
Michael Smith writes: “How Bob Carter cost me a career – and made me a better person.” For foreign readers, Smith hosted a talkback radio show on the East Coast of Australia. While the rest of the mainstream media was running dead on a story of an old union slush fund scandal that was connected to the Prime Minister of the day (Julia Gillard), Michael Smith pursued the story relentlessly until the point where he “resigned under pressure” after asking too many “unauthorized” questions. He now runs an influential political blog and lives off donations. There have been days in Australian politics when every political tragic was reading his site.
But knowing this, I had no idea that Bob Carter had a role in Michael Smith’s career. Before Smith did talk back radio, he confesses that he was a Gore fan working at the University of Queensland, soaking in inconvenient propaganda and promoting the University’s carbon accounting courses. Bob not only turned around Smith’s views on climate science he did something far more important — he showed him a way to speak out “when it’s costly” which Michael Smith would go on to do. Just as visible corruption encourages more corruption, the reverse is also true. Standing up to corruption shines a beacon.
Michael Smith says he believed…
That is until I spoke with Bob. Bob changed my life. He was the person who opened my eyes to the way facts can be manipulated. More than anyone else, Bob demonstrated the quiet truth about our susceptibility to power and big lies repeated often.
By January 2007 I’d been given the privilege of presenting a one-hour nightly radio show on Brisbane’s talk-back station Radio 4BC. Within months that grew to a 3 hour show during the 3 to 6PM Drive Time. One of my first guests was Bob.
I thought it would make good radio to hear “Mr Full Bottle On The Inconvenient Truth” slaughter the eccentric old salmon swimming upstream. I lasted about 30 seconds before the wily bugger had me on the canvas with his first knock-out punch.
I’d made the error of asking Bob for his opinion after my perfect opening monologue. Bob said, “I don’t have an opinion. I am a scientist. I don’t deal in opinion. I deal in facts. Observable, proven facts. I deal with the scientific method, making observations, doing experiments and arriving at conclusions. Your starting point seems to be an unproven hypothesis based on computer projections. Do you have any facts to back up your claims about global warming?”
It got worse for me from that point on.
Bob changed me in a fundamental way. He was courageous in a way I’d not experienced at close quarters.
Bob gave me the model that helped as I searched my soul for the courage to speak when it’s costly.
Read it all (it’s well worth it): How Bob Carter cost me a career
I think Bob would be delighted, and the best way to honor him is to push back against corruption.
A comment by Alice Thermopolis is so appropriate here:
“Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.” — Albert Einstein
H/t to Chris O.
9.3 out of 10 based on 131 ratings
 Professor Bob Carter
One of the best things about being a skeptic are the people I’ve got to know, and Bob Carter was one of the best of them, sadly taken far too soon. He was outstanding, a true gem, a good soul, and an implacably rational thinker. A softly spoken man of conscience and good humour.
So it is dreadful news that he suffered a heart attack last week in Townsville. For the last few days I have been hoping that he would return to us, but alas, tonight he passed away peacefully, surrounded by family.
We shall miss you Bob.
Professor Bob Carter (74) has been a key figure in the Global Warming debate, doing exactly what good professors ought to do — challenging paradigms, speaking internationally, writing books, newspaper articles, and being invited to give special briefings with Ministers in Parliament. He started work at James Cook University in 1981, served as Head of the Geology Department until 1998, and sometime after that he retired. Since then he’d been an honorary Adjunct Professor.
He was a man who followed the scientific path, no matter where it took him, and even if it cost him, career-wise, every last bell and whistle that the industry of science bestowed, right down to his very email address. After decades of excellent work, he continued on as an emeritus professor, speaking out in a calm and good natured way against poor reasoning and bad science. But the high road is the hard road and the university management tired of dealing with the awkward questions and the flack that comes with speaking truths that upset the gravy train. First James Cook University (JCU) took away his office, then they took his title. In protest at that, another professor hired Bob immediately for an hour a week so Bob could continue supervising students and keep his library access. But that was blocked as well, even the library pass and his email account were taken away, though they cost the University almost nothing.
It says a lot about the man that, despite the obstacles, he didn’t seem bitter and rarely complained. He dealt with it all with calm equanimity. Somehow he didn’t carry the bad treatment as excess baggage.
Probably the saddest aspect of the whole petty saga of the Blackballing of Bob Carter was that JCU felt it was fine to explain that Bob’s mistake was that he had come to an inconvenient conclusion on climate change. It wasn’t that he got the facts wrong, instead his “views on climate change did not fit well within the School’s own teaching and research activities.” So much for academic freedom. Apparently it took up too much time to defend Carter against outside complaints about his public writings and lectures on climate change.
Such is the state of intellectual rigor in Australian universities. As I said at the time:
… every person in the chain of command tacitly, or in at least one case, actively endorsed the blackballing. Each one failed to stand for free speech and rigorous debate.
The only one in that chain at JCU who would always put science before politics was Professor Robert Carter. He was a rare and remarkable man, and I will keenly miss his wisdom and philosophical good nature.
Here’s a fitting reminder of his influence: Thanks to John Spooner.
My sympathies and condolences to Anne Carter and the rest of his family. I know there are many who will miss him. At least he finished with a great year, he and Anne “successful gadding about”: Sydney, Washington, San Francisco, Chicago, Sicily, Rome, Dresden, Budapest and of course, Paris.
The sad short notification from Anne tonight:
“We are very sad to inform you that Bob passed away peacefully this evening in the company of his family. Heartland has put together a great bio on Bob’s career.
One thing is for sure, Bob made the most of every minute he had and was a fighter to the very end.
He would want to thank you for your support and to say how much he enjoyed working with each and every one of you.
Funeral arrangements are being made and will be advised when finalised but most likely on Monday next week in Townsville.” — Anne Carter
UPDATE: Funeral Arrangements have been made through Morleys Funerals at the lakes next Monday at 1pm in Townsville.
All my posts on Bob Carter. This won’t be the last. The world would be a much better place if it were a world with more Bob Carters.
And the tributes flow:
From Fred Singer:
I feel so privileged to have known and worked with Bob (since our 2006 voyage in the Baltic)
and to have shared the panel talks last month in Paris.
“He died with his boots on.”
From Joe Bast at Heartland:
This is almost unspeakably sad. Bob was the very embodiment of the “happy warrior” in the global warming debate. He was a scholar’s scholar, with impeccable credentials (including a Ph.D. from Cambridge), careful attention to detail, and a deep understanding of and commitment to the scientific method. He endured the slings and arrows of the anti-science Left with seeming ease and good humor and often warned against resorting to similar tactics to answer them.
Bob never failed to answer the call to defend climate science, getting on planes to make the long flight from Australia to the U.S., to Paris, and to other lands without complaints or excuses. He was a wonderful public speaker and a charming traveling mate. He was not an easy man to edit, though – he kept wanting to put unnecessary commas, “that’s,” and boldfacing back into his manuscripts — but the great ones never are.
Bob helped immeasurably with three volumes in the Climate Change Reconsidered series, a series of hefty compilations of scientific research he coauthored and coedited with Craig D. Idso and S. Fred Singer. Just a few weeks ago, he flew to Paris to speak at Heartland’s “Day of Examining the Data” and contributed to the completion and review of another book, Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: The NIPCC report on scientific consensus.
From Christopher Monckton:
We will remember him. He was our clearest voice of truth.
From James Delingpole:
We all loved Bob; we’re all going to miss him. He smiled as he fought and as Fred says he died with his boots on. What those of you who missed hanging with him in Paris last December should know is that he was on splendid form – hail, happy, looking like he was going to go on forever. Good old Bob with his dark Satanic beard and his impish smile. What a hero! What a friend! Just the kind of guy you want in the foxhole next to you!
I had the privilege of knowing and working with Bob for the better part of the past decade. Along with Fred Singer, I served with Bob as a Lead Author on several volumes of work produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. Putting together those volumes was always a Herculean task and Bob was an integral part of their success. He was a master of scientific knowledge and had an incredible talent of sharing that knowledge with others.
Bob had a long and storied career. A wonderful biography of his accomplishments can be found here. But for those who knew him best, it was not his career that kept his heart, but his dear, sweet companion Anne, who was always at his side and accompanied him to nearly every work-related conference and meeting he attended.
I will miss Bob and the friendship we shared. To Anne and their family, may God bless and be with you during this difficult hour of your lives. You have our heartfelt condolences and are in our prayers.
Professor Carter was a very fine man — compassionate, intelligent and still hard working long after most people have retired. He will be sorely missed by many people.
Bob was a great supporter of me and ICSC in general, helping providing the solid, rational science foundation to our work to bring climate realism to the general public.
I feel privileged to have known Bob in the last few years of his life. I also feel privileged to have spent some time with him in Paris, DC, Chicago, NY and here in Ottawa when he was on a speaking tour of Canada.
Donna Laframboise:
The first climate skeptic gathering this journalist attended was a 1-day event in 2009. There were numerous speakers, but Bob Carter’s calm, sensible, persuasive presentation was the one I most talked and thought about afterward. (In 2012, I recalled that event here).
Having shared a stage with Bob twice in the past six months, I can say with perfect sincerity that he was kind, charming, and a gentleman.
In 2003, when I was unknown to anyone other than my friends and family, I had been posting comments on climate reconstructions at a chatline. Bob emailed me out of the blue with encouragement, saying that I was looking at the data differently than anyone else and that I should definitely follow it through. Without his specific encouragement, it is not for sure that I ever would have bothered trying to write up what became McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) or anything else.
He was always full of good cheer, despite continuing provocations, and unfailingly encouraging.
Bob Carter was a shining light to those of us in Australia who benefitted from his leadership in the Earth Sciences. A great geologist, a sound scientist, a good friend, a superb speaker and illustrator, the sort of pedantic editor I appreciate, and good company. His leadership and advice in the great climate debate will be sadly missed, especially here in the Sunshine State.
Climate Depot: “Bob was a man of great courage, intellect and wit. I am deeply saddened by his passing. He easily seemed a decade younger than his 74 years with his youthful looks and energy level. the world of science has lost a true champion.”
David Rothbard At CFACT:
Science lost a champion and we lost a friend. In 2010, then Czech President Vaclav Klaus wrote a fitting tribute to Bob titled, “Thank heavens for Bob Carter.” We do thank God for Bob. We will miss him terribly.
To say that he was a man of good cheer and resilience would be an understatement. He not only bore the slings and arrows thrown his way by some of the ugliest people in the climate debate, he reciprocated with professionalism and honor, refusing to let them drag him into the quagmire of climate ugliness we have seen from so many climate activists. His duty, first and foremost was to truth.
[There are many more tributes to Bob at WUWT.]
Don Aitken (Former Chair of the Australian Research Council):
Bob was a lovely man. He was appointed to the Australian Research Grants Committee in 1987 when I was its Chairman, and stayed on in the Australian Research Council’s Earth Sciences group when the ARGC became the ARC. He was a feisty fighter for his discipline. As was common, he got to the position of assessing requests for money by having been a highly successful seeker of research funds himself. When I became interested in global warming ten years ago, Ian Castles, a great and former Australian Statistician, suggested that I should read his take on the issue, and Bob and I became in close contact again. Over the last ten years he has been one of the world’s best sceptics in this awful field of ‘climate change’. He writes well, bases himself on what is known, is alert to error and does not exaggerate. His passing is a great sadness to me, and will be to thousands of people he never met.’
He was no caricature of a wild-eyed denier, but in any almost any discussion invariably the most sane and sensible man on the panel. … A great scientist and a courageous and honorable man, he was full of joy and steel-spined, exactly the chap, as James Delingpole said, “you want in the foxhole standing next to you”.
 A John Spooner cartoon (click to enlarge)
Bob Carter was a great man. His greatness was located in something that we all recognized; his intelligent courage , perceptive kindness and an exuberant love of life.
Here was a man who showed everyone how to stand up to bullying and cowardly malice with elegant dignity.
I think he understood human weakness without cynicism but he was baffled by the evasiveness of his opponents in the climate debate.How could they not see the truth, and why wouldn’t they face him openly? He felt that tribal allegiance or group think anxiety were at the heart of what passes for thought in our society.
Ingrida and I are grateful to have called Bob and Anne our friends. A conversation with Bob could range from politics to science and fine art. He always had sympathetic care for family life. In fact he seemed to have a loving embrace for us all. He will be missed dreadfully by all who knew him. Our sincere commiserations to Anne and family, from John and Ingrida Spooner.
Professor of Physics, Peter Ridd, Marine Geophysics Laboratory
This is distressing news. Bob was truly one of the major influences in my life since he set up the Marine Geophysical Lab at JCU in the 80’s. I learnt so much about the perspective that only a geologist can bring – and a brilliant one at that.
I can assure you that in addition to old post docs like me, there is a tribe of ex students who are very saddened by this news but grateful that they came under Bob’s spell for some of their formative years.
He will be missed.
Willie Soon, Astrophysicist
…a true gentleman scientist and a friend and colleague that will be sorely missed … Bob has given everything he got in trying to educate the world on the danger of CO2 scare factor and a true champion of science …personally, he has taught me many many things on Earth sciences … knowing and working with him has to be among the most special and happy times I have experienced in science …
Bill Gray
Bob Carter – what a great professional and personal loss for so many of us AGW critics with the news of the death of Bob Carter. Bob gave so much of himself in recent years to holding the line against the false arguments and propaganda that has been so extensively advanced by global warming advocates. We should all admire Bob’s courage and his insightful climate understanding which he so skillfully brought to bear to up-hold the integrity of science. He leaves behind a most admirable legacy which will continue to inspire me and I’m sure many others to keep up our efforts to bring truth to the warming question….
Steve Hyland (former student of Bob Carter)
Oh no. This is unexpected and very sad news about Bob Carter.
It was a privilege to be one of Bob’s undergraduate students in the mid 1980’s at James Cook University. I will always remember how he reinforced the importance of scientific method, which I probably didn’t fully appreciate at the time. I certainly do now in these ‘post modern’ times in science.
Bob was a scientist to the core and it goes without saying a true gentleman. I regret that he will not to see an end to the unscientific “global warming” madness that has gripped the world. This is a huge loss. I am resolved to continue the good fight in his memory.
9.7 out of 10 based on 209 ratings
The Green Blob must be hating this. It’s the worst kind of momentum shift…
In 2008 the main US Presidential contenders were all supporters or “the free market solution” for carbon (called cap n’ trade in the US). But in 2015 the political landscape cracked, and now they’re going out of their way to reverse that. It’s now seen as a bad thing to look like a gullible patsy for Big Green.
How times have changed.
Amy Harder and Beth Reinhard, The Wall Street Journal
GOP presidential candidates who had generally accepted the scientific consensus on climate change have said recently that it is unclear how much, if at all, humans are contributing to warmer temperatures.
Shortly after a conservative website on Wednesday posted 2008 footage of Sen. Marco Rubio backing a cap-and-trade program to combat climate change, his campaign roared back with a counterattack that included an entire web page aimed at debunking the video.
In media-speak, this is not so much about Republicans waking up to something, it’s Obama’s fault:
Mr. Rubio’s muscular response revealed how toxic the issue of climate change has become in the Republican Party under President Barack Obama, who has sought to make reducing carbon emissions to alleviate global warming one of his signature accomplishments.
Until 2008, many Republicans, including then-presidential nominee John McCain, supported cap-and-trade to address climate change. Once Mr. Obama won the White House, Republicans swiftly unified against nearly all of his initiatives, including a cap-and-trade bill that would have set limits on carbon emissions and allowed companies to trade pollution credits to comply.
As I’ve said before, having GOP candidates compete on this changes everything. The shift that occurred in the US in 2015 was big. There is an opportunity for sensible people all over the world to pick up this momentum and run with it.
h/t GWPF
9.4 out of 10 based on 116 ratings
…
7.8 out of 10 based on 22 ratings
Free markets are a hot tool, but sometimes they’re “hot” like a jackhammer at a sewing bee. Who thinks it’s smart to use a free market on a ubiquitous molecule that cycles through almost all life on Earth? Answer: people who profit from it, or people don’t know what a free market is.
About 5 years ago, the VAT tax scam with carbon credits earned financial sharks around five billion Euro. The follow up to that is that, slowly, years later, in Frankfurt about 10 people have been given prison terms. (Is that all? Only ten people and 5b, or are there others in other countries?)
This type of fraud could happen in other markets too, but it surely must be easier to accomplish in fake markets where no goods are transferred. The Global Worriers narrative is that there’s risk in unleashing carbon dioxide, but they never discuss the risks of setting up fake markets, which need a lot of regulation, auditing, checking and all that — especially when every cat and dog have a stake, and the whole market might be controlled by phytoplankton.
Every fake market we set up is a feeding lot for corruption and friends-of-the-mafia. Is that the kind of world the Worriers want to build?
News Briton charged in carbon trading probe in Germany
Frankfurt prosecutors said they have charged a British man with having been a member of a gang involved in fraudulent trading of carbon permits and evading about 58 million euros (43.51 million pounds) of taxes.
The move is part of an investigation relating to so-called carousel trades made in 2009 and 2010, in which buyers imported emissions permits in one European Union country without paying value-added tax (VAT) and then sold them to each other, adding VAT to the price and generating tax refunds when no tax had been paid.
Europol estimated cost EU governments more than 5 billion euros in lost revenues.
How Green is that Banker?
Remember how Deutche Bank was so concerned about the environment they erected a 70 foot high clock of doom tower to count CO2 and put together 50 page scientific reports on climate change? Perhaps some employees were trying a bit too hard to save the world? Eight Deutsche Bank employees have been indicted for by a carbon fraud investigation.
Also, Frankfurt prosecutors in August indicted seven current and one former employee of Deutsche Bank in connection with its carbon fraud investigations.
There is another way to combat this
Instead of waiting for the government-glacier to turn off the tap to crooks, there must be another way. Check back here, any day now we’ll be suggesting a rather innovative path to slow the trainwreck and to use the real free market to do it.
h/t to Pat in comments.
PS: Watch the comment counter (Statistics, RHS), sometime in the next day or so we’ll hit the meaningless magical comment number 333,333. :- )
9.4 out of 10 based on 111 ratings
MIT has an experimental globe that uses some kind of crystal coating to reflect back the wasted heat generated by incandescent lights. The energy can be “recycled”, putting incandescents into a similar efficiency range as some LED’s. Potentially, the researchers claim, the efficiency scores could be nearly three times better than even the best current LED’s, giving incandescents total supremacy again.
Normal incandescents are only 2 – 3% efficient. These experimental ones are already 6.6% efficient. Current LED’s range from 5 – 15% efficient, but everyone hates the unnatural spectrum. Meanwhile, Compact Florescents (CFLs) are hazardous waste bombs, so whatever their efficiency is, it’s not enough.
Potentially, the press release promises, the new lights could reach a whopping 40% efficient. (Go Edison! Actually, go Joseph Swan. h/t Robbo in comments. :- ) )
Right now it’s probably illegal to sell them.

David L. Chandler | MIT News Office
Traditional light bulbs, thought to be well on their way to oblivion, may receive a reprieve thanks to a technological breakthrough.
Incandescent lighting and its warm, familiar glow is well over a century old yet survives virtually unchanged in homes around the world. That is changing fast, however, as regulations aimed at improving energy efficiency are phasing out the old bulbs in favor of more efficient compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) and newer light-emitting diode bulbs (LEDs).
Keep reading →
8.7 out of 10 based on 98 ratings
Dr Daniel Michael Alongi, 59, is accused of taking over half a million dollars in federal funds over the last seven years. The carbon sequestration, mangrove, reef, eco-expert has admitted he made false invoices to claim federal funds (Courier Mail, paywalled). He is in court on Jan 18th. The alleged sum is the rather impressive $556,000. His superannuation of $900k, and $80k in long service leave, has been frozen. (Nice work… )
I’m glad his financial accounts are being audited. But far more public money is potentially “hijacked” thanks to scientific accounts, let’s start auditing them too. When people claim a nation has warmed by 0.9 degrees we want the original receipts, not the ones they readjusted (and we need independent auditors and systematic methods, not “secret instructions”).
“The Science” has become “the loophole” where nearly any friend of big gov can get a hand in the treasury-bag.
There are reasons you aren’t allowed to pal review your tax return.
[Courier Mail] Alongi, who was well regarded in the science industry, allegedly pretended he was paying for “radioisotopes” imported from the US and to have samples analysed in US laboratories for his Great Barrier Reef research.
He told his boss he could “get a discount” on isotopes because he was a US citizen, and he claimed he was measuring carbon levels in “sediment core samples” taken from the Reef.
He has admitted to police that he made false invoices, credit card statements and created fake email trails to claim expenses over seven years, court documents state …
More info from The Townsville Bulletin Sept 15th.
He was charged with obtaining a financial advantage from a Commonwealth entity, namely AIMS, by deception.
The charge carries a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment.
Keep reading →
9.2 out of 10 based on 96 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
|
Recent Comments