Here’s the long-awaited followup to Part 1: The history of the Climate Debate from 1850 -2008, where history is tragedy reënacted as comedy, adapted for irony and syndicated as sarcasm. By Brad Keyes from Climate Nuremberg (whose motto is Deride And Conquer). — Jo
Guest Post by Brad Keyes
2009
- Documents liberated in the so-called Climategate leaks don’t show any impropriety on The Scientists’™ part whatsoever, which is why 19 independent inquiries are held to make sure.*
- Glaciergate happens
- Using nothing but schoolboy logic and denier logic, voodoo scientists identify a false prediction in IPCC AR4.
- Citing something called the scientific method, fundamentalist Feynmanites point out that if the IPCC’s prediction was wrong, its hypothesis must be wrong.
- Jubilation worldwide as the Intergovernmental Panel decides to hold onto its apocalyptic hypothesis anyway.
- After a lifetime questioning the claims of pea-thimbling ghost-realtors, evolution-denying WMD-existers, telekinetic psychopaths and telepathic psychokines, James Randi suddenly turns his back on everything Skepticism stands for by questioning The Science™. Skeptic authorities take the 87-year-old legend aside for a quiet chat about CAGW and, 24 hours later, Randi has freely accepted how silly he was to doubt something so rock-solid that no other Skeptic with a capital S even feels the need to examine it.
*Independent of each other, not of the Climate Research Unit in question.**
**Independent in a poetic, not a legal, procedural, or quote-unquote ‘actual,’ sense.
2010
- Climatologist Will Steffen simply tells PM Gillard to “Make tax hurt”—yet within hours, skeptics have somehow politicized his science.
- With the complicity of fellow fabulists, Prof. David Karoly concocts the meme that skeptics are waging a “relentless campaign of death threats” against scientists. If journalists are gullible enough to parrot this libel, then maybe, just maybe, the public will finally see why you can’t trust skeptics.
There is “real, physical evidence” that our atmosphere is in crisis, Prof. David Karoly reassures demoralised students. And scientists would love to reveal what it is, he says—if only someone hadn’t put a rat on Ben Santer’s doorstep in 1996. The resulting climate of fear (no pun intended) has condemned a generation of honest researchers to silence, euphemism and self-censorship.
- Motley CRU rehabilitated
- Desperate to restore trust in British climate science, between 7 and “dozens” of official exonerations are launched into the non-consensually leaked material from the UEA: the private publicly-funded data; the private work-related emails; private conversations between anonymous peer reviewers; private admissions that Steve McIntyre “has a point”; etc., etc.
- A “trick to hide the decline” is explained away when investigators learn that trick, to, the, decline are perfectly normal science words.
- The consensus on a particularly infamous email, in which CRU boss Phil Jones appears to celebrate the death of a skeptical scientist, is that it was an appalling choice of medium.
- With the single caveat that “the science was not the subject of our study,” the Science Appraisal Panel declares the science sound.
- Even more reassuring to the public, though, is the finding that Prof. Jones may have been secretive and unhelpful, “but that was true of all the climate scientists.”
- Journalist Donna LaFramboise is thumbing through IPCC AR4 one morning when she spots an embarrassing oversight: 5,587 non-peer-reviewed citations.
- When AmazonGates Attack, Part 1: He Never Signed Up For This
- Dana Nuccitelli is a successful environmentologist with the whole world at his feet, but deep down, all he ever wanted to be was a psychic book reviewer. So he can’t resist posting a one-star prefutation of Andrew Montford’s Hockey Stick Illusion, prebutting what he previsions as the “misinformation, lies, and nonsense” that presumably comprise the “work of science fiction.”
- Like a good scientist, Nuccitelli is careful not to defame Montford in more detail than his own limited imagination can support. The last thing he expects is for other Amazon customers to use this virtue against him, teasing him mercilessly over his vague, hand-wavy hatchet-job.
- SkSFührer John Cook chides Dana for taking it personally when skeptics demand that he “read the book, Nutticelli [sic]” or “be honest for once!” This tactic—Impossible Expectations—is just a Characteristic of Denial, explains Cook; and he ought to know, having literally written the book on rejecting reality.
- Even in antisemitic circles, the Oreskes/Conway conspiracy yawner Merchants of Doubt has few fans until it’s ingeniously re-released as non-fiction.
Taken from Chapter 4, this long-overdue correction to millennia of Western epistemology is one of several gems in Merchants of Doubt. Everyone from Aristotle onwards has made the mistake of thinking knowledge meant justified true belief. Simply by dropping the ‘truth’ requirement, Oreskes and Conway usher in a golden age of human ‘knowledge’ about climate change.
2011
- The Müller’s Tale
- The press is calling Prof Richard Müller a converted skeptic, after he asks the press to “call me a converted skeptic.” It’s the ultimate Man Bites Dog data point! For reasons not yet understood, scientists who are born believing inevitably become more skeptical the more they examine the evidence. Yet Prof. Müller seems to have gone the other way, overturning a law of nature. It would be unethical for science journalists to waste time fact-checking such an historic scoop.
- The press is calling Prof Richard Müller a converted skeptic, after he asks the press to “call me a converted skeptic.” It’s the ultimate Man Bites Dog data point! For reasons not yet understood, scientists who are born believing inevitably become more skeptical the more they examine the evidence. Yet Prof. Müller seems to have gone the other way, overturning a law of nature. It would be unethical for science journalists to waste time fact-checking such an historic scoop.
- It’s worse than anyone thought logically possible!
- Professor Will Steffen uses Australian television to break the news that’s too terrifying for the peer-reviewed literature: far from pausing, announces the popular Klimakommissar, the effects of climate change are actually happening faster than anyone dared dream, in just about every metric except temperature.
- The implications are disturbing: if this is what global warming is capable of now, what horrors would it produce if the globe was actually warming?
With a PhD in chemical engineering, Prof. Steffen [left] is obviously one of our top climate scientists—second only in climato-credibility to former Australian Gillard Government Climate Commission Chief Commissioner Distinguished Panasonic Sustainability Chair Professor Timothy J. Flannery, PhD, the zoologist who’s forgotten more about ancient wombat stride lengths than most people will ever know [right]. (Glamor shots courtesy of ScaredScientists, the website so scared, it’s too scared to exist anymore.)
- Cheering news, in an odd way, with the unveiling of Climategate 2.0. The cyberterrorists known only as FOIA have been busy, carefully selecting the one or two thousand emails that look bad when seen out of context.
- Senator Barbara Boxer speaks truth to power
- A visibly-rational Sen. Boxer (D), her voice choking with data, treats US lawmakers to a lecture on the paediatric health impacts of 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, drawing compelling links to the recent pandemic of schoolkids asphyxiating without warning. Boxer’s science wins a standing ovation from an overwhelmingly pro-evidence Senate. But will it be enough to put a dent in the complete denial of these issues by America’s moms, dads, scientists and doctors?
- What’s my ‘cene?
- For the first time since the Big Bang, mankind is literally capable of altering the very objects around him, argue an increasing number of experts.
- Geologians agree, and believe—by razor-thin consensus—that this will cause a new layer of rocks to begin sometime this weekend.
- As a reminder that attributing natural events to nature is now considered a form of denial, the new epoch will be named the Anthropocene (or supernatural) age, announces ANU climatologist Will Steffen.
- Basically on schedule, the Holocene comes to an end at lunchtime [AEST] the following Tuesday. Within minutes, the planet returns to conditions not cene since the dawn of the Scientific, over 300 years ago.
- Climate scientists are calling today’s milestone ‘the end of an era.’
- Scientists, meanwhile, have described it as ‘the start of an error.’
When AmazonGates Attack, Part 2
In 2011, Peter “Preternatural” Gleick was already a veteran IPCC author at the interface of Science and Policy-Making, where his ability to pre-summarize documents he hadn’t read was fast making him a legend.
That’s why, recalls Dr Gleick, it didn’t take him much time—or any thought—to type up some pretty damning notes on the upcoming Delinquent Teenager book by Donna LaFramboise. But the innovative ethicist and hydrologist had no idea what kind of ad-hominem vitriol he was about to incur when he innocently uploaded his speculations, headlined “A stunning compilation of lies, misrepresentations, and falsehoods about the science of climate change,” to Amazon dot com.
Hindsight is 20:20, and now that he’s read LaFramboise’s book for himself, Dr Gleick is the first to admit his guesses were imperfect (like anything else in science).
“Sure: if I could turn back time, I’d probably put more emphasis on the lack of lies, misrepresentations and falsehoods [in Delinquent Teenager]—and the fact that it’s not actually about the science of climate change,” he says.
“Er, as such.”
But these details were all it took to fuel denialist suspicions that he’d pulled his a priori critique ex posteriori.*
In his own words, Gleick was guilty: guilty “of being a a geek’s geek.” Having consecrated himself to the life of the mind, he was painfully naïve when it came to secular affairs.
“How was I supposed to know,” he asks, “that the Internet has higher standards of research than the IPCC?”
Every fibre of his being wanted to come forward and own up to the misunderstanding with dignity, Gleick says. Unfortunately, he was unable to respond to his accusers, because they had no academic standing. Such is the inherently asymmetric nature of the war against skeptics, he explains—“an advantage they exploit to the full, in my experience.”
All he could do, then, was refresh his browser in mute rage as his award-winning integrity was traduced by anonytrolls unworthy of palpating his prostate.
It was a traumatic episode for the prominent water scientist, but he refuses to beat himself up over his rôle (if any) in the embarrassment now known as AmazonGate 2.0 or WaterGate 3.1.
These days, if Gleick condemns an upcoming book for its stunning dishonesty, malevolence and venality, he’s always careful to explain that he’s engaged in projection, not prediction.
“I know, it seems obvious, right? But you’d be amazed how slow some people can be.”
All in all, Gleick looks back on Amazon’s assault on his good name as a long-overdue loss of innocence.
“These days I never shoot myself in the foot like that. And when I do, I always try to take it out of my mouth first.
“They say everyone’s got one massive blunder in them, so really, I’m glad I got mine out of my system in 2011.”
* This Latin vulgarism has no exact translation, but connotes something like ‘from out yon orifice whereup Trenberth’s missing heat doth hide.’
Giordano Bruno proposed that the stars were just distant suns surrounded by their own exoplanets and raised the possibility that these planets could even foster life of their own. He also insisted that the universe is in fact infinite and could have no celestial body at its “centre”.
For that heresy he was burnt at the stake on this day the 17th February 1600, by the Roman Catholic Church.
And we think we have advanced?
340
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Giordano-Bruno
A long read for those who might be interested. In some respects it is anticpates the trials of Professor Peter Ridd
130
The Encyclopedia Britanica is very leftwing these days.
“After publishing a broadsheet against a Calvinist professor, however, he discovered that the Reformed church was no less intolerant than the Catholic”. while elsewhere its written
he was excommunicated by the Calvinist Council on account of his disrespectful attitude towards the heads of that Church and was obliged to leave the city.
Worse “Because of the hostile reception of the Oxonians, however, he went back to London as the guest of the French ambassador” is better described as “He visited Oxford, and, on being refused the privilege of lecturing there, he published (1584) his “Cena delle ceneri”, or “Ash-Wednesday Supper”, in which he attacked the Oxford professors, saying that they knew more about beer than about Greek.”
Although not justifying his execution “Bruno is, perhaps, chiefly remembered for the tragic death he suffered at the stake because of the tenacity with which he maintained his unorthodox ideas at a time when both the Roman Catholic and Reformed churches were reaffirming rigid Aristotelian and Scholastic principles in their struggle for the evangelization of Europe.” is really “Bruno was not condemned for his defence of the Copernican system of astronomy, nor for his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds, but for his theological errors, among which were the following: that Christ was not God but merely an unusually skilful magician, that the Holy Ghost is the soul of the world, that the Devil will be saved”
If anything, he was the sort of person who jumped on any cool idea in order to stand out. He never did the hard work to test his hypotheses.
40
Too simple by half. But thanks for the reminder.
30
Sorry but here in Soviet Skotland we know Giordano Bruno by his Scottish name. After all Gordon Brown assured us some (many) years ago we (he) would/should save the world in 50 days (I think) from catastrophic glob warming.
I often think its a shame we stopped the use of burning at the stake.
Presumably too much carbon dioxide from the flames or something.
40
Go Brad Keyes!
Sometimes he is so satirical that I am not sure which side he is on.
Not this time.
210
Tongue in the cheek about ‘foot in the mouth’….very funny.
130
Though not world wide, it all came down to two words … Quite so.
“The article mentioned some climate scientists having performed on a television program a “shouty rap tune, complete with attempts at that genre’s tough-guy posing”.
Well, that’s not the message we got from their climate rap. ‘Perhaps,’ replied [a named reader], ‘they shouldn’t call people motherf…ers if they don’t want to fight.’
Quite so.
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/tim-blair/quite-so/news-story/e28b1a94254fc3a2b95f1ba75a7fd436
50
I had to learn Latin as part of my engineering training and it does have a very exact translation.
90
Did you get your engineering training from some popcorn box? I prefer the Brad Keyes version!! Supposedly,
Such is always incorrect if such ‘triangle’ is superposed\projected upon any sphere with finite radius! Such philosophical drivel is not “science” ever, but instead, “connotes something like ‘from out yon orifice whereup Trenberth’s missing head doth hide.’” 🙂
All the best!-will-
71
lex posterior derogat legi priori might be what he based it on.
10
The Anglican bishop of Crozier,
Among the smallest of his sex,
When charged with indecent exposure
Pled de minimis non curat lex.
—alt-paraphrased by memory from Christopher Hitchens
20
Mea culpa da change; for putting your excellent satire in (quotes) by mistook. That is how I read it originally! 🙂
11
I’d read your joke before, phrased as a limerick.
It went:
There was a young lawyer named Rex
With exceedingly diminutive sex
When arrested for exposure
he said with composure
“De minimus non curat lex” *
* “The law is not concerned with trifles”
Can I ask fellow readers to help me out? I’m curious about the effect of primacy. It always seems to me that the version of a song or joke that I’ve heard is better than later versions.
Readers here have met your version first. Could you please let me know if you think the first version or limerick version is funnier, or do you find them much the same?
10
Leo,
I find them identical in merit, because the Primacy Effect cancels out the Recency Effect and vice versa.
The experiment won’t be very revelatory until we add a third version of the poem, I’m afraid.
Speaking of nanophallism jokes, I once suggested that Julian Assange—having (allegedly) introduced himself into a sleeping and non-consenting colleague—was charged under Swedish law with an act of microaggression. I think it was in my History of the Climate Debate, 2018-2052 (https://cliscep.com/2016/05/28/forecasting-the-facts-the-dark-history-future-of-the-climate-debate/).
10
Thanks for that, Brad.
10
The illusion of debate is a good title to prompt assessment of the Man Made Global Warming Meme.
There is only one truth that needs to be substantiated and that should be obvious, however the waters have been muddied so much using irrelevant factors that most of the public and all of the politicians just don’t know.
The basic concept of CAGW, put out by the warming community, is that CO2 is a heat trapping gas.
The whole scam is based on one mechanism: the idea that carbon dioxide is a heat trapping, “greenhouse” gas.
I have said that twice for a reason: it is the core concept on which CAGW stands or falls.
IT IS NOT A HEAT TRAPPING GAS and must resolve to equilibrate with gases surrounding it: Instantly.
It is known and accepted by all scientists with basic university degrees, there is no mechanism by which CO2 can adversely affect the atmospheric temperature.
Why has this point never been examined in court?
We should no longer debate the warmer deliberations because we need to go to the core of the issue: that CO2 cannot act in the way they claim.
This is the scientific truth of the matter.
There never was and never will be any human caused Global Warming.
We need to start attacking this point.
Real science is quite clear: CO2 is NOT a heat trapping gas any more than any other gas and cannot be responsible for changes in Earth’s atmospheric temperature.
All other debate around global warming is irrelevant, pointless and deceitful when this fact is ignored.
Why is this fact not used as the basis of a court action against all of the “misdirection” of public funds justified by association with the CAGW scam.
Warmer advocats have avoided facing the question on the basic mechanism by endlessly debating non issues and have given the Illusion of Debate while hiding from the
real science.
KK
353
Actually the CAGW people are saying that CO2 (and CH4 and N2O) are trapping infrared radiation, not heat. But I agree their theories are flawed. They have not established exactly how much the burning of fossil fuels has increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. They have almost completely ignored the fact that most of the infrared spectrum is absorbed by water vapor. And they have no clue as to the feedback mechanisms.
173
“They have not established exactly how much the burning of fossil fuels has increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere”
Totally irrelevant, as CO2 has ZERO effect except from biosphere enhancement.
This is one of the topics they use to “distract” from the basic FALLACY that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes warming.
It DOESN’T and it CAN’T !!
172
Well said Andy, short and very much on target.
71
Kk, on a previous post you mentioned that all gasses trap heat to a point. Do you know where i could find a table of comparisons i can use to show peopke please?
As soon as i google “gas trapping heat” i get drowned in CAGW drivel…..
And for a giggle…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2968987/Scientists-witness-carbon-dioxide-trapping-heat-air.html
I have this mental image of scientists all rugged up sitting in a hot air balloon basket, squealing with excitement as they catch some gas trapping heat….only to find they accidentally opened their thermos and let out some hot air….oh well….he he
22
I suspect that comment had two purposes:
1. To indicate that there was nothing special about CO2 as such.
and
2. To indicate that air temperature can vary based on the amount of energy/heat in the parcel of air.
For example, you may have experienced a hot wind. You may have experienced a cold breeze at another time.
The point is that all gas molecules in these two parcels will be in equilibrium, energy wise, with the molecules of their home parcel.
CO2 does not act independently of its neighbors.
Basically if you understand P.V= nRT you understand it all. As for a table I don’t know maybe there is a list of specific heats for gases.
Complicated stuff
22
Steve… there are tables and data in this pdf http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf
00
May I try to help a bit? Any mass may store power “Watts”
as the integral of power over time, Watt-seconds or Joules in two distinct forms. Sensible heat as indicated by some ‘temperature’ times the ‘specific’ heat of that mass. A very loosy goosy attempted definition of the unknown entity “heat”. The other ‘Latent heat of’ describes the power required to alter the ‘state of’ or phase of (solid, liquid, gas) of said mass. Such ‘state change’ requires no temperature change, but only the shift of accumulated power (joules) to\from said mass. Vast amount of detail are available to all. However not accepted while ‘all’ only wish ‘squirrel’ that-away; mis-direction from your known enemies! 🙁
41
Hi Jungle Jim,
The addition of human origin CO2 to the atmosphere, and other points, was discussed back in 2011:
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/unthreaded-oct-22-2011/#comment-622658
KK
41
“@Simon:
It’s even a bit worse than that. I covered it somewhat in one of my earlier articles. But each oil and gas deposit has its own C12 / C14 ratio… And we don’t know what that was for all the stuff that was burned up as we didn’t sample isotopes until recently and only some of them.
Then there’s all the oil and gas eating bacteria… guess what ratio they get, and what ratio goes into the animals that eat them…
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/
IMHO, it’s another one of those urban legend things where a few samples once gave a general idea and now it is held as Holy Canon.”
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2018/02/06/w-o-o-d-6-feb-2018/#comment-91305
90
And the debate has provided countless hours of discussion.
This has taken the attention away from the broken link of an impotent CO2 and given CAGW a few more years on the gravy train.
82
The Earth’s surface emits EMR flux to atmosphere and space at an average rate of less than 30W/m²measured!! Not the 240W/m²TOA exitance, nor the 396W/m² ground flux claimed by the fool Trenberth scammers with no science! It is the ridiculously foolish claim that surfaces emit EMR flux proportional to T^4 that has absolutely no scientific basis and has never been observed!! 90% of all EMR exitance to space originates from the atmospheric cross sectional area not from any surface. There is no Green house gas (GHG) effect. All increase in lower atmosphere temperature comes from static gravitational compression of that atmosphere as predicted by the ideal gas law itself. The low altitude molecules have decreased mean free path, higher collision rate, thus increased temperature, with no increase in work or power storage! There is little atmospheric conductivity as the temperature lapse is gravitationally induced , but dynamically maintained!
KK 2011 “All it does is slow the loss of ground IR energy to space.” The atmospheric system is continuously working; there is no slow down nor speed up!!
All the best!-will-
62
Thanks Will,
It is my thinking, and I suspect you would agree, that before publication, all Climate Change papers written by Climate Scientists, must be submitted to the Chemistry, Physics and Engineering(chemical) faculties for assessment and correction before publication.
This might save many Universities embarrassment in future years when the CAGW scam collapses, or runs out of other people’s money.
🙂
KK
62
Thank you Will.
I was under the impression that the CO2 molecules absorbed the IR radiation and deposited it in a Swiss bank**, and releasing it later to warm the world economy.
** You know, the ones that get deposits from African politicians of climate aid money, and money that various “concerned” NGO’s get from destroying rain forests.
121
Just a quick hypothetical. If you had two planets with a solid, black surface and an atmosphere with no condensing matter, both should have a temperature gradient given by the lapse rate (about 10 degrees per km for Earth). If one had a completely transparent atmosphere to all wave lengths and the other completely opaque, which should have the warmer surface?
This argument is about how big an effect of adding more CO2 to atmosphere (and are we adding a significant amount?)has on the climate and how stupid it is to treat the planets like black bodies or even surfaces made up of black bodies when calculating it. I’m more than happy to accept the original rebuttal – after CO2 levels go above 20 ppm the concentration is irrelevant. I’ll even take Schnieder’s 8 fold increase for a two degree rise if it stops this stupidity.
21
The situations are so unusual that you just can’t calculate it.
This is a situation requiring real science.
It has to be measured.
20
Indeed! I’ve had my morning coffee and now have to take a ‘Pelosi’ or a ‘Clinton’ perhaps both! 🙂
21
Doesn’t sound like something you would want to dwell on Will.
Or measurement.
10
Perhaps a useful ‘thought problem’\conjecture but nothing physical or scientific! To expand:
A compressible atmospheric temperature lapse appears to be set by the ‘isentropic exponent’,(Cp/Cv) denoted by γ (gamma) of the principal gas species. For Earth’s N2, γ = 7/5 = 1.4. This decreases to 1.396 as relative humidity (RH) goes from zero to 85%. Other gas species have no measurable contribution. When latent heat of H2O evaporation\condensation enters; all bets are off and only political scamming results; with absolutely no science whatsoever.
Perhaps our gracious host lady Joanne would consider a pleasant\conversational\spirited new thread on What has been learned v.s. what remains political brainwashing! 🙂 Academicians go directly to hell; do not pass GO
all the best!-will-
31
I strongly encourage the idea!
20
Aside from removing an ability to falsify the “globull warming” hypothesis, which “the pause” inconveniently and unpredictably (see, epic model fail) did since 1998, the reference to “warming” was removed around 2000. Replaced by the implausible and unfalsifiable phrase “climate change,” designed to mean all things to all
peoplepoliticians, and carefully defined by the UN (link below), the focus instead was on ANY anthropogenically driven change to “atmospheric composition” or “land usage.”Therefore, the elimination of “climate change” may only occur with the complete elimination of mankind from Earth. “Climate change” furnishes justification in perpetuity. Doesn’t anyone realise this?
Meanwhile, the “settled politics” continues to advance the UN eco-Marxist transformational agenda. Open borders,
diversitydivision, trade blocs, the Trojan horse of ‘climatism’ to name a few of the long list that comprises the societal wrecking ball of the Agenda.2030 is the date for full implementation of the Agenda. By then climatism will have served its purpose and I suspect many ?most will likely be more concerned with liberty and survival.
UN definitions of “climate change”: https://web.archive.org/web/20140913102734/http://unfccc.int/files/documentation/text/html/list_search.php?what=keywords&val=&valan=a&anf=84&id=10
22
Yes. And you can understand the wisdom of the US Constitution framers with the 2nd Ammendment looking forward if the trajectory of eco marxism continues….
Australia likely will be sacrificed on the altar of eco paganism , SA is just the opening salvo…
10
Orlando.
Florida?
There has to be a better way.
00
Indeed! Travel a bit south to Key West to find da best-us foreign country in da US!
Brad Keyes could completely blow away dronk Erny Hemingway, from der! 🙂
11
Its mental health screening thats the problem. Martin Bryant for example.
Also, the FBI was tipped off this guy was bad news, he had form, they didnt bother….ergo….
00
Only a science skeptic would say that like it’s a bad thing.
Anyone who believes in the scientists would know that the unfalsifiability of their consensus is a feature, not a bug. I’m sure they’d nod understandingly if Harvard’s Naomi Oreskes were to explain it this way:
31
Dis ist more exciting den da circus lions eating heads from defenseless goats! Whar are da clowns dat exit endlessly from one VW beetle?
All the\da best!-will-
21
Plato(nists) are prone to
focus on the ‘illusionary,’
shadows in caves ‘n such,
po-mo-in-house-jargon, only
translatable by ‘moi or ‘us.
They’re reely, reely down on
the common sense approach-
think-fer-yer-self (gasp) or
critical method, – guess, test,
re-evaluate.They DON’T, DO NOT,
want yer critical,only compliant
to conn-sen-suss ‘n such.
20
Keith, when you get away from your pedantry about the use of the word trapping do you deny that gases/chemicals can absorb energy at certain wavelengths and can then remit that energy?
13
Of course they do, Tyndall proved that in the 1860’s.
The questions are how much of the radiation is actually absorbed by the CO2, and where the second lot of energy comes from that is invoked to prove “warming”. i.e. if the ground radiates energy to the CO2 it loses energy. To somehow claim that the CO2 then radiates it back to the ground and warms it up more than it was defies logic. To claim that energy radiated is replaced by half the energy radiated by the CO2 (because it must radiate in 360 degrees) also defies logic. But you can fall back on the unproven multiplier effect of CO2 radiation in which the same amount of heat bouncing around the troposphere somehow causes more water to evaporate.
Try http://notrickszone.com/2018/02/18/greenland-antarctica-and-dozens-of-areas-worldwide-have-not-seen-any-warming-in-60-years-and-more/#sthash.65D05UmM.dpbs
40
Graeme… as you know, no scientist claims the illogical thing you claim. They claim that the emission of the absorbed energy can go in any direction including sideways and down and up. They also claim that if that energy stays in the biosphere longer that if it would otherwise have gone to space, there is consequently more energy in the system.
You are the one saying that the energy is being added – scientists say that some energy is not lost (“not losing” is not the same as gaining). The adding of energy is the energy that continues, in the day at least, to arrive from the sun.
20
Pure pedantry.
Again.
11
Gee Aye:
Perhaps you are right in that no scientist claims that CO2 traps heat, but plenty of AGW believers do. The myth that all energy transfer in the atmosphere is by radiation isn’t true. For a start 70% of the Earth’s surface is water and I find it hard to believe that liquid water is a great radiator of I.R. towards the atmosphere. Evaporation possibly? Also, at sea level the time between molecular ‘collisions’ is said to be one thousandth of the time it takes for a CO2 molecule to radiate, leaving the thought that any radiation absorbed by CO2 is rapidly dispersed among diatomic molecules like oxygen, nitrogen and argon, and possibly transfers also to water vapour.
However starting at the beginning, the Earth has had a climate for some time (over 400 millions years at least). Apart from some internal heat the other source of heat is the Sun, which is claimed to not vary enough to affect the climate, despite it being a mainline star which astronomers believe can vary in output by up to 4%. Even a smaller variation must have an effect on the Earth. During the last 450 million years we have had an atmosphere of variable composition with oxygen and CO2 varying in particular. Oxygen has been high during warm and icy conditions and low in the same. Carbon dioxide has varied but there has been an Ice age at high, medium and low concentrations, and warm weather at the same. Further a change up in CO2 concentration has been accompanied by a temperature rise or fall or no effect. Equally a drop in CO2 has resulted in a rise, fall or no effect on temperature.
What the Vostok ice core results show is that the rise in temperature leads the rise in CO2, nor is the peak temperature set by the level of CO2, nor does a higher level of CO2 stop the temperature dropping. To me that indicates that the two aren’t connected except by Henry’s law and the solubility of CO2 in water.
Yet we are told again and again that a rise in CO2 mans that the temperature is rising. The trouble is that certain people have assumed that if CO2 goes up then the temperature MUST go up and have busied themselves in “adjusting” actual temperature readings to conform with their delusion. I suggest you have a look at the link I included; it isn’t the first time that some of these data sets have been raised. George Busd was said to have decided not to push for ratification of the Kyoto Agreement when shown a set of over 600 rural sites in the USA showing no warming since the 1930’s.
Nor do I believe that there are 2 sorts of CO2, the natural one and the ‘evil, heat inducing, man made one’. And lastly, if the level of CO2 is rising then with constant solar input the extra CO2 at the top of the atmosphere must be radiating more, leading to global cooling unless there are feedback mechanisms in the atmosphere.
41
Graeme, that is Huge!
Everyone must read this.
21
bad start G by making something up. Who believes this. Are you quoting a science reporter or published science? It isn’t even a myth.
20
No myth only your deliberate scam! Over 95% of all Earth’s night time surface exitance (W/m²) is via convection (conduction to cold wind)! easily demonstrated via the measurably small difference in actual exit flux from equal area upward flat emitters one highly emissive the other highly reflective! Go do it your-self; easy to do. You may even learn something\anything!
10
Yes that supports GN3 no end.
10
Who says this?
are you claiming that this is what is believed for all of the last half billion years simply because published research claims it’s influence in the last 100 years is negligable wrt the degree of current warming? This would ignore the fact that no scientist involved in any branch of science thinks that variation in the sun has no affect on climate. None. Is it your misguided journalist or a sound bite from a scientist? Look at any published research that looks back further in time. The sun and things beyond our atmosphere are heavily implicated, via multipple research paths, as important and significant components of climate change. They are fully acknowledged and appreciated.
I’m sure you know this so why insert such a bogus piece of rhetoric? Were you trying to convince me or just writing for the plaudits of this blog? Were you just using the meme you heard somewhere?
Just as an aside, what do you think kept the world warm back when critters were first making landfall and for a few hundred million years thereafter the sun was significantly weaker than now? The answer is the sun but why was the atmosphere as warm or warmer?
20
Yes that is the insane claim of your very own CAGW scammers!
You use the phrase ‘can go in any direction’. No spontaneous EMR flux is emitted in a direction direction of higher ‘radiance’ W/(m²·sr·cm) at any frequency! Such would be a direct and deliberate contradiction of Maxwell’s 22 equations and has never been observed anywhere at anytime! What is your profit motive for perpetuating such scam? 🙁
11
I know you have problems with 20th century physics. Einstein’s nobel prize must have come as a shock to you and as for Planck… OMG the despair.
20
Will, can you hear it?
Can you hear it.
It sounds like a plea to authority.
02
Will’s plea to the authority of Maxwell was what I was addressing, yes.
20
Grinn! Einstein seldom made mistakes, and thus refused to accept the fake concept of ‘photon’! Planck, Boltzmann, Maxwell, Kirchhoff, even Bose, made no mistake; as all simply reported\interpreted their measurements best they could! It is only the later 20th century self appointed academicians with no demonstrable skill that refuse attempt any understanding of what their elders were desperately trying to express, best they could at that time! Every-time you ignore\disdain the wisdom of your elders; ALL MUST BLOW UP IN YOUR FACE! How else can you learn?
21
Not one of Maxwell’s 22 equations has yet been falsified; but all are indeed falsifiable! Your fake “conservation of energy” was truly falsified by Emmy Noether in 1923! Why not read up on what has been discovered; rather than your incessant instance on the ‘authority’ of self appointed incompetent Academics?
:
11
Will, have you noticed how the CAGW apologists are getting worried about the new focus on CO2 impotence?
Grants and funding are at stake because the science of gases is being exposed in public and they feel trapped.
Jimmy Cook University is getting a bit of unwanted attention for politically based harassment and so on.
Exciting.
11
In science the wheels grind slowly; but they grind very fine!
“Exciting” Perhaps! My exciting was shooting a young mule deer at 100 yards with long bow! instructor whispering is but a target will, make the arrow go where it must go!. I have many fine weapons but do not shoot our wonderful critters! I wonder what I shall do against corrupt politicians!
11
Can go, can go! Which ways does such go and which way does it not go? Why? Have you measured? Has anyone measured? Why not? Grrr Chomp!
11
Ultimately Will, it heads for deep space, for the CAGW enthusiasts I should add, that’s not on Earth.
Reason being, it has a burning desire to achieve equilibrium out there at about 1.6 K above absolute zero.
01
OK… how does it know where there is 1.6K. It is 1.6K 180 degrees in the opposite direction so I suppose it knows about the giant obstacle. Does if there was a plane above it choose a slightly different angle or does it alter mid flight.
I can se where this is headed and I know why slayer fairytales are not encouraged.
20
Thanks Graeme. Words fail me.
00
Nice to see that you also agree that ‘trapping’ does not happen.
11
Who said it does? If it is used by a scientist it is shorthand for the process I was asking Keith about. That is, absorption followed by emission which is a process that takes a finite and non-zero amount of time.
10
and whom is the pedant?
11
keith
10
Denier.
11
But NOT days, only milliseconds at the most. No trapping. Didn’t you read my earlier comment?
01
Well done Mark. Gee didn’t see that coming.
11
Sorry about the lengthy response but what it boild down to is “You can’t have your radiation and heat with it too”.
11
🙂 🙂
01
I’ve never said that can’t do that, are you being pedantic?
The point I was making is that once energy is absorbed from collision or radiant source it cannot hold on to it.
The warmers claim that CO2 traps energy and radiates it back to Earth late at night from on high like moonshine.
I think that they may have even been drinking it.
CO2 does not cause global warming.
That’s the point.
Endless discussion around that point is pointless, get the point.
KK
22
CO2 traps energy
they don’t claim this. You claim that they do so you can misrepresent them. They know that it is exactly as I and you stated; they can absorb and emit energy and it happens quickly and it can be directed in any direction.
If someone in the media or a scientist explaining to the public uses the term trap they are being sloppy with words but that does not mean that the scientist (perhaps not the media people) does not understand the process is one where energy is slower to depart the system than if the absorption/emission did not occur.
so basically you might be right that there is some person that conforms to be a warmist who says and maybe even thinks
but no published science claims this or even a more sober version of what you wrote. None. Zero.
22
You obviously haven’t read too many of my posts but whatever, your presence here just confirms the need for a thread of the current title;
The illusion of debate.
KK
22
I have KK and you constantly get hung up on the term “trapping” and what you want people to think it means, and fail to acknowledge the physics/chemistry that is proposed to be occurring in CO2, science with empirical data established long before anyone proposed AGW. Further is that you fundamentally misunderstand or misapply at least, the concept of equilibrium as it operates here. You have a bee in your bonnet and that bonnet is stuck down.
20
Can’t Really Accept that Proposition.
KK
01
Sceptical Sam,
I can’t speak for us, but I definitely think so.
Everybody these days understands that it’s wrong to burn people alive—human beings whose only crime, in many cases, was to dare to think for themselves—without offsetting the emissions.
(One easy, fun solution is to collect the heretic’s weight in prohibited books and bury, or ‘sequester,’ them in landfill. Simple—and you kill two birds with one stone!)
271
Well Brad, I can’t think how proposing a death similar to that which Giles Corey suffered at “The Salem Witch Trials” would be considered having advanced. http://people.ucls.uchicago.edu/~snekros/Salem%20Journal/People/ElbertD.html
Corey was killed because he refused to enter a plea so the trail could not proceed. If he had entered a plea and been found guilty his wealth and lands would have been denied to his family and that is why he choose to die by torture before trail instead of by hanging afterwards. By not entering a plea he avoided his property being stolen from him and his family becoming a burden on the society.
The whole Climate Change/AGW scam really does remind me of the Salem Witch trails in many ways. Except the most prominent accusers are so called “scientists”.
191
Some that had been of several juries have given forth a paper, signed with our own hands in these words. We whose names are underwritten, being in the year 1692 called to serve as jurors in court in Salem, on trial of many who were by some suspected guilty of doing acts of witchcraft upon the bodies of sundry persons.
We confess that we ourselves were not capable to understand, nor able to withstand the mysterious delusions of the powers of darkness and prince of the air, but were for want of knowledge in ourselves and better information from others, prevailed with to take up with such evidence against the accused as on further consideration and better information, we justly fear was insufficient for the touching the lives of any, Deuteronomy 17.6, whereby we fear we have been instrumental with others, though ignorantly and unwittingly, to bring upon ourselves and this people of the Lord, the guilt of innocent blood, which sin the Lord saith in Scripture, he would not pardon, 2 Kings 24.4, that is we suppose in regard of His temporal judgments. We do, therefore, hereby signify to all in general (and to the surviving sufferers in especial) our deep sense of and sorrow for our errors in acting on such evidence to the condemning of any person.
Thomas Fisk, Junior Samuel Sather
John Dane Andrew Elliott
Joseph Evelith Henry Herrick, Senior
From “The Apology of the Salem Jury,” 1697.
There is other evidence that shows the people were off their nuts on LSD and regretted their actions when they sobered up.
21
Bosh and pish!
It’s the egotism of today’s generation to see ergotism in yesterday’s!
30
Not quite the point that I wanted to make. You can’t look at history as if the people were some sort of lower form of humanity. With recent revelations about Oxfam and 60 000 rapes by UN staff (and claims that there is 3500 pedophiles in the UN) its pretty clear that were not much better on the whole.
40
Thanks for clarifying, R B.
Irony tends to go over my head, presumably because I don’t use it much. From this day forth I’ll try to be less literal-minded and serious. From po-faced to Poe-faced—sarcasmland, here we come!
Starting tomorrow. Right now I have to lie down. I think I pulled my back out straining to achieve a pun on the word ‘ergotism.’ It’s not very ergonomic, ergo you shouldn’t try it at home.
20
There once was a skillful lady writer that never once missed a semi-colon, comma, nor period! What may we learn ’bout such skillful lady writer? 🙂
11
I couldn’t agree more, by the way, about the danger of viewing history through a lens of smug superiority.
That’s one of Oreskes’ uglier qualities (which is saying a lot!): when retelling the history of scientific disagreements, she compulsively idolizes the “side” which was eventually proven right, while condemning those who backed a different hypothesis as “rejectors” and “deniers.” This ignores the fact (unbeknownst to her, I assume) that SCIENCE DOESN’T WORK THAT WAY. You can’t look back from the privileged POV of 2018 and BLAME people for pursuing a hypothesis that turns out to be a dead end. The only reason she’s able to sneer at them in the first place is that they played their part in the great game of scientific discovery, and discovered that they were wrong. What kind of vile gorgon would hold that against them? (Don’t answer.)
60
“Well Brad, I can’t think how proposing a death similar to that which Giles Corey—”
“You realize Brad was only proposing it modestly, right?” interceded Jonathan swiftly.
20
Ahh yes – the art of carbon neutral stake-burning.
A 100kg human = 18kg of carbon — “converted” makes 66kg of CO2. (Just in case you were wondering).
210
Well I had not thought about it!
But I do weight about 100Kg. So I am 66kg Co2, when I am converted. My contribution to the biosphere.
130
The same human is 60% water, so of the non water mass of 40kg, 18kg is nearly half carbon.
So we are carbon life forms carrying a lot of water on a very light metallic frame built from a light weight calcium lattice.
For interest Oxygen is 65kg, Hydrogen 9.5kg, Nitrogen 3.2kg. 77.7kg of gases! Calcium for bones is only 1.5% or 1.5kg. Like trees, this is all that is left because like trees, we burn.
We are made from carbon from plants or animals which eat plants. It is all about hydrated carbon dioxide, carbohydrate, the product of photosynthesis.
Do the people who hate carbon really understand they hate all life on earth, including themselves?
The amount of CO2 in the air could not be much lower without wiping out life on earth. It is not a problem.
221
TdeF, you appear to have stumbled on the final solution to UN defined “climate change” – zeroed anthropogenic alteration of atmospheric composition; zeroed anthropogenic land usage.
10
Close…the aim to to allegedly reduce global population to 500 million, i’ll leave it to everyone to work out how that might be achieved…right now we have multiple unstable popylation blocs that could easily be induced to go “off” with the right stimulii.
Agenda 21 kicks humans out of the countryside into mega cities, where they can be easily corralled and controlled like cattle…..
30
OriginalSteve,
Population denialism much? The latest scientists are overwhelmingly clear:
Unless we cut the number of humans on this planet drastically, and do it immediately, people are going to start dying.
I’ll take a wild stab and say you probably don’t have many kids.
How did I guess? Years of online experience in the population wars, all the way back to usenet and altnet.
My robust observation is that population denialists have little or no genetic investment in the future of human society, whereas those of us with children think, care and worry about the overcrowded world we’re bequeathing to them. In fact it wasn’t until my youngest daughter had her second kid that I snapped out of my own denialism. Holding that baby in my arms, imagining her future, it occurred to me for the first time how immoral it was to allow the human population to expand unchecked, like a balloon.
She’s all grown up now, of course, with kids of her own.
I’m so proud of her charity work (at a certain well-known NGO) lobbying the Chinese to reinstate a strict One Child policy in their country (and Tibet).
Ah, but I’m wasting my breath. You bachelors with your scads of disposable income and not a single responsibility for another person will never understand that pride. If I wasn’t angry at you for refusing to accept the science I’m trying to get across, I’d almost feel sad for you.
21
Consider those confused, without balls that never considered procreating! This is the fodder for the soylent green machine! May I now receive my ‘long awaited’ equal opportunity bigot medal? 🙂
31
Hi Brad,
Nice rant but youre off the money, global population will start declining due to improved living conditions around 2030 ( due a lot to cheap electricity ), and interestingly in terms of just space alone, you could literally fit every human on the planet into our state of N.S.W. and everyone will have a 10′ x 10′ ( 3m x 3m ) space.
As to resource footprint, we could easily manage, as we havent even started to explore new food tech.
This is what ticks me off with leftie ranters like Gore – they tell everyone to live like hermits then run around in their own jets…..hypocrits…..
21
OriginalSteve,
Would you rather he got no exercise on those long flights??
You’d love that, I bet. Then you could criticize global warming for being fat. As Mr Gore told me in the long interview I was privileged to conduct with him (see Gore Spills On Everything), he’s damned if he runs around and damned if he doesn’t.
Oh, it’s easy to criticize. And criticizing the climate movement is the easiest thing in the world.
But Vice President Gore is minimizing his carbon footprint by spending as little time on the ground as possible. What are you doing?
10
Well now that you ask, very little, considering there is no man made catastrophic climate change.
I sleep very well at night knowing the technology we keep developing like electricity keeps my elderly and disabled parent in a nursing home alive, it keeps hospitals running and most importantly it allows everyone to charge their mobile phones so they can make asinine high moral ground comments about a non-problem…..which is the definition of a waste of time.
Enjoy the delusion.
01
Peter C:
Plead guilty to sequestering carbon, it will blow their minds as they try to bring in a guilty verdict.
90
“Convert? I’ll burn before I convert!”
“That’s the idea, Mr Bond. LOL”
181
‘No Mr Bond I expect you to die’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZxzC3X5ww8
10
Its worse. the 66 kg of CO2 does not include the fuel, usually a renewable type, used to make the whole process happen.
50
Absolutely brilliant.
100
Agreed.
And so do the red thumbers it would seem.
Now that’s got to say something.
41
Thanks fellas. Yes, the number of thumbers is tumbling like lumber in the woods of Northumberland, which is humbling.
Let me take this moment to thank the thankless men (and in some cases, extremely large women) who slave over a hot chainsaw in the vital forestry sector.
So:
thanks, fellers.
112
My chemestry isn’t so good but it might be better to burn than let the bugs generate CH4.
Doug
10
Ah, deja vu all over again…there they are, all the old names,
post hoc ego prompter hoc. And who can ever ferget that cunning
ol’ fury bodge survey?
120
Not me.
Retractive Fury, as one wag dubbed it, will not escape mention in Part 3. The unflushable Lewandowsky will be back, I promise!
40
‘Actually, a more illustrative starting point for the theme of the permanently imminent climatic apocalypse might be taken as August 3, 1971, when The Sydney Morning Herald announced that the Great Barrier Reef would be dead in six months.
‘After six months the reef had not died, but it has been going to die almost as soon as that ever since, making it a strangely durable emblem for all those who have wedded themselves to the notion of climate catastrophe.’
Clive James
200
The Great Barrier Reef will always die six months from today. The flying car will always be 10 years from now. The fusion energy generation will always be 20 years from now. Be steadfast, that’s an unmistakable sign of strength.
170
The latest is that Nikola Tesla’s “wireless electrical transmission” is just around the corner. But I happen to believe that one may actually become a reality before I die.
60
Oh, so you’re one of the medical-scientists-are-about-to-invent-immortality brigade, are you?
/facetious
41
Have you checked into the emerging technology in that field lately Brad? Still a ways to go but it seems to be progressing much faster than any of the other items mentioned.
10
That’s really good to hear. What should I check into, specifically? I hope you’re right, because in social settings I get rather self-conscious about my short telomeres.
20
Yep! Whales gots long telomeres, and can also piss liquid CO2 at ocean depths greater than 150 meters. Perhaps the ability to piss CO2 connotates ‘wisdom’! 🙂
11
Nikola Tesla was thinking; while most others were merely f*cking their alleged brains out! 🙂
01
Flying cars…
Honest politicians…
Name yer poison.
30
Your comment preminds me of Part 3 in which, if I premember correctly, I will point out that Naomi Oreskes…
“…is best known for her invention of consensus science in 2004. She obtained her PhD from Switzerland’s prestigious Coastal Institute for Military Intelligence and Political Ethics.”
81
That’s a good one. Too good to be true.
20
All trends are straight lines that continue to infinity. So in the not to distant future, Tesla will be paying us to take their batteries and solar panels. Thus further exacerbating their financial difficulties and slowing down mass production of the model 3, which will always hits it production target next year in any given year.
120
When the Tesla vehicle lugs 30% of its mass in dead weight battery, squandering energy in a truly Sisyphean manner, it seems unsurprising that it requires infinite subsidy and the absurd but strangely prophetic marketing gimmickry of being launched into an environment for which it was never designed, namely, outer space.
20
“…. August 3, 1971, when The Sydney Morning Herald announced that the Great Barrier Reef would be dead in six months”. Those at the SMH responsible for that deficit scientific remark were projecting in a psychological sense. Objectivity has outlived the SMH.
30
I can’t believe the tradition of premature Reef obituarism goes back to 1971! Wow.
Mankind hadn’t even invented Ove Hoegh-Guldberg yet.
00
Totally O/T.
What makes “Cyclone Kevin” a cyclone?
It is 990mb with 50kph winds???
It is dumping heavy rain, but so do afternoon storms in Brisbane, Bundaberg, Townsville and Cairns which occur frequently.
92
Probably the same thing that resulted in Irma being called a CAT IV hurricane at landfall near Naples, FL when not a single buoy or surface weather station recorded any sustained winds that justified classification above CAT II. Also probably the same thing that has resulted in storms getting named now that would never have been named a few years ago. Tropical storms are sexy to climate change alarmists and their media, and sex sells.
132
The lingua franca of catastrophisation in daily weather reporting. Standard Leftist Statist fare. It was Saul Alinsky who talked about controlling the language. “He who controls the language, controls the masses.”
120
Clint,
Yes, a million times yes. Very perceptive quote from Alinsky. I hope you’ll stick around for Part 3, in which we plan to return to (inter alia) the question of Climate English.
71
Somewhere along the way I was hoping that the “double dividend” theory would get a mention?
‘The double dividend: improve the environment and make money’
The Skeptical Environmentalist. Lomberg, B. (2001) pp308
30
Thanks for the tip, Clint—I didn’t even know it had a name.
I’m reminded of that execrable, scientifically-illiterate cartoon that lists the “benefits” of decarbonizing even if turns out to have nothing to do with AGW (cleaner air, healthier children being among the more fantastical line items these idiots believe would result from a reduction in CO2 from its current, unlivable level of 400 ppm).
30
I will!! Can we have more luscious\delicious\salacious girlies than in da stupid Steele dossier please? 🙂
11
Look at the BOMs record of cyclone intensity/frequency. You will see why they are eager to categorise. They are getting a bit thin on the ground.
81
MSN has now chimed in and tells us that the “”cyclone”” poses a threat to lives.
71
“What makes “Cyclone Kevin” a cyclone?” Made for past tense. A dive in TSI Perhaps? It may be weak now because the TSI would be on the way back up. This chart is a week old it will keep diving for two days. http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_3month_640x480.png
02
“What makes “Cyclone Kevin” a cyclone?”
Has it got a surname?
00
“What makes “Cyclone Kevin” a cyclone?”
Has it got a surname?
10
And I’m Here To Help, if I recall correctly.
00
Windy shows gusts of 58 Knots or 107K.
https://www.windytv.com/?gust,-19.579,122.116,9,m:c6pajxC
00
And right now there are 11 other separate weather systems around the planet with wind speeds exceeding those of “”Cyclone Kevin””.
Central parts of Australia frequently experience gusts exceeding 100 kph – eg Blackwater, Central Queensland on Friday night + a number of other centres throughout Queensland.
We are fast approaching the stage where BoM will designate each and every Willy Willy as a cyclone.
Bloody ridiculous.
12
Love those arty, grainy pics of Steffen and Flannery as tormented geniuses heading off to the Narcissists’ Ball.
Just when you thought Timmy couldn’t get any cheesier after his Prius Person commercial.
190
Russia had their Lysenko. We have Flannery and Steffen, people with degrees in science and their own views on science and a world where simple Henry’s law does not work, where exchange of CO2 with the vast oceans does not happen and where the IPCC is all knowing.
I wrote to PhD Chemist Steffen about the 14 year half life of CO2 in the air, Henry’s Law and radio carbon dating of CO2 which showed that there was almost no fossil fuel CO2 in the air. I thought a PhD Chemist should know this stuff. He referred me to the report of the IPCC which said nothing about these things. In fact the IPCC wrote (or whoever wrote) the half life was 80 years and at another point that CO2 stayed in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Flannery is a wombat stride specialist, a dead kangaroo expert. Steffen’s ignorance of basic physical chemistry is impossible to justify.
Neither deserve the tortured genius Einstein image treatment. Einstein disagreed with everyone. Einstein fought the establishment. Einstein was right. Einstein was a sceptic.
191
Will Steffen’s BSc was from Missouri and the same university as Brad Pitt.
Your assessment:
“Steffen’s ignorance of basic physical chemistry is impossible to justify.”
Hits the spot.
Regardless of his academic qualifications, he doesn’t rate as a scientist because he lacks the basic instinct required: inquisitiveness.
Scientists always good back to look and reconfirm previous understanding.
Not Will.
He has covered all past learning with several tons of concrete, never to be reviewed.
92
KK,
There was a smidgen of concrete left over, so he used that for his brain.
51
🙂
31
TdeF You say Steffen is a chemist, I had grave doubts about him being a Chemical Engineer as in the picture of the article. I have looked for his PhD thesis and have found no sign. I have also looked for his attendence at a Florida University and again came up with nothing. Maybe he got one of those mail order PhD’s (like that obtained by the Justice Einfeld, who was convicted of perjury and making a false Statutory Declaration, and who wanted to be the Chief justice of Vanuatu) which requires only a self written thesis of half a page.
I read somewhere that Steffen’s thesis was about ocean currents or was that by geographer Karoli who as Steffen has no back ground or understanding of heat transfer.
BTW did you know Steffen was named in the climategate emails organising a meeting in Russia involving Prof Jones (UEA) and some other heavies in the scam.
Just read KK says Steffen went to Uni in Missouri, I must have misread his CV about going to Uni in Florida unless he did a basic degree in one Uni and got his PhD elsewhere.
41
Yes. BSc in Missouri, no honours then masters and PhD at other.
10
Flannery did a B.A. then some work which the University thought needed a PhD and put it out as palaeontology.
If he is the expert on wombat strides perhaps his true calling would be with Adidas as a consultant for one of the more extreme ranges.
61
Flannery did a B.A. in English. La Trobe had just opened. This was possibly the lowest university entry score of its day.
What sort of aspirational scientist could not get into any science degree at any university in Victoria? What sort of scientist did an undergraduate degree in his native language?
So we have a self labelled scientist with Science degrees but without any undergraduate training in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, microbiology, genetics, computer science, geology, geography, astronomy, meteorology but he was our Chief Climate Commissioner? What about the 500 full time scientists in the Bureau of Meteorology?
I saw him once give his opinion on Nuclear power. What on earth would he know about it? Or his recommended investment, Hot Rocks in which our Federal government lost $93million of our money? What about “even the rains which fall will not fill the dams.” $100Bn of desalination plants. Tell that to the million people in Brisbane who could have lost their lives when Wivenhoe overflowed and collapsed because politicians believed Flannery.
The tradition of putting quasi science by essay in the science department makes him a ‘scientist’. Not in my opinion. The massive Climate Industry is full of quasi scientists like Michael Mann, who could not get his PhD in physics so he analysed a single set of tree rings and drew a hockey stick on his way to fame and fortune and court.
82
Entry level to Latrobe Uni was not too bad – UNTIL they admitted Flannery.
That sent the entry level average through the floor.
20
I saw Wombat three weeks ago, just sitting and eating.
30
Climate Commissioner in the making. Possibly already on the Climate Council.
30
He was out on Wattagan Creek road and seemed to be at peace with the environment so probably wouldn’t feel comfortable on the Climate Council.
30
Yes, I interviewed Flannery—or Measures Wombat Strides, to use the name with which the chef de buffet of a Sioux casino once honored him—a couple of years ago, and even then the great conservationist seemed remarkably fond of his consumption.
42
Was he sitting in a rotating restaurant, by any chance?
02
He would be more at home in a revolting restaurant.
31
I can’t argue with that.
Still, “Sit and revolt” doesn’t have quite the same ring.
11
One of the prime methods of displaying scientific skill and creating the illusion of debate has been the use of so called “Climate Models”.
Anybody with experience in systems modelling of industrial processes knows the complexity of interacting factors can be such that unless irrelevant factors are excluded or accepted as being “neutral” for the analysis being done, then you would be working on it forever.
Neutral or irrelevant factors are put in the “black box” where they can be ignored.
Of course, models purporting to link CO2 to atmospheric temperature are so ignorant of the science that they forget to put the CO2 factor into the bin.
This was discussed way back:
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/is-another-big-la-nina-on-the-way/#comment-498542
KK
71
To paraphrase Cathy O’Neil in her missive ‘Weapons of Math Destruction’;
models are opinions expressed as mathematical formulas, reflecting the ideology of people who create them
30
“What counts IS ideas as knowledge…”
“What” is the subject of the predicate “is.”
60
As I said a few times before, all it takes is someone with lots of money and time to take the CAGW issue to court and it will be proven using real scientific evidence that it’s all a hoax (and a scam if more money and time is used).
61
That’s a nice dream Peter but you really think the legal profession would (or could) examine the complexities of climate science? Given the left wing bias existing in the legal systems of the western world why wouldn’t they simply accede to the “consensus” ?
20
Good point Rollo, but it all boils down to the way they claim CO2 behaves.
CO2 does not “hold on to” ground origin IR to create “warming” and as Will J has just indicated, it doesn’t get that IR in any case.
The global warming claim collapses right there.
The problem has always been diversion and misdirection away from this main fact.
CO2 is impotent.
KK
63
Good luck KK in convincing The Honourables that you have distilled the scam down to one key point !
31
I know, but we have to see a path forward and I think this is the best bet.
The closest thing to an experiment to prove CO2 induced global warming was possible, was that science program on TV where they blow everything up.
It was laughable.
KK
43
Perhaps! while our gentle Whales clean the atmosphere of excess CO2; then easily piss it out as liquid at depth 180 meters creating both calcium carbonate rock and magnesium carbonate rock that auto-magically sequester excess atmospheric CO2 to the ocean floor! 🙂 Without Whales it could get ugly!!
All the best!-will-
11
I agree it’s a dream. If as you say and I agree the evidence is clear that CO2 is not causing global warming anywhere near the extent the alarmists are claiming then it would be possible to prove that the CAGW issue is a hoax in the courts allowing the leading alarmists to be sued and even put to another trial for conducting a scam on a super grand scale. The reason I’m dreaming is not due to lack of evidence or money. The reason is due to someone with the funds and the time who is on the side of truth and is prepared to take on the task. Perhaps one day such a person will arise. Only time will tell.
71
PeterS,
Try a “gofundme” fundraiser.
Your name-sake, Peter Ridd, raised his $95 grand in double quick time.
10x that should be a doddle. I’m in for a hundred or two to kick it off.
You’ll be surprised just how many others around the world would put their hands in theirs pockets – if for no other reason than to let the world know that we’ve had a gut-full of the subversive scam.
60
I did think of that but I simply don’t have the time. Besides, I suspect by the time we call on enough real expert witnesses and use the best legal minds in the business, the cost will be in the millions so I doubt enough would be raised. Then again perhaps enough could be raised and in that case it would require a group to manage it full-time. To make sure it would work the group would still want someone with big guns and lots of high powered ammo for backup. The hard evidence is strongly on our side for sure but the other side can and will kick up a lot of dust in the process to try and cloud the issue and bog it down.
31
Peter the onus is on them to prove they have been badly done by, that Ridd has slurred their reputation and JCU by imputation. All he has to prove is that the Klimatarist at JCU have been professionally remiss.
QC: ‘Coral bleaching is a natural phenomenon, caused by a lowering of sea level in the western Pacific, which coincidently only happens at times of strong El Nino. Your honour, we rest our case..’
——-
Replace the PM with an intelligent human, Tony Abbott for example.
“Environmentalism has managed to combine a post-socialist instinct for big government with a post-Christian nostalgia for making sacrifices in a good cause”.
70
Ok Your group has no balls! Your AU one nation party gal has the balls! The US patriots have big guns, high powered ammo, reloading like mad; and re-honing pitchforks for skewering with no effort! What is your excuse?
21
Gore’s film was taken to court in UK with expert witnesses including Prof Carter. The film was foind to be defective in at least nine areas and it was ruled that the faults had to be pointed out in any presentation at schools and institutions in the rducation system.
There are rulings about expert witnesses and the court can only make decisions based on the evidence presented. The alarmist woul lose if taken to court asthey have no experts.
30
Cementafriend:
But the film was still shown in schools across the UK without any warnings or caveats about its accuracy, or lack thereof.
10
I believe the UK court did rule it was in effect political propaganda, and as such had to have that disclaimer if shown in schools in the UK….
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-485336/Schools-warn-Gore-climate-film-bias.html
“Mr Justice Burton is due to deliver a ruling on the case next week, but yesterday he said he would be saying that Gore’s Oscar-winning film does promote ‘partisan political views’.
This means that teachers will have to warn pupils that there are other opinions on global warming and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film.”
10
Sobering to realise, isn’t it, that the UK court had the backbone to criticize, in no uncertain terms, a propagandistic infomercial from which the scientific community has shamefully failed to distance itself.
I was brought up to think scientists cared about the truth.
It’s almost enough to make one think twice before telling another lawyer joke.
What a pity it would be if we really had to resort to litigation to get to the bottom of scientific apocrypha. I’d rather not live in such a world, but I guess I have no choice.
11
Dats easy! What if you were brutally forced to F*ck Hillary! Can you even imagine such dastardly event? 🙂
01
Brilliant.
That’s my favourite.
130
Most profound; unfortunately “temperature” can never be a ‘metric’. Temperature remains but a ‘measurement’ of underlying power, energy, action! Such ‘temperature measurement’ cannot ever be a ‘forcing function for power, energy, action, in any direction of four-space! Temperature remains a request\demand to your younger sibling to go “touch that and see if it is hot”! 🙂
10
17 Feb: WUWT: “Kill Climate Deniers” 2018 Season
by Eric Worrall
The award winning play “Kill Climate Deniers” is back…LINK TO SMH…
The play website provides the following helpful description…
“Lee Lewis will direct this controversial take on the climate change ‘debate’ in Australia. It’s a play within a play, an action film inside a documentary, a satire inside a rave. It is the kind of play the major theatre companies can’t put on. It’s why Griffin exists.
“It’s Kill Bill meets Tim Flannery, and it’s all true. The science is real. The media fracas is real. Only the blood is fake. No one dies…at least, not yet. Come join the party.” (LINK TO GRIFFIN THEATRE)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/17/kill-climate-deniers-2018-season/
hahaha…
17 Feb: SMH: How a climate change play got Bolt and Breitbart News hot under the collar
by Helen Pitt
The provocative play centres on a militant cell of eco-activists who take the audience hostage during a concert at Parliament House. Led by charismatic spokeswoman Catch, they demand Australia immediately cease all carbon emissions and coal exports – or they’ll start executing their 1700 hostages. The embattled Environment Minister has no choice but to pick up a gun and stand up for her ideals…
0 COMMENTS
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/theatre/how-a-climate-change-play-got-bolt-and-breitbart-news-hot-under-the-collar-20180214-h0w2og.html
22
Reminds me of the infamous “10:10” kill the deniers snuff movies…..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5CH-Xc0co
CAGW p0rn….
00
17 Feb: Science Mag: Fighting back against ‘alternative facts’: Experts share their secrets
By Dan Ferber
At a lively brainstorming session (LINK) here yesterday at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which publishes Science, about five dozen researchers, teachers, journalists, students, and science advocates brainstormed ways to push back…
“I’m appalled that we see people at the president’s level peddling alternative facts, and I want to know what the hell we can do about it,” said a Texas college professor. “I’d like to understand how to have these conversations without getting emotional,” said a counterpart from Virginia Tech. “I’m looking for fresh ideas in this space,” said Brenda Ekwurzel, a senior climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “I was assigned to this session to break up any fights,” added Lee Anne Willson, an emerita professor of physics and astronomy at Iowa State University, and a member of AAAS’s program committee for the conference.
Although current debates about climate change, evolution, and vaccines may suggest otherwise, trust in science has remained relatively constant over the decades, pointed out Yves Gingras, a historian and sociologist of science from the University of Montreal. So why is it so hard to change people’s minds about “alterative facts” that are demonstrably false?
Alternative facts are not facts at all, but socially sanctioned beliefs, said Bayer, who has studied the scientific literature of persuasion enough to call himself a “persuasion nerd.” But there are ways to change minds, he said:
• Appeal to the 60 percent. On any given issue, a group of people will contain 20 percent at each end of the spectrum who are so deeply dug in they’ll never be convinced. Forget them, Bayer said, and appeal to those who are persuadable…
• Appeal to shared social values. Bayer and others pointed to the climate scientist Katherine Hayhoe, who’s an evangelical Christian who makes inroads with fellow evangelicals through their shared worldview …
• Appeal to the “golden child” of a group—the most admired and respected member of the group. “Every family has one,” Bayer said.
• Tell stories, and help people relate to them…
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/fighting-back-against-alternative-facts-experts-share-their-secrets
17 Feb: CBC: Baby beluga takes kids through Arctic journey in graphic novel about climate change
Perils of melting sea ice, increasing ship traffic in Arctic made easy to understand in Lumi, a colourful read
By Bryce Hoye
How do you explain the risks of climate change to a three-year-old?
That question motivated Winnipeg author and illustrator Andrew Bart to frame the complex topic in a cute way that his daughter and other kids could understand…
The idea began as a bedtime story Bart would tell his three-year-old daughter…
“I didn’t want to be heavy-handed with this. It’s a bedtime story,” Bart said…
“It’s for kids to come away with maybe just more of an understanding of what’s happening around them. Kids are so smart — they’re way smarter than we give them credit for.”…
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/lumi-beluga-climate-change-kids-graphic-novel-1.4540730
10
Simples. Here’s ‘what the hell you can do about it.’ When Obama tweets untruths (or post-facts, as the kids call them) like…
…just respond the way the SkS kidz, and ‘Texas college professors’ everywhere, did last time: by counter-tweeting,
Oh, wait, I’m fantasizing (or misremembering, or alt-quoting as the kids say).
Sorry. I just got up and the Haloperidol I take for my wishful thinking hasn’t really kicked in yet.
103
badly worded or what?
Clean Power Plan “was designed to lower carbon emissions by reducing coal use and increasing electrical energy use”
given it was about reducing electricity demand.
17 Feb: DailyPennsylvanian: Penn Law students file comment urging Trump administration not to repeal Clean Power Plan
By Naomi Elegant
A group of Penn Law students submitted a public interest comment to the Environmental Protection Agency arguing against its proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan, a major Obama-era climate change policy.
The law students who filed the comment are part of the Environmental Law Project, one of 27 pro bono groups at Penn Law School.
Every semester, the ELP selects one to two proposed rules – usually from the EPA – and files a comment with recommendations and input about the proposed rule. Filing comments on the proposed Clean Power Plan repeal is open to the public (LINK), and the EPA is legally required to read them all.
The Clean Power Plan, finalized in 2015, ***was designed to lower carbon emissions by reducing coal use and increasing electrical energy use…
“The basic point is that they can’t just pass any rule they want,” second-year Penn Law student and ELP Vice Chair Nicholas Bellos said. “They have to go through a deliberative process. They have to do some research.”
Bellos said that when groups like the ELP file public comments to federal agencies like the EPA, it is to make sure that “good information is being accounted for” when those agencies are making policy decisions…
http://www.thedp.com/article/2018/02/proposed-repeal-epa-law-students-environment-clean-upenn-trump-philadelphia
***collected from their customers?
17 Feb: SMH: Peter Hannam: NSW Climate Change Fund underspent more than $250m in past three years
The Berejiklian government’s Climate Change Fund has collected in excess of a quarter of a billion dollars more than it has spent in the past three years, delaying investment the Greens say should have gone on bolstering communities against the effects of global warming.
Details of the underspend of $252.9 million from 2014-17 are contained in the fund’s latest annual report (LINK) that was released without fanfare late last year.
***Revenue for the fund last year alone reached $289.6 million, collected from electricity providers – Ausgrid, Endeavour and Essential Energy.
Outlays for the year totaled $160.6 million, with about $94.3 million going towards the Solar Bonus Scheme Reimbursement…READ ON
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/nsw-climate-change-fund-underspent-more-than-250m-in-past-three-years-20180217-p4z0p3.html
20
What. No, badly worded. No, what.
I give up.
What is the answer? Is the answer what?
53
Yea but it should have been Watt.
20
Sliggy,
There is no coulda, shoulda, woulda.
Source: the Buddha.
22
‘Revenue for the fund last year alone reached $289.6 million, collected from electricity providers – Ausgrid, Endeavour and Essential Energy.’
They tax the poles and wires consortium, virtue signalling, who then pass the impost onto the consumers. Tax by stealth.
50
That’s about $100 per household on your annual account.
30
This is so true. The majority of those emails only look bad when taken in context.
50
and there is a lot of con text.
50
18 Feb: Cyclone Kelvin makes landfall with ‘direct hit’ at Anna Plains station south of Broome
By Matt Bamford and Alisha O’Flaherty
Tropical Cyclone Kelvin
Last Updated Sun 18 Feb 2018, 1:53pm AEST
Source: Bureau of Meteorology
A red alert has been issued for people from Bidyadanga to Sandfire as the category two system crosses the coastline, bringing wind gusts of up to 150 kilometres an hour and more heavy rainfall.
The Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) has warned that residents in the area are in danger and need to act immediately…
Mr Stoate said the full extent of the damage would not be revealed until the system subsided.
“I guess you’ve got to grateful it’s a category two and not a category five,” he said…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-18/lives-and-homes-under-threat-from-cyclone-kelvin-as-it-hits-wa/9459192
Related Story: Cyclone Kelvin hits WA coast bringing ‘perfect storm’ for flooding
Related Story: Cyclone threat downgraded but record rain swamps Broome
Related Story: Apocalyptic skies over Broome as WA’s top end prepares for cyclone
00
pat,
it’s a good thing my O.P. is a rambling dog’s breakfast of undergraduate gags [hat tip: The Daily Kos] on no particular topic, or your comment might be considered “off” it. Hehe
🙂
32
Sauve qui peut
20
By the way Mr weather forecasters at noble and illustrious BoM,where are our QLD cyclones? Oh dear, failed predictions again.We’ll see what March/April brings.’
21
They are there, over there. Reversing toward Queensland at max speed.
http://www.bom.gov.au/australia/charts/synoptic_col.shtml
00
Even if the scientists get it wrong once, that single occasion doesn’t undermine the fact that they’re always right.
Cyclones aren’t climate, they’re weather.
You can point to as many isolated non-occurrences as you like, but that doesn’t negate our understanding of the behavior of cyclones, tornados and other vortical species:
Climate change impacts their feeding opportunities in equatorial regions, forcing them to expand their range North and South in search of victims.
Try telling that to New Yorkers two years ago, in the horror cyclone season of 2015. If you can somehow solve the challenges of time travel (which have eluded our brightest, most peer-reviewed minds), you’ll then have to comfort people who were told, BY SCIENTISTS, that Hurricane Sandy was gone and not to worry about her anymore.
The scientists were wrong.
_________________________________
Yours,
Brad Keyes
Trusting the scientists since 2008
31
Kevin isn’t climate. Kevin is weather.
10
Kevin is from QLD and he’s here to help.
10
Response to my critics.
It takes only one counter example, just one, no matter
how many failed predictions, to show we are right.
Signed
The BOM.
10
I love the short video of Prof. David Karoly looking like one of the Bobble-Head Clowns from Luna Park. It is very apt, but the clowns have more brain-power.
20
Funnily enough, I personally saw a religious official once in a large building in a small state within Italy, getting very neck-vein bulging passionate about something he couldn’t actually prove
I remember it clearly, especially when I see similar behavior of CAGW “priests”.
The set up was similar, a flawed belief system and a massive edifice that needs constant source of funds from “the faithful” to support it…..the outcome for peoples lives was very similar too – restrictive, oppressive and no real positive outcome….
10
Nothing funny or coincidental about it.
The Church has been an invaluable partner to the movement to Save Our Climate, especially since secular institutions like democracy, capitalism and science have done so little, if anything, to help.
Laudato Si’!
10
The priest,philosopher king, shaman, guru, snake-oil-sales-mann,
…anyone in the mind control business, knows they must never be
seen to err, the sheeple must be led, conned, made to think that
the priest, philosopher … is OMNI-POTENT.
10
The difference between Stephen Schneider and a priest is that a priest doesn’t even pretend to agonize over the optimal balance between being honest and being effective. Which, I guess, makes the clergy more honest than the Schneiders of the world.
10
Brad, oh that’s another in the annuls of cli-sci memory lane,
isn’t it, kinda’ a ‘faux agony in the garden’ scenario.
10
Oh Lord, if it be Thy will, please take this cup of ethics from me
10
Thanks sooo much for Climate Nuremberg. Deride and conquer suits me fine.
10
I must admit I’m more active at CliScep these days, Hank. Thanks for following my adventures!
10
It’s so wonderful to have Brad Keyes back at the … keys. I’m assuming he types these screeds, though I would never say that he does so through more than one outlet, for that would be accusing him of stereo typing. And since I can’t hope to be as clever as he, I’ll just shut up now….
30