Now for something very unusual: Tuesday night in Perth, Australia, there will be a climate debate. Bravo to the Philosophy and Reason group for organising it.
Click to enlarge to use the code.
The legendary David Archibald and I take on Professor Peter Newman from Curtin University – Advisor to IPCC, 2018 Premier’s (WA) Scientist of the Year, and Councillor Ian Johnson – Current City of Swan elected councillor responsible for CoS Climate Sustainability Policies.
- Belmont RSL 6:30PM
To attend see Meetup Use the QR code in the image on the right. It’s a small group and a shoestring budget, but they look like pulling off something that almost never happens. Kudos to Prof Newman and Councillor Johnson for being willing to take part.
Link to promo video on Facebook
Newman and Johnson are going to need a PTSD dog to accompany them after making this mistake. Are they unaware of he rules for radicals. Do not attend any debate where the other side can not be shouted down. I suggest you have the Fire Service attend for when someone hits the fire alarm and bring some food and a commode for the Supaglue types.
370
They should bring their own.
240
Provide the potty but no screens and no chamber maid to clean up.
20
You can break a superglue bond down very effectively with Acetone. Warm, soapy water also works but more slowly. Ferals are allergic to soap and water, so, in the interests of “humanity”, Acetone it is.
This stuff may be a bit harsh ob the paintwork, however.
200
Acetone will ruin many floor finishes.
80
My wife has learnt a lesson not to clean her nails on the dining room table!
100
From sailplane maintenance, where weight is important. As an instructor pointed out –
Pick up a can of paint. It is heavy and most of the weight doesn’t evaporate as it dries”.
You can remove paint one layer at a time with acetone. An acetone soaked cloth pad with a gladwrap backing on one side held in place will soften just one layer and it can be scraped off. You have to experiment to find out how long to hold though.
One of his examples was a crash, where 7 layers of paint on the tail plane was enough to prevent a light pilot recovering from a spin.
80
Acetone has not worked for my supaglue mistakes .
..BUT Denatured Alcohol has been effective !
10
I would be more likely to hit up all hardware stores in the vicinity and buy them out of acetone and then hide it than I would be to bring any to those idiots.
120
Body decay works too, but even more slowly.
90
A bit smelly, though. Satisfying, but from a distance.
10
If the ferals glue themselves to the floor, just leave them there, no food or water, no bucket for toilet. When the meeting is over, just walk away.
That worked at the Porsche Museum. Jo reported it at the time.
https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/genius-activists-glue-themselves-to-porsche-museum-floor-then-complain-theyre-hungry
290
You could go further and present them with mementos of the occasion, using an amended format of this award.
Among the presentations to a well known South African veldt scientist on his retirement was a nicely dried and esterpolled cow pat mounted on a polished wooden shield with an inscription that read –
“Sometimes you wrote it
And sometimes you spoke it
But mostly you were in it
So take it and go”
110
“Within just hours the protestors complained the glue hurt their hand, they were cold and hungry, needed the bathroom, and that the lights had been turned off.”
Oh diddums.
60
The funniest thing I’ve read in months. Kudos to VW.
30
420
Save cough…cough…the treees…
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/california-wildfires-cancel-out-two-decades-emissions-reductions
With this wonderful technology we currently have, an audit of decades old guesstimate would really be helpful to show how much hasn’t been actually cut down as so much different uses could have been incorporated instead of letting invasive species thrive through lack of controls.
190
Sorry JJ the time machine only works in the following manner:
Racism – look backward for thousands of years and bring those issues forward
Climate – look forward for 30 years and bring those issues back.
210
Which is exactly what burning coal does.
130
Kudos to you and David Archibald as well Jo – you have changed many people’s opinion on this SCAM and I’m certain you and David will be winners on the night.
Will there be a video done of the debate and will it be posted here in due course?
Cheers and all the best – Popeye
370
Ahhh, I think they will pull the pin at the last moment. If it goes on well and good, but if Newman concedes that he lost on the altar of scientific objectivity will he change his mind. I’m stunned that they have left themselves so open. Who will know about it?
190
Is CARBON !! the culprit one could ask. What came first ? CO2 and heating or the other way round. Climate sensitivity anyone?
100
And in a similar arena in USA
“The Briefing Begins In CHECC v. EPA”
“In a post last week, I gave notice that battle was about to be joined with the EPA over what it claims to be the “science” behind global warming alarm.”
More at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/10/23/the-briefing-begins-in-checc-v-epa/
150
Can this be live-streamed somehow?
180
That would be worth watching for sure .
110
At least have it video’d.
130
The silly season starts early in WA
321
It started earlier with the Dockers knocking back Woodside, and then the Australian netballers opting for a massive pay cut. Banks and betting companies are fine though – both have impeccable environmental credentials.
180
What is silly about a scientific debate?
170
In 2007 David Archibald said: “The sun drives climate change and it will be colder next decade by 2C”
Do you know why he got it wrong?
29
Your comment, you mean ? Amazingly silly !
We all know you have no science to back up the climate scam..
It will be fun watching all the empty mantra babble coming from the climate worriers.
61
“The silly season starts early in WA”
Your comments are perennial… no seasonality at all.
50
But you still managed to beat them to it .
Well done!
20
Go get ’em Jo.
90
Warmism
30
All the best Jo and David, just stick to the science / data etc and don’t be misled.
I hope you are able to have an honest debate and not the silly nonsense we have to put up with from the MSM and silly pollies.
Dr Koonin recently beat Dessler fair and square and I hope you’re able to have a similar result.
260
Will the Chief Scientist and the head of CSIRO be there, LoL? I didn’t think so.
110
Chief Scientist. Captain’s political pick methinks.
100
Ah, yes.
Remember that political appointmet Prof Penny Sacks?
With advice like this who needs Cheif Scientists?
THE planet has just five years to avoid disastrous global warming, says the Federal Government’s chief scientist. SMH December 04, 2009 12:00AM.
And yes (again):
…she did not deny her appointment a year ago was a political one
And still they have the temerity to stand there and tell bald-faced porkies.
20
Penny Sackett. Australia’s Chief Scientist (2008-2011)
10
Chief.
00
The head of the CSIRO is probably a member of the CSIRO Ski Club in Jindabyne and Perisher. Probably down there ski-ing after telling us that snow was most definitely finished in the Oz Alps.
Probably also at the AGMs where the Club Prez tells the scientist members there are no changes to club operations (ie due to lack of snow) expected in coming years, while all the warmists nod in agreement..
I can’t decide whether all these warmist jerks are jokes, or alternately all these climate jokes are jerks. What a quandary!
80
All the best Jo You are a true national treasure
250
A clue from Richard Feynman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY&t=62s
See also:
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” – Philip K. Dick,
Or, as Richard Fernandez put it:
“Reality itself, and the voluntary behavior of actual human beings within that reality, give the lie to the multi-cultural fantasy.
As progressive doctrine increasingly chafes against reality itself, it’s demands that people pretend they can’t see what’s right in front of their faces become ever more shrill and ever more annoying until a breaking point is reached.”
120
But Jo, the science is settled.
sarc.
80
But the science can be UNsettled if you throw enough money (or prolonged power cuts) at it…😆😆😆
70
and it has been so much worse since the settlers moved in.
40
Jo, I hope it goes well. The Peter Newman I knew as a lowly Masters student at Murdoch was very dismissive of anything or anyone that was not in keeping within his way of thinking. ie ‘It’s good for the planet to have people stacked in high rise flats next to the railway station. – no car ownership’. it’s irrelevant that this sort of housing is not good for humans. He’s not overtly rude just smug. The Murdoch humanities were inhabited with hard core lefties who all lived in Fremantle and Peter Newman was one of them. He identified himself as “light green”.
Hopefully his move to Curtin may have expanded his outlook.
110
Whenever I see Mr Newman on local TV, I switch off. He is well known in opposing virtually all forms of transport.
30
1) Are we sure Newman and Johnson will actually front up ?
2) How to control the Just Stop Oil (or whatever) numpties from shouting down the stage with a bull horn ?
3) What if the venue is “cancelled” at the last moment ?
4) Who controls the flow of argument to deliver a civilised argument, and not a Q&A type wipeout ?
All of these are tested and true tactics from Through The Looking Glass.
If this event actually takes place, a full unedited recording (both video and audio) must then be available for free and open public access.
211
WA’s scientist of the year arguing for the settled science. Even if it comes out a tie, that is a massive win.
Good luck.
130
Dead right, if he is a real scientist, the very concept of ‘settled science’ ought to be anathema to him. If not, then he should hand his little award back.
100
Greta Thunberg?
Grater Thunberg?
Scoldilocks?
Joan of Dark?
Pol Tot?
That Greta Thunberg?
110
Cranky brat.
30
Ho hum! Time for nurse Wretched to pass out The Science Is Settled badges and feel good meds.
50
Great initiative Jo.
Please make sure any video of the event is available so we can share far and wide.
Newman seems to have little practical idea about how many Australians will actually get to work, and do all sorts of normal tasks with his war on cars. I am typical of many. Yes, I could get the train to work, but it would take around 2.5 hours door to door, whereas the car gets me there in 1 hour, and I can do all sorts of other errands on the way there or back. Huge nos in outer suburban areas, tradies, semi rural, rural areas, country towns etc need their cars, and need ICE cars, not EVs to travel long distances regularly.
These ivory tower types have little to no idea about the impacts of their pet projects on ordinary people. And rubs salt into the wound when what he and others are pushing has no actual scientific basis.
170
I could make war on cars. Cars lead the list of my pet hates.
1. Cars. They keep you poor.
2. Machinery. Ditto.
3. The oil and grease that go with them. Make an awful mess.
4. Bulls. Always looking over the fence, and
5. Wire. It might be alright without the bulls.
And we can’t do without any of them.
Travelling in cars. Once upon a time I enjoyed driving. Now all I can think of while driving is the time it’s wasting and the money it’s costing.
44
Sorry Ted, don’t know how that red thumb happened…must have been while scrolling.
31
The professor is into sustainability, infrastructure and transport.
‘He is the Co-ordinating Lead Author for the UN’s IPCC on Transport.’
So we can assume he knows zip about climate change and accepts AGW as a fait accompli.
Not sure how these debates are conducted, but you could remind them that Antartica and Southern Ocean have been cooling for 40 years.
170
Belay that: Facebook, no?
10
Studying his background (Linkedin is best), his PhD in 1973 was in Chemistry. The other qualified chemist associated with Flannery is American Professor Will Steffen with whom he has coauthored.
Peter is a coordinating lead author for the IPCC on Transport and his latest book is titled Resilient Cities Overcoming Fossil Fuel Dependence.
However like Will Steffen, the fact that Carbon 14 shows that total man made fossil fuel CO2 is under 3%, not the alleged 50% is dynamite. This is fact, not speculation and blows man made CO2 out of the water. Whether CO2 causes any warming is then a moot point if we do not control CO2 levels.
Radioactive tracers are used in a lot of analysis but the discovery of Carbon 14 and then radio carbon dating in the 1950s meant we could absolutely measure fossil fuel CO2. And in 1958 it was 2.03% +/-0.15%. Today it is around 3%. So whatever CO2 means in terms of heating, the 50% increase has nothing to do with human activity.
And the greening of the planet (NASA,CSIRO) shows that CO2 is in short supply, that more CO2 means exactly more trees. More trees does not mean less CO2.
Plus the models basing warming on CO2 have no explanation for the history of temperature, especially the Little Ice Age ending in 1870. The world cooled rapidly from 1750 to 1870. And no models even try to duplicate the temperature for the last 250 years, done so superbly by Professor Weiss and his blind Fourier analysis where he has established not only a complete and accurate model of history, what is now a model of the future which shows rapid cooling. And that CO2 is irrelevant.
There is no truth on man made CO2 driven ‘tipping point’ Armageddon Climate Change. There is almost no ‘human’ CO2 in the air. And the ‘warming’ stopped a decade ago, as predicted by Professor Weiss.
Rather it was an invention in 1988 to justify the IPCC and the UN interference and taxation of the all countries under the amazing premise that UN bureaucrats should be running the world.
221
And as a chemist he would be aware of Henry’s Law of dissolved gases. 98% of all CO2 is dissolved in the ocean simply because it is 30x more soluble than Oxygen and compresses easily to a liquid especially at ocean depths and pressures. If it was not so soluble, the atmosphere would be 2% CO2. However it also means CO2 is rapidly absorbed into the ocean which cover 72% of the planet much faster than O2 on which all life in the ocean depends. The idea that CO2 has a half life for absorption of 80 years as is the IPCC standard is nuts. And some IPCC authors claim it takes ‘thousands of years’ for fossil fuel CO2 to be absorbed..
In 1958 it was thought CO2 half life was around 5 years. They were not wrong. However the decay of the doubled C14 after 1965 shows the half life accurately at around 6 years. So the idea that the tiny amount of CO2 in trees and bushes and carbon based life forms is even significant is wrong. The entire equilibrium value of CO2 in the atmosphere is set by the temperature of the ocean surface, as determined by solar intensity and ocean currents (La Nina, Indian Dipole, Gulf Stream, Humboldt,..) and the upwellings and verical circulations.
I do not see how any chemist who understands gaseous equilibrium could consider that CO2 is not in massive, worldwide fast equilibrium, as has been demonstrated by the rapid disappearance of radioactive CO2 bearing C14. And no human activity has any visible effect on CO2 levels, not even volcanoes and vast fires and the world shutdown of passenger transport in 2020/21.
I wonder if Dr. Newman will even talk about these things. His lifetime issue has been the dependence of modern society on oil since the 1970s OPEC oil crisis which occurred when he was doing a Post Doc at Stanford Univerisity in California, which presaged a lifelong interest in transportation. The fact that oil has nothing to do with climate might come as a shock.
260
Personally I would start with one graph, the result of Prof Weiss’ blind Fourier analysis at 15:28. It is the single most important and dramatic graph I have ever seen in describing ‘world temperature’ and you can be sure that Prof Newman has not seen it. It sure beat’s Michael Mann’s appalling Hockey stick where he bolted tree rings onto thermometers. And the latest trick is to bolt old CO2 ice cores onto instant measurements, creating the CO2 Hockey stick. However Dr. Weiss’ graph is just astounding and a complete explanation of the Little Ice age you can see ending precisely in 1870 and all temperature variations to date, even the peak and plateau around 2020. It is staggeringly clear. And only two cycles required for this graph. And they exactly match the biggest two known cycles, one De Vries solar cycle and one AMO/PDO ocean oscillation. For a scientist, that should be game over.
What is not said is that the oceans weigh 340x as much as the atmosphere (3.4km deep average) and with 4x the specific heat. So atmospheric heat is all from the oceans, as is all our weather and rain (climate). And the oceans do not and cannot radiate that heat away. Only 0.1% of heat is in the atmosphere and it radiates away quickly without cloud cover. Sun and oceans control our world and control CO2 levels, not humans.
My other reference is the 1958 paper of the Royal Society by Ferguson which is devastating in its obvious simplicity and conclusion. This CO2 business was dealt with convincingly 64 years ago.
Abstract
It is generally accepted that the combustion of fossil fuels over the period 1860 to 1954 has produced an amount of carbon dioxide, containing no radiocarbon, that is equal to approximately 13% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The addition of this ‘old’ carbon dioxide to the atmosphere has observably disturbed the steady-state distribution of carbon-14 in nature.
In the present paper measurements are described of the carbon-14 concentration in sets of wood samples from the northern and southern hemispheres, and these show that the carbon-14 specific activity of atmospheric carbon dioxide has decreased by 2.03 ± 0.15% over the period 1860 to 1954.,
180
Every time I look at this graph I am amazed. In 250 years there have been eleven points of inflexion, turning points and a two cycle graph has them all. The basic shape is the 250 year De Vries cycle (as shown at 15:15) but the 65 year AMO/PDO ocean oscillation manages to make a good fit almost perfect. And CO2 is not mentioned! Nor the other well known cycles, but when you consider Michael Mann’s simplistic rocket ship graph, there is no comparison in quality or detail. One is a near perfect explanation and one is complete fake which deleted so much critical data just to create his hockey stick.
I wonder if Dr. Newmann is as open minded and positive as he seems. No real scientist presented with this graph could afford to look away. The explanation is so simple to data which seems so complex. Extraordinary. Almost never does an explanation so simple fit data which is so complex. And why does it take retired mathematicians to point out the obvious?
90
This is also confirmed by the ratio of Carbon-12 to Carbon-13 in the Atmosphere. Also ice core data shows that CO2 levels rise about 800 years after a warming and that the Medieval Warm period peaked about 800 years ago. The reason for this is that there is a 800 year thermal lag in the deep oceans and that the Oceans dominate the system with a mass 275 times that of the Atmosphere, so the ratio of CO2 in the Atmosphere/Oceans is dependent upon the heat in the Oceans. “Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2, (1997) by Tom Segalstad” shows up the scientific fraud in the Carbon Cycle for man-made CO2.
50
for further giggles:
CO2 is the source of “carbonates; stuff like coral reefs, limestone, marbletThe amount of CO2 “sequestared in just those three items is staggering, WAY beyond the alleged “lungs of the planet”, the Amazon basin forests.
I’m fairly certain that the dinosaurs were not the source of it.
Furthermore, given that at the time the planet coalesced out of the cosmic dust and gas cloud, there was NO free oxygen to be found. It was ALL tied up in “oxides” of various metals and gases.
The development of “plants”. the original “solar-powered life-form”, meant that oxygen, a product of the photosynthesis chemistry, appeared in the atmosphere for the first time.
My limited old high-school science is a bit rusty after five decades, but, Carbon dioxide appears to be the key to jump-starting life as we know it. And whence the PURE CO2 drilled out of Western Queensland from sever4al thousand feet of depth?This, by the way, is the source of “commercial CO2. Cheaper and easier than massive facilities that extract a tiny percentage from the atmosphere. Dry-ice? The bubbles in your favourite mixer? Vintage, mined, dawn of creation CO2. See also: HELIUM “mining”.
120
This is good stuff.
Murry Salby had also shown that via C14 levels the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere was far lower than the IPCC modelling. This completely destroyed their theories but they organised to get him sacked for his cheek.
160
My point exactly is Dr. Peter Newmann before he became so heavily involved in Planning and energy dependence and transport was a real scientist and chemist and would appreciate real science, graphs, equations, CO2 gaseous physical equilibrium. He surely has no stake in playing science games. His involvement with the IPCC is on the transport side, not the chemistry and physics of CO2. He might be a bit shocked to see that planet temperature has nothing to do with CO2.
However I thought the same of Prof Will Steffen, physical chemist, but he has made a career of Flannery’s Climate Council and when he realised that the facts prove him wrong, he refused to answer. He told me to read the IPCC report. I did. It’s science rubbish. Not only is their half life of CO2 80 years, it is their standard against which all other ‘greenhouse’ gases are measured.
140
The real greenhouse gas is water. And that is determined by evaporation and that is determined by solar intensity and surface warmth, like CO2. How on earth you would separate tiny, tiny CO2 effects from H2O effects is near impossible. Except in the dry desert air at night, which should be warmer with more CO2. It isn’t.
121
Yes indeed. So Murry Salby does REAL SCIENCE and shows that the half life is around 5-6 years. IPCC with their typical reliance on models, which Salby showed were utterly flawed from the most basic point of view, come up with complete nonsense.
Trouble is that the IPCC instead of accepting that they were wrong, and wildly so, organise to get him sacked on spurious grounds.
Its morally extremely wrong, but that is how the Left works. Destroy anybody who shows you are wrong.
The problem, as we all know, is that the IPCCs massive errors will destroy many lives in the coming years and cause mass poverty, and mass death.
111
The first question to the Professor and the Councillor should be -“Are you a chemical or mechanical engineer with knowledge of thermodynamics, heat & mass transfer, fluid dynamics, statistics, electro-magnetic fields, process control, psychometry etc.; if not how can you make assumptions about about technical matters of which you have no understanding?”
122
Professor Newman has a PhD in chemistry from the University of WA, 1973, a hard 8 or 9 years of serious science study. It is not known if that is Organic chemistry or Physical chemistry. It is worth a question as to his PhD. subject. But while he has not practiced as a chemist, he does have the ability to understand the basic physical chemistry which underpins the idea of man made CO2 growth, allegedly 50% in 150 years.
90
TdeF thermodynamics and heat & mass transfer (eg evaporation) have nothing to due with chemistry but the solution of CO2 in the oceans is important is both organic and physical chemistry which are both part of Chemical engineering. Chemical engineering is knowledge and practice; Chemistry is ideas for Chemical engineering.
20
Way to blow anything Jo says out of the water.
314
Jo will base any arguments of facts and data.
That will be a huge problem for the mantra-based blathering of the climate worriers…. as you well know.
90
Surely you meant debase?
16
I hope you video the proceedings so that we can see them later. Even a voice recording would do.
But, any chance of live streaming?
50
The whole thing to be live streamed to all Federal and State/Territory Governments starting just before the Federal Budget gets going…………………
60
Maybe a question why the IPCC acknowledge that the models are ” running hot”. The certitude of models etc.
70
I would contrast those ‘models’ which are so obviously wrong with the simple graph in #21.1.1 which is spot on, covering both the last 200 years and the present and the future with amazing accuracy. You cannot credibly predict the future if you cannot explain the past. And the ‘models’ do neither.
90
Models? Plural? Why so many models?
If just one of those models was sound, they wouldn’t need two.
30
There speaks a man who knows not of youtube.
😆😆
20
That was for 1.2.1
I have isolated the bug that causes this!
30
Has anyone realised that “climate change” is an anagram of “technical game”?
Pretty much sums it up…
100
Excellent. And worryingly accurate. So the IPCC is really the IPTG. Intergovernmental Panel for Technical Games. I knew they were making it up!
90
I have an endless problem with NASA, not the scientists as such, but their PR department. As the ocean surfaces warm, their lead article was that the oceans had ‘stolen’ the warming. How this is possible was not explained.
And with the Greening of the planet, two major gripes. Firstly that it was CO2 ‘fertilization’. A fertilizer adds trace elements. There is never admission that CO2 is the whole tree, that all carbon life forms are basically CO2 and H2O and almost nothing else. Extra CO2 is not a fertilizer. It is the tree and more CO2 means more trees.
Plus to explain the cooling, their latest make believe explanation is that increased Greening is cooling the planet. So not only is the fertilizer creating vast forests the size of Brazil/Australia/Cotinental USA/, it is the reason the world is no longer warming.
I would say you could not make this stuff up, the publicist at NASA seem to be dedicated to the task.
No the models were wrong, more CO2 translates directly into more trees, oceans are warmed by the sun and varying currents in that huge solar battery we call the oceans and the prediction of a rapidly warming atmosphere is just wrong. ‘Global Warming’ stopped ten years agao.
Or to put it simply if warming and more CO2 are coincidental, the conclusions that CO2 causes warming air is far fetched, but the equally valid conclusion that ocean warming releases more CO2 is not only equally valid, it is trivial science.
Our air temperatures are set by the ocean and the sun. One as the supplier of all heat and the other as the biggest solar battery on the planet responsible for all our weather, storms, rain, clouds, snow, sleet, everything. With no water or humidity, the atmosphere is almost completely transparent, very rapidly cools at night and plays little part in the weather. Except perhaps for dust storms.
Sun and oceans. That’s our climate, all climates. It certainly was all of life before fish crawled out of the sea, even if whales, seals, dugongs and dolphins went back. And in most parts of the world The third biggest gas is water, around 1%, the same as Argon. In the tropics closer to 4%.
So CO2 levels have nothing to do with driving climates, a consequence not a cause. Warmer oceans, more CO2. And all animate life is a direct result of CO2 and H2O. That’s called Organic Chemistry. And perhaps Dr. Newman is an organic chemist?
110
If you have a problem with the PR department at NASA then I strongly urge you not to subscribe to the CSIRO twitter feed. They have a millennial doing their “socials”, for sure.
50
I do not, and never will have a twitter account. my few remaining braincells don’t need more abuse.
50
By the way, that figure of $1 Trillion. That’s EVERY year. And it’s closer to $1.5Trillion.
With that money the world would have so much more than windmills and solar panels which do nothing. Real science, Fusion, Modular Nuclear, Thorium, Offshore ocean power collection and much more. Windmills are no solution. Wind and solar are only there 30% of the time and often unpredictable and certainly uncontrollable. How can anyone exist like that?
You would have to cover the state of Victoria entirely with Solar Panels to match the current needs for electricity and then where would we live? And how would we store it? (A reworked quote from Climate Council Member Chemist Will Steffen)
Solar and wind are fake random energy. Zero storage. They are utterly disposable and non sustainable and manufactured in China with iron, coal, oil and gas, our biggest exports. We are as mad as we are hypocritical.
150
Knock ‘em dead!
30
A sincere thank you to TdeF for the upthread sensible, lucid, informative posts re CO2 and all things “climate change”.
,
Henry’s Law, the solubility of CO2 in the oceans, the cyclical nature of climate, the PDO and AMO, the variable, cyclical nature of solar output and more was all stuff taught at senior high school level back in the Sixties. Today it is not even taught at uni level, as the following two minute video clearly demonstrates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_LBmzMHxSM
WARNING!!
Video contains words even worse than Richard Cranium
90
What happened to your old avatar Memoryvault?
30
Go Get Em, Jo!!
31
FWIW here
“As the methane heat is turned up, is it time for measurement rethink?”
https://www.beefcentral.com/carbon/as-the-methane-heat-is-turned-up-is-it-time-for-measurement-rethink/
20
Well done. To actually get somebody to turn up for such an event is a major accomplishment. But prepare yourself for “protestors” that will come try and shout you down.
40
[…] Climate 360 – the Debate in Perth tomorrow […]
00
I am really interested in whether Prof Newman is open to reason, a conviction scientist not a climatebagger. I found Will Steffen of Climate Council fame took the fifth when confronted with facts. History will show many of these climate change pushers to be opportunists of the worst sort. And it is sad when so many people defer to the appeal to authority.
60
What I hate is when people use their qualifications to bluff and intimidate. Professor Timothy Flannery really drove me bats when he gave interviews as a ‘scientist’ about nuclear power as he flip flopped. He knows nothing. His base degree was in English. And his total assurance on the failed ‘hot rocks’ scheme when he said the ‘technology is straightforward’. Hundreds of millions of dollars vanished without trace, public money and private. How do dead ancient wombats teach you about technology? And even the rains which fall will not fill the dams? Really?
But in the case of man made CO2 driven tipping point Armageddon, the fact that there is virtually no fossil fuel CO2 in the air should have been the end of the argument in 1958 (2.03%+/-0.15%). And nothing has changed. That was a Royal Society paper, the same group who now say mankind is producing CO2 which is going to boil the planet. And as for geniuses like Al Gore and innocents like school dropout Greta Thunberg, words fail.
130
It really looks like climate sensitivity is much lower than the extremists would like us to believe.
Willis Eschenbach’s latest studies seem to agree as does Nic Lewis’s latest 2022 study on sensitivity.
Here Nic Lewis introduces us to climate scientist Bjorn Steven’s latest interview on sensitivity and he also links to his own ( Nic Lewis) Sept 2022 study.
BTW here’s Lomborg’s latest finding about how much wealthier the average person will be in 2100, even if we did nothing about their so called Climate Change.
“Humanity is getting more prosperous daily. The UN estimates that without global warming the average person in 2100 would be 450% better off than now. Global warming means people will only be 434% richer. That is not a disaster”.
https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/opinion/2022-10-23-bjorn-lomborg-hype-about-climate-change-hides-that-life-on-earth-is-improving/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/10/23/an-interview-with-top-climate-scientist-bjorn-stevens/
30
Probably no help tonight, but it is relevant that 90% of the people supposedly causing the Hole in the Ozone Layer over the South Pole reside in the Northern Hemisphere.
That was a pilot run for a monstrous scam founded in public ignorance of science. This is a rerun. The COVID19 scam follows through.
All dependent on that ignorance of science.
And all the best Jo for tonight!
41
Some late figures
“Europe Importing $35.77 Billion of Solar Panels – And they Still Have an Energy Crisis”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/10/24/europe-importing-35-77-billion-of-solar-panels-and-they-still-have-an-energy-crisis/
30
Wish it was being streamed.
20
Is this streaming? I can’t get to Belmont for this one.
40
Well done, Jo and David. Sadly I had to leave before the final Q&A wrapped up, but there was no doubt in my mind which side marshalled the strongest arguments … No surprises there of course. It’s encouraging that a good-natured debate could be held with no daft protestors in the offing … Last week I was at an O&G industry conference in Adelaide and the tedious anti fossil fuel brigade was banging its drum – literally – outside the venue. But that was “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”. Unlike last night’s debate. Good to see there were at least a few young people in the crowd.
80
What happened at the debate?
50
It happened. Apparently.
10
How did you get to it I couldn’t
00
Was there a recording of the debate?
Can you link to that recording in your article above, please?
20