By Jo Nova
The Blob sets “The Science Trap” — and conservative politicians get caught every time
The Bureaucratic Blob Team brag about following “The Science” but the truth is, they fund only the questions they want answered, they sack the scientists who disagree, then they call everyone names who thinks differently. They’re not open to debate or ideas, they rule through ostracism and cancel culture — demanding people believe “The Science” — and mocking them as simpletons if they don’t — it’s like a cult or perhaps a kindergarten.
Conservative politicians leave themselves defenseless because for decades they keep funding the same Blob Science Institutions with the same Blob-incentives. When research groups are paid to find a crisis, they’ll keep hunting til they find one.
Last week in the debate, the Australian opposition leader, Peter Dutton said the dreaded line: “I’m not a scientist” and then had to say the next day “I believe in climate change” just to quell the uproar. It was the classic mindless science trap. It’s a hundred agencies paid to speak jargon versus one politician with no tech support.
Imagine if he had said the Coalition is going to fund the science research the Labor Party won’t?
None of our climate models can tell us whether next summer will be a BBQ scorcher or a wet blanket. The models are failing because they are missing nearly everything about The Sun. They treat our nearest star like it is a light globe, ignoring the solar magnetic field which is bigger than the solar system, the electric field, the sun spot cycles, and the way sun’s output of UV light changes. Our current best climate models all assume these effects are zero. They assume the solar wind which batters Earth at a million miles an hour has no effect at all. Isn’t it time we set up a dedicated agency to find out what role the sun has?
Don’t we owe it to the koalas, the children (and the taxpayer?)
We know some factor on the Sun affects ground water recharge rates, streamflow in rivers, jet streams, lightning in Japan and even jelly fish plagues. In the 1800s we knew solar cycles affected the price of wheat. Two hundred years later we still don’t know why there are so many links between the solar cycles and our climate. When the sun is quiet, there are more floods in central Europe, the prevailing winds shift in Chile, and winters are warmer in Greenland. Something is going on. All the warming we’ve seen since the Little Ice Age could be entirely due to the increase in solar activity.
What if the Sun is causing the warming and we’re spending hundreds of billions trying to reduce CO2 and it’s irrelevant?
Who did that due diligence before we spent half a trillion dollars trying to change the weather? Hands up? Anyone?
Why aren’t we investigating The Sun’s role in Climate Change? (Because we’re afraid it’s real?)
Big-Government politicians strangle science. They pour money in to find out “how bad man-made climate change is” but virtually nothing goes into asking how “good” our emission are, nor whether the Sun has the commanding role, and we’re irrelevant. Where is the institution dedicated to finding out how the Sun drives our climate? There isn’t one. There are a few researchers who trip over parts of the puzzle, but there is no independent dedicated agency that exists in order to find reasons that the Sun controls our weather.
Australia needs a dedicated Australian Space-Weather-Climate Institute to investigate the effect of the solar magnetic field, cosmic rays and the changes in solar UV on our climate. It needs to be separate from the other conglomerate behemoths of science, or it just becomes another part of The Blob.
We need competition in science, and a free market, not these centralized Soviet conglomerates of science like the CSIRO. Once an agency is trapped inside a big organisation, it can’t say something which makes the rest of the organization look silly. Nor could it publish results that showed the rest of the conglomerate group’s work was pointless. Likewise, Australia has an Australian Space Weather Forecasting Centre (ASWFC) but it’s a part of the Bureau of Meteorology. It won’t be competing with the BoM, or pointing out their flaws on the Channel Nine news.
Australia has RMIT SPACE Research Centre, and the University of Newcastle’s Centre for Space Physics, they are looking at space weather effects on satellites, technology, and advancing the space industry. The CSIRO Climate Science Centre should be looking at the role of the sun, but the CSIRO is 100% Blob. It has bet its “expert” reputation on CO2, lock, stock and barrel.
We need a free market in science — we need that competition
The incentives for science are screwed. Right now scientists serve Big Government and work to get Bigger Government elected. They don’t serve the people.
In a better world the government would fund both science teams and they’d be criticizing each other in televised debates. The media would ask scientists hard actual questions and embarrass them when they were inconsistent hypocrites, or just chronically wrong. The voters could have informed consent…
In an even better world, the voters could vote for their tax dollars to go to particular areas of interest (like say when they fill out their tax return?). That way the scientists would want to serve the public, they’d want to be useful, and they’d be competing with other scientists so they’d speak out when they thought a climate model was useless.
In my favourite world, we’d pay hardly any tax, so we could all afford to donate to the research we liked the most…
Naturally, anything funded by the Government sooner or later becomes part of the Blob. That’s why we have to get the incentives right.
That and Eternal Vigilance.
Photo: CME on the Sun August 31, 2012.
Brilliant comment.
That’s essentially all it would take.
He could follow up by saying that if the Official Narrative is wrong, he will return Australia’s power grid to how it was before Howard started destroying it and save the country from certain economic destruction.
He would need to set a strict end date for such an investigation. Maybe six months.
That would be ample time because there is no new science to discover. Just actual science, not warmist propaganda.
291
Pure science has zero connection to politics or finance.
The closer Science is funded and politicized by finance or media hype, the less it is “science” and more closely approaching paid propaganda. Prove me wrong.
Provable, actual, measurable, history, has shown that AU has gone from affordable and reliable energy to unaffordable/unreliable energy. Completely and totally assignable to political machinations.
Just post the dispatchable power generation capacity and cost per MWH before and after Howard. Ought to take just a few minutes.
211
Sadly the useful idiots in the government and media are too wedded to the AGW myth and once that emperor is shown to have no clothes rather than accept they were blinded by ideology, they will get angrier and find a new sacred cow to worship, with same charletons benefiting financially from the lemmings.
230
You don’t think that ongoing bureaucratic funding has anything to do with it – do you? (Or ‘ego massaging’?)
20
Eschenbach and Lizden say there is no correlaation between the sun and Temperature.
I guess one day someone may find something.
74
The LIA was a period of low sunspot activity, in the MWP sunspot activity was high. So there is a sunspot effect on climate that’s slow but significant. One day we’ll find out more about how it works. My guess – no more than a gursz -is that more sunspots leads to less cloud which warms the ocean but doesn’t do much more than change the diurnal range over land.
40
Javier Vinos thinks the sun may play a role over decadal time frames.
https://judithcurry.com/2024/04/18/how-we-know-that-the-sun-changes-the-climate-part-i-the-past/
40
Citations will be helpful Ian.
I am surprised but can’t form an opinion because I have read a lot of Lindzen but don’t recall what he said about the sun.
The latest item was a shared piece with Will Happer on the role of CO2 and solar effects didn’t come into it.
His most interesting paper for my Popper-inspired study of the institutional aspects of science was a very long piece on the political economy of climate research.
21
Neither Eschenbach or Lindzen have the engineering technology to be able to assess climate or weather on Earth (or Venus or Titan etc). Of course the sun is a factor -it supplies heat in the form of electro-magnetic radiation. The big question is how do periodic variations cause local and wider changes in the short and longer term. As has been shown by historical and short term measurements it is not the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The paper Niklov and Zeller using published data of planets and moons in our solar system and analysis through dimensional analysis indicates that surface temperature has nothing to do atmospheric composition. EschenBach has demonstrated that he does not understand dimensional analysis or engineering mathematics.
50
I see the Labor party is targeting Dutts on Nuclear with “quotes” about the alleged $6oob cited by the CSIRO. Clearly Labor (and the Blob) is banking on the public accepting the CSIRO as a reliable outfit, when all of us here know that the CSIRO had both hands and both feet on the scales so as to satisfy the government. How does Dutts counter the ALP/CSIRO hit squad?
150
That CSIRO GenCost report was just propaganda, full of guesses and estimates where actual available data demonstrates that renewables are useless! You would have to be very naive or have your nose in the trough to credit that report.
John
111
The $600bn figure originated from the Smart Energy Council, not the CSIRO or the Labor Party. The Australian has been looking into the SEC, a charitable NGO, to see where its funding comes from.
50
Sort of related, regarding the science about CO2, and how that has been corrupted.
Those CO2 vilification ‘agendas’ have all but stopped anyone from even suggesting new technology coal fired power plants, and realistically, THAT of itself (coal fired power) is science as well.
Those new tech coal fired power plants are in fact probably one of the single best forms of power generation there is, and that research alone is ongoing to this day.
That ‘dud’ science has scared people off, and even power generation itself is closely related to science.
If people knew the science behind those 3 current renewable power sources wind, solar and battery, (or even if that was reported) then I’m certain tougher questions might be asked about both coal fired power and renewables.
Don’t get me wrong here, Nuclear power generation is good, but the lead time for that is horrendousy longer, and even the science about Nuclear power generation is also scientifically corrupted as well.
Those who KNOW about all of the above are just too scared to even talk about it at all.
Tony.
240
I’m fine with steam plants, coal/gas/nuke/whatever. But there must be an analysis of the construction and maintenance costs of subcritical, critical, super critical, and ultra super critical conditions.
The creep fatigue failure of steels, nickel iron alloys, yttrium cobalt iron alloys, etc, must be weighed against initial costs, ongoing costs, and such. It doesn’t matter if one goes from 40% thermal efficiency to 55% efficiency if the maintenance and materials costs triple. Yes, higher thermal efficiencies are attractive. But what if you can’t get the proper alloy piping to make a repair on a USC plant? Every step above sub critical conditions has increasing risks, some catastrophic. There’s no “magic” plant design that pushes the limits of metallurgy, physics, and thermo, that does not engender increased risks.
I’m not against USC, just asking that the costs, reliability, liability, and failure analysis, are included in any decisions. Thermal efficiency is not the sole objective.
140
It must be the sun doing the warming because the crazy UK commo govt want to spend 50 million pounds to make it dimmer.
230
Our Sun is a variable star.
Of course it affects the climate.
190
Old fashioned ‘Science’ is a bottom up approach, involving observation, analysing data, experimentation, replication, forming hypotheses, testing predictions and analysing results to draw theories and conclusions.
Progressive ‘Scientism’ is a top down approach, involving rewarding and promoting those scientists who are positive to the wishes of those in authority, while punishing and sacking those scientists who are negative to the wishes of those in authority.
191
The proof is in the pudding. Both Australia’s peak science academies (AAS & ATSE) would be considered woke in any fair minded assessment. They respectively receive c.33 and 70 % of their ($ millions) revenue each year from government sources. As the Upton Sinclair saying analogously goes “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his income depends on his not understanding it”.
210
We live in the greatest period of Human flourishing today compared to the last 250 years or 1000 years or 10,000 years or 300,000 years.
The data is easily found and the reason is the use of fossil fuels and the health and wealth that’s been created since 1770 and since 1950 that has increased at an even faster rate.
Destroying that Human flourishing because we want to “believe” and then use toxic, unreliable W & S is the most unscientific argument that has been advanced for centuries.
When will we follow the available scientific data and wake up? Just see OWI Data and check it for ourselves.
140
“the voters could vote for their tax dollars to go to particular areas of interest”
Not to be a wet blanket but that is how we got into this situation in the first place.
The voters discovered they could vote government largesse to themselves!
180
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” Ben Franklin
90
Forrest — not exactly. On people’s Tax forms, let’s say they get to pick 3 out of twenty suggested research priorities or something like that. I’m trying to think of a way the voters could influence what the funds were spent on, something more detailed than voting just for the left or right of the Uniparty. Maybe there is no way to do this, but I want scientists to be thinking of how they serve the people, instead of how they serve “The Minister”. And maybe the only way is to reduce the tax burden and let philanthropists and industry fund research again like they used to before WWII.
111
Wasting time and money on science. Now if he, Dutton would bring in millions even billions in grants/research into bettering such vital interests to the public as My Kitchen Rules, Australia’s Got Talent, Married at First Site, Farmer Wants a wife, the whole plethora of brain debilitating crap pushed out there on the adoring public, he’d gallop in with a resounding majority.
110
great sarc comment
unfortunately Dutton has many issues causing the polls to turn against Libs/Nat
for example –
– he keeps shooting himself in the foot by announcing policies that are unpopular with the hoard of dummy voters that he needs to appeal to
– Dutton seems to be a poor debater
– Dutton is being too nice and too lenient on Albo & Co e.g. he should be listing ALL of Albo Govt mishaps and faults with verifiable facts/data
It may be too late in the pre-election cycle now to sway enough voters?
150
Luckily it doesn’t matter which one gets in, they will be told what to do and they will then tell us what to do…
41
KP — Then vote for the minors. It does matter.
101
Maybe SATAN is the answer?
https://x.com/JimFergusonUK/status/1915789361221640270
Let the climate warfare begin.
41
IMO – I think the conservative parties should redirect the focus from the physical science and focus on the politics as to why the UN has allowed GHG emissions to go up at record levels thanks to their UNFCCC agreement back in 1992. Following this agreement and the Kyoto agreement a few years later, global emissions rapidly increased, all coming from the non-OECD countries. For every ton of CO2 abated by OECD countries, the non-OECD countries add 4 tons. This outcome is aided by the UNFCCC agreement (plus Kyoto & Paris) that forces developed countries to offshore industry to avoid carbon taxes and meet targets, but gives developing countries a free pass on emissions to allow them to take over industrial production. The climate agreements have increased economic growth in developing countries and driven up global emissions at a much faster rate than would have occurred otherwise, despite reductions in the west, and that’s a very deliberate and intended outcome of the UNFCCC.
Thus, IMO the best way to manage this situation is to simply call out the absurdity and failures of the current climate treaties and framework agreements and demonstrate how they are driving up emissions and also how the RE solutions are destroying western economies at the same time by forcing us to use more expensive and inferior energy sources, which is all in vein. We should simply state that we’ll only start reducing emissions when the UNFCCC agreement is amended to include all countries, which of course will never happen because China controls that outcome in the UN and they have no intention to reduce emissions. By shifting the debate away from the physical science and focusing on the politics and outcomes of the climate agreements it would be much easier to shift public opinion because MSM wouldn’t be able to use science as a shield and they would struggle to defend the failed climate agreements. People need to understand that if the UN has presided over a framework agreement for 33 years that has almost doubled global emissions and have no intentions to change that agreement, then it can only mean that don’t regard CO2 as a problem and therefore we have all been scammed.
60
1. If we don’t study the Sun, we never get models that work. We should do physical science because we need to understand the Sun.
2. As long as the Coalition leaves the physical sciences to the Blob, they will be defenceless and defeated in the public square who call them “deniers” and make out that they anti-science. They will have no experts to quote, no press releases. No one will explain to them why the Climate Models are wrong.
3. Instead of looking like losers who say “I’m not a scientist” and “I believe” they would look like they are scientifically smarter than the Labor Party. They will be able to run rings around the petty smug lines like “We’re following the science”. The Labor Party isn’t following the science, it’s strangling it.
142
Perhaps you are unaware of the Australian Institute of Physics?
https://www.aip.org.au/Solar-Terrestrial-and-Space-Physics-(STSP)
26
Yes, useless lot. Your point is?
50
Jo, I’m not saying to hold off on the science, but rather to focus more on the politics from the UN. We’ve been trying to win the science debate for 20 years and despite the gaping holes in the GHG theory you can’t win when the deck is stacked against you. Just look at climate gate. Even when the emails of the corruption are laid bare for all to see, they still sweep it under the rug.
10
The cost of setting up a science institute is nothing compared to the cost of converting our national grid. It would be a $100m promise that vanishes in the decimal shadow of interconnectors and pumped hydro failures. It is madness to let the Left keep control of “The Science” when the cost of funding a team of auditors is nothing.
We’ve been trying to win the science debate for twenty years with a bunch of unfunded volunteers who have no marketing team, no institute, no salary and are often dismissed when they ask for the data. This is a dumb way to play the game. We’ve been pointing out the hypocrisy in the politics and energy debate for 20 years too, and look what that’s achieved.
Obviously, we need to do both. I’m just saying the science battle is where the low hanging fruit is. The Opposition could take the moral high ground, look scientific, and give themselves easy answers when the Blob play their pathetic “Follow The Science” card. It’s time we stopped letting the namecalling dunces who think science is an opinion poll win any debate. “The Science” is not scientific, it’s a word game. But which Professor will say that? None — they’ve all been sacked.
40
” GHG emissions to go up at record levels”
So why is CO2 a dead straight line?
The idea that fossil fuel CO2 builds up in the atmosphere is absurd. CO2 changes completely roughly every ten years (Try table 1 here)
There is zero actual science in The Science. There is almost no fossil fuel CO2 in the air (see previous link).
And we know from both NASA and the CSIRO that more CO2 means more crops and more trees. So all the tree farms and agricultural credits are a joke.
With College footballer and tobacco heir Al Gore for the foundation Climate Scientist, you should know it is rubbish. The other mad super scientist is baked bean methane billionaire John Kerry who says Pope Francis was into The Science. When in fact Pope France knew another socialist religion when he saw one.
70
Another fire and brimstone, end of days religion with expensive carbon indulgences. It’s an old, old story. And very profitable.
40
Some degree of commonsense may be possible to oppose The Blob?
see the video interview of Senator Andy Schmulow –
“Australian People Are NOT In Charge! Senator Andy Schmulow Reveals Shocking Truth”
link – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvZVVZUu1rk
41
““Australian People Are NOT In Charge! Senator Andy Schmulow Reveals Shocking Truth””
If its got the word ‘shocking’ in it, no thankyou, that’s for the bottom half of the IQ chart.
13
Who was the dummy that hobbled Australia by introducing legislation making the establishment of nuclear generation illegal based on the fear of a rogue discharge/uncontrolled escape of radiation. Was it the great Robert J Hawke who was vying for a horse to ride in a Federal election and a PM ship? It was the same bloke who did something similar to Tasmania by stopping the Franklin River Hydro scheme. Just like Albo Tross today who invokes the Green “energy” to sustain his Labor ambitions!
81
In 1998 the Howard govt was seeking approval to build a nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights. The Greens agreed to support it if Nuclear Power generation was banned. So a deal was done and legislation passed.
Yes. It’s ludicrous to think it’s something to be blamed on the Libs and not Labor. But it’s true.
80
The past AEMO reports that I have downloaded and read, as opposed to reports by others about what AEMO does, contained words to the effect that their studies were confined to those that followed current Australian government policy.
When Federal policy was “net zero carbon by 2050”, AEMO chose not to study energy pathways that did not satisfy this policy.
This meant, for example, that AEMO opted out of study of improved coal technology, or natural gas, or nuclear electricity, but did study and report on windmills and solar.
The net effect was that AEMO, central to the choice of future energy production, had barred itself from warning the government whether future energy choices were dangerous or harmful compared to unstated others.
It seems wider than that, not only concerning AEMO.
Australia seems to have NO official body tasked to advise if future energy proposals are dangerous or harmful of not economic or even if there are better options for whatever reason.
We need a neutral watchdog overseeing future energy plans.
Geoff S
110
Where I live, which has been happening for at least 50 years, not long after the sun sets it gets cooler by several degrees and the opposite happens in the morning.
Something is going on.
110
Let’s talk the science of the most popular issues since 1950.
SLR at tide gauges now about 1.5 mm year or about the same as the 20th century. See Prof Ole Humlum.
Polar bears about 6,000 in 1960 and about 30,000 today.
Death rates from all extreme weather events have dropped by 98% since 1920. See Dr Christy, Dr Koonin etc.
Little warming in Antarctica since 1950 and Ant peninsula cooling since 1998. See Turner BAS survey.
SLs 6 to 9 metres higher during the previous Eemian interglacial and 8 C higher temps then than today in 2025. See co2 Coalition Scientists etc.
Death rates from burns and fires the lowest in 100 + years. See OWI Data, Dr Koonin, Dr Lindzen etc and Australia are the lowest in the OECD among wealthy countries. See OWI Data.
Most Island countries are now higher above seas than they were 40 years ago. See even ABC now using Dr Kench studies.
Aussie east coast now has the lowest sea level since the end of the climate optimum about 4,000 years ago.
Life expectancy was just 28.5 years in 1770 and about 73 years today, see OWI Data Dr Pielke jr, Dr Koonin etc.
More data is available that I’ve linked to many times.
70
For the past 75 years the World’s people have been subjected to the greatest hoax ever devised by mankind namely that a simple molecule CO2 which does not generate heat at all is causing global warming and catastrophic climate change. However the public are not shown the data to support the hoax. Why? There are hundreds of data files freely available on the Internet compiled over the past 75 Years which clearly show that the atmospheric CO2 concentration varies with the seasons. In Springtime the temperature rises causing life to proliferate and CO2 concentration to decrease due to photosynthesis. The temperature reaches a maximum during Summer and the CO2 concentration reaches a minimum. Then during Autumn the annual life forms die and decay as the temperature falls and CO2 concentration rises reaching a maximum during Winter as temperature reaches a minimum. As the seasons are caused by the annual orbit of the Earth around the Sun it is obvious that the seasonal climate change causes the CO2 change, NOT the reverse, and in the opposite direction to the temperature the exact opposite to the claims by the UN/IPCC.
The hoax has been propagated by power hungry persons whose aim is to subjugate us all to their absolute control – no democracy, no freedom of speech or action – as is seen in some of the major countries in the World who have been using the scam to achieve economic dominance by selling useless solar panels and windmills to the gullible nations.
50
I’m in regular contact with a number of politicians and I try to set them straight on the science.
Opposing me is something I’ve been told by a person with first hand experience of trying to teach a Liberal candidate a thing or two about climate. The Libs look at public surveys about issues and they align their policies to the most popular position. I know, this isn’t leading, it’s following.
Worse, it’s following what left-wing governments, and their supporters in the media and Education, have been telling the public for years. Public opinion develops according to the information received, so when that information is skewed in a particular direction, so too will public opinion be.
That, in a nutshell, is why the Coalition refuses to take any notice of what it’s told about climate and energy matters.
110
Free market in science? you mean the current grants process, of the fossil fuel support
Do love straw men, and this site is a rich source
39
Are you referring to this…?? The ‘competitive grants process’?
“To be eligible you must be the listed organisation:
Dementia & Alzheimer’s Australia Limited – ABN 79 625 582 771”
..and that’s it! One organisation can apply for the cash! Definitely a Govt behind that! The other link is just propaganda from an organisation desperate to protect their income stream. I’m loving watching Trump destroy it all!
61
What are you talking about? You seem to be instituting that there would be no selection process, but you neglect to provide an alternative method of selection, at least this site suggests that it must be commercially viable, which is an odd restriction to be placed on scientific research
01
The longer I live, the more convinced am I that this planet is used by other planets as a lunatic asylum.
George Bernard Shaw
And –
Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.
George Bernard Shaw
110
Those “things” are NOT models and the term is being misused to imply scientific integrity which is completely absent.
31
“We need a free market in science”
Well, certainly we need Govts OUT of science, I see no reason for them to pay for research in any field at all. They use it as an empire-building weapon to take over more of our lives, with flimsy excuses about ‘Oh, we need to research diabetes because it costs so much of our Health budget’.
Meanwhile the real answer to that is to get the Govt OUT of health as well!
Let people put their own money where their interests lie, I’m sure farmers will pay for long-range weather forecasting, or diabetes-support groups will raise money for private research into their disease, and thousands of scientists will set up private labs analysing the myriad of things in our food that we are interested in.
Sadly the Govts are all working in the opposite direction, trying to make a Matrix of the countries they rule.
41
This experiment is currently being trialled in the US. Let’s watch closely and see how it is plays out in the long-rum.
16
Just insist that if government money was involved in the research any results are automatically in the public domain (not able to be patented). In the case of drugs, applies to derivatives as well.
10
Solar cycles can not explain the > 1°C warming observed over the past century.
Thousands of scientists stretching back to Joseph Fourier describing a theoretical model of the Earth’s atmosphere in 1827.
212
Rubbish. Poppycock.
Try this perfect prediction of thermometer (not proxy) data in six European cities over 250 years showing a range of 2.5C. With just one solar cycle and one ocean cycle and correctly predicts twelve turning points and the late 20th century peak. No mention of CO2, college footballer Al Gore’s favorite and only explanation for everything. Real mathematicians, real science, not make believe.
40
And the atmosphere only CO2 models cannot get a simple curve right for what is looking increasingly like a fake metric, a manufactured ‘world’ temperature. There weren’t even thermometers in most of the world for most of the time. Fake projections from fake data for an unproven theory of CO2 global warming. Who ever proved the world acted like a golf ball? It’s covered in deep water which holds 99.9% of all stored heat.
40
Solar variability cycles, with the assistance of AI, should unravel this hypothesis.
‘Frequency analysis of solar variability during the Holocene identifies several cycles (McCracken et al., 2013), with the most important being the 11.4-yr Schwabe cycle, the 87-yr Gleissberg cycle, the 208-yr de Vries cycle, the ~ 1000-yr Eddy cycle, and the ~ 2400-yr cycle. Even longer cycles can be identified from 10-Berilium (10Be) records in ice cores, like a 9600-yr cycle (Sánchez-Sesma, 2015).
‘Comparison of climate and solar variability records leads to the important observation that the length of the cycle correlates with the amplitude of the climate effect observed and in general the longer the cycle the more profound effect it appears to have on climate’ (Javier / Climate Etc).
83
It’s the Sun !
I can just see the World’s collective scientific community smacking themselves on the forehead, good work Jo.
310
Thanks for popping in to prove my point about how the left use scorn and derision instead of debating the science.
Did it take both your brain cells?
152
Oooooh, an ad hominem always wins, plus a bonus presumption that I’m on the left, ie woke.
The burden of proof is with you Jo, if you want to debate the science, try submitting your wonderful ‘its the Sun stupid’ evidence for review as required by the scientific method for hundreds of years.
The thumbsy poll could be used as primary data.
212
It hurts when I expose your kindergarten tactics doesn’t it?
70
How does this comment get past the standard,,you force on the rest of us?
06
How does this comment get past the your standards, what a piece of shit you are
04
Didn’t read the post again did you Peter? The left use bullying and scorn instead of debating the evidence. I provided peer reviewed papers in the links, and you lose it…
Careful, people will think I’m paying you to look stupid.
50
So you like peer reviewed papers when you think it supports you but denigrate it as ‘pal review’ when it doesn’t, that’s retarded.
05
It’s not “retarded”. It actually makes sense. The people Jo is trying to inform are the sort of people who stand up for peer reviewed studies. So that’s what they’re being provided. If Jo gave them something that wasn’t peer reviewed then they would simply reject it.
If they now want to reject it because it doesn’t suit their purpose then that is “retarded”.
This is not Jo endorsing the current standard of peer review, or negating her criticisms. It’s just Jo acknowledging what some will require to take the info on board.
20
No Strop , Jo constantly attacks peer review , go back and look .
01
Miasma, you are free at any time to offer evidence to show how I’m wrong but you don’t. You just resort to semantic word games.
Pal review is obviously more of risk when 97% of scientists say the same thing. Isn’t that self-evident? Odds are that skeptic papers will be read by someone who isn’t a pal 97% of the time, while people in the pals club will only get a real critic 3% of the time.
The pal review system is flawed. But I judge each paper on it’s merits, not on it’s reviewers. You should try it sometime.
Hence, I can easily admire a single peer reviewed paper, but at the same time mock and laugh at those who say 97% of peer reviewed papers believe beef steaks warm the climate.
20
That’s right Miasma. Jo is a critic of it. Which is why I said, “This is not Jo endorsing the current standard of peer review, or negating her criticisms.”
My comment explains why it’s not “retarded” to be a critic of the peer review process but still provide peer reviewed info.
20
But the sun isn’t real, is it?
31
Are you going to shock me by saying its real ?.
01
Which simulation by which creator are we living in?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacron-3
I think I prefer more traditional thoughts on the subject
00
John you make a very relevant point. Truth and facts don’t matter to our current crop of politicians. I started back in the Rudd years, trying to get them to look at Dr John Nicol’s assessment of CO2 as a driver of climate change. Local member Perrett not interested. Since then Dutton, Canavan etc etc have all shown no interest. Popularity is all that matters to these “leaders”. So they continue to slop down the net zero puddle and we are pulled along behind. Lately the right wing media have contracted the same disease.
Poor fella my country.
61
Magnificent tornado/twister on the sun video capture using a hydrogen alpha telescope in a back yard observatory around the 24th April 1300UT.
From https://spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=26&month=04&year=2025
“A DOZEN SUNSPOT GROUPS: Today, there are twelve sunspot groups on the solar disk. That’s a large number. However, they all have stable magnetic fields that pose little threat for strong flares. Solar activity should remain low throughout the weekend. Aurora alerts: SMS Text
MONSTER TORNADO ON THE SUN: On Earth, the most dangerous tornadoes are rated F5. On the sun, they can be hundreds of times worse. David Wilson photographed this twister, big enough to swallow our entire planet, from his backyard observatory in Inverness, Scotland:
The invincible dust devil
Taken by Apollo Lasky on March 17, 2023 @ Naperville, il
https://spaceweathergallery2.com/indiv_upload.php?upload_id=194126
30
There were Aztecs.
We have become Aztechs.
The leadership of human societies sometimes lose their minds.
Usually as result of overwhelming success.
Visit the campus of any elite University in the Western world … ask a random person (not of the maintenance staff) …
“is human sexual function a social construct?”.
‘Climate Change’ is a symptom not a ‘science’.
10
To understand scientific research, one has to be aware of it and to have access to the results.
In the “never forget, never forgive category, here is a letter i wrote today to the Editor of the Australian.
What are my chances of seeing it published?
Geoff S
…..
Dear Editor,
Increasingly, medical reports identify the Covid “vaccine” as capable of production of the spike protein that it was designed to destroy.
If this is correct, then the matter is of global importance.
We need, as a matter of national urgency and importance, a neutral, high-level investigation of the alleged harmful effects from administration of this and other mRNA vaccines.
Australia should cease recommendations for the use of this and other mRNA vaccines until the matter is clarified.
Victoria should consider mothballing work on the mRNA vaccine production factory pending the findings.
70
1,001% absolutely correct, Joanne! (Do I detect some frustration in your prose?)
I suspect that the Oz equivalent of Sir Humphrey Appleby (from “Yes, Minister!”) is very much in charge. Isn’t the ongoing funding to ‘solve’ the ‘climate crisis’ wonderful? Now, we can’t upset that – can we? Someone might be offended!
There’s a remarkable similarity to what happened to Dr Ignaz Semmelweiss and his ‘stupid’ idea that medicos should wash their hands – after all, the ‘experts’ of his day ridiculed him to the point of driving his suicide. Hmmmm – I wonder how that worked out? And why are there statues erected in his honour now?
50
As for peer reviewed science, I have yet to read a single proof of the foundational claim that 1/3 of the CO2 we breathe is fossil fuel CO2.
You would think that would have to be proven? Without it, man made CO2 driven rapid Global Warming is a lie.
And the first thing I checked a long time ago was how much fossil fuel CO2 was in the air. It was trivial, 2.03% and that was in transit.
So none of it is true.
40
And the second thing is that we could change CO2 if we want to do so. Any scientist would expect CO2 gas to be in equilibrium and impossible to change.
All people are talking about is a thing they call ’emissions’. Emissions have nothing to do with the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. NASA proved this when they noted that in 1988-2014 total tree coverage went up 14%. But CO2 also went up 14%. So sequestering trillions of tons of CO2 has no effect on CO2. It’s in equilibrium. That’s actual science, actual data. As reported by both NASA and the CSIRO.
I keep putting these things on the record as there is plenty of simple evidence that man made CO2 driven Global Warming is wrong at every step. But still it continues and is claimed to be ‘The Science’. It’s in fact The Hoax.
40
And the second thing is that we could change CO2 if we want to do so. Any scientist would expect CO2 gas to be in equilibrium and impossible to change.
All people are talking about is a thing they call ’emissions’. Emissions have nothing to do with the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. NASA proved this when they noted that in 1988-2014 total tree coverage went up 14%. But CO2 also went up 14%. So sequestering trillions of tons of CO2 has no effect on CO2. It’s in equilibrium. That’s actual science, actual data. As reported by both NASA and the CSIRO.
I keep putting these things on the record as there is plenty of simple evidence that man made CO2 driven Global Warming is wrong at every step. But still it continues and is claimed to be ‘The Science’. It’s in fact The Hoax.
20
The Earth does not orbit the centre of the sun. In fact, there are times when the solar system barycentre is outside the perimeter of the sun. And the sun is a big unit.
There is quite significant orbital variation from year to year.
Comnsider 2024 to 2025:
1. The NH will have 0.8W/m^2 more intense sunlight during the months of April May and June. The amount of ocean reaching 30C will be up by about 0.5%. The NH will have 1W/m^s less solar EMR through Sep, oct and Nov. Those factors means the NH summer will be warmer in 2025 than 2024 and early season snowfall will be up on 2024.
2. The Sothern Hemisphere had the same area of ocean reaching 30C in 2025 compared with 2024. Solar EMR in the SH is down by 1.1W/m^2 through Apr. May and June in 2025 compared with 2024. These will result in slightly reduced rainfall 2025 compared with 2024. SH Solar EMR is up 1.1W/m^2 through Sep Oct Nov in 2025 compared with 2024 resulting in higher summer temperature in the SH going into 2026 and more ocean surface will reach the 30C limit..
Lots of orbital variation even from year to year.
Very few people have any clue of orbital precession.
The orbital changes over time cause staggering changes in the timing and distribution of solar energy over the globe. The changes are accelerating.
The most significant orbital change from 1850 to present is the increase in NH reaching 30C. It is up more than 2%. Also the AMJ heating is up 0.7W/m^2 and the SON period is down by 0.4W/m^2. So that is causing increased advection in the NH in early winter. By 2500 the AMJ solar EMR will by up by 2.3W/m^2 on 1850. The amount of ocean reaching 30C will be up by 10% on 1850 level. The SON solar EMR will be down by 1.4W/m^2 on 1850. So the advection that drives snowfall will be up by 3-fold from the change from 1850 to now – about 3% higher than 1850 level. By year 5000, the advection driving NH snowfall will be up by about 15% on 1850 level.
The changes that are coming will make any notion of the present “climate change” appear benign.
50
“Why aren’t we investigating The Sun’s role in Climate Change? (Because we’re afraid it’s real?)”
Yep. We cannot control our star so there is no money or power in it for the fear mongering grifters and politicians.
So,human caused destruction from CO2, CFCs, plastics, etc. is used to scare us into submission.
Ben Davidson does a great job of solar monitoring and space weather on his suspicious observers site
40