IPCC Contradicts ‘Experts’, & Pours Cold Water on Man Made (Reversible) Global Drought Hysteria

Graham Williamson Guest Post

Previously, In their AR5 Report, the IPCC have demonstrated that:

  • Globally droughts are NOT increasing & any previous ‘evidence’ that humans were causing droughts is now seen to be exaggerated, alarmist or totally false.
  • Droughts are much less severe in modern times as atmospheric CO2 levels have risen.
  • The current AR5 Summary for Policymakers does not draw attention to the conclusions described in the scientific report.

The IPCC continue to point out, in their October 2018 SR15 report that as emissions are increasing there is little or no evidence global droughts are increasing, and they also continue to point out that there is no convincing evidence that humans are causing droughts, hence reinforcing the findings of their previous AR5 report. Note that these facts are typically excluded from official IPCC ‘headline statements’ and the ‘summary for policymakers’. Like their previous Report, the IPCC again emphasise that when they refer to ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’, they include natural climatic variations which of course cannot be controlled by man, by the UN, or by carbon taxes. One difference in the latest report though, is that they now prefer to compare the effects of 1.5 degrees of warming to 2 degrees of warming, rather than compare the current era to pre-industrial times.

Notably however, Climate Councillors Will Steffen (also a contributor to the IPCC Report), Dr Annika Dean, Lesley Hughes & Martin Rice, have failed to reveal these IPCC conclusions in their ‘Fact Sheet’, claiming instead, “Climate change is likely making drought conditions in southwest and southeast Australia worse.” Since IPCC have defined climate change as any climatic change, natural or otherwise though, this seems a perfectly reasonable conclusion, after billions of dollars of research.

Similarly, in their report, ‘Deluge and Drought: Australia’s Water Security in a Changing Climate’, authors Will Steffen, Rob Vertessy, Annika Dean, Lesley Hughes, Hilary Bambrick, Joelle Gergis and Martin Rice, refuse to publicise the good news reported by the IPCC concerning droughts, human causation, and climate change. Instead, these authors claim:

“On-going failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coal, oil and gas, globally and here in Australia, has already negatively affected Australia’s water security and will increasingly affect it into the future…….Significant impacts on and risks to our water security are already evident, and these risks will continue to escalate unless deep and rapid reductions in global greenhouse gas pollution can be achieved.”

According to Dr Benjamin Cook however, a climate scientist at NASA, the IPCC have made new discoveries and changed their views regarding droughts since their earlier AR5 Report:“The multitude of contributing factors to a drought means that identifying the sometimes-subtle signal of climate change is tricky. In part because of this, the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2013 concluded that there was low confidence (pdf) that any significant trends in drought could be detected or attributed to climate change. Since then, however, the science of detection and attribution – concerned with identifying changes in the climate system and their causes – has advanced considerably.

Findings from more recent studies using state-of-the-art models and techniques have significantly advanced our understanding of drought and climate change. These studies, using climate models, the observational record and palaeo climate information, have clearly demonstrated that climate change has played a role in recent droughts. In the Mediterranean, for example, declines in rainfall driven by climate change have increased drought risk across the region, amplifying recent events including the drought that preceded the Syrian civil war.”

But to cite the IPCC SR15 report directly, there is “High confidence in dryness trends in some regions, especially drying in Mediterranean region (including Southern Europe, Northern Africa and the Near-East) Low confidence in drought and dryness trends at global scale.” Could not be much clearer. There is no convincing evidence to support increasing droughts on a global scale.

And when it comes to ‘attribution’ or human causation, according to SR15, there is “Medium confidence in attribution of drying trend in Southern Europe Mediterranean region. Low confidence elsewhere, in part due to large interannual variability and longer duration (and thus lower frequency) of drought events, as well as to dependency on dryness index definition.”

Seems the UN is concealing their ‘new’ evidence! How many more billions of dollars must be transferred from the poverty stricken to the climate change industry before the message becomes clear?

According to the IPCC and contributing scientists from around the world, the claim that humans are causing global droughts by CO2 emissions is NOT supported by science, even in spite of an exceedingly wasteful prolonged attempt to do so. Now we are supposed to believe that according to the science, when it comes to droughts, global emissions are only targeting the Mediterranean area! Not only does science not support such claims, the suggestion that droughts are potentially reversible by a carbon tax, or by  transferring power and resources to the UN, is sheer nonsense. The UN would also like to control our borders for us! And the UN wants to transfer our climate funds to developing countries such as China. These are political initiatives, popular with those who seek global power at any cost.

But perhaps there is some kind of secret evidence of which I am unaware. As long ago as 2012, Climate Commissioners Tim Flannery, Roger Beale and Gerry Hueston claimed Australians are causing climate change in other countries, perhaps in the Mediterranean:

Australia has the highest emissions per person of any developed country” and “the average Australian produces emissions almost five times that of the average Chinese person and 16 times that of the average person from India,” ……….“Emissions generated in one country will contribute to the impacts of climate change in all countries”

Although I requested the scientific evidence upon which their claims were based, I am still waiting! Need to be patient, though their report was titled “The Critical Decade”.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

152 Responses to IPCC Contradicts ‘Experts’, & Pours Cold Water on Man Made (Reversible) Global Drought Hysteria

  1. Entropy

    Australia’s greatest risk factor with regard to water security is the failure to build new water storages while having a rapidly growing population.

  2. RobK

    Perhaps someone could let the ABC and David Attenborough know the good news. Oh, and harken.

  3. a happy little debunker

    During the winter months of QLD and NSW drought – temperatures were at or below the average minimum.

    After winter, those minimums have increased marginally

    But every time they bang on about ‘unprecedented’ heat waves and bushfires in QLD – realise that they are using them duplicitously as propaganda to support their Global Warming meme.

  4. Still flogging the highest emissions per capita horse. Let’s import a few hundred thousand third worlders and get that number down.

  5. Old School Conservative

    Thanks for the info Alan.
    I’m building a database of climate change facts that debunk the CC hoax, so I can be well armed in debating my sadly brainwashed two grand-daughters. This piece fits the bill.
    Love ’em dearly but they will not listen to any counter arguments, so entrenched is their belief. Their school pushes this barrow all the time.

    The most disturbing fact is not that they are brainwashed, but that they now see no good in the whole world at all. Their distress in seeing doom and gloom all around them is the main issue I want to change through challenging their world view.

  6. Harken Now

    Harrrrkk!: srsly, an angel is supposed to find this compelling commentary?

    Of course the matter of drought and drought attribution is complicated – modelling changes in rainfall patterns expected under AGW is (so we believe) pretty hard.

    But the inadequacies in Richardson’s hyperbolic analysis are obvious to anyone who gives it a moment’s thought. (Try it, you might like it.)

    Changing rainfall patterns and increasing temperature may mean lots of things, even if the global number of droughts didn’t change: a change in where droughts happen; a change in severity of droughts when they do happen (hotter temperatures means more evaporation); a long term climatic “drying out” of a region even if it’s not technically in drought more often; more droughts when they do happen broken by severe floods rather than “normal” rain (resulting in long term harm such as greater loss of top soils, amongst other problems).

    We angels have seen this for years and years: climate change deniers and conspiracy theorists keep insisting that their simplistic take on climate change shows that scientists’ statements on its effects must be wrong. Hence, for example, Andrew Bolt’s complete inability to grok that a ramped up hydrological cycle can mean both more severe droughts and bigger floods when they do come. And as for snow – well that throws you all in a spin because (like temperatures) the long term trend is lumpy, and also because you do have atmospheric water involved, meaning you can have the apparent contradiction of bigger dumps in some (colder) places due to that. As explained here.

    The denialists who use the complexity to go “ah ha” are usually just showing off their lack of understanding.

    That Alan Moran apparently finds this a compelling piece of commentary just shows his poor judgement on the whole issue, which then contaminates how seriously anyone should take his energy policy analysis. (“Not at all” is the short answer to that.)

  7. Harken Now

    Hark! – well I just spent 15 mins criticising this silly simplistic analysis but it has gone into moderation.

    Shorter version: drought attribution is complicated – modelling changing rainfall patterns is complicated.

    Even short thought should make it obvious,though that AGW and changing rainfall may mean, even if number of droughts globally stayed the same:

    changes in where droughts occur
    severity of droughts increasing when they do occur (more heat meaning more evaporation)
    more droughts broken by damaging severe floods (may mean more loss of top soil and therefore detrimental to long term fertility)
    long term regional drying even if not in technically in drought

    Denialists have for years been thinking they are clever for noticing what they think are contradictions when you have a sped up hydrological cycle. The problem lies in their over simplistic understanding (which is actually wilful) rather than in the science.

  8. RobK

    Harken,
    All that has bugger all to do with CO2.

  9. Harken Now

    Hark, OSC:

    The most disturbing fact is not that they are brainwashed, but that they now see no good in the whole world at all. Their distress in seeing doom and gloom all around them is the main issue I want to change through challenging their world view.

    Their distress is only going to be increased by seeing their grandfather a victim of shallow amateur analysis that denies scientists are right. You are part of the problem for them.

    Here’s how you make them feel better – write this on a card and read it to them: “OK, I am no expert and so I am going to trust the scientific opinion on climate change, which is overwhelmingly that its real and we should have policies to encourage low CO2 emissions. I will not vote for a party that doesn’t have good policy in this area.”

    Just an angel helping smooth over family relationships.

  10. struth

    Harken.
    They closed down an agricultural college north of Shepparton because the government withdrew funding for it, and instead put the funding into climate studies in the cities.
    The academics chased the money down there and became global warming alarmist scientists overnight.
    And laughed about it.
    No correct result, no more funding.
    Always follow the money.
    The UN is headed by a global socialist and China continues to build hundreds of coal power stations and the UN couldn’t give a shit.
    I could go on, but you are a gullible fool.
    People who don’t believe in Man made Climate change (the UN) as proved by their actions have succeeded in brainwashing twats like you.
    Free yourself from the chains of socialist propaganda turning you into such an hysterical knob.

  11. Harken Now

    Hark struth: I have a comment to you in the open thread.

    You have to face the reality one day that you in a small minority for a reason – the conning victim is you, not the vast majority of scientists. That is how the world works. The Creationists are wrong; the anti-vaxxers are wrong; the moon landing was a faked conspiracy are wrong. Denialist are wrong.

    Accept that and be happier!

  12. Neil

    so I am going to trust the scientific opinion on climate change

    Yes it is scientific opinion not fact. Science can tell us if the world is warming. But science cannot say what is the cause. Science can only give an opinion or best guess as to the cause of climate warming.

    Just heard on the radio some farmer furious at the National parks/Govt in Queensland for banning burnoffs. The fires are intense in Queensland not because it is warmer but because back burning has been reduced

  13. JC

    Denialists have for years been thinking they are clever

    Not half as clever as you, dickhead like the other day when you suggested we used wind and AA batteries in a modern industrial civilization.

    If you’ve been keeping up here, you know that my previous two posts have been “How Much Do The Climate Crusaders Plan To Increase Your Costs Of Electricity? — Part III,” and “How Much Do The Climate Crusaders Plan To Increase Your Costs Of Electricity — Part IV.” The basic issue is that the promoters of electricity from wind and solar sources don’t seem to have any idea of how big a problem intermittency poses. If you hypothesize an electricity system powered only by wind and solar sources, with batteries to store energy from times of excess generation and release it in times of low generation, how much will the costs of the necessary batteries increase your costs of electricity? It turns out that enormous amounts of energy must be stored, and the batteries become by far the driving cost of the overall system. Reasonable calculations based on currently-available battery technology, even with assumed cost declines from ongoing improvements, lead to results indicating that the cost of the batteries will increase your price of electricity by a factor of perhaps 15 or 20 or more — and that’s before solving a collection of additional engineering problems that may drive the cost up still further.

    You ridiculous clown, Harksie. You ridiculous clown, the electricity would cost us up to 20 times more. Call the Hotline.

  14. max

    Harken Now say:

    “You have to face the reality one day that you in a small minority for a reason – the conning victim is you, not the vast majority of scientists. That is how the world works. The Creationists are wrong; the anti-vaxxers are wrong; the moon landing was a faked conspiracy are wrong. Denialist are wrong.
    Accept that and be happier!”





    Conspiracy Theories:
    There are, of course, good conspiracy analysts and bad conspiracy analysts, just as there are good and bad historians or practitioners of any discipline.

    Albert Einstein No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

    Denialist have plenty evidence that Global worming is baloney, that is why do not call it that way any more.

  15. manalive

    For the country as a whole or any area you care to look at, except for the SW, the total annual rainfall trend 1910 – 2017 has increased or is stable.
    Maybe they need to build more windmills in SW of WA.

  16. Tel

    Harken the Fake Angel believes that Al Capone was a respected businessman who make a few minor actuarial errors when filling in his tax return. Anything else would be some sort of “conspiracy theory”, right?!?

  17. max

    no he is trying to say that we, Denialist are Crazy, insane, kookoo…

    and that he Harken Now is not.

  18. Boambee John

    Barken Mad

    Here’s how you make them feel better – write this on a card and read it to them: “OK, I am no expert and so I am going to trust the scientific opinion on climate change, which is overwhelmingly that its real and we should have policies to encourage low CO2 emissions. I will not vote for a party that doesn’t have good policy in this area.”

    Now that I accept the “science”, I will campaign against increases in CO2 emissions world wide. It is too important for the future of the world for so-called “less developed” countries to be allowed to increase CO2 emissions just because they came late to industrialisation.

    De-industrialise the world. Start by banning all means of travel propelled by carbon based fuels, including biofuels. No more trains, planes and automobiles.

    Fixed for you, don’t worry, no charge. Is that what you really want Barken? If so, you are even madder than it appears.

  19. The BigBlueCat

    Science can tell us if the world is warming. But science cannot say what is the cause. Science can only give an opinion or best guess as to the cause of climate warming.

    I generally agree with this, except I doubt if science can actually tell if the world is warming – there are too few points where they collect the data (at ground level or in the oceans), and those at ground level are subject to “adjustment” because of localised urban incursion and the heat that buildings themselves put out into the environment (thereby affecting the temperature measurements over time). Remember “ClimateGate” and those emails???

    The other issue relates to given that climate change is a reality (the climate has always changed), can any of the catastrophists tell us what the global climate should actually be? What should the temperature be? Moisture content? Sea level? Ice at the poles? The number of polar bears? The rate of change on any of these? How much should we spend to reduce CO2 (which is highly unlikely to be the “culprit”)? And how will a reduction in Australia’s CO2 emissions (any how many ppm is needed) to impact on global CO2 emissions? These are important questions (which are usually avoided by climate alarmists).

    It would seem that CO2 is not a significant forcing when it comes to the greenhouse effect – water vapour is the main forcing, along with the sun. And water vapour (in the form of clouds) has a dampening effect.

    We’ve always had droughts since settlement (and before that) and we should expect droughts for a long time to come. There is no evidence that I know of that the droughts we’ve had in the last two decades have been any worse than other droughts in history – their impact may have been more catastrophic since there’s more population, development and agriculture in areas prone to drought. But the climactic severity doesn’t appear to be any different (anyone have any stats on that?)

    Since climate does change anyway, we would be best served to prepare for the impacts of the change in climate, and not by spending on ineffective means to try to prevent something that is unpreventable.

  20. max

    Harken Now is using A favorite tactic of socialist:

    Smear campaign and The moral high ground campaign

    The moral high ground, in ethical or political parlance, refers to the status of being respected for remaining moral, and adhering to and upholding a universally recognized standard of justice or goodness.

    Smear campaign of personality assassination, to make the victim look crazy, to slander him …

  21. Dr Fred Lenin

    Only a fool would take any notice of anything the climate scammers say,they are the biggest liars around . Its like going to a lecture on the sanctity of the church given by a cardinal at the vatican , they only preach to the converted ,no dissent allowed .

  22. Boambee John

    Barken Mad

    Trying to satisfy the spaminator!

    Here’s how you make them feel better – write this on a card and read it to them: “OK, I am no expert and so I am going to trust the scientific opinion on climate change, which is overwhelmingly that its real and we should have policies to encourage low CO2 em is s ions. I will not vote for a party that doesn’t have good policy in this area.”

    Then continue: Now that I accept the “science”, I will campaign against increases in CO2 em is s ions world wide. It is too important for the future of the world for so-called “less developed” countries to be allowed to increase CO2 em is s ions just because they came late to industrialisation.

    De-industrialise the world. Start by b an ning all means of travel propelled by carbon based fuels, including biofuels. No more trains, planes and automobiles.

    Fixed for you, don’t worry, no charge. Is that what you really want Barken? If so, you are even madder than it appears.

  23. Boambee John

    Oh Great Spaminator, I surrender!

  24. Boambee John

    Barken

    If you genuinely believe what you proclaim, you have no other moral (angelic?) choice but to campaign against increases in CO2 emissions world wide. It is too important for the future of the world for so-called “less developed” countries to be allowed to increase CO2 emissions just because they came late to industrialisation.

    De-industrialise the world. Start by banning all means of travel propelled by carbon based fuels, including biofuels. No more trains, planes and automobiles. It is the only moral solution.

  25. The BigBlueCat

    Their distress is only going to be increased by seeing their grandfather a victim of shallow amateur analysis that denies scientists are right. You are part of the problem for them.

    Maybe they should listen to the eminent atmospheric scientists who don’t accept the consensus of the 97% who claim that climate change is down to atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

    For many of the 97%, alarmism has resulted in increased funding – cash they wouldn’t have had otherwise for the programs. It’s perhaps the “shallow amateur analysis” that CO2 is the cause of climate change that allows this – I’d rather they look beyond CO2 for other forcings (eg. the sun – oh wait, that’s has been proven).

    Climate change analysis is a complex business … but the correlation between the increase in atmospheric CO2 and climate change does not of itself prove causality. But it is consistently used by alarmists to push their position. And Australia can do bugger-all about global emitters who exceed our contribution to global CO2 output 99:1 At least the plants are well-fed.

    As a refresher, always good to watch this.

  26. Senile Old Guy

    Barking How is a troll but anyway…

    Here’s how you make them feel better – write this on a card and read it to them: “OK, I am no expert and so I am going to trust the scientific opinion on climate change, which is overwhelmingly that its real and we should have policies to encourage low CO2 emissions. I will not vote for a party that doesn’t have good policy in this area.”

    I am an expert and climate doom is nonsense. No, I will not publish my actual name and get doxxed.

    Any number of actual experts have, however, gone public and stated that it is nonsense.

    In any case, even if CO2 was a problem, Australia contributes a tiny amount to human emissions which are themselves a tiny amount of natural emissions. And Australian emissions are a tiny amount of just the increasing emissions (not total, just the increases) of China and India.

  27. Senile Old Guy

    “Australia has the highest emissions per person of any developed country” and “the average Australian produces emissions almost five times that of the average Chinese person and 16 times that of the average person from India,” ……….“Emissions generated in one country will contribute to the impacts of climate change in all countries”

    Per person emissions is utterly, irrevocably and completely irrelevant. CO2 is not a problem but, if it were, it is total emissions that would matter.

    Although I requested the scientific evidence upon which their claims were based, I am still waiting! Need to be patient, though their report was titled “The Critical Decade”.

    Since at least 1970 (actually, 1968, Ehrlich, P & A, The Population Bomb) we have had 10 years to fix things before disaster. More accurately, doom mongers have been predicting the end of days, for forever. It is a scare tactic.

  28. Kneel

    “You have to face the reality one day that you in a small minority for a reason – the conning victim is you, not the vast majority of scientists. ”

    Heh.
    Tell Judith Curry, and both the Pielke’s – these are scientists with publication records in the area.
    None of them say “AGW is crap”, but they DO say “it’s been exaggerated”.
    For instance, Pielke Jnr published on weather damage and concluded – matching the majority of previous papers – there is NO TREND once you adjust for inflation, exposure etc etc.
    Or Pielke Snr, who showed in published papers that 2m SAT is significantly affected by surface effects, so the results at 10m, 20m and 50m can be significantly different (often > 10 deg C and ALWAYS warmer at the surface).
    Or Curry, who has – ever since she dared to take SM seriously and actually investigate various claims herself – been focusing on uncertainty analysis and the complete LACK of anything remotely resembling what any statistician would call “significant”.
    None of this “proves” a hoax, or even “wrongness”, however they ALL introduce an aspect that has been downplayed – and the effect of these, in toto, is a significant question mark that the consensus seems set on ignoring. Odd really, considering that they are the ones shouting “denier!”.

    “Denialist are wrong. Accept that and be happier!”
    Instead of demanding immediate action with no plan on how to go about it in a way that works, how about starting with the small steps and working up to it? Like, “here’s our prediction for the next 20-30 years” then if that is “good enough” to convince people, THEN we start on programs that actually reduce CO2 output? Oh, we went down this path, and instead of pulling back from the dire predictions as the actual science suggests as prudent, the “believers” doubled-down and keep saying “worse than we thought!”. And worse than that, the “fixes” didn’t actually reduce CO2 output anyway, despite being mind-numbingly expensive.

    ALL of the scientists I noted above – as well as many others – have been tarred with the “denier” tag, despite the fact that all of them use the same data as the alarmists, cite IPCC as a source, and all of them can be what is classified as a “luke-warmer” – sure looks like “you’re in” or “you’re out”, and your only “in” if you agree with “the consensus” and make alarmist claims. Mann et al 98 (the infamous “hockey stick”) is the perfect example – it was the “answer” they wanted, so they didn’t check it and used it as their “poster boy” on AGW. When mistakes were found, they circled the wagons and started on the “denier” myth to cover their tracks, meanwhile quietly dropping said paper quicker than an Islamist runs from someone shouting “allah akbar!” in a crowded area of the west.
    Meanwhile Al Gore and other “loud” alarmists buy beachfront property, consume more energy than >95% of the world population (often by an order of magnitude or more), and fly around the world proclaiming the evils of carbon dioxide. That doesn’t sound like they really believe it themselves, it’s just a good yarn to help them pick your pocket.
    So step back and see the “big picture” as the alarmists keep saying, but never do with respect to any contrary evidence – as much as “positive” evidence “accumulates” and makes a stronger case, so it is with “negative” evidence. That is, the “faults”, when laid out, make a considerable dent in the AGW case. Neither side has “proof” and likely never will.

  29. Graham

    Critics please note I have sourced my information directly from ‘climate scientists’, & from the last 2 IPCC reports. If you disagree with the IPCC report, that is your privilege. However, let us be clear, your argument is with the IPCC scientists who contributed. If you feel I have misquoted the climate scientists or IPCC reports, where is your evidence?

  30. Kneel

    “In any case, even if CO2 was a problem, Australia contributes a tiny amount to human emissions which are themselves a tiny amount of natural emissions. ”

    It seems that both AUS and USA are likely to be net carbon sinks, mainly thanks to lots of national parks etc. Unlike the Euro-whingers, we haven’t already chopped down all our forests, so that helps. (Sherwood forest really did exist – until they chopped it all down for wood)

    Notice the difference: if the goal is “less CO2 output”, then we say “per capita is way too high!”, while if we wanted to show what good global citizens we are, we could quote net carbon and say “we are pulling YOUR CO2 out of the air! Don’t tell us we are bad on emissions when we are cleaning up your mess!”
    Any politician worth the moniker would jump on that in a second, if they were looking out for us plebs. None have – you do the maths.

  31. Boambee John

    struth

    Other comments in spaminator.

    Don’t waste time debating science or politics with the herald angel.

    Just point out to it that, if it really believes what it sings, the only moral (angelic?) course is for it to campaign for the immediate end to the use of fossil fuels. No more planes, trains or automobiles. Only nuclear, hydro, solar and wind power. No more burning coal, oil, gas, wood or dung.

    This is the logical end to thd song it sings, force it to own that end.

  32. max

    Here we have example of socialist baloney with Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences:

    The Depravity of Climate-Change Denial
    Risking civilization for profit, ideology and ego.
    By Paul Krugman Nov. 26, 2018

    Sorry Paul no one is denying that climate is changing.

    What is denied is The anthropogenic global warming.

    It is You Paul and your pals who change name, because no global warming happening

  33. Neil

    No more planes, trains or automobiles

    Also to make steel you need iron ore + heat + carbon. Coal provides 2 of those things. You cannot make cheap steel without coal and you cannot make steel without a carbon source. Coal could be replaced with gas, wood or anything with carbon.

  34. Entropy

    Just heard on the radio some farmer furious at the National parks/Govt in Queensland for banning burnoffs. The fires are intense in Queensland not because it is warmer but because back burning has been reduced

    To be fair it was a bad winter for backburning. Dry as a chip and predominately NW winds. Typical El Niño.

  35. Harken Now

    Hark! Get your acts together.

    Some here say there is no warming at all; some say it is warming but its not greenhouse gases; some say it is warming and it might be greenhouse gases but it will never get harmful; yet others that it is warming and is CO2 and it might get harmful but it is too early to tell yet and we should do nothing while wait another 20 or 30 or 50 years.

    Gee, an objective Angelic observer might think there is no intellectual consistency in denialism at all. All that matters is that the answer is the same – There is No Problem and We Want to Continue Burning Coal.

    You know what that points to? Ideological motivation: assessment of the science all bent towards the same conclusion.

    Now now – I can hear your croaky voices saying “it’s the scientists who have the ideological motivation”!
    But here’s the thing – the science conclusions are open to be convincingly refuted, and they haven’t been.
    The most you can hope from any climate scientist half credible (Curry, Spencer) for is a lukewarmer position, which is more based on the hope of sensitivity being at the lowest level of likely ranges, and/or some other mechanism explaining some part of warming. They don’t convince the great majority of other scientists on either of those matters. (They have been considered.)

    Hence there is a consensus and uniformity of advice that is not ideologically motivated.

    Sorry, just the way it is.

  36. RobK

    Harken,
    The scatter of IPCC projections show little resemblance to reality. Sorry that’s just the way it is.

  37. Harken Now

    Hark! RobK – you had your little thrill during the pause that wasn’t really a pause – there was never any real concern amongst climate science that it was going to last forever. More a product of the complexity of tracking where extra heat was going.

    That thrill has passed – temperatures are again clearly tracking upwards, pretty close to modelling.

    And there is no magic mark on the graphs saying “and it all stops here”.

  38. JC

    Lets all go wind farming and have a set of AA batteries handy.

  39. Bear Necessities

    Hark! Get your acts together.

    Some here say there is no warming at all; some say it is warming but its not greenhouse gases; some say it is warming and it might be greenhouse gases but it will never get harmful; yet others that it is warming and is CO2 and it might get harmful but it is too early to tell yet and we should do nothing while wait another 20 or 30 or 50 years.

    Gee, an objective Angelic observer might think there is no intellectual consistency in denialism at all. All that matters is that the answer is the same – There is No Problem and We Want to Continue Burning Coal.

    You know what that points to? Ideological motivation: assessment of the science all bent towards the same conclusion.

    Now now – I can hear your croaky voices saying “it’s the scientists who have the ideological motivation”!
    But here’s the thing – the science conclusions are open to be convincingly refuted, and they haven’t been.
    The most you can hope from any climate scientist half credible (Curry, Spencer) for is a lukewarmer position, which is more based on the hope of sensitivity being at the lowest level of likely ranges, and/or some other mechanism explaining some part of warming. They don’t convince the great majority of other scientists on either of those matters. (They have been considered.)

    Hence there is a consensus and uniformity of advice that is not ideologically motivated.

    Sorry, just the way it is.

    No it’s not ideological motivation. I want my lights to go on, my oven to warm and my fridge to cool my beer on a 24/7 basis. If coal can do that well I have no issues with it.

  40. Tom

    LOL. The troll is evidently one of the brainwashed secondary school truants demanding that the gubbermint DO SUMFINK about the Dreadful Heat™. Poor little thing. When the propaganda bubble bursts, it will have to grow up.

    Here’s your homework for today, junior: look up the founder of your dystopian fantasy, Thomas Malthus. When they invented the word “gullibility”, it had his name on it.

  41. Boambee John

    Harken the Angel.

    Sister, I believe. And because you also really believe, then the only moral (angelic?) course is for you to campaign now for the immediate end to the use of fossil fuels world wide. No more planes, trains or automobiles. Only nuclear, hydro, solar and wind power. No more burning coal, oil, gas, wood or dung.

    We all look forward to seeing you on 4Corners and Fauxfacts proclaiming your campaign to de-carbonise the entire world, not just the western nations.

  42. Boambee John

    PS, I won’t be able to join the campaign, I have to trim my toenails.

    Sorry.

  43. max

    What is climate?

    Climate is the statistics of weather over long periods of time. It is measured by assessing the patterns of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time. Climate differs from weather, in that weather only describes the short-term conditions of these variables in a given region.

    What area of expertise is required to master it?

    An understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonic, paleontology, paleoecology, Glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography ecology, archeology and history.

    Harken Now: tell me name of your so called climate scientist which have all this knowledge.

    There is no such scientist, what you have is 200 different computer models which you feed with garbage data and than you chose one that you like, which support your beliefs and give you money power and make you feel good.

  44. RobK

    And there is no magic mark on the graphs saying “and it all stops here”.
    There’s no indication of causation either. We have covered that before. The null hypothesis holds.

  45. Harken Now

    Hark:

    And because you also really believe, then the only moral (angelic?) course is for you to campaign now for the immediate end to the use of fossil fuels world wide. No more planes, trains or automobiles.

    Don’t be silly. Climate activists have been arguing for a move towards clean energy for 30 years now via appropriate policy settings (pricing carbon) and/or some direct action (because some people hoist their skirt and shout A Filthy Tax!) They know it is not going to happen overnight, but happen it must.

    How’s this for a deal: climate change denialists, the ones who for decades have squirted their inky cloud of disinformation and conspiracy in front of a number of gullible politicians, and thereby made a smoother transition to cleaner energy harder and more urgent, should be the ones first stripped of the right to electricity other than from solar panels and batteries they have to pay for. You can have an electric car, too. A vegetarian diet only, while we’re at it.

    The rest of the planet has more time to make the change, then.

  46. Boambee John

    How’s this for a deal: climate change denialists, the ones who for decades have squirted their inky cloud of disinformation and conspiracy in front of a number of gullible politicians, and thereby made a smoother transition to cleaner energy harder and more urgent, should be the ones first stripped of the right to electricity other than from solar panels and batteries they have to pay for. You can have an electric car, too. A vegetarian diet only, while we’re at it.

    No, how’s this for a deal? Those who believe lead by example. They should be stripped of the right to electricity other than from solar panels and batteries they have to pay for. You can have an electric car, too. A vegetarian diet only, while we’re at it.

  47. JC

    Hence there is a consensus

    I want to be a wind farmer.

  48. Dr Fred Lenin

    introduce an idiot tax to be imposed on gangrenes to pay for the subsidies on the renewable “energy” scam ,massive subsidies have been spent on the scams , trillions ! That could have n’been better spent by the u.n, communust fascist globalists ,paying soros ,gore,rudd,giliard turnbull,goldman sachs and other deserving comrades what a waste of taxpayers hard earned . When the brownouts come make y]the inner city and elite suburbs suffer The others need power for the industry thats left and dont use much anyway as they cant afford it they pay too much tax to keep the middle class public employees and migrant welfareists who vote alp .

  49. Tel

    How’s this for a deal: climate change denialists, the ones who for decades have squirted their inky cloud of disinformation and conspiracy in front of a number of gullible politicians, and thereby made a smoother transition to cleaner energy harder and more urgent, should be the ones first stripped of the right to electricity other than from solar panels and batteries they have to pay for. You can have an electric car, too. A vegetarian diet only, while we’re at it.

    So the mask slips … totalitarianism, threats, bullying, domination.

    This was never about science was it?

    Funny how all “Progressives” eventually come down to the same thing. Every. Single. Time.

  50. egg_

    You can have an electric car, too.

    What’s its energy source?

  51. egg_

    So the mask slips …

    The inevitable Hark-up.

  52. egg_

    How’s this for a deal:

    The (carbon) price is wrong.

  53. JC

    He’s a climate canute, Tel.

    He doesn’t seem to realize that it’s the opposite. Climate canutes like him should be the ones stripped of the use of energy use to demonstrate how much they really, really care.
    Think of the children.

    The smugness combined with sheer ignorance is astonishing. The climate canute’s solution is ruinables combined with batteries meaning the cost of energy use would rise by 20 to 30 times the present. I wonder how the average punter would feel receiving a $10,000 quarterly bill for power use and petrol going to $30 a liter.
    We’d be seeing a replay of ISIS methods with climate canutes heads sitting mournfully on fence spikes.

  54. .

    Okay Hark, can you start shilling for nukes? Ta, bye.

  55. Boambee John

    We’d be seeing a replay of ISIS methods with climate canutes heads sitting mournfully on fence spikes.

    You say it like it’s a bad thing, JC.

    I am a bit of a softie at heart, I only ask that the climate catastropharians lead by example, and live the life they want for sane people. Surely they can’t complain about that?

  56. JC

    No, not at all, Boambee. I think Harksie’s and other climate canute’s heads hanging on a spike would make for a very attractive backdrop to selfies if they ever tried to push the cost of energy up by a 20 factor.

  57. Harken Now

    Haaarrrrrk! Tel: your conspiracy paranoia is out.

    The thing is, some hyperbolic dimwit here may say that Michael Mann or Flannery or Soros or some other hate figure to Right wing dimwits should be hung, or shot from a cannon, or pushed out of a helicopter (don’t pretend people at this site haven’t made such statements) and the angels think – “what a hyperventilating maroon” . It doesn’t make us think “all denialists are motivated by an evil desire to kill”.

    A climate activist, on the other hand, might say “by rights, with the danger they represent to the future of humanity and the planet, denialists should be sent to a Gulag and let the rest of the world get on with it” and you and your dimwitted mates will go “Progressives! Socialism! Control! Evil! They cannot do science honestly! I knew it all the time!”

    When a Progressive politician, anywhere, starts promoting a policy of actually punishing climate denialists, get back to me.

    Meanwhile, stop having the fantasy that climate scientists wake up every morning and think “how today can I add to our socialist plan that WE MUST WILL CONTROL EVERYONE VIA CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY ?”

    You’d be embarrassed for yourself if you had sufficient self awareness.

  58. JC

    I’m certainly not dreaming about heads on fence spikes, Harksie. I certainly wouldn’t welcome it. Take it more as a warning that if we were made to follow your wind farming/batteries solution to the awful weather we’re experiencing :-), climate canutes like you would be begging to be sent to ISSIS as apostates because their punishment would be more humane than what you would endure. Keep that at the back of your innumerate brain stem, you ridiculous climate canute.

  59. Harken Now

    Hark: JC providing the handy example for my explanation.

    My reaction to his talking about my (very pretty) head on a spike: “what a stupid blowhard”.

    Your reaction, if a Lefty came on here saying Koch Brothers’ should be ironically drowned in one of their oil wells: “SOCIALIST! EVIL! THEY WANT TO KILL TO GET THEIR WAY. THAT IS WHY SCIENTISTS FABRICATE THE TEMPERATURE RECORD! THEY ARE ALL LEFTY SOCIALISTS! JUST LIKE HITLER!”

    See how it works? Good.

  60. JC

    France went very close this week. It wouldn’t take much to have the police force there change sides. A few of them actually did. If there was a wholesale side change those old guillotines stuck in the cupboard would have been cleaned up, oiled and sharpened for another whirl.

  61. JC

    Harksie, you appear to be frazzled by what I said, but it’s not a threat, as I too would just as horrified like you would be if your head was on a spike. Treat it more as a prediction on what would likely occur if you and your cohort of climate canutes ever try to introduce gerbiling policies racheting up energy prices by 20 or 30 times with the wind farming/battery solution. It may not occur in Australia because the population appears to be very docile. However, I could imagine a good old fashioned reign of terror occurring in various parts of the world. It’s not like it hasn’t happened before, you ignorant canute.

  62. DeanG

    Alarmist’s can’t seem to get it right. A warmer world is a wetter world, which means more water vapor and enhanced greenhouse effect. Without the extra water vapor the enhanced greenhouse effect vanishes and warming impact of doubling CO2 would be less than 1 degree C.

    If you are arguing more drought because less atmospheric moisture then you are arguing for a cooler planet. You can’t have it both ways. And if you don’t trust the modelling (who would?) then look at the geological record (late Permian, early Cretaceous) for high temperatures and much wetter climate.

    And if you really want to know about the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature look at Cambrian and late Jurassic while you are at it.

  63. Harken Now

    Hark Dean G: see my original point upstream about denialism trying to use their own over-simplifications to “disprove” climate change.

    Yes, everyone agrees that warmer temperatures have meant more water vapour.

    It pains an angel to have make such obvious statements – but a warmer wetter world overall may still capable of producing droughts in areas that previously were not drought prone – it depends on where the wind blows and where the rain falls.

    Who knows: maybe at some temperature and water vapour increase threshold that you get to a point at which it doesn’t really matter where the wind blows, every single point of land on Earth will get more rain that before. Maybe some modelling shows that?

    But on the way to reaching that temperature, changes to circulation patterns are likely to include droughts where they didn’t previously much occur.

  64. cohenite

    In 2010 the BoM and CSIRO published their Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report (DECR) stating droughts were getting more frequent and worse in Qld; here is David Stockwell’s analysis of why that is crap:

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?rep=rep1&type=pdf&doi=10.1.1.188.2528

  65. Tel

    You’d be embarrassed for yourself if you had sufficient self awareness.

    Lol Hark who’s talking.

    Go back and check who was first to start threatening people. Pretty sure you won’t find my name there.

  66. cohenite

    The trolls here are atrocious, just pathetic. You have more fun calling head prefect a dickhead.

  67. Leo G

    Yes, everyone agrees that warmer temperatures have meant more water vapour.

    Not I.
    Availability of groundwater for evaporation mediates the partition of solar radiation energy between sensible and latent heat. In drought conditions the balance shifts toward sensible heat. Warmer temperatures can imply less water vapour.

  68. RobK

    But on the way to reaching that temperature, changes to circulation patterns are likely to include droughts where they didn’t previously much occur.
    Now you are really just making shit up.
    The original premise is anthropogenic CO2 conjecture causing warming. Many other things are going on in the climate system but plucking CO2 out as the only variable and a climate control knob is patent B/S.

  69. Bruce of Newcastle

    but a warmer wetter world overall may still capable of producing droughts in areas that previously were not drought prone

    The Holocene Optimum period in Australia was wetter than now. It was also about 1 C warmer according to the paleodata.

    Which suggests a warmer Australia would be a good thing, if it happens.

  70. egg_

    A climate activist…

    Try the veal.
    CAGW is now toxic with Joe Public, how’s that activism going again?

  71. Boambee John

    Herald angel

    Who knows: maybe at some temperature and water vapour increase threshold that you get to a point at which it doesn’t really matter where the wind blows, every single point of land on Earth will get more rain that before. Maybe some modelling shows that?

    One the one hand, on the other hand, on the third hand …

    Modelling shows whatever the programmer wants it to show. GIGO.

  72. Harken Now

    CAGW is now toxic with Joe Public, how’s that activism going again?

    Projection.

    Which suggests a warmer Australia would be a good thing, if it happens.

    The IPCC has never denied that certain parts of the globe will have benefits from AGW at certain levels of warming. But (to take an extreme) making Arctic good for crocodiles again comes with a cost to other bits of the planet. To take a less extreme: if the North of Australia gets wetter overall under moderate AGW, but the south east gets clearly drier, it’s not great news for farmers in the South but still lets you say “the nation has become wetter – haha”. Again, your oversimplified nostrums are just a way of ignoring the bigger picture.

    Many other things are going on in the climate system but plucking CO2 out as the only variable and a climate control knob is patent B/S.

    First half of the sentence is obvious; the main knobs regarding climate change are denialists.

  73. JC

    I’ve never done it because I think its lowrent, but if fellas are having a little fun, so freaking what. It’s just dudes horsing around, so no biggie.

    I have two problems with the catcallers. Two 52 year old men should not be calling out to a 22 year old girl, as It’s inappropriate. I also don’t think the young guys towards the end of the vid should be calling out, “tits out”. That just goes too far.
    https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/this-woman-was-catcalled-eight-times-in-eight-minutes-20181204-p50k3u.html

  74. JC

    Harksie..

    Climate justice is what it’s all about.

    I was meaning to ask you. Global GDP is around US$70 Trillion. Where do you predict it will be in 2100 if we don’t mitigate?

  75. RobK

    The IPCC has never denied …
    No, but it has said they an make no predictions of future climate, only projections. Since these projections cannot be verified, they should not be used in policy making because you are sailing completely blind. Still, you seek to up-end the way CO2 is treated politically and thus mandate every individual on the planet to yield to taxes and technological experiments that only technocrats could dream of. Check out the termhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy
    This is what you are signing up for in a globalized world. Sleep on it.

  76. Boambee John

    There is something about Barken Mad’s frenetic style that is familiar. It reminds me of Bird in some of his incarnations.

  77. egg_

    abc: Climate change a ‘toxic brand’

    Macquarie University geographer Donna Houston:

    “Her research found that when local councillors or community members were trying to gain support for climate action, they sometimes gave it a different label, such as “sustainability“.

    “It was often easier not to refer to climate change,” she said.

    Professor Hulme — who used to work for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), who once evaluated climate models and scenario construction, now a human geographer at the University of Cambridge, claimed better politics was the only way to reduce the vitriol around climate change that has made it a divisive and “toxic brand” in some countries.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-05-02/why-science-cant-solve-climate-change/9711364

  78. cohenite

    The IPCC has never denied that certain parts of the globe will have benefits from AGW at certain levels of warming.

    Yes they have; you’re a fuckwit.

  79. Steve trickler

    40,000 parts per million of CO2 – exhaled from the lungs of that harken, every few seconds.

    It knows what it needs to do.



  80. iggie

    ‘40,000 parts per million of CO2’
    I thought CO2 was only 400ppm (i.e. .04% of the atmosphere). Or have I missed the point?

  81. Boambee John

    iggie

    I think the discussion is about the CO2 level of Barken Mad’s breath exhalations, not in the planet’s atmosphere.

    Hence the suggestion that he “do the right thing” by the planet, and stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

    All in the noble cause of saving the world of course. Such sacrifices onnthe part of the true believers all help the cause.

  82. Leo G

    I thought CO2 was only 400ppm

    We breath in air with about 0.04 percent CO2. Typically, exhaled air has 4 percent CO2.

  83. Confused Old Misfit

    Barken Now! – Junior Climate Warrior!

  84. The BigBlueCat

    When a Progressive politician, anywhere, starts promoting a policy of actually punishing climate denialists, get back to me.

    Maybe not a politician, but this was something that David Suzuki was talking about in 2013 in that he had twice urged that politicians who were “climate deniers” (whatever that means) should be jailed. But then, he’s not a climate scientist, is he? He’s just a climate activist….

  85. max

    “‘40,000 parts per million of CO2’
    I thought CO2 was only 400ppm (i.e. .04% of the atmosphere). Or have I missed the point?”

    the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’ s atmosphere is 400 parts per million.
    Human CO2 Exhalation is a whopping 40,000 parts per million.

    Harken Now should stop stop breathing to help reduce CO2 levels

  86. Steve trickler

    Take a look if you get the chance.

    You’ll twig at the message here..



  87. egg_

    Harken Now
    #2879380, posted on December 5, 2018 at 7:34 pm

    Projection.

    Do Lefties acknowledge such a term?
    Puppet troll, pechance?

  88. iggie

    Sorry Steve et al. Missed the point entirely.

  89. .

    I asked about nukes and clown boy ignored it.

    It is as though he has an agenda to push for renew-balls.

  90. .

    I asked about nukes and clown boy ignored it.

    It is as though he has an agenda to push for “renewables”.

  91. Boambee John

    Dot

    Could Barken Mad be — ta da — Alex Turdball?

  92. JC

    Dot

    Harksie wants to see some climate justice and lots more wind farmers.

  93. Harken Now

    Hark! Greenland ice melt accelerating:

    Rising sea levels could become overwhelming sooner than previously believed, according to the authors of the most comprehensive study yet of the accelerating ice melt in Greenland.

    Run-off from this vast northern ice sheet – currently the biggest single source of meltwater adding to the volume of the world’s oceans – is 50% higher than pre-industrial levels and increasing exponentially as a result of manmade global warming, says the paper, published in Nature on Wednesday.

    Greenland currently contributes about 20% of global sea-level rise, which is running at 4mm per year. This pace will probably double by the end of the century, according to the most recent models used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. How the new study affects those projections will be the subjects of future study by the authors. If all the ice in Greenland melted, it would raise sea levels by seven metres. At the current pace that would take thousands of years, but the ongoing acceleration could bring this forward rapidly.

    Don’t worry, you’ll all be dead. Your great grandchildren, on the other hand, will be looking at sea level rise causing serious loss of real estate and wondering why their denialist great granddad wasn’t worried enough to do anything to reduce the problem.

  94. struth

    Couldn’t be bothered reading Harken.
    Have you noticed how dopey he actually is and the pseudo smugness a smoke screen.
    He, like Monty cannot answer or even attempt to argue about facts.

    He “believes”

    He would have been right behind Flannery too…………………….

    Western hating socialist cockhead.

  95. Harken Now

    Hark struth:

    Huh. You are demonstrating why there is no point in engaging you in detailed science debate.

    You have pre-emptively decided that the scientific consensus is politically and ideologically driven rubbish.

    My task has been more to point out the “meta” situation: that you should consider the point that people in a contrarian, minority position on matters of science are rarely proved right.

    You have already completely lost on the matter of scientific consensus over such a period that the it is way, way more likely that you are indeed wrong.

    This is clearly making people here unhappy – you in particular, are a boiling pool of resentment and unhappiness over being on the wrong side of science.

    Your unhappiness will not be relieved (at least on the matter of climate change) until you accept you are wrong.

    So Repent and be happy. Or happier…

  96. JC

    Of course, it’s not da science, it’s cost and trade offs. In other words- the economics.

    Climate Canute thinks it’s nothing to raise the cost of energy by a factor of 20 to 30 tines and petrol at 30 bucks a litre. That’s what you end up with, with wind farming and AA batteries.

    Climate justice, now!

  97. A Lurker

    Why are you guys insisting on feeding the troll?

  98. Harken Now

    Hark JC: yep, yep. How to move to a clean energy future does involve economic and technological issues.

    Economics purity can be the enemy of the good, however. Hence, insisting that it can only be addressed by (say) a carbon tax, because all other forms of policy pushing towards the goal are less efficient is not a good tactic.

    The angels think that a multi-pronged policy approach is appropriate.

    And what is wildly wrong is using extremely rubbery economic forecasts of GDP in a 100 years’ time to argue that there is no point in addressing it because everyone will be so much richer by then.

    That’s just inane.

  99. RobK

    Harken,
    I’ll match your gardian report with thisthe Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI)

    Melting from the Ice Sheet is also measured directly at selected locations within the PROMICE project. Observations from the 18 weather stations in the melting region of the Ice Sheet indicate that the average degree of melting was the lowest recorded during the 10 years in which observations have been made(2008-2018).The southern and northern measurement stations (KPC,THU andQAS) registered the lowest amount of melting with1.3–1.9 standard deviation in relation to the mean, whilst melting at the other measurement stations was within one standard deviation. Only two out of eight measurement positions(NUKandKAN) registered more melting than normal, although these figures did not lie outside measurement uncertainties.

    And…

    As in the previous year, 2018 was yet another year with a low degree of melting of the Ice Sheet.

    You are quoting Gardian nothing burgers. Get a grip of reality sunshine.

  100. Leo G

    Have you noticed how dopey (she) actually is and the pseudo smugness a smoke screen.

    Typical job qualification criteria for CAGW consensus demons.

  101. RobK

    That’s just inane.
    Harken,
    I have a background in engineering an more than three decades experience in RE, upto 120kW installations in wind and solar, including battery storage.
    What is insane is trying to run a national grid on these technologies in the manner which it is being done. There is no chance of an outcome that will even reduce CO2 emmissions whislt sustaining a civil society in good health.

  102. JC

    And what is wildly wrong is using extremely rubbery economic forecasts of GDP in a 100 years’ time to argue that there is no point in addressing it because everyone will be so much richer by then.

    That’s just inane.

    Harken, you climate canute. Not a single economic skeptic of gerbil warming has ever initiated an economic projection 80 plus years on their own. These projections have always been made by climate canutes on your side. Our side has responded to the glaring imbecility by suggesting…. “even if we take your figures and projections, you can’t make a case for intervention and here’s why”.

    Here’s your problem, Harken, you climate canute. If you were really concerned with gerbiling, you wouldn’t be posting smug bilge in the direction of climate science sceptics. You would be advocating un-hobbled nuclear energy instead of propellers on sticks and AA battery packs. You’re not a serious person. You’re a low wattage fucking moron.

    The most recent projection from the US government suggested the following.

    – world population of 12 billion
    – low level of technological innovation.
    – Economy to be 10% smaller at the projected level in 2100.

    And with these expectations. the study projects the US economy will be 10% less as a result of gerbiling. Big fucking deal for an economy multiple times the size it is now, you dickhead.

    For all that, not one thing discussed about the positives of a warmer world. zilch.

    Stop wasting our time, you smug moron. The economics do not support the case of ruinables intervention.

  103. JC

    Harksie:

    There is no case for raising the cost of energy by 20 to 30 times because of gerbil warming. zero. You moron.

  104. Harken Now

    Hark! JC, you have heard of a attacking a straw man? That’s all you are doing.

    RobK: the Guardian is quoting from a Nature paper, not making it up themselves.

    RobK: an engineering background? We should have guessed. Engineers and geologists are amongst the worst for pigheaded certainty in their own conclusions, whether it is warranted or not.

    No one said running a nation entirely on clean energy was simple. But nor is it impossible. It is a transition, involving some big thinking and innovation as well as deployment of current technology.

  105. JC

    Hark! JC, you have heard of a attacking a straw man? That’s all you are doing.

    Agree totally. I am attacking a straw man. I’m attacking you and your ridiculous idea that industrial civilization can be carried on with propellers on sticks and a couple of AA battery packs. You’re the straw man 🙂

    And by the way, stop the fag talk and try to discuss like a semi male fashion, instead of a neutered wimp with a high pitched voice. No kidding, are there any males on you side of the divide with even one atom sized volume of testosterone, as you all sound the same…. effeminately smug.

  106. JC

    Agree totally. I am attacking a straw man. I’m attacking you and your ridiculous idea that industrial civilization can be carried on with propellers on sticks and a couple of AA battery packs. You’re the straw man 🙂

    And by the way, stop the fem talk and try to discuss like a semi male fashion, instead of a neutered male with a high pitched voice. No kidding, are there any males on you side of the divide with even one atom sized volume of testosterone, as you all sound the same…. effeminately smug.

  107. struth

    Huh. You are demonstrating why there is no point in engaging you in detailed science debate.

    Flannery,…………..shall we talk about the leading Climate scientist of the Gillard government, you thick twat?
    A western hating racist such as yourself will not want to see, and won’t allow yourself to see, or comment on all the wrongologists claiming to be experts who’s predictions have been shown to be laughable, like Flannery.
    You lot are starting to lose the whole propaganda war and you can sense it.
    The reason isn’t really Trump.
    It’s just people a lot smarter than you, who were willing to give you lot the benefit of the doubt, now realise your so called scientists are just charlatans with their noses in a trough of lies.
    The world hasn’t ended.
    The polar bears are still there.
    The Ice is still there trapping your ships of fools going down to see that there is no ice at the poles.
    The islands of the pacific have grown in size no matter how many reporters go and stand out in the bay to report sea level rise to fool dumb fucks like you.

    But here’s the real thing Australians and the whole western world are waking up to, and why you’ll be known through history as just another useful idiot for socialism………………

    The UN don’t believe in Climate change.
    Apparently is such a disaster only the western world must stop producing carbon dioxide.
    China, India get the UN’s blessing.

    I wonder why.
    If it’s such an imminent threat to the world, the UN would be screaming at communist China.
    And anyone still believing this nonsense like you, is beyond help.
    I’m not writing this to try to change your mind.
    You’re a lost cause.
    Your religion is government and your priests are parasitic bureaucrats.
    and you “believe”……………………..
    I write this for the lurkers.

  108. Bruce of Newcastle

    Everything you learned about marijuana at university may be wrong.

    Depends on how many dead people you don’t mind having.

    This energy poverty the left is inflicting upon us reminds me of The Peace War. I must read it again. The energy poverty in that novel was also imposed by a totalitarian authority.

  109. Bruce of Newcastle

    Oops copy/paste fail. The quote I meant was Hark’s:

    No one said running a nation entirely on clean energy was simple. But nor is it impossible.

  110. Harken Now

    Haaarrk Struth!

    Losing the propaganda war. Lulz.

    I suppose that’s why the side of politics with the most denialists is doing so well electorally atm?

  111. Bruce of Newcastle

    Here is what high energy prices do for you.

    Excess Winter Deaths Highest Since 1976 (4 Dec)

    * In the 2017 to 2018 winter period, there were an estimated 50,100 excess winter deaths in England and Wales.

    * The number of excess winter deaths in 2017 to 2018 was the highest recorded since winter 1975 to 1976.

    * During the winter months of 2017 to 2018, the number of daily deaths exceeded the daily five-year average for all days except 25 March. [Winter is defined as Dec to March]

    But what is particularly interesting in this latest edition is the summer mortality stats.

    Death rates in June and July, when the heatwave peaked, are virtually identical to the five-year average (which does not include this year). Actual daily deaths were 1281, against the five-year average of 1279.

    Pensioners who can’t afford to heat even one room of their house suffer disproportionately from green policies. In France even the middle class are suffering so badly that they’ve been out on the streets in the last couple weeks. Let them eat tofu, eh Hark.

  112. Old Conservative:

    The most disturbing fact is not that they are brainwashed, but that they now see no good in the whole world at all. Their distress in seeing doom and gloom all around them is the main issue I want to change through challenging their world view.

    And that’s why the millenials want to pull down society.
    Having been through the Brainwashing Curriculum, they are utterly depressed.
    That’s why suicide rates are high. Who wouldn’t want to do anything but try to escape the sordid, valueless, hypocritical, and sexually confused society we see today?

  113. struth

    I suppose that’s why the side of politics with the most denialists is doing so well electorally atm?

    Not talking about Flannery?
    Surprise surprise.

    Useless.

  114. Harken Now

    Hark to Bruce the Cold: your link about “excess cold deaths in UK” says this:

    The number of excess winter deaths in England and Wales in 2017 to 2018 was the highest recorded since the winter of 1975 to 1976. However, peaks like these are not unusual – we have seen more than eight peaks during the last 40 years. It is likely that last winter’s increase was due to the predominant strain of flu, the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine and below-average winter temperatures”.

    Uhuh. Your spin machine forgot to point out that explanation did it? Instead wanted to pretend pensioners were being taken out of their houses frozen stiff?

    Hark struth: we are beginning to doubt your not only your emotional stability but your intelligence too. You clearly have deeply held preconceptions and think all others who disagree with you are idiot Socialists bent on the ruination of Western Civilsation. There is no point debating you on the your ill conceived, conspiracy laden, details.

    But I will continue pointing out that you have lost on the science, and that is a large part of your unhappiness: your inability to understand why scientists, governments, NASA, the military, the Vatican and the majority of the electorate do not agree with you.

  115. Bruce of Newcastle

    Your spin machine forgot to point out that explanation did it?

    What do you not understand about “below-average winter temperatures”?
    I thought children weren’t going to know what snow is.
    But I’m not allowed to mention snow am I?

  116. Bruce of Newcastle

    Why are lefty climate activists who visit the Cat so often blasé about deaths of millions due to their cherished climate policies? I suppose it goes with the species.

  117. Mark A

    What a waste of time, arguing with a zealot.
    Why do you peeps do it?

  118. Harken Now

    Hark Bruce:

    What do you not understand about “below-average winter temperatures”?

    What I understand is that outside, where temperatures are taken, the temperatures were below average.

    Spin away, but the Statistician did not make any reference to indoor temperatures being below average because e-vil climate change policies were making energy too expensive to turn on.

  119. struth

    But I will continue pointing out that you have lost on the science,

    Flannery.
    The Foolish Fuckwit Followers of Flannery telling me we have lost on the science!

    The majority of the electorate do agree with me.
    By far.

    Especially in the privacy of a polling booth.

    your inability to understand why scientists, governments, NASA, the military

    FMD…………..all taxpayer funded, what aren’t you getting here?

    And the pope is a socialist, out and proud.

  120. struth

    What a waste of time, arguing with a zealot.
    Why do you peeps do it?

    As stated above, for the Lurkers.

  121. Harken Now

    Hark Mark:

    What a waste of time, arguing with a zealot.

    Accepting a well established consensus in science is not zealotry.

    Quite the opposite.

    Your inability to grasp this is causing unnecessary consternation amongst you.

  122. Harken Now

    Hark struth: We have already invited you and your kind to encourage all denialist sympathetic politicians in the Coalition to split and form their own party which has, as a fundamental platform, a refusal to do anything about climate change, for the myriad of bad reasons daily listed on site.

    Then we will see how much electoral support a party with well known politicians and with a firm “just burn coal! beautiful, cheap, lovely coal!” can achieve.

    Please, encourage this. Because while they stay in the Coalition, said politicians are killing it.

  123. struth

    Hark struth: we are beginning to doubt your not only your emotional stability but your intelligence too. You clearly have deeply held preconceptions and think all others who disagree with you are idiot Socialists bent on the ruination of Western Civilsation. There is no point debating you on the your ill conceived, conspiracy laden, details.

    Typical lefty.
    Can’t argue so declares superiority and merrily wanks away!

    Depends what subject you are talking about, but when it comes to Climate change you Harken are either a western hating socialist or a gullible twat.
    (much the same)
    Seeing you came onto this site ranting against white people and the west, and won’t dare discuss the UN’s totally support of non western coal powered stations being built in their hundreds, while claiming we have a climate emergency only the removal of western carbon can cure…………………….we have very good reason to find you guilty as charged.

  124. struth

    Then we will see how much electoral support a party with well known politicians and with a firm “just burn coal! beautiful, cheap, lovely coal!” can achieve.

    We just got rid of a PM who agrees with you.

    It’s over Harken.
    Sorry petal, but no amount of pompous bullshit will cut it, and you are doing your cause no good here, so please feel free to continue.
    Just a matter of a few Months now, at the most , and there will be a shit load of Uni students on government grants calling themselves climate scientists, lining up for jobs at Maccas.

  125. Bruce of Newcastle

    Spin away, but the Statistician did not make any reference to indoor temperatures being below average because e-vil climate change policies were making energy too expensive to turn on.

    So you acknowledge that climate change policies make energy more expensive?
    Good. Repentance is balm for the soul.
    Logic is also classical goodness.
    If…
    green climate policies = more expensive energy (as some guy called Obama said)
    and…
    there’re pensioners who are short of money, which is a great number of them
    then…
    more of them won’t be able to heat their house in winter.

    See? Easy. Even the Guardian can do that logic.

    Leftist activists show themselves over and over to be heartless elitists. You aren’t changing my outlook much son.

  126. Harken Now

    Hark! struth:

    We just got rid of a PM who agrees with you.

    And the new one – another mealy mouthed “yes we take it seriously/but not enough to have a proper energy policy” flip-flopper of the Abbott variety – is doing so well in the polls, the elections, and the betting markets.

    Mmm. A real triumph for your cause.

    You’ve taken in too many diesel fumes over your life if you think you’re on a populist winner there.

  127. struth

    And the new one – another mealy mouthed “yes we take it seriously/but not enough to have a proper energy policy” flip-flopper of the Abbott variety – is doing so well in the polls, the elections, and the betting markets.

    Mmm. A real triumph for your cause.

    We don’t want him either.
    We want the Liberal party destroyed.
    They traitorously turned left.
    The right wing majority are there and not in the minority as you think.
    It’s why Abbott was a landslide winner promising right wing policies, but barely delivering them.
    The Liberal party are more left than the majority of Australians.
    The Liberals heard from fuckwit bullshit artists, who, much like their unscientific belief in man made climate change, believed that just saying the right are a minority makes it so.
    We have a term for that.
    We call it magical thinking.
    Just saying it makes it so, in the left wing mind.
    You know, male and female are just social constructs developed by the white western patriarchy. (such scientific minds on your side of politics)
    Saying it makes it so.
    Sorry sunshine, it doesn’t
    You are displaying magical thinking with every comment.
    That’s why I don’t mind you continuing.
    The Liberal Party, much like Macron in France, are now starting to learn what their elitist betrayal of the majority of Australians (who voted for right wing policies but didn’t get them) has put them in.
    A world of shit.
    They’ve just backed down on signing the migration pact.
    It won’t be enough.
    If you think the Liberal party are the party for right wingers and conservatives, you can say it, but it’s just magical thinking.
    It doesn’t make it so.

  128. Harken Now

    Hark struth: First: thanks for the haiku which never ends.

    Second: Yes, this angel has seen everyone here state that they want to see the Liberals die electorally next year, as they think that the lesson will be obvious, and from the ashes will arise the new, glorious, Trump loving, migration panicking, climate change denying Party (either the Liberals taken over by the rabble, or a new party) to replace it.

    The problem is, oh humans of little comprehension, that the voters will have just voted for the opposite. What incentive does that give to politicians to run further away from what the voters have just said they wanted? “So, you just voted for a Centrist party that is not paralysed on energy policy by climate change deniers, doesn’t scapegoat migrants, is progressive on gay and women’s rights, and is big on funding education. Obviously, we see that the problem here is that we weren’t more clearly the opposite on each of those.”

    If you really think you’re on a winner by going all Downunder GOP, you need to encourage a split now. A push to go further to the Right after a loss to Labor will make no sense to anyone except to the senseless here.

  129. Bruce of Newcastle

    Hark – Whenever someone asks a precise poll question about costs they always find that the voters are fine will all sorts of dramatic climate action so long as it will not cost them more than $100 per year (and preferably zero).

    So the elites have to hide the costs, which is becoming harder and harder to do. Macron just pulled the wrong straw out of the plastic camel and France is rioting against climate taxes. Here there was a landslide on the basis of Abbott overturning the carbon tax (Turnbull then snuck it back in, of course).

    When the ordinary people start to feel real damage they push and push until the establishment elites either embrace what they want or a new party arises.

    We aren’t there yet, but the situation in Sweden, that paragon of the progressive firmament, is quite interesting. This article is from yesterday:

    Sweden’s Parliamentary Election Crisis

    Worth a read to examine the collision of the elites’ view of the world vs the voters’ view of life, the universe and everything. Right now the elites are tying themselves into knots to avoid another election which would let the people put in their size 12s even harder than last time.

  130. .

    Don’t worry, you’ll all be dead. Your great grandchildren, on the other hand, will be looking at sea level rise causing serious loss of real estate and wondering why their denialist great granddad wasn’t worried enough to do anything to reduce the problem.

    They’ll be free to pursue nuclear power, iron seeding, land reclamation and space exploration.

    The IPCC predicted something like 67 cm over 100 years.

    Which is utterly trivial.

  131. .

    Boambee John
    #2879622, posted on December 6, 2018 at 8:07 am

    Dot

    Could Barken Mad be — ta da — Alex Turdball?

    Could be? Near certain.

    Their fuckwit correlation has an R^2 of 0.999 and their fuckwit levels are over 9000.

  132. Bruce of Newcastle

    Schiphol Airport is 3m below sea level.
    I doubt they use submersible Airbuses.
    I wonder how they keep the sea water out?
    It’s really really mysterious.
    Maybe I should ask a lesbian.

  133. Harken Now

    Hark Bruce: yes, because little bits of Europe uses dykes, it’ll be simple to build dykes around thousands of km of low lying (and relatively poor) bits of Asia susceptible to sea level rise. [Imagine rolls eyes emoji]

    And isn’t it funny how this point called dot is all techno optimist on climate change problems being solvable once the crushing need for solutions is urgent, but is all techno pessimistic about staring it now to prevent loss of sea front, and animals, birds and humans from unnecessary death. (Also, if the IPPC has picked a low ball estimate in an out of date report, then it’s reliable. If they revise upwards, he’ll suddenly find it unreliable.)

    We angels would have thought he might have learned a techno optimist dose of reality by noticing how humans aren’t exactly watching low G basketball competitions from the Moon right now, nearly 50 years after going first going there. (We are wryly amused to see you have to settle for lesbians playing footie instead.) But hey, anything to avoid doing anything about climate change right now, am I right?

  134. Harken Now

    IPCC – you knew that.

  135. Harken Now

    ☀power forever \(^O^)/

    o()xxxx[{::::::::::::::::::> to coal ᕦ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ᕤ

  136. egg_

    sea level rise causing serious loss of real estate

    7m from the last interglacial peak?
    Pull the other one.

  137. struth

    Second: Yes, this angel has seen everyone here state that they want to see the Liberals die electorally next year, as they think that the lesson will be obvious, and from the ashes will arise the new, glorious, Trump loving, migration panicking, climate change denying Party (either the Liberals taken over by the rabble, or a new party) to replace it.

    Decent observation.
    Yet you can’t see the rain fall in large Flanneries down the east coast, and don’t question your religious masters when you can see all around, your prophets of doom have to keep adjusting doomsday forward.

    And that only western carbon upsets the climate according to the global Socialist Gutterres and his cohorts.

    To answer your decent observation regarding the left wing liberal party demise.
    We, on this side of politics are not tribal.
    We don’t support a party no matter what they do.
    We don’t do what we are told by our betters.
    We leave that to left wing drones.
    If the Liberal party have been infiltrated by the left, they are doomed.
    Cory Bernardi will pick up heaps of votes in the senate, as will one nation (although they are not very right wing) and the analysis will show a labor win not by gaining liberal votes, but by the Liberals losing them to right wing independents and alternatives.
    Yes, we will probably get a Labor government next.
    We basically have one now.
    Think about this.
    This time you freaks won’t inherit a good economy to spend like drunken sailors and wreck.
    Your infiltration of the Libs mean they are going to hand over a disaster to labor already.
    Labor have never experienced that.
    It’s crunch time.
    The country will revolt or it will die.
    The house prices are falling.
    The house prices are falling……………………………..watch that space.
    Negative gearing ……………………
    The borders reopened.
    No affordable power is already with us, so more subsidised ruinables?
    I could point out other things, but the point is, the Liberals just took a backward step because of the displeasure of right wing voters letting their local members know they were livid.
    This means the silent majority are starting to become active.
    They took down Malcom, he was way too left, and the libs knew they were in deep shit with the electorate.
    If anyone believes Tony about did it, you’re fooling yourself.
    Australians, historically are live and let live , until the situation gets dire.
    Then retaliation is merciless and swift.
    Why the Germans ended up refusing to fight if they heard Australians were in the trenches opposite.

    Your arrogance is born of ignorance.

    But keep your terrible racism out of things, and try to defend yourself on points you, like Monty, just ignore when you have no answer, instead reverting to pompous name calling as a defence, and you’ll be surprised how tolerant of opposing views, we can be.
    We don’t mind name calling if you offer an argument as well.

  138. Harken Now

    Hark! struth –

    This means the silent majority are starting to become active.

    The membership of the Liberal Party is tiny and self selecting.

    Living your cyberworld at this site gives you a false sense of unity and influence. Have you noticed Rafe saying that at meetings he has been to with fellow travellers, they actually don’t know of the site?

    The attitudes on display here fully support Kelly O’Dwyer’s concern as to the perceptions the electorate get of current conservatism – homophobic, anti-women and climate change denying – all attitudes driven by cultural views, and out of touch with mainstream, moderate views of the electorate.

    Trump as an exemplar of your culture wars didn’t even win the popular vote, and a large part of his low approval rating is likely due to people shrugging their shoulders and thinking he is solely responsible for the current high employment, when in fact the trend up was the same when Obama left. The mid terms were a very large win for the Democrats. His cultural attitudes are winning no converts – just keeping conservatives going “booyah” everything he tweets an insult.

    So, this angel is sorry to inform you again, your culture war driven attitudes are not on the rise: quite the opposite.

    The entrenched acceptance of climate change science amongst scientists is there because that is what the science is telling them. It is not culture war driven. Your disbelief is.

    You’ve chosen the losing side of history, and it makes you upset.

    Re-think, and be happy. (ノ◕ヮ◕)ノ*:・゚✧

  139. struth

    This site isn’t the site for the silent majority, Harken.
    It’s just another site.

    The attitudes on display here fully support Kelly O’Dwyer’s concern as to the perceptions the electorate get of current conservatism – homophobic, anti-women and climate change denying – all attitudes driven by cultural views, and out of touch with mainstream, moderate views of the electorate.

    Magical thinking.
    Because the left say it doesn’t make it so.

    is likely due to people shrugging their shoulders and thinking he is solely responsible for the current high employment, when in fact the trend up was the same when Obama left.

    Magical thinking.
    Fact free crap.

    His cultural attitudes are winning no converts –

    Except for large numbers of African American men, Hispanics, so this is not magical thinking.
    It’s a lie.

    So, this angel is sorry to inform you again, your culture war driven attitudes are not on the rise: quite the opposite.

    Magical thinking, assumptions not based in any fact whatsoever, by the Angel of doom.

    The entrenched acceptance of climate change science amongst scientists is there because that is what the science is telling them. It is not culture war driven. Your disbelief is.

    Fact free magical thinking.

    How do you feel about, oh ……………………Flannery.
    The fact that all these dud predictions from your experts prove it’s nothing more that cash for comment.

    I’ll try to make this as clear as I can for you.
    Your opinions are not based on facts.
    They are based on how you feel, believing in your own virtuous existence, you don’t need proof, and when the opposite reality to your thinking emerges, and stares you straight in the face, like all lefties, you ignore it.
    Hypocrisy requires you never look at yourself.
    And lefties never do.

  140. Harken Now

    Hark! struth: all I have on my side of the “facts” is 90 something percent of climate scientists; polling showing concern over climate change (although that is a very, very rubbery bit of evidence – it is extremely prone to depend on the circumstances of how and when the question is asked); recent electoral defeats for the Coalition; the Coalition that has dropped its previous energy policy polling worse than under Turnbull; Trump not winning the popular vote; the Republicans and Trump having an extremely low vote from blacks, Hispanics and Asians; and the ABC still being very popular.

    You have: Lefties are evil socialists on a long term plan to ruin the country, the globe, and to emasculate men.

    It’s sad, your challenge is limited to some things you think Flannery exaggerated. Climate science is much bigger than one guy. Climate denialism is limited to about 5, ageing, ideologically driven scientists.

    Losing. Big time. But you can change sides. At least on climate change. You can go on having private regrets about women having the vote – that’s stupid, but doesn’t harm the planet.

  141. struth

    You have: Lefties are evil socialists on a long term plan to ruin the country, the globe, and to emasculate men.

    Your first paragraph you get the “why” totally wrong
    The 90 percent of scientists should read, 90 percent of taxpayer funded, socialist approved pseudo scientists…………….

    Yes socialists are evil, especially the leaders, like Gutterres.
    It is the politics of envy, laziness and entitlement.
    They are also incredibly thick.

    Socialists are inherently collectivists.
    Something that you must be, before you can be a racist.
    Therefore, we see, again, you are a racist.
    They certainly, through envy must at all costs bring down the dreaded west, as it was successful while booting the failed socialism to the curb.
    We know lefties don’t want to emasculate men.
    Just western men.
    The only thing standing in their way.
    Statistics clearly show that if you take the female vote from the electorate, there wouldn’t be a left wing party in power in the whole anglosphere.
    I wonder why.
    Well I know why, but don’t you bother yourself with such study.

    It’s sad, your challenge is limited to some things you think Flannery exaggerated.

    He was your chief cash for comment “scientist” for Climate change in Australia.
    Pathetic.
    To be totally wrong is not an exaggeration.
    It is to be totally wrong.
    This from a man who claimed the science was settled.
    I have quoted numerous other dud predictions and fear mongering promoted byy cash for comment corrupted so called scientists, and the evidence regarding what the UN really thinks of Climate change is clear.
    Their actions prove it is no more than an attack on the west by socialist and curruptocracies who are empowered by the UN to build hundreds of new coal powered stations.
    Only a moron could not see what is going on here.
    And Australians are waking up to what’s going on, especially now they realise how much this is starting to bite.
    Thanks to Trump, it has all been exposed to them.
    We here at the cat didn’t need Trump to tell us, but as I said above this is not THE site for right wingers.
    Just an incredibly accurate site when you consider the past predictions of it’s commenters.
    Far more accurate than paid for comment pseudo scientists and celebrities have been with their dud predictions.
    So excuse me while I laugh at a doomsday believer telling everyone else to be happy.

  142. Harken Now

    Hark! struth – your ranty rants keep proving my point.

    Thanks, but it’s getting a bit boring.

    Bliss bomb to you: (ノ◕ヮ◕)ノ*:・゚✧

  143. Kneel

    ” Again, your oversimplified nostrums are just a way of ignoring the bigger picture.”

    Ah yes, the big picture.
    Ahem.
    “We must look at GLOBAL stats – local ones don’t mean anything!”
    “The north pole is melting from AGW!”
    Except that GLOBAL sea ice extent is INCREASING.
    Mention that, you are a denier and clearly have no concern for polar bears and coral reefs – both of which, I might add, managed to survive the Halocene Optimum, which was several degrees higher in temp and several metres higher in sea level.

    Yes, please do look at the big picture, because it is obvious that RICH people are more for the environment than the poor – yet your solution is not to raise the living standards of the poort, but to reduce the living standards of the (relatively) rich. This means LESS people who have the spare cash and time to actually care about something other than surviving the day.

    But it’s OK, you can ignore me because I am a denier…

  144. Harken Now

    But it’s OK, you can ignore me because I am a denier…

    Agreed!

    (You’re also WRONG on recent global ice extent.)

    Mind you, we think you’ll find more winter sea ice around Antarctica is less significant on the global weather than the dramatically less sea ice up top. Because – geography.

    And yeah, global climate change is global. Meaning a colder than average day in one part of the world doesn’t mean more of the rest of world is hotter than average. This seems a very hard concept for denialists to grasp. But that reflects more on your skill set than mine.

    Anyway, back to:

    Agreed!

  145. Harken Now

    Correction: ….doesn’t mean much if more of the rest of the world…etc

  146. egg_

    GLOBAL sea ice extent is INCREASING

    Up to three decades of cooling at the North Pole due to the AMO.

  147. Tel

    GLOBAL sea ice extent is INCREASING

    It was briefly up in 2015, and 2016 (remember when that bozo was stuck in the Antarctic?) but now it’s swung back over and gone down again. The long term trend is a very clear two tenths of stuff all, when compared to the amplitude of the very large seasonal shift in sea ice. If you want to make bets on which direction the wind blows this is as good as anything, but other than that it’s only a meaningful indicator on the very long term timescale. We need at least 100 years of data.

    DON’T PANIC!

    Make sure you know where your towel is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.