What is the authority of climate scientists?

Climate realists/skeptics often encounter the argument that most skeptics are not actually “climate scientists” because they mostly come from a range of other disciplines. The clear assumption is that there is something special about climate science that only properly authenticated climate scientists can understand. And so when the serious head counters like John Cook and colleagues do their count they draw their sample from the people who publish in official climate science journals and/or do their work in designated climate science units.

I think that assumption reflects a fundamental failure to appreciate the nature of the weather and climate science. It helps to come from a background in Agricultural Science because that has some of the same characteristics as climate science. It is not a pure discipline, it is inevitably a mixed discipline where the most rudimentary understanding calls for a sound basis in all the sciences, chemistry, physics, botany, zoology, geology with more depth in selected areas like animal production, agronomy, soil science and other specialised areas like plant pathology and entomology.

You could say the same for political economy, or simply economics the way it is practiced by the masters like von Mises, Hayek and Davidson.

The point is that a person with a background in the relevant disciplines, whether or not they have spent years in “climate science”, is well placed to form an opinion the issues if they have taken the trouble to engage with the literature for some time with the necessary scientific (critical) attitude. Bear in mind that this type of appreciation is very different from advancing the field that indeed takes years of intense application.

As for advancing the field, how far has climate science advanced in the several decades since it became a burning issue, for all the tens of billions of dollars spent on it?

Climate modelling is arguably the heart and soul of the enterprise, certainly all the things that are being done to save the planet are justified by the alarming projections of massive General Circulation Models. This appears to be a highly specialized field and it depends entirely on government funding because no private agency has ventured to spend the amount of money required to do the work.

I wrote that it appears to be highly specialised but in fact multivariate regression modelling is a common practice, especially in the service of Keynesian econometrics (how is that going these days?) It really helps to have some hands-on experience in this area and from my experience there are three things that you really need to know.

1. Running regression models is just about as much fun as you can have with clothes on.
2. Garbage in, garbage out.
3. You have to be very clever or very lucky to find out anything that you didn’t know before you started.

To conclude, can someone explain what climate modelling has contributed to our understanding of the weather. Do we have any reason to expect the projections from more advanced models to be any better than the old ones that have almost all been falsified?

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

68 Responses to What is the authority of climate scientists?

  1. MPH

    I think it is pretty clear that the climate meets all three conditions defining a chaotic system, so why are models that don’t show bounded results considered valid?

  2. Singleton Engineer

    Oh dear!

    Trying to excuse one’s lack of knowledge is not a sign of learning. Lack of knowledge of climate science does not make an expert in that field.

    Dear Cats. We have been bombarded daily for years. Today it has been a criticism of John Cook, a man I have learned to respect and admire. Step outside the circle and contemplate. Are we really smarter, more knowledgeable, because we have listened to those who have minimal actual knowledge of climate science? Or is there a possibility, indeed a probability >0.5, that sh_t is actually happening?

    I have tried hard not to take sides in this debate between unequals and to remain an observer.

    But the risks are there to see. The causes have been explained many times, by better than me and, indeed, by better than John Cook.

    Maybe I will be banned from this site for saying this, but… climate scientists have been correct for a long time now, over 150 years. The evidence is clear. It is time for change.

    We should not ignore the majority opinion of the best and brightest in the climate global science fraternity. CO2 is not only a food, it is a poison. CO2 is decreasing the pH of our oceans and doing great harm to the fish and other life forms that inhabit 2/3rds of the globe’s surface. The global mean surface temperature is indeed rising, year on year, despite technical quibbles about the measurement. The seas are rising because of the dual issues of addition of meltwater and expansion of the ocean’s water due to temperature rise – again, despite technical quibbles about single data points. This is evident despite the confounding minority of reports, few of which stand unbiased scrutiny.

    The world is in trouble due to the impact of humans. I have been part of the problem with my CO2-e emissions, as have most (all?) of us. We, the best, brightest, most qualified, in the globe’s most intelligent of species, need to do something strong and worthwhile and long term about the problems that the Anthropocene is delivering to our grandchildren and to Eden’s garden.

    Shouting at the clouds is not a solution.

    The solution will come from listening, quietly and carefully, to the true experts, the scientists, the engineers and through reading the peer reviewed material.

    In short, the world is f****ed unless we start to care.

    Could we please start to care today?

  3. Fat Tony

    Singleton Engineer

    Fuck me, you are totally, absolutely full of shit.

    You have swallowed all their bullshit totally – you are no “engineer”, just a fuckwit

  4. Confused Old Misfit

    Caring won’t change the climate a jot.
    The Anthropocene is NOT a geological time period.
    CO2? William Happer’s Statement: CO₂ will be a major benefit to the Earth
    Cliimate modelling & political manipulation? Global Warming For The Two Cultures – Richard Lindzen
    There’s two TRUE experts.
    Here’s another: Climate uncertainty monster: What’s the worst case? – Curry, J.
    Retreat to the stone age if you wish but do not expect me to either join you or finance your silly little fantasy.

  5. billie

    oh jeez

    that’s it, I’m off

  6. RobK

    Singleton Engineer,
    Atmospheric Physicist John Reid did an analysis of the temperature record. Linked from his site:

    Lavoisier Paper

    Today my paper on the statistics of global average temperature was posted on the Lavoisier Group’s web site:


    It is intended as a popular account of my paper inEnergy and Environmentwhich recently appeared on-line. Unlike that paper, it includes no equations or mathematical symbols. It examines the old-fashioned deterministic world-view of the applied mathematicians who run the climate models and compares it to the 20th century idea of “stochastic process” which more readily accommodates the scientific method.

    The underlying assumption of the  stochastic approach is that every state is dependent not on the time per se but only on previous states by a process known as auto-regression. There is also assumed to be an additional, unknown, random component called “the innovation”. This statistical approach allows the use of well established statistical methods to test for drifts and cycles in the data.

    The conclusion? There is no significant trend in global average temperature and therefore no need to look for causes. At time scales of less than a millennium global temperature variations are just red noise.


    Reid,J. (2017) There is no significant trend in global average temperature. Energy and Environment 28, 3, 302–315.

    A copy may be downloaded here .


    The null hypothesis holds.

  7. RobK

    The conclusion from John Reids original paper:

    The process which gives rise to a red spectrum flattened below a cut-off frequency is widely found in engineering and in nature. In electronics it occurs when electronic noise is fed through an RC integrator as with the bass control of an audio amplifier. In the natural world it occurs when energy is randomly stored. It is a particular sort of Markov process termed a “centrally biased random walk” and known colloquially as “red noise”. Using the techniques described above other “oscillations” such as the Pacific Decade Oscillation can also be shown to be centrally biased random walks specified by a small number of ARMA parameters. This is not surprising since the PDO is derived from a large subset of the global average temperature data used here.

    The small increase in global average temperature observed over the last 166 years is the randomvariation of a centrally biased random walk. It is a red noise fluctuation. It is not significant, it is not a trend and it is not likely to continue.

    The full paper can be downloaded here.

    John Reid

  8. Leo G

    Could we please start to care today?

    No-one here seems to care much for irony.

  9. Fat Tony you are right. There is no way he is an engineer who are required to follow a code of ethics. In Qld engineers must be registered under the PE Engineers Act Qld. Civil engineers have no clue about the engineering subjects of thermodynamics and heat & mass transfer. If they are registered civil engineers can not give opinions outside their registered area of practice required in the code of conduct.
    Anyone thinking that John Cook , the clown who dressed up as Hitler and produced the false document claiming 97% scientific papers believed in the IPCC version of climate change (when in fact it was about 34 selected papers out of 12000 and reviewed by his mates) has any skills or experience to be able to assess atmospheric changes has very little intelligence and certainly has no knowledge of engineering.
    I would call him Singleton socialist troll.

  10. Fat Tony


    I am quite aware of the “works” of John Cook.
    I am also a mechanical engineer (RPEQ, NER).
    I have, right from the beginning, seen this CAGW scam for what it is.
    It’s never been about the science

  11. Nob

    Like many, I had accepted everything about global warming until senior engineering colleagues I respected pointed out serious misgivings they had about the projections.

    This was in the mid-1990s, before there was any blogosphere to really speak of for most people.

    Up until then , I had assumed that the move to “renewables” was inevitable and tried to get a job developing that technology. I was rather shocked by the mismatch between media claims that wind and solar takeover was just around the corner – and the reality of pathetically small and intermittent output, constantly applying for grants, and the myriad technical problems that had not and still have not been solved.

    Most climate papers I’ve seen quoted aren’t about testing the projections at all, but about projected effects of climate change, taking the most pessimistic assumptions as a starting point. As such they can be done by biologists or zoologists or psychologists or even economists (none of which are regarded as practitioners of hard science) .

  12. DrBeauGan

    Singleton, you are harken, aren’t you. The same seedy dishonesty and stupidity. Go and learn something you dumbo.

  13. Pickles

    Aggies at the top of the intellectual heap Rafe? Of course we are. And getting into trouble. And breaking things.

  14. Rafe Champion

    Thanks for the alternative point of view Singleton. You give yourself away by taking Cook seriously. Enough said.

    Harken Now has apparently thrown his bomb and gone away. That is a unfortunate because more public debate on the credibility of the academies is required.

  15. Bruce of Newcastle

    Climate scientists can call themselves that all they want, but if their hypothesis doesn’t fit the data it is wrong.

    It is quite clear from Christy’s graph that very little warming is occurring – and much much less than the models project.

    That is because most of the warming last century was natural – about 85% of it. The government climate scientists ignore the two most significant variables: the ~60 year ocean cycle and the indirect solar effect on cloud cover. So they are plagued by a well known problem in multivariate analysis: omitted variable bias.

    Unfortunately for them if they did include these two omitted variables, their models would probably be a lot more accurate, but their budgets would be a whole lot smaller. About a trillion dollars smaller for the aggregate climate industry.

    The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.

  16. Rebel with cause

    I don’t believe climate scientists that burn heaps of CO2 jetting off to international talkfests. Which happens to be all of them.

  17. None

    The engineer in the family, who was trained to be 100% green: “Sustainability is crap. It defies the laws of physics.” #winning

  18. I study and talk about climate all the time, it’s especially important for me when planning my bush trips. I’ve been doing this for over 40 years. To that end, I’m a climate scientist.

  19. md

    But, as Armstrong and Miller tell us, if your modelling doesn’t comply with the authoritarian Left’s narrative, you could be in big trouble:


  20. Delta

    Singleton Engineer,

    I suggest you read the 2018 Annual Global Warming Policy Foundation Lecture by Richard Lindzen titled “GLOBAL WARMING FOR THE TWO CULTURES“.

    Before you shy away from reading just note that “Richard S. Lindzen was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology until his retirement in 2013. He is the author of over 200 papers on meteorology and climatology and is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences and of the Academic Advisory Council of GWPF.” So perhaps by your implied “standards” he is someone who is worth listening to.

    Lindzen’s conclusion:

    So there you have it. An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization. What we will be leaving our grandchildren is not a planet damaged by industrial progress, but a record of unfathomable silliness as well as a landscape degraded by rusting wind farms and decaying solar panel arrays. False claims about 97% agreement will not spare us, but the willingness of scientists to keep mum is likely to much reduce trust in and support for science. Perhaps this won’t be such a bad thing after all – certainly as concerns ‘official’ science.

    There is at least one positive aspect to the present situation. None of the proposed policies will have much impact on greenhouse gases. Thus we will continue to benefit from the one thing that can be clearly attributed to elevated carbon dioxide: namely, its effective role as a plant fertilizer, and reducer of the drought vulnerability of plants. Meanwhile, the IPCC is claiming that we need to prevent another 0.5oC of warming, although the 1◦C that has ooccurred so far has been accompanied by the greatest increase in human welfare in history. As we used to say in my childhood home of the Bronx: ‘Go figure’.

    Now read it all and then justify your (irrational) outburst if you think you can.

  21. Louis Hissink

    The odd thing is that global warming has never occurred in the past, so there is no physical basis for making an extrapolation, especially when the weather system is non-linear and chaotic. Predicting chaos is in the realm of prophesy.

    It’s thus useful to study the Old Testament and read how our ancestors had to deal with climate changes caused by the gods to realise that concern with climate seems a priestly thing to do.

    Climate scientists are priests to whom none may be compared.

  22. Herodotus

    From James Delingpole’s The $38.4 Trillion Ransom Note:

    “But as Dennis Ambler notes in the damning special report below, very few of the people who compiled the IPCC’s latest Summary for Policymakers could properly be described as climate scientists. Many are geographers, energy analysts, economists, sociologists, engineers, sustainability experts, and eco-psychologists – often with considerable UN and World bank affiliations.

    Ambler’s report is a treasure trove of detail revealing the vested interests and groupthink so prevalent among the IPCC’s Lead Authors. These people are not scientists as most of us fondly imagine scientists should be: dispassionate seekers-after-truth. Rather, they are passengers on the global warming gravy train, shills of the Climate Industrial Complex.”

    More at Breitbart London on this crew.

  23. Herodotus

    Personality can engineer singleton status.

  24. At some point about fifty years ago the colloquialism “It’s not rocket science” came into being.
    But there is no such thing as “rocket science”. Science is a process, and rocketry combines a variety of skills and knowledge gleaned from physics, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, etc.
    Consequently, there is no such thing as a “rocket scientist”.
    Because this colloquialism implied “smarter than anyone else”, the greatest scam in the history of mankind latched onto this concept that only the fictitious “climate scientist” (in fact an activist) should be allowed to offer an opinion about “climate”.
    Since the term “climate” is used to compare the weather of one region with another, there is no more a ‘global climate’ than there is a global language or a global currency.
    Hence one can draw the conclusion that a self-styled “climate scientist” is simply a fool so ignorant that he or she does not even understand the meaning of the term “climate”.

  25. Mark M

    Forster: “The biggest uncertainty in our climate models has been their inability to simulate clouds correctly. They do a really bad job and they have done ever since they first began.”


  26. egg_

    No-one here seems to care much for irony.

    Presumably, he’s protesting at all those coal mines in his backyard in the Hunter Valley?

    How’s Redbank power station’s Blockchain power source proposal going?

  27. egg_

    CO2 is not only a food, it is a poison.

    Anything is a poison in the right quantity – we’re not at a CO2 max by a long shot; evidence is that current CO2 levels (largely derived from volcanoes, the original source of all the world’s CO2) is currently Greening* the planet.

    *Damn all that satellite temperature and forestation data!

  28. Biota

    What are the odds that the motivation behind the latest IPCC panic is that somewhere they know that cooling is coming and if they don’t get the destruction of capitalism/shifting of wealth to the corrupt third world underway fast the game will be up. If their programs are in place when cooling happens they can point to these actions and say we done that, saved you all!

  29. Sago

    I too went along with the warmist theory in its fledgling years.What changed me into a full blown sceptic were two events.The first was the seemingly overnight rebadging from Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming into Climate Change.I then found out the IPCC were a United Abominations construct .It was then I started to dig deeper and question a lot of the propoganda.At the time CO2 levels were at 280 parts per million and now at more than 400 ppm.How many tipping points have we passed?Was the 350 org name derived from a tipping point of 350 ppm..?I now see that in this post that John Cook is credited with the 97 percent of climate scientist believe mantra.My recollections are that this figure was first promoted from a thesis from a Phd student (Dolman and Zimmerman) who sent a questionaire out to more than 10000 scientists.Can’t remember how many responded but the final figure was 75 out of 77 climate scientists believing in man made global warming from CO2.It was strange that the first question “Do you think the Global temperatures have risen in the last 200 years” and that 10 percent said no to that question and were subsequently culled.Even I think it has risen albeit in a very small amount.I think Cook did his redo some time later after people started to question the assumptions made from the Zimmerman thesis from such a small sample size.As stated above he trawled through papers written by “Climate Scientists” and surprise,surprise also got a figure of 97 percent.What surprises me is the number of people when quoting the 97 percent think John Cook was the originator.Methinks “too many Cooks spoilt the broth”.

  30. egg_

    If their programs are in place when cooling happens they can point to these actions and say we done that, saved you all!

    Likelihood: 100%!

  31. cohenite

    Climate modelling has profoundly contributed to our understanding of the weather by showing CO2 has little to no effect on it.

  32. egg_

    The engineer in the family, who was trained to be 100% green: “Sustainability is crap. It defies the laws of physics.” #winning

    Renewballs are Junk Engineering.

  33. egg_

    The engineer in the family, who was trained to be 100% green: “Sustainability is crap. It defies the laws of physics.” #winning

    Renewables are Junk Engineering.

  34. cohenite

    Today it has been a criticism of John Cook, a man I have learned to respect and admire.

    Cripes; surely you must be taking the piss.

  35. Is it Singleton Engineer or Sanitary Engineer? There’s a lot of crap being collected and spread about.

  36. Confused Old Misfit

    #2837855, posted on October 13, 2018 at 9:52 am

    Is it Singleton Engineer or Sanitary Engineer? There’s a lot of crap being collected and spread about.

    Full marks bemused! Full marks!!!

  37. John Bayley

    If their programs are in place when cooling happens they can point to these actions and say we done that, saved you all!

    I think that’s actually not even necessary any more. Witness the ‘cooling’ of past temperature records due to data ‘adjustments’, which has become so widespread that even our very own BoM is onto it.

    So by making the past colder, there will always be temperatures in the present that are ‘worse than we thought’.

    Remember: ‘Whoever controls the past, controls the future!’

    Orwell was a prophet.


  38. Singleton Engineer
    #2837641, posted on October 12, 2018 at 10:10 pm

    In short, the world is f****ed unless we start to care.

    NO, the World is fvcked because carpetbaggers pretending to care have fvcked it up.

    Could we please start to care today?

    NO and NO. Now fvck off you gulible unscientific fvckwit. Arsehole exactly like you have caused enormous damage and have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of poor people desperate for electricity, still cooking over animal dung fire with a baby strapped to their back.
    Millions of kids can’t read a book after sunset because of fvckwit enablers like you.
    Blood on your hands arsehole. Fvck off.

  39. Flick

    I knew that Tim Flannery is a palaeontologist, I didn’t know until I checked his Wikipedia page that his first degree was in English.

  40. Harken Now
    #2837970, posted on October 13, 2018 at 11:59 am
    as to explain why your beloved coal fire power plants (and many miles of power line) have not arisen like mushrooms, as you assume they would naturally were it not for, what, the Blessed James Hansen?

    If you weren’t a partisan lemming, you’d have taken 30 seconds to find basic info such as these…



    It is PRECISELY because of the Gerbil Warmening scam/fraud that poor countries have been denied cheap and abundant base load power. You utter UTTER MORON.

    Do thou think that some crushing authoritarianism of the United Nations is leading to this?:

    Like I said, utter moron.
    When the IMF and World Bank deny developing countries loans for coal powered generation, but readily hand over money for ruinables, what do you think poor nations are going to do, say no?
    Where do you think some of the Kyoto and Paris money goes to? It goes to boondoggles like the ones you linked to.

    Nations that don’t need loans from IMF or World Bank ARE building coal powered generators by the hundreds.


    You’re a low information fvckwit of the highest order. Preach your religion to someone else. I’ve dealt with warming mongers like you for over a decade.

  41. Confused Old Misfit

    There’s a sucker born every minute!
    Harken Now, come on down!
    This is YOUR minute!

  42. egg_

    The report added: “Bangladesh is the world’s largest market for solar home systems, and other developing countries (e.g., Kenya…

    After they slaughtered whitefellas and their whitefella magic electric power?

    UN – come on down!

  43. Tel

    …as you assume they would naturally were it not for, what, the Blessed James Hansen?

    Yet another cement head trying to pretend the RET does not exist.

    The RET scheme operates by allowing renewable energy power stations and owners of small‑scale renewable energy systems to create a certificate for each megawatt-hour of eligible renewable electricity they produce. Liable entities (mainly electricity retailers) acquire certificates created by renewable electricity generators. Certificates are surrendered annually to the Clean Energy Regulator (the Regulator) to comply with the RET and avoid payment of a shortfall charge.


    Shorter explanation: if you don’t buy their magic renewballs dust you get hit with a penalty charge, which is the ONLY thing that makes coal power uneconomical. Total and complete government market manipulation.

  44. Rafe Champion

    Who said it is just for want of coalfired power alone?

    Do some more research on Nigeria.

    Thanks to Trump there is pressure on major lenders to fund coal fired power stations around the world. Among the 1600 or so in the pipeline there are third world nations with projects under way and there will be more.

  45. egg_

    Damn China and India for trebling their coal fired capacity!

  46. Up The Workers!

    Somebody who skulks in the shadows about the back alleys of academia and whispers: “Pssst…gimme all ya cash, or Earth-Mother Gaia gets it!”, doesn’t need a scientific background. All they need is a typical Leftard’s attitude that obtaining money by menaces is a damned sight better than studying or working for it; and also they need a foolish Leftard misgovernment with far more dollars than it has sense.

    No degrees there, lest they be in the field of “Humpty Dumpty”, “Noddy and Big Ears”, and particularly “Chicken Little”. The same crowd of money-gouging fraudsters not so long back were shamelessly telling us with straight faces that unless we handed them all our hard-earned tax dollars, we would all freeze to death in the next killer Ice Age which was only just around the corner. The “scientology” was settled. Lay down misere.


    All of the biggest global fraudsters in the gerbil worming apocalyptic catastropharianism scam, have bought themselves multiple multi-million dollar waterfront beach houses and investment properties, so THEY evidently don’t believe a single word of all the gillarding they are dispensing to the rest of us, or they’d all be building on top of Mount Everest.

    Who wants gratuitous meteorological advice from a Political Party too dumb to spell its own name correctly?

    The writer above is no “Singleton Engineer” – he is just a “Simpleton Engineer” from A.L.P./Get-Up who evidently studied literacy at the same Labor(sic)-run institution where Wayne Swan studied arithmetic, sprouting today’s “group funk” message for the masses of gullible, cashed-up peasantry.

  47. RobK

    Times of India.

    NEW DELHI: Even as India has made a considerable push towards renewable sources of energy keeping in view its Paris Agreement goal, the country’s dependence on coal as primary source of energy will continue as its ‘social cost’ is quite less as compared to that of solar and wind.

    The government has brought in the ‘social cost’ element in its latest Economic Survey which noted the 

    importance of renewables

     but suggested a cautious approach, saying investments in 

    renewable energy

     be made at a “calibrated pace” looking into the total cost accrued to the society.

    The ‘social cost’ is calculated while factoring in private costs of electricity generation, opportunity cost of land, health costs as well as the costs of stranded assets of the conventional energy generation plants if it become idle due to shift to renewables.

    The survey calculated the ‘social cost’ of renewables at Rs 11 per KWh which, it claimed, is three times that of the coal in 2017 and the gap would reduce only when the country progresses towards the year 2030.

    Our pollies are asleep. India cant do RE cheaper than coal but our grafters claim they can. I believe the Indian calculation to be loser fo the mark.

  48. RobK

    The article goes on:

    The government’s chief economic advisor Arvind Subramanian, while delivering Darbari Seth Memorial lecture on last Thursday, too spoke about this scenario when he noted that the coal continues to be “a very cheap way of providing energy to hundreds of millions who are still energy-deprived”.

    He said though renewables were part of the energy answer, it came with “hidden cost” which must not be overlooked in the country’s headlong embrace of renewables.

    Subramanian suggested to factor in the ‘social costs’ of both renewables and coal before taking any decision and said, “Current bids on renewables are not especially revealing or informative about the true costs because of extensive subsidies (implicit and overt, awarded by centre and states) and strategic behaviour by producers.”

    The Economic Survey too noted that the low tariffs, witnessed recently, have been partly a result of government subsidies\tax holidays and other incentives.
    Though the survey constantly referred to India’s commitment to fulfil its pledges made under the Paris Agreement on climate change, it stated that the first goal for India is to provide energy access to its entire population and bridge the “development deficit gap” by tapping all cleaner sources — an indication that the country may also move fast towards using nuclear energy for electricity generation.

    India, under Paris Agreement, has committed to produce 40% of its electricity from non-fossil sources of energy by 2030. It, therefore, planned to scale up its targets for renewable energy capacity addition from 30GW by 2016-17 to 175 GW by 2021-22.

    In his welcome address on the occasion of the Darbari Seth Memorial Lecture, Ajay Mathur director general of TERI noted that the think-tank’s recent report on energy transitions in India has found its way in the second volume of this year’s Economic Survey
    which elaborated in detail the dynamics between the renewable energy and fossil fuels in the country’s energy mix in the years ahead.

    The Lecture series was initiated by TERI in 2002 in the memory of the Institute’s founder and noted technocrat-industrialist, Darbari Seth. Many eminent persons including N R Narayana Murthy, Anand Mahindra, Mukesh Ambani
    and Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw had participated in the lecture series in the past.

    We should do a bit of nuclear power too.

  49. Herodotus

    Nuclear isn’t a “fossil fuel”. That’s coal and gas, and oil.
    So how about it?
    No? then just FOAD.

  50. egg_

    Nuclear isn’t a “fossil fuel”. That’s coal and gas, and oil.
    So how about it?

    Da eebil half-life of da waste.
    /Greenoid at work

  51. min

    The Energiewende audit found that renewables in Germany were too expensive. They shut down the largest pumped hydro system , turbines are falling down or not working . Subsidies are suspended and they are building HELE power stations that will use lignite.
    What I cannot understand is that politicians ignore a country who has been a promoter of renewables with a lot of technology experts who have not been able to develop reliable batteries and plan to go down the same path. Thousands have lost their jobs .

  52. billie

    OMG you folks are so easily trolled!

  53. Nob

    It matters not what you think about what the climate will be.
    It’s completely irrelevant.

    Nothing Australia does will make any net positive difference, but the current policies are making a big net negative difference.

    The use of hydrocarbons and coal worldwide will continue to rise, negating any attempts to stifle them – which in any case will lead to worse outcomes than any temperature rise.

    That is because only hydro (where geographically possible) and nuclear are technically adequate to replace coal and only at much greater cost and lead time.

  54. .

    Maybe I will be banned from this site for saying this, but… climate scientists have been correct for a long time now, over 150 years. The evidence is clear. It is time for change.

    Total bullshit, the records have been MADE UP (“cleaned, homogenised, etc”), the statistical modelling is invalid (no proper treatment of cointegration) and the models don’t consider the solar forcings and so on.

    We’ve already lived through several predictions of catastrophe, none of which have come true.

    Doc Patch’s stuff about the glaciers was a typo out by 270 years.

    There is no meaningful warming, no harm has come so far and we have the tech (nuclear) to deal with it anyway.

    The idea that the West taxing itself into penury and providing baseload power with renewables is horrifyingly dumb.

  55. .

    The fact is, the mainstreamers look at the graphs and figures produced by the likes of Spencer, and point out exactly how they are misleading. But it seems you are past Googling to see if the claims of a denier are not quite legit.

    No, you’re lying.

  56. Nob

    There was no such thing as a “climate scientist” 30 years ago, let alone 150 years ago.

  57. .

    There is no tragedy of the commons because there is no externality.


    The raw data, i.e. reality, says that you are wrong.

    Anything else is fraudulent.

  58. stackja

    Scamsters created ‘climate science’.

  59. RobK

    Angels from heaven are speaking to us about rocket science?

  60. .

    Oh dear: the need for and propriety of data homogenization is something that Earthly climate scientists have explained over and over again.

    Every other academic endeavour considers it fraudulent.

    They’re not explaining, they’re lying.

    Why homogenise data? Why lie? Why cheat and steal?

  61. .

    “Harken Now” also has absolutely no statistically literacy and when he read ‘Cointegration’ before, his eyes just glazed over.

  62. Rafe

    Good news Will Happer is Trumpie’s science advisor!

  63. .


    Do you know of ANY field of study other than climatology where it is standard procedure to clean, homogenise and adjust data?

  64. Leo G

    Do you know of ANY field of study other than climatology where it is standard procedure to clean, homogenise and adjust data?

    Financial data fraudulent adjustment schemes?

  65. RobK

    it’s not to be taken as serious analysis?
    More so than an analogy of a man on a railway track.

  66. RobK

     They are Blessed.
    As the IPCC embodies the persecution of CO2.

Comments are closed.