Comment – two recent developments

Two recent items have been underreported in the media but in our opinion have significance.

A recent paper by scientists, many of whom are associated with the IPCC, acknowledges the pause in the rise of global temperatures and the inaccuracy of the computer models on which the climate change movement is largely based.

The main effect of the acknowledgment is that it is no longer possible to maintain there is a direct link between man-made carbon dioxide and a rise in global temperature.

The second is a speech by President Trump on 29 June 2017 at the Dept of Energy.

Some features of the speech were an encouragement for the development of coal and natural gas as well as expansion of the nuclear energy sector, reference to the withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement and the repeal of numerous regulations that hindered the development of energy resources.

In summary, the goal is for the US  to be not only energy independent but also an energy exporter.

For us, this raises questions for our country, Australia. How long will we be stuck in past with phony scares about climate change and unnecessary laws, regulations and targets that restrict development and raise power prices?

Comment – US withdraws from the Paris agreement.

President Trump has withdrawn the US from the Paris Agreement fulfilling one of his major campaign promises. The decision is made more impressive given the considerable pressure he was under to remain.

There has been a big reaction, much of it bordering on the hysterical. But nowhere in this reaction have we seen acknowledgement of some basic facts.

  • China and India, two of the world’s highest emitters, are able to increase their emissions under the terms of the Paris agreement while the US is obliged to reduce its emissions.
  • The evidence suggests that even if all parties adhered to their promises the result would be a reduction in global temperature of a small fraction of 1 degree.
  • The stated goal of keeping temperature rise to less than 2 degrees appears to be nothing more than a marketing tool and does not seem to be linked to anything.
  • The bulk of the cash payments through the Climate Fund would be from the US.

This website congratulates President Trump and hopes this decision will go part of the way in taking politics out of the climate debate.

What seems to have been lost over the past decades is the importance of a scientific approach. What is the hypothesis? What is the evidence based on objective experiments and observations? Irrespective of existing beliefs and agendas, what conclusions does the evidence point to?

Comment – Merry Christmas!

Among other things, Christmas represents a new beginning.

This website hopes 2017 will, among other things, begin the reform in the area of climate change with the restoration of genuine science and the decline of politicised science.

Merry Christmas to all and particularly to the regular visitors to this website.

(c) Can Stock Photo / derocz

normal posts continue below this message

Comment – a politician exercises his right to silence!

Comment by admin – I’m a voter and I sent an email to the Australian Minister for the Environment, Mr Greg Hunt, on 16 Dec 2015 and again on 20 Jan 2016 asking the following questions;

1. At the Paris agreement, why has Australia pledged to reduce its carbon emissions by 26-28% by 2030 while under the agreement China will continue to increase its carbon emissions by a significant amount during the same period?

2. How much has Australia promised to deposit in the Green Climate Fund?

3. Taking all Australia’s commitments on climate change together, what effect will these have on the world’s temperature?

So far, not even an acknowledgement!

Comment – adapting to a change of climate

The Australian federal government has proposed a restructure of its science agency, the CSIRO, to place more emphasis on practical measures rather than environmental research.

But the proposal has met resistance including University of Melbourne earth scientist Kevin Walsh who said: “It is incorrect to say that the climate change science problem is solved, and now all we need to do is figure out what to do about it. No working climate scientist believes that.”
The Australian, 5 Feb 2016

It seems that if you ask questions about climate change you’re told that the science is settled.

But if you want to trim the budget of a government science agency you suddenly find that the science isn’t settled.


Comment – The Paris agreement

This is primarily a humorous site however from time to time we include an editorial comment.

As we read it, the Paris agreement acknowledges that even if all countries meet their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) greenhouse emissions will continue to rise, not fall. (paragraph 17)

At the start of the current climate change alarm we were told that manmade carbon dioxide directly causes dangerous global warming.

But while CO2 emissions have increased for past 60 or so years global temperatures have not followed the predictions. They have in fact flatlined for about 18 years. Other predictions have similarly not occurred, such as an increase in the frequency and seriousness of extreme weather events.

So it would seem obvious there is something seriously wrong with the theory.

In our view the position is the same as before the Paris agreement, namely the evidence doesn’t stack up.

Comment – new category – “in their own words”

The time when global warming / climate change was a purely scientific question has long since passed.

Calls for criminal sanctions on people who hold a different scientific opinion are as clear an indication as any that we are no longer in the realm of the objective search for scientific truth.

In this light we’ve created a new category – “in their own words”.

For those who wish to place the quotes in context then as far as is possible we will provide either a link to or details of the original source.

Comment: climate change and the madness of crowds

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”

This is from the preface to ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds’ by Charles Mackay, first published in 1841. The book chronicles popular follies, including the South Sea stock crisis and other economic bubbles, witch trials, fortune telling, alchemy and many others.

Particularly relevant to today’s belief in catastrophic climate change are the several instances of “terror of the end of the world”.

Around 1000AD a belief spread that the return of the messiah was imminent. Many headed towards Jerusalem in numbers “so great that they were compared to a desolating army.”

“Every phenomenon of nature filled them with alarm. A thunderstorm sent them all upon their knees in mid-march. It was the opinion that thunder was the voice of God, announcing the day of judgment…. Every shooting star furnished occasion for a sermon, in which the sublimity of the approaching judgment was the principal topic.”

This website maintains the book is compulsory reading for those attending the Paris climate conference at the end of the year.


Comment: Encyclical of Pope Francis

This is primarily a humorous website however from time to time we make a serious statement expressing our opinion. Normal postings continue below this comment.

We understand an encyclical is spiritual guidance from the Pope to his bishops and as such it is not binding on Catholics who are free to disagree with the Pope’s opinions.

While we generally prefer not enter discussions about religion, in this case we believe the problems with the encyclical make it worthy of comment.

Firstly, the satellite and balloon measuring data indicate there has been no significant global warming for the past 18 years or so. The recent article by Karl and others to the contrary is the result of cherry picking and manipulating the data rather than any change to what we know.

Secondly, with so many variables involved in the global sea level it is not credible to link it to greenhouse gases. Some of the other factors are land rising or falling by tectonic shifts, recovery since the last Ice Age, sedimentary build up and subsidence, etc.

Thirdly, there is no evidence that extreme weather events have increased in frequency or severity in the past 100 years, as tragic as those events have been for the people involved.

Fourthly, while no one disputes the level of carbon dioxide has increased or that the Earth has warmed slightly, the crux of the heated and intense debate is the extent to which the former has directly caused the latter. The evidence at present is inconclusive.

But the great irony in all of this is that energy restrictions following emissions reduction measures will most likely harm the world’s poor the most.

We do not doubt the Pope’s sincerity however for several reasons we believe it is unfortunate he decided to enter climate change politics.


Policy decision regarding the views of climate pause deniers

After careful consideration this website has made the following policy decision.

Given the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence in favour of the 18 year hiatus in global warming, this website will no longer give coverage of the views of climate pause deniers.

This announcement will remain in place for a few days. Future articles will examine whether climate pause denialism should be regarded as a form of psychological pathology.