Josh writes: Last night Matt Ridley gave the Global Warming Policy Foundation annual lecture titled ‘Global warming vs global greening’. Here are my cartoon notes.
You can read Matt’s text and slides here.
Josh writes: Last night Matt Ridley gave the Global Warming Policy Foundation annual lecture titled ‘Global warming vs global greening’. Here are my cartoon notes.
You can read Matt’s text and slides here.
One of the best ways to fight back is humor, make them Piltdown men. Laughingstocks in science.
Jeanp – like this from 2012?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/06/josh-on-manns-jurassic-moment/#comment-914809
Book Review:
“The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines ”
by Michael “Piltdown” Mann
As has become the accepted practice when reviewing books about the politics and science of global warming, I did not bother to read the book.
One of the best measures of the quality of a scientific hypothesis is if it can be used to correctly predict the future – in this instance the magnitude of global warming.
The IPCC and its global warming minions predicted dangerous runaway global warming would be clearly evident by now, and yet there has been no net global warming for about a decade. Oops!
The warmists also said that weather would become “wilder”, such that extreme weather events would occur more frequently. This has not happened either. Oops again!.
The problem with books written by global warming alarmists is their lack of any credible predictive track record. Every very-scary prediction by global warming alarmists has failed to materialize. The warmists have a perfect-track record – of being dead wrong!
So if you want to waste your money AND your time, then buy this book and read it!
If you want to destroy your scientific credibility, repeat its false conclusions to your friends and pretend you know what you are talking about.
Finally, if you want to destroy your net worth, go buy some beachfront on the Arctic Ocean, in anticipation of the day when your land will become prime recreational real estate, aka “Malibu North”, and ask your friends to co-invest with you.
🙂
Breaking news, http://www.michaelsmithnews.com gets spiked by google.
Today the investigative journalism site central to investigations into Australian aspects of Gillard and Clinton alleged wrongdoings has been effectively made invisible by google. The disappearing of the site follows michaels recent publication of criticism of google for using it’s anti phishing tools to block MSN searches in Google Chrome back in 2014. Does this have anything to do with the documented cosying up between the Clinton Campaign and Google, Make up your own mind, meanwhile if you have a public website please list http://www.michaelsmithnews.com to help circumvent Google, and link to his site on social media. ANTHONY?
Assuming this has been done by deleting his rank information it might be possible to help michael restore his ranking by visiting his site.
Note that MSN used to top google listings for the search terms “michael smith news” but now doesn’t rank: Some odd things are transpiring.
I just googled ‘michaelsmithnews’ and got around 23000 hits. It doesn’t seem that invisible. What am I missing?
Answered my own question.
http://www.michaelsmithnews.com wasn’t on the first page of links provided by the google search. That is indeed disturbing.
nor the second, nor the third ……
how far down you have to go on a search for that very specific three word search to get anything that returns a link to the site.
Looks like a total ban to me. Too much traffic controlled by too few players. NOT good.
Also looks like his Youtube video about Clinton is blocked.
I stopped using google years ago because of the way they skew the search results.
Indeed very frightening – every generation seems to get their own fights for freedom.
“It can’t happen here” is always wrong – a dictatorship can happen anywhere.”
― Karl Popper, Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography
I was warned about the censorship of Google a while ago
It´s time to select a new search engine: “www.michaelsmithnews.com” comes up first when I search for “Michael Smith News” on the search engine: http://www.duckduckgo.com
Google (i.e., founder Zuckerberg) wants Clin-con the Rubberstamping Parkinson’s Patient in the Whitehouse to keep its enviroprofiteering profitable (on the backs of taxpayers and power rate surcharge payers):
(Source: http://www.cnbc.com/2014/02/14/a-huge-solar-plant-opens-facing-doubts-about-its-future.html )
btw: last August or so, I noticed that “Jeopardy” regularly featured (features?) clues with a pro-AGW answer (or pro-solar power or pro-wind) and at least once “What is Google” was an answer. It’s an ABC television show, fwiw. Poor Zuckerb. the smirkingly obnoxious face God gave him says it all: it’s all about me. Follow –> the –> money.
And, there you are.
The alternative search engine DuckDuckGo shows “michaelsmithnews” right at the top – a page full as a matter of fact. The cancerous censors have not (yet) infected duckduckgo.com the way they have with google.
Zuckerberg = Facebook
But other than that …
Oh, thank you, John Hultquist. I JUST realized that and came back to correct myself. I thought, “Well, probably no one bothered to even read what I wrote, but, just in case….” and you READ what I wrote! Yay. (*blush* mistake and all). Yes. Mr. Hultquist is correct. CORRECTION TO ABOVE POST BY JANICE in John Hultquist’s comment just above this one.
To amplify Paul H’s tip:
Bing also brings up michaelsmithnews on the first page, pronto! 🙂
Just don’t forget that Al Gore invented the nincomnet….or something.
Well, I find Mr Ridley’s examples dubious in the extreme…
If the evidence shows more greenery, then that says nothing about warming or climate change, only about there being more CO2.
And the effects of climate change may well counter any benefit from that CO2 –for example, if the Boreal forest perishes through the effects of pest and disease previously constrained by cold winters.
Otherwise I note that many of the predicted disasters were avoided as people took heed of the warning
The population explosion has been contained because people took note of the predictions and put extra resource into family planning… notably China
The worst pesticides are banned
Acid rain was controlled by regulation of power stations
The UK put enormous effort into avoiding BSE in the food chain
Computers were remediated before Y2K (I spend 6 months doing that along with 100 people for a major US company)
We banned CFCs
I’d say there is a lesson for us in terms of avoiding climate change by reducing CO2
On malaria, increased efforts –including DDT use – have helped control it. It could still spread its range. Zika has.
Snow cover last winter/spring was at a record low
Arctic sea ice still sees a downward trend in September at 13% a decade.
There have been massive programmes, notably in Bangladesh in avoiding cyclone deaths. Reduced them by thousands.
Ridley should stick to minding the family coal interests!
“…Acid rain was controlled by regulation of power stations…”
You should check your facts a bit.
Checking…
no, the facts seem to be eliminating sulphur from coal power plants all but did for it…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/9342276/Acid-rain-all-but-eliminated-over-Britain.html
and we have Margaret Thatcher to thank for that!
(Source: http://www.cfact.org/2014/02/16/global-warming-hysteria-the-acid-rain-scare-and-other-money-making-megamyths/ )
Well Janice, that article is, frankly, inaccurate. this was a real problem, resolved by legislation in Europe.
Try googling for government and scientific papers on the subject, especially from Europe.
Here are two:
http://www.environment.no/Topics/Air-pollution/Acid-rain/
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-69585-8_9#page-1
Welcome to the Holocenec Interglacial,Bucko! The last four dating back 500,000 years were warmer than today! Y2k was never a problem! If it wasn’t for the Malthusians in society at large, DDT would never havebeen banned!
hey, Ridley brought those up – not me…
and you can look into the detailed research referenced here to find the arctic ice records going back to the 1850s and see that ice levels are lower now and still receding
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-piecing-together-arctic-sea-ice-history-1850
The population explosion has been contained because people took note of the predictions and put extra resource into family planning… notably China the 100 million dead by Stalin and Mao had nothing to do with it.
“The population explosion has been contained because people took note of the predictions and put extra resource into family planning… notably China”
Griff,
I won’t quibble with all of your claims for the moment, there is no doubt some truth to them. But with regards to the above, the trends to lower birthrates were well under way long before China’s one child policy. In the developed nations, the downwards trends began in the 1800’s with the onset of the industrial revolution. As countries around the world developed birth rates began to fall dramatically.
https://ourworldindata.org/fertility/
It really is fascinating the way Griffy actually believes whatever he is told to believe.
1) Your side has been denying that CO2 could cause greening for decades.
2) First off I love how Griffy cites China, with their policy of forced abortions for people who have unapproved children. Isn’t it fascinating how their solution always involves police states and people getting killed. Regardless, the vast majority of the reduction in population growth has occurred in areas where these kind of population controls were never implemented. Women started having fewer children when economic growth reached the point where children started becoming economic drains, rather than another source of income.
3) The “worst pesticides” were never a problem in the first place.
4) Acid rain never existed.
5) There never was any evidence that CFCs were a problem. And 20 years of science since then have cleared them of any role in the non-existent ozone thinning scare.
6) On malaria, it was once prevalent as far north as NYC.
7) One year’s data. You are getting even more desperate than usual.
Nobody can endorse China: I just point out that it is a fact that action was taken on population control (and on CFCs, Acid rain, Y2K). sometimes there are real problems which human ingenuity resolves.
climate change could be one of those problems.
Griff, you want to resolve “climate change”? What is it about the natural change of climate do you really think man can resolve? Any geologist, and I’m one, will tell you the climate has been changing on this Earth for 4.6 billion years, and will continue to change for the next billion and more.
There is irrefutable evidence that increases in atmospheric CO2 help the vast majority of plants cope with less water, so marginally moist areas of the earth are indeed greening due to additional plant growth. This can be ascertained by satellite photography and corroborated with actual field inspection.
I find it amazing that so-called “environmentalists” of the CAGW crowd are bent into pretzels trying to ignore the benefits of CO2: One such benefit is the approximately $1.5 Trillion per annum in additional foodstuff production. And the funny thing is–you benefit directly from that improvement in production with no recognition whatsoever.
How hypocritical can a person be?
Too bad none of the problems you listed actually were real problems.
You, Shocked, and not Griff the Deceiver, are correct (in your underlying point above):
… source report of the Washington Post article on changes in the arctic{: …} the Monthly Weather Review for November, 1922.
(Source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/ )
Further, just so Griff doesn’t deceive anyone, more to back up Shocked (, shocked, I say! …. heh, heh):
Glaciers and Arctic ice retreat have been going on since about 15,000 years ago.
.
(Source: http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall12/atmo336/lectures/sec5/holocene.html )
So according to the Met Office HadISST, artic sea ice was perfectly flat and never changed until we invented AGW.
Hilarious. Climate change denailism at it’s best.
“Snow cover last winter/spring was at a record low …”.
==========================================
Alarmist’s claims must always be checked, they are usually false:
http://globalcryospherewatch.org/assessments/snow/2012/fig1_robinson_2012.png
Griff
Amazing how effective all these remedies are!
Dancing round the magic rock at summer solstice makes the autumn come – every time!
Dancing round the magic rock at winter solstice makes the days get longer again – every time!
Hanging horse-shoes above my door frame keeps the elephants away!
There’s scientific proof for you – how could you deny the effectiveness of these applications of the abundance of caution?
How are your family solar panel and wind cash-farm interests coming along?
you haven’t seen any elephants, right?
OK you got me there – can’t prove a negative
Griffy sez:
We’re gonna run out of snow!!
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims/ims_gif/DATA/cursnow_alaska.gif
@Griff and to the other Mighty “Griffs” of the World:
Ridley should stick to minding the family coal interests!
Ok Griff, how much and by whom are you paid to comment? How do you make your living? You certainly do seem to have a lot of “free” time on your hands. Why?
At least Ridley apparently makes a living creating Real Wealth which has dramatically increased the Standards of Living by now for nearly everyone living in Countries using Fossil Fuel to that end.
But even if you aren’t paid for your PolyScyFy “Science” comments – aka Purely Political Propaganda, such as that which Project Veritas proves is intentionally manufactured out of whole cloth by paid Astro-Turfing Entities currently working for the Clinton Campaign:
Why do you deny the fact that CO2-Climate Change “Science” is Scientifically Falsified by its [100%] Prediction Failure in the cases of its own “CO2 drives Climate”, CO2-Critical Empirical Predictions, because real, empirical data in fact shows that they do not eventuate?
And why do you deny the additional fact that CO2-Climate Change GCM’s cannot even Replicate/Reproduce in any statistically significant sense the recent GMT Thermometer Record and “The Planet’s” more remote Temperatures as derived from established geo-history; for example, as it has been shown to exist throughout the Holocene with its Four Previous Warm Periods, each one being at least as warm as the Current Warm Period; which itself is shown to have begun with the beginning of the end of The Little Ice Age at around 1660 AD?
Bonus Point Questions relating to your above statement about Ridley:
1] What are you doing in your own personal life to prevent CO2-Climate Change’s CO2-driven Apocalypse? Or do you instead live roughly like CO2-Climate Change’s Top “Scientist”, Al Gore, does? How does he in fact make his living? Perhaps Project Veritas has in effect unclothed him, too? He certainly did come very late to the Party, and at long last dressed up for its Establishment Campaign Soiree’ and Parade of bona fide Elitists.
2] And therefore what are Al Gore’s and your “ethics” compared to what you say Ridley should do? Isn’t Ridley living just as he should, and justifies, and exactly as suggested by Josh’s Cartoons, whereas you and Al Gore aren’t?
3] Aren’t your and Al Gore’s “ethics” in fact driven by money and/or “winning” and/or by the “We’re saving The Planet!” bad old “good intentions” Pavement of The Road to Hell, just as Hillary Clinton’s are? Do all of you involved in what is in practice only a gigantic CO2 Climate Change Propaganda Operation really want to Save The Planet!?
4] And therefore do you care at all about the demonstrated ill-effects brought about and still existing in Underdeveloped Countries as a result of CO2-Fossil Fuel energy poverty; and by Atmospheric CO2 concentrations less than 180ppm, which effectively reduce Life Itself to that existing about 19,000 years ago, by Starving Plants?
Admit it Griff, your alleged CO2-Climate Science “Cures” to your alleged CO2-Climate Change “Disease” – again as fictionally manufactured against Reality by the “method” Project Veritas has also just exposed – are as bad for Humanity and “The Planet”, as the fake Disease and Cure themselves!
And they are even worse. Because CO2-Climate Change’s “ethic” is: “We must destroy Humanity and the Planet as fast as possible in order to ‘Save Humanity and The Planet’, thus hopefully making their destruction nearly permanent, if we succeed the first time in establishing our Perception is Reality Delusion. So that from then on Might makes Right! But we will then use whatever’s left to maintain ourselves in the custom we deserve as ‘your’ current Establishment Rulers.”
In other words: Means=Ends=Thought Control=Total Control~>Might Makes Right and “We will enslave you for as long as we can.” It’s not like it hasn’t been tried before.
It’s “ethic” is “too late”, if We The People don’t do it right now, which We won’t ever do; that is, before We are all killed off; and the remaining appeasers and rationalizers have become One With Hell; which not strangely is the same “ethic” employed by the Radical Muslims and the Sharia Law Supremacist Nations applying this “ethic” in the same way.
So come on out, Griff! Even the paid AstroTurfers outed by Project Veritas enthusiastically admitted their collusion with Interests driven by Money and Greed, or Totalitarian Control, or the disingenuous “We’re Saving The Planet!” Road to Hell trodden by many before who tried to bring the rest of us proles with them to their own wished-for version of the North Korean and Venezuelan “Utopia” of “equal” Poverty, Enslavement, Malnutrition, and Death!
But seriously Griff, why don’t you save yourself first? Come “clean” with yourself. Or is Evil your Self?
Regardless, We The People do see your path! Good luck with that one.
And We will be watching Chris Wallace tonight very closely to see which way he turns.
I notice that every advanced (rich) society starts having less children.
Only rich nations can afford to clean up the environment.
Snow cover in the US was low last year, remember how many nasty Europe’s winter was?
Ever notice the difference between physics and computer models?
Al Gore bought beach front property.
Another attempt to rewrite the temperature record. How many NOAA heads have been fired now?
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/05/noaa-caught-rewriting-us-temperature-history-again.php
Predictions verified by model feedback is science, predictions verified by rewriting the record is politics.
“Well, I find Mr Ridley’s examples dubious in the extreme…”
As if you possessd one tenth of one per cent of the knowledge and understanding to make such a statement… On yer bike, sunshine!
MaGriiff, your posts are a crime, dog.
don’t quite catch your banter, old chap…
There’s a cartoon anti-crime dog named McGruff.
Here ya go, Griffy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGruff_the_Crime_Dog
your epidermis is showing.
Cute, beng135. 🙂
McGruff the Crimefighter Dog
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_v8cg3067Nfk/TSyLg5PsmuI/AAAAAAAAAEE/gRwBK7qy-o0/s1600/mcgruff.jpg
Little kids love him.
(big kids, too!)
Thanks Beng… cool dog!
(I wondered if he was like McGyver, which I thought the Simpsons had made up till it aired on UK Freeview)
Griff says –
‘The population explosion has been contained because people took note of the predictions and put extra resource into family planning… notably China’
Except of course they are now relaxing it.
‘Computers were remediated before Y2K (I spend 6 months doing that along with 100 people for a major US company)’
That was a dud that one. Most computers were fine.
Lee: Much as it pains me to say so (‘cos he talks a load of guff, usually) I have to agree with Griff. I too spent most of 1999 ensuring my systems were Y2k-proof. I can tell you from personal experience that the particular system I managed – and it’s application (and therefore the management of a huge computer centre(s)) would have been compromised. OK, they would have continued to run, but it would have been a bugger to manage.
Then again, how can Griff claim that malaria has been nearly conquered with the help of DDT when it is down to his greenie do-gooders who got it banned in the first place.
Harry, it has never been banned for treatment of malaria – only as a general pesticide because of bad environmental effects. It pretty much depleted bird of prey populations in the UK, for example.
http://www.malaria.org/DDTcosts.html
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ddt-use-to-combat-malaria/
I say treatment of malaria – really, don’t try taking it: treatment against malarial mosquitos is better…
Yeah Griff We too spent a lot of time on the Y2K problem as my work had many computers dating back to the early 60’s. We just told the effected computers that it was 1984 and they just chugged along for several years until they were replaced. Must have spent at least 2 hours figuring the answer out. /sarc
Oh Griff, you’re too pretty for the English Language. You give two references, which actually appear to say nothing, whatsoever, about what you claim.
It is time you realised that some people will actually take the time to follow up your claims. If those claims are found wanting, then you will be judged by them.
Well Matt the problem was in the code, not the computers and you can’t tell a huge system processing millions of date related transactions every day that its 1984, when its actually 2000.
Good job you weren’t working for a major finance company.
Well ours weren’t!
We loaded the complete software into a test machine and set the date to 1999 Dec 31st… lots of problems.
Easily dealt with! It was not the end of civilization. It was a problem, yes, foreseen, yes, but not worth running around screaming “The sky is falling, the sky is falling!”
As usual, you can blame the media for most of the hype. Those of us in the computer industry were too busy doing our jobs to try and scare the public.
As for industry, they’d been working on the problem for decades.
Banks were some of the first to start working on the problem when they noticed that programs that calculate 30 years of mortgage data started generating weird results starting on Jan 1, 1970.
Griff, your Y2K problem says everything about you, and nothing about the Y2K issue, which as the other 7.4 billion on Planet Earth know was no actual problem at all. You will soon be pointing out how a sensible mitigation strategy will have averted the Zombie Apocalypse.
And DARN, didn’t the computer manufacturers make a MOTZA with that one. 🙂
I know, because I picked up some of it .
Now, how do we get Seth Borenstein and Christopher Joyce and Michael Bloomberg to do their jobs the way they are supposed to be done?
As if
In their “minds”, they are doing their jobs the way they are supposed to.
The Human Carbon Cornucopia.
=========================
Crap- I was going to name my next band that…
“111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than the observations”. [IPCC Synthesis report 2014, p 43]”
A simple, rational fix for this: make it clear that future funding goes only to the 10 simulations closest to actual. And then keep whittling until it reaches 3.
BB, its worse than you think. The 114 distinct CMIP5 simulations come from only 32 climate models. 111 simulations are way off. 3 are ‘on’. But two of those come from models where other simulations from the same model are ‘off’. So those two models can be disgarded also. In CMIP5 there is only one model ‘on’ with its one run. That the Russian model INM-CM4. It has higher ocean thermal inertia, lower water vapor feedback, and lower sensitivity than the others. Google and you will find some CMIP5 model comparison papers with more details. And the Rusians stongly discount CAGW.
Yup, ‘higher ocean thermal inertia, lower water vapor feedback, and lower sensitivity’. We knew it all along, di’n’t we?
================
It’s the “Y2much” computer problem.
As for where the elevation of the tree line in the Urals during the MWP and now: I think it is a function not only of how warm it gets, but also a function of how long it is warm. It takes time for trees to expand their populations uphill.
This covers that interesting question in detail…
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2606780/
Why do you keep proving yourself wrong with article you either don’t read or can’t comprehend? Is that why you use a failed detective show moniker? From the article:
To begin, we outline the present climate–treeline relations across northern Eurasia. We then present evidence that temperature increases over the past century are already producing demonstrable changes in the population density of trees, but these changes have not yet generated an extension of conifer species’ limits to or beyond the former positions occupied during the Medieval Warm period (MWP: ca AD 800–1300) or the Holocene Thermal Maximum treeline extension (HTM: broadly taken here to be ca 10 000–3000 years ago).
I can hike to the treeline here in Colorado at 40°N and see remains of trees hundreds of feet above the current treeline. So it was obviously a lot warmer for centuries than whatever pitiful fraction of a degree of warming we currently have caused by your calamitous CO2. Pitiful indeed.
SK, what a nice takedown of Griff. Well done.
Griff actually turns the blog into an instruction on critical thinking by displaying all the classic attempts at thought modification.
Hey Steve… Donald had a point and I thought he’d be interested in the detail.
I don’t think the paper disproves anything about the current reach of or future effects of warming.
Pop, perhaps I’m the unmodified version?
Thanks for covering this, Josh.
Actually,
global greening causes [some] global warming
challenge me if you don’t believe my statement.
Matt Ridley is a treasure. For all the crap you take from alarmist idiots, Matt, please know that there are many people, myself included, who respect your scientific judgement, your political sense and your personal integrity. Keep up the great work, and maybe someday the brainwashed SSKidz will start to listen.
Dr Myneni sez “There are no ‘up-sides’ to having too much CO2 in the air”. What a maroon. Science, and history tells us we don’t have “too much CO2”. We could use much, much more in fact.
I have to wonder if Dr. Myneni is trying to keep himself from being labelled a heretic when he uses misleading words, that could be quoted, like ‘no up-sides to too much CO2’. His own research points to at least ONE up-side of the current levels of CO2. Or maybe he doesn’t think a greener planet is a better planet? But that would get him labelled an id!ot.
Of course we now must ask Myneni, “is there any down side to having too little CO2 in the air?” Then the duplicitous ice hole has to answer honestly, doesn’t he? I mean, how deep does the delusion go?
“too much ” means it’s not good, so by definition it’s not good to have too much. Meaningless statement.
This does not imply and does not mean the same as : it’s not good to have more.
Somewhere around 4% CO2 in the air, and people start dropping dead.
I’d be willing to call that too much CO2.
I think CO2 must be at much higher levels than 4% to be toxic
“The population explosion has been contained because people took note of the predictions and put extra resource into family planning… notably China”
Griff,
There is no doubt some truth to many of your claims. But trends to lower birthrates were well under way long before China’s one child policy. In the developed nations, the downwards trends began in the 1800’s with the onset of the industrial revolution. As countries around the world developed birth rates began to fall dramatically.
https://ourworldindata.org/fertility/
There is always a kernel of truth at the heart of any mass hysteria. Tulips are nice flowers, technology and the Internet did indeed revolutionize our lives, mortgaged backed securities are not in themselves a bad thing, and, to use one of your examples, Y2K was a real threat. However, there comes a point when the hype becomes detached from reality – people tend to get a little carried away. So if you invested heavily in tulips, Internet stocks, mortgage backed securities, or a bunker at these times you wasted a lot of money. I believe we are at this point with CO2 and global warming.
All the best.
You don’t need China’s statist solution.
There is such a thing as demographic transition. It happens whenever child survival rates are high enough for parents to have confidence that their offspring are more likely to survive to maturity than not. In that case, they’re willing to risk having just one to four kids instead of five or more.
Also, delaying having kids until 28 instead of starting at 18 has the same effect on future population as having more kids later.
@lokenbr
October 18, 2016 at 10:34 am: I figured that our birthrate fell below replacement rate when the average wage rose above about NZ$600/week in today’s money.
Matt Ridley provides a fair and balanced view of the Anti – Science $$ TRILLION con – job .
Everyone agrees climate changes with or without human influence and for both warming and cooling there are positives and negatives .Warming, especially with elevated CO2 ,is extremely beneficial to the greening of the earth as the scientific studies referred to in his speech prove .
Why is then that so called “Green Groups ” are opposed to the proven greening of the earth ?
When did the Green Groups ” know what they preached was a lie ? When did governments know ?
The evidence isn’t some bullshit climate model it can be seen from space .
No, he sets up a number of false targets which he knocks down.
Yes all AGW is fake.. thanks for noticing.
you disagree then with Ridley, who has said…
“I think recent global warming is real, mostly man-made and will continue…”
(He just doesn’t think its dangerous)
mean while guess what still snowing in Australa http://ski.com.au/snowcams/australia/vic/buller/buller8.html
This is a detailed dismantling of Ridley’s points…
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/oct/19/no-longer-taken-seriously-were-seeing-the-last-gasp-of-climate-denial-groups
From that article:
“We’ve solved previous environmental problems…” so let’s spend 66 trillion dollars and solve Global Warming. Seriously?
If the consequences are bad, something needs to be done and that will surely cost money.
a lot of that money would have been spent anyway on replacement power plant at end of life, fuel for power plant, etc.
Griff
That’s the same Guardian that reflexively denied any involvement of renewable generation in South Australia’s blackout:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/29/south-australia-blackout-explained-renewables-not-to-blame
and were subsequently proved overwhelmingly wrong by events: wind power WAS THE PRIMARY CAUSE of the blackout. But I’m not holding my breath waiting for the Gaurdian’s retraction of course – for them its straight on to the next reflexive political pseudoscience lie.
Well, it is quite clear that a storm took out the SA grid. The windfarms went offline because of grid failures: windfarms didn’t cause the grid fails. The interconnector link would have gone out, whatever the source of electricity, after the trips from the initial power line outages.
I see that Griff is still determined to pass off his fantasies as actual analysis.
Who cares what the experts say, Griff knows the real truth.
Griff
So photosynthesis is now added to the long and growing list of things you need to DENY in order to remain a faithful and true believer in dystopia-at-any-price warmism. The other things you have to deny include
– Chaos and nonlinearity
– Clime history of the earth
– The entire discipline of Geology
– Ice ages
– Milankovich cycles
– The existence of the earth before the year 1850
– The presence of water vapour in the atmosphere
– Karl Popper’s theorem of deductive scientific logic and failure of inductivism
– Any positive role of CO2 in anything
– Photosynthesis and the existence of green plants
– Basic logic
– The idea that the temporal sequence of events – what comes first and second (e.g. temperature change then CO2 change) has any implications on the direction of causation
– The idea that there is such as thing as a direction of causation
– Almost any rational logic applied to scientific data
I’ve no argument with photosynthesis or evidence of increased plant growth through CO2.
I don’t see that it has any relevance to whether warming/climate change is happening though.
Or that it is only a benefit.
It isn’t about whether CO2 has a beneficial effect on anything (clearly it does in commercial tomato growing!) but what the impacts of climate change/AGW are.
That there have been different climates before 1850, for different reasons, including especially Milankovitch cycles is an absolute fact… but there is also the certainty climate is currently changing, CO2 is the cause and not other climate drivers.
Griff, the point is that climate is constantly changing! Always has and it is safe to assume it always will. Humans are ever so adaptive to these changes and tend to not notice them unless meatheads start shouting that the end is near and it is all our fault.
PMK
Yes, Pamela, it is always changing… but this time it is human CO2 driving the change.
Humans have adapted to a climate within a narrow range, over time. If it shifts to considerably warmer in a very short time (short for climate change) then perhaps we won’t do so well?
“…but this time it is human CO2 driving the change.
Humans have adapted to a climate within a narrow range, over time. If it shifts to considerably warmer in a very short time (short for climate change) then perhaps we won’t do so well?”
Where is the PROOF that CO2 causes warming? The FACT is that increases in atmospheric CO2 follow a warming, don’t precede it! That would be a very good trick, would require CO2 to have access to time travel….
Please define “narrow range” with cites.
Humans survived an ice age and thrived during the following much warmer periods. The Earth has been considerably warmer in historic and prehistoric times, these times include the height of the Roman era. What makes you think that the human species is incapable of enduring the rigors of a few degrees C increase in temp? You do realize that our species lives everywhere on the planet, polar regions to the equator? Maybe you should go tell all those indigenous peoples who live north of 60 degrees and in equatorial Africa and South America that it is impossible for them to survive such extremes of climate.
Geologists know this, seems odd that climate scientists are clueless.
PMK
“Where is the PROOF that CO2 causes warming? The FACT is that increases in atmospheric CO2 follow a warming, don’t precede it! That would be a very good trick, would require CO2 to have access to time travel….”
Yes yes, we do know that CO2 follows temp – do try to keep up there (unless you are a sky-dragon slayer). It’s because the carbon cycle makes that so.
It wont happen any other way unless the excess CO2 being added overwhelms the Carbon cycle sufficiently (in terms of volume of natural vs excess (anthro) CO2).
Unfortunately CO2 is a GHG and as such it acts as an attenuator of terrestrial IR to space, requiring the climate system to warm in order for the SB law to equal out the differential.
As for your hand-waving, and oft mentioned “no PROOF”.
Again you’ll just have to keep up.
There’s tons of it within the 95% confidence limits.
Unfortunately you wont do that by just reading sceptic blogs.
I pose you these alternatives:
a) The world’s experts in climate (and many other Earth) sciences- are incompetent.
b) The World’s experts in climate/Earth sciences are perpetrating a fraud.
c) They know more than you.
Most people would not need to have a postcard sent to them to twig it’s c).
You use ice core data which takes 2000 years to equilibrate, so is smoothed on a millenial scale, and use it to show that temperature and CO2 have never changed so fast? Its just Mike’s Nature trick again and again and again. Hold up modern instrumental data against uber-smoothed palaeo-data and conclude “its never changed so fast!” Is anyone seriously going to buy that?
The “it’s never changed so fast” argument relies on Mike’s Nature trick and is utterly corrupt.
Toneb: Your problem is that you put the cart before the horse.
You are declaring that those who agree with the proper answer are the “experts”. And everyone who disagrees isn’t.
“Toneb: Your problem is that you put the cart before the horse.
You are declaring that those who agree with the proper answer are the “experts”. And everyone who disagrees isn’t.”
I’m not declaring anything.
I’m simply posing a question of logic.
I do know that logic is in short supply here.
But neutrals may come here and may appreciate some.
You misinterpret anyway.
We have experts in things.
Those experts teach other people to become experts (you may have gone to university FI).
Therefore they know more than anyone else about (the) subject.
Ergo, unless one of said experts – you cannot know better than them.
That help?
“but this time it is human CO2 driving the change.”
More arrant nonsense.
Stop making stuff up.
The lecture by Matt Ridley can be downloaded as a pdf file from:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_RXGJAF_XL5R0VJbXJLclhSYTA
And a critique of one of Ridley’s lectures is given below.
The scientists critiquing being ….
Prof Richard Allan, professor of climate science at the University of Reading
Prof Richard Betts, head of climate impacts in the Met Office Hadley Centre
Prof Piers Forster, professor of physical climate change at the University of Leeds
Prof Jean-Pierre Gattuso, research professor at the Université Pierre-et-Marie Curie’s Laboratoire d’Océanographie de Villefranche
Prof Sir Andy Haines, professor of public health and primary care at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, director of the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute
Dr Chris Hope, reader in policy modelling at the University of Cambridge
Dr Sari Kovatz, director of the National Institute for Health Research’s Health Protection Research Unit in Environmental Change and Health
Prof Ranga Myneni, professor at the Boston University’s department of earth and environment
Dr Gavin A Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Prof Jim Watson, professor of energy policy at Sussex University’s Science Policy Research Unit
https://www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-respond-to-matt-ridleys-climate-change-claims
There are so many millions of government scientists nowadays that a list of snouts with corresponding troughs really conveys no kudos whatever – was it intended to?
Here is a flavour of the climate establishment’s response to Matt Ridley:
07.12.2015 | 5:09pm IN FOCUS
Scientists respond to Matt Ridley’s climate change claims
Matt Ridley is a Conservative hereditary peer and journalist, who used to be best known for writing about genetics. He is probably better known now for being the chairman of Northern Rock bank at the time that it had to be bailed out by British taxpayers in 2007.
Ridley has also gained prominence for writing regularly about climate change, describing himself as a “lukewarmer“. His outlets include a weekly column in the Times, occasional columns in the Wall Street Journal, as well as a variety of magazine and broadcast appearances. In 2012, Rupert Murdoch, whose company owns the Times and Wall Street Journal, used his first-ever tweet to endorse a book written by Ridley.
Last week alone, his climate claims were published in the Sun (another Murdoch title), twice in the Times, the Wall Street Journal, Scientific American, as well as in the Spectator, a right-wing UK weekly magazine. He was also interviewed on BBC Radio 4’s flagship current affairs Today programme.
Ridley often uses his position in the Lords to discuss the topics of climate change and energy policy. He sits on the Lords’ science and technology committee and is an advisor to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a UK-based climate sceptic lobby group.
In October, his earnings from the coal mining that takes place on his country estate in Northumberland made national headlines when anti-coal campaigners chained themselves to machinery in protest. Ridley has long had a statement on his website setting out his position on the income he receives from coal mining, but, to date, has refused to say how much he earns.
It looks like ad hominem personal smear tactics rather than a scientific response.
Here is a flavour of the climate establishment’s response to Matt Ridley:
07.12.2015 | 5:09pm IN FOCUS
Scientists respond to Matt Ridley’s climate change claims
Matt Ridley is a Conservative hereditary peer and journalist, who used to be best known for writing about genetics. He is probably better known now for being the chairman of Northern Rock bank at the time that it had to be bailed out by British taxpayers in 2007.
Ridley has also gained prominence for writing regularly about climate change, describing himself as a “lukewarmer“. His outlets include a weekly column in the Times, occasional columns in the Wall Street Journal, as well as a variety of magazine and broadcast appearances. In 2012, Rupert Murdoch, whose company owns the Times and Wall Street Journal, used his first-ever tweet to endorse a book written by Ridley.
Last week alone, his climate claims were published in the Sun (another Murdoch title), twice in the Times, the Wall Street Journal, Scientific American, as well as in the Spectator, a right-wing UK weekly magazine. He was also interviewed on BBC Radio 4’s flagship current affairs Today programme.
Ridley often uses his position in the Lords to discuss the topics of climate change and energy policy. He sits on the Lords’ science and technology committee and is an advisor to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a UK-based climate sceptic lobby group.
In October, his earnings from the coal mining that takes place on his country estate in Northumberland made national headlines when anti-coal campaigners chained themselves to machinery in protest. Ridley has long had a statement on his website setting out his position on the income he receives from coal mining, but, to date, has refused to say how much he earns.
It looks like ad hominem personal smear tactics rather than a scientific response.
“It looks like ad hominem personal smear tactics rather than a scientific response.”
I posted a “scientific response” above.
Again…..
https://www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-respond-to-matt-ridleys-climate-change-claims
Toneb
I was quoting directly from that link. No need to post it again.
Below the ad-hom part was a commentary on an earlier “HardTalk” Stephen Sackur BBC interview with Mat Riley. But nothing on the above presentation by the same author. You say this is a rebuttal of Matt’s GWPF presentation but it is not. But at least Matt Riley’s name is spelt correctly.
“Toneb October 19, 2016 at 8:39 am”
You forgot the Top CO2-Climate Change Scientist in the whole world, Comrade Al Gore! But I don’t think any of them will get to Heaven until they all specifically profess that “Mecca is the Center of the World!”
Your time is running out too!
Toneb October 19, 2016 at 8:58 am
I pose you these alternatives:
a) The world’s experts in climate (and many other Earth) sciences- are incompetent.
b) The World’s experts in climate/Earth sciences are perpetrating a fraud.
c) They know more than you.
“And I in turn pose unto you and all such Infidels, that you therefore know not enough to say even who an ‘expert’ is! Therefore, even if only by your own metric of Serving Authority, you must receive Muhammad’s Allah as It! [pbuh] Therefore repeat you now, ‘Allahu Akbar’, before it’s too late! For we Fidels are well justified in employing Muhammad’s other Methods! [pbuh] Notice Ye, we are not referring to followers of Fidel Castro as ye would rather assume, for they have chosen the wrong horse to ride upon to the Caliphate’s Utopia!”
Heh, “carbonbrief”…
Oh dear me!
TITTER!
to put you all out of suspense:
must tell you all that there is no man made global warming
namely if there were, it should affect minimum Temperatures, pushing mean T up….
and it does not:
ask the climate websites [including wuwt] to publish minima and maxima instead of mean T
Ever wondered why they won’t?
“Ever wondered why they won’t?”
No.
But I always wonder what your’re blathering about when I keep seeing this posted.