“100s of Millions of People will Die” – ACF Climate Change Warning about Breaching the 1.5C Limit

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Bob in Castlemaine; The Head of the Australian Conservation Foundation Kelly O’Shanassy delivered a solemn warning last Tuesday to a packed audience of journalists, claiming that if we continue to burn coal and breach the 1.5C IPCC climate limit, “100s of millions of people will die”.

Gloves off over climate policy: ACF chief

By REBECCA GREDLEY
AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATED PRESS
2:44PM OCTOBER 30, 2018

Kelly O’Shanassy has run out of time to be polite over climate policy.

The Australian Conservation Foundation CEO says recent warnings from scientists and two decades of climate inaction mean the gloves are off.

If we continue to burn coal and gas for decades to come, we will kill the 1.5 degree target, we will not have a habitable planet and hundreds of millions of people will die,” she told the National Press Club in Canberra on Tuesday.

“When people are defending burning coal and gas, then that’s what they’re really talking about – those hundreds of millions of people whose lives will be at risk.”

Read more (paywalled): https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/aust-climate-policy-under-the-microscope/news-story/d6a6ab7145c31456dc9f1457c9ce738f

According to Andrew Bolt, a well known conservative Australian climate skeptic, the most shocking thing about this speech is not one journalist in the audience challenged this ridiculous claim.

AND NOT ONE JOURNALIST CRIED: “THAT’S NUTS.”

Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun
November 1, 2018 10:02am

Pardon?

“Hundreds of millions of people will die”? We will “not have a habitable planet”?

But get this: not a single journalist in the room said: “Are you nuts?” Not one asked: “What’s your evidence?”

To me, it’s mad, bad and dangerous that a room of journalists can hear a shiny-eyed speaker proclaim the end of the world — at least for humans — yet react without the slightest scepticism.

Have they no eyes to see or brains to think? Just look outside.

Read more: https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/and-not-one-journalist-cried-thats-nuts/news-story/2e6b56012ad47349677f23b076e33bd7

Even for green Australia this press silence in the face of such indefensible claims is shocking.

If the world breaches the 1.5C limit, nobody will die because of the breach. All that will happen is on average Summer might last a few days longer every year, or winters may be slightly milder. Given that cold weather is a far greater killer than warm weather, breaching the 1.5C limit would likely save lives.

Advertisements

276 thoughts on ““100s of Millions of People will Die” – ACF Climate Change Warning about Breaching the 1.5C Limit

  1. Here is the claim:
    “If we continue to burn coal and gas for decades to come, we will kill the 1.5 degree target, we will not have a habitable planet and hundreds of millions of people will die,”

    Here is the reality:
    “If we eliminate energy production from coal and gas and rely only on renewables, we will harm the world’s poorest and hundreds of millions of people will die”

      • this kind of BS claim seems to the norm from lying journos now. I’ve seen several claims using the IPCC SR15 to claim missing 1.5 degrees will lead to “catastrophic climate change”.

        Facts be damned, this is full hysteria mode.

      • More than two billion people are going to die before 2100, and that’s where we reached 1.5K. What other proof you need? We need to start believing in the infallibility of experts; #believescientist.

        • Hugs

          The fact is, sad as it may be, she’s right. According to the WHO 120,000,000 people will die in the developing world by 2050 (32 years away) from smoke inhalation related conditions because they are forced to burn cow shit and twigs for cooking and heating.

          But then I guess the 1.5 degree limit arbitrarily set by the IPCC only affects white doods, so that really matters, the other guys will die anyway so why bother alleviating their conditions by allowing them cheap electricity?

          Now, if they all converted to Judaism that would probably make people sit up and pay attention. And I mean that in a positive way, I have no issue with Jews.

          But the alarmists dare insinuate sceptics are holocaust ‘deniers’!

          • You would think that WHO would at least tell them about the invention of the chimney, whereby they could vent the smoke outside of their mud hut. Even the teepee had a whole in the top for a draft and smoke control. I guess on the bright side, all the smoke in the ‘house’ will lower the chance of malaria/dengue fever etc from mosquito infected disease. But my bet is those folks want a half decent house with just a bit of electricity and running water, things we take for granted they will never get if energy is priced so high or not available for them.

          • Excerpted from published commentary:

            The Head of the Australian Conservation Foundation Kelly O’Shanassy delivered a solemn warning last Tuesday to a packed audience of journalists, claiming that if we continue to burn coal and breach the 1.5C IPCC climate limit, “100s of millions of people will die”.

            And Hugs said, quote or mimicked:

            More than two billion people are going to die before 2100, and that’s where we reached 1.5K.

            And HotScot said, quote or mimicked:

            According to the WHO 120,000,000 people will die in the developing world by 2050 (32 years away)

            And I say all three (3) are correct …… with or without the temperature breach of 1.5C, ….. simply because there is average 55.3 million people die each year.

            So, Kelly O’Shanassy claim of “100s of millions will die” …. occurs in less than 6 years.

            And Hugs claim of 82 years means that 4,534,600,000 (4.5 billion) people will have died.

            And HotScot claim of 32 years means that 1,769,600,000 (1.8 billion) people will have died.

            Me think its …… much ado about nothing.

          • Odds are, given the average lifespan in the developed world is now 82 to 83 and Africa is around 58 with a global average of around 73, it is highly likely that around 95% of everyone alive today will be dead in 82 years except for the outliers. That’s around 6.9 Billion deaths between now and the best used by date of 2100.

        • In the next 82 years more than 2 billion people will die. In fact almost everybody will die in the next 82 years.
          /Pedantry

        • Within 80 years the current entire human poplulation will have died off though end of life span.
          Given a Glaciation advance within the next 1500 years 90% of all human would die off within 10 years of the start of world wide glaciation.
          20,000 years ago the human population numbered some 12,000 individuals. Within 10,000 year and the Tempreture some 2C warmer than now the population expanded and population the world.
          Far less will die off with Warming than Cooling.

      • Here is one possible cause of mass death: heat exhaustion.

        The European heat wave of 2003 was responsible for an estimated 70,000 deaths. One of the reasons it was so deadly is that the nights remained too warm for the sick and elderly to recover from the heat stress that they suffered during the day. Warm nights are one of the signatures of global warming due to increased levels of atmospheric CO2.

        Global warming cannot make such heat waves happen, just as standing on a putting green during a thunderstorm cannot make lightning strike you. But just as standing on the putting green gives chance a better opportunity to strike you down, global warming gives extreme weather events such as heat waves a greater chance to occur. And when a heat wave does occur, the nights will be warm — that part is not up to chance.

        India and Pakistan are especially vulnerable to catastrophic heat waves. Dangerously high temperatures have already become routine in the summer in these countries. The populations are poor and most people do not have air conditioners. Hospitals could care for only a tiny fraction of the people suffering from heat stroke. Quite literally billions of people are at risk.

        Another way global warming could cause mass death is by crop failure. Billions of people on this planet are dependent on one or two staple crops for their food. This situation can produce catastrophes, as happened in Ireland in the 19th century when a potato blight caused mass starvation.

        And people in developed countries who are better able to deal with the consequences of rising temperatures may eventually find themselves vulnerable — to extreme weather events such as hurricanes, to rising costs and scarcity of food, and so on.

        People who warn against these dangers find themselves at a rhetorica disadvantage against those who dismiss the dangers. When reality itself becomes crazy, so to speak, it is difficult to talk objectively about reality without oneself sounding crazy. People who dismiss the dangers can invoke the relative safety of the past — and thereby appear realistic in their thinking.

        But great and dangerous changes are indeed happening. We all need to devote our energies to finding ways to mitigate the changes and the consequences of changes that we cannot mitigate. The creators of this web site devote their considerable abilities to denying the undeniable. If only they would devote those abilities to thinking about solutions. You are needed. All hands on deck.

        • Even were these science fiction scenarios true and not just weather… the answer is cheap energy not attempting weather control via global agreements over trace gas emissions.

          China and the USA can’t agree about much. If you believe these threats are an issue, why bet the whole world that this time they will both harm their economies to make a deal? It’s never a plausible answer.

          But cheap energy allows for fertilisers to save crops. Remember crop yields are rising, not falling.
          Cheap energy is why people in rich countries are better able to cope with extreme weather events such as hurricanes. There is a reason why the Netherlands suffers less fatal flooding than Bangladesh and it isn’t altitude. Cheap energy means economic growth – means lives saved.

          Dangerously high temperatures have been routine in the summer in India and Pakistan since time immemorial. Rising wealth means that more people survive now and so more people are threatened. But the populations are still poor and most people do not have air conditioners. The answer is cheap energy to provide cheap air conditioners. It is not trying to cool India as a whole. Just pause for a moment and think about the two options – which one will actually help?

          Even the IPCC and the Kyoto treaty don’t think that tackling climate change is more important than poverty reduction. Because it isn’t.

          If coal and gas are the cheapest forms of energy the only compassionate thing to do is to use them. Otherwise you are condemning the 3rd World to mass deaths. And that is even if your doomsday scenarios are true.
          There’s always the possibility that you could be urging inadvertent mass murder on a false premise.

          • Dangerously high temperatures have been a fact of life in India and Pakistan from time immemorial, as you say. But two dangerous changes are happening. One, the already high temperatures are inching upward, into the 120s fahrenheit. And, two, nights are staying warmer, as I wrote. It would be irreponsible to ignore the danger posed to millions if not billions of people by these two changes.

          • So air condition the room they sleep in or try to change the air in the whole country (by mutual agreement of the whole world)?
            Which plan will actually help?

          • Air conditioning consumes a lot of energy, which currently can be produced cheaply — alas — only by burning fossil fuels. So this plan would be the dog chasing its own tail. More air conditioning leads to more warming requires more air conditioning.

            Not to mention the problems of paying for the air condition units, or making the rooms in which they installed air tight enough to be air conditioned, or getting the units to all the people who need them in Pakistan and the subcontinent of India.

          • Yes, it requires burning fossil fuels to solve the problems you fear.
            Not burning fossil fuels will not solve the problems you fear. They happen anyway.
            So which one helps?

          • We are rich westerners. India is a sovereign nation. What do they say?
            Well if we look at India’s Natoinal Action Plan on Climate Change we find on page 13 (section 1.1) it says the following:

            The Approach Paper to the Eleventh Plan emphasizes that rapid economic growth is an essential prerequisite to reduce poverty. The poor are the most vulnerable to climate change. The former Prime Minister, late Smt. Indira Gandhi, has stated: ‘poverty is the worst polluter’. Therefore development and poverty eradication will be the best form of adaptation to climate change.

            So it seems that the poor want to go for growth (cheap energy). Who are we to disagree?

          • Jesse
            First off, the temperature has only increased by 0.6C tops.
            Secondly almost all of the warming occurs in areas with little water vapor in the atmosphere. Which completely excludes places like India.

            Stop the sophistry and learn a little.

          • All the more reason to argue in favor of affordable reliable dispatchable electricity that can currently only be supplied by fossil fuels regardless of latitude or time of day or night or lack of wind and without cutting down the carbon sink
            That and Air conditioning

        • Jesse Fell – I don’t know about you, but where I live in SE US, I can personally fight climate change by moving 50 miles to the NE where I previously lived and the average temperature is about a degree cooler. Prior to that, I survived a tremendous temperature rise when I moved from the mountains of the NW US to my present city and I survived! You have some nice claims about the harms of global warming and I can be convinced if you provide some historical context (i.e. what was the life expectancy of these folks who are at risk before electricity? Why are there tree stumps emerging from an ice patch 250 meters above the current tree line in the Greater Yellowstone area? That shouldn’t happen if CO2 is the culprit.)

        • Jesse Fell

          You need to go away and do some reading on global temperature changes. Most warming is expected to take place in the northern and southern hemispheres during winter and at night. The warming effect lessens as it approaches the equator.

          By the tone of your post, it seems you are reading far too much of the MSM. If increased atmospheric CO2 is so bad for the planet, why has it greened by 14% in 35 years of satellite observations. Much of that greening has taken place in equatorial regions, so where is the negative effect of warming or increased atmospheric CO2? That greening is also ‘virgin’ i.e. it is measured in areas untouched by humans in terms of agriculture. There is therefore reason to believe, and evidence to confirm that human agriculture is similarly benefiting from increased atmospheric CO2.

          The IPCC acknowledges that extreme weather events have nothing to do with climate change. Which is convenient for them as incidence of hurricanes, tornado, droughts, wildfires etc. are falling, not rising, in which case, their inclusion would merely be another nail in the coffin of AGW.

          According to the Office for National Statistics: “In the 2016 to 2017 winter period, there were an estimated 34,300 excess winter deaths (EWDs) in England and Wales, which represents an excess winter mortality (EWM) index of 20.9%.

          https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/excesswintermortalityinenglandandwales/2016to2017provisionaland2015to2016final

          The population of the UK is around 60 million and we are one of the wealthiest and most technologically advanced in the world with, probably, the best free health services in the world.

          The populations of India is over 1.3 billion and Pakistan around 200 million, combined, some 22 times the UK population. Neither country is as widely technologically advanced as the UK and healthcare is rudimentary at best.

          Under these conditions, excess deaths from extreme weather events in developing countries is hardly surprising. What is surprising is that there aren’t more deaths.

          The UK’s excess mortality rate due to the cold is an annual, recurring event. We don’t need extreme weather, we just have to wait until winter.

          • Record high temperatures in the mid 120’s have recently been recorded in Pakistan. These record highs are moving into the range where temperatures begin to be lethal for most people.

            I don’t see what the MSM has to do with this. This is simply what’s happening. Billions of people are defenseless again changes that could easily kill the elderly or the sick among them. We have know way of knowing exactly how many would perish in a severe and prolonged heat wave, but the European heat wave of 2003 is not reassuring on this score. In a fully developed part of the world, with excellent medical facilities, roughly 70,000 people died as a result of the heat wave.

          • Jesse Fell

            but the European heat wave of 2003 is not reassuring on this score. In a fully developed part of the world, with excellent medical facilities, roughly 70,000 people died as a result of the heat wave.

            But were these excess deaths? The distinction is important as the ONS illustrates.

            Record high temperatures in the mid 120’s have recently been recorded in Pakistan.

            Records since when? Since man crawled out the primordial soup, since the industrial revolution, since the little ice age, or since accurate records of temperature were recorded, which is likely to be……..about now, possibly.

            There are no accurate temperature records before satellites were launched. SST’s were taken with buckets tossed over the sides of ships along trade routes; land surface temperatures recorded by tea boys trudging out in the snow to Stevenson screens designed for local weather events.

            To accept historic temperature records to within 1ºC is a leap of faith, to rely on them to within 0.1ºC is absolute lunacy.

            Billions of people are defenseless again changes that could easily kill the elderly or the sick among them.

            Because people like you won’t let them burn fossil fuels to improve their conditions.

            Please research and understand this. There is not one single, credible study, empirically derived which demonstrates atmospheric CO2 causes global warming, never mind climate change.

            There should be dozens, if not hundreds in the last 40 years or so of excessive spending on the subject, but there is not one other than those few robustly debunked.

            As far as the MSM is concerned, your rhetoric displays your complete submission to it’s pronouncements of global doom. All it takes to awaken you is for you to ask questions.

            Rudyard Kipling dispenses an abject lesson:

            I KEEP six honest serving-men
            (They taught me all I knew);
            Their names are What and Why and When
            And How and Where and Who.
            I send them over land and sea,
            I send them east and west;
            But after they have worked for me,
            I give them all a rest.

            I let them rest from nine till five,
            For I am busy then,
            As well as breakfast, lunch, and tea,
            For they are hungry men.
            But different folk have different views;
            I know a person small—
            She keeps ten million serving-men,
            Who get no rest at all!

            She sends’em abroad on her own affairs,
            From the second she opens her eyes—
            One million Hows, two million Wheres,
            And seven million Whys!

            – The Elephant’s Child –

          • Yes, the death toll of 70,000 from the 2003 European heat wave is the total of deaths in excess of the normal for the time of year when the heat wave occurred.

            Temperatures are rising worldwide and there is no way to account for it except that CO2, a major greenhouse gas, is rapidly accumulating in the atmosphere. The recent record breaking high temperature in Pakistan may not be the highest that ever occurred there since the beginning of time, but it is the highest recorded in modern times, and it is the forefront of a trend. The trend is poised at the beginning of the range of temperatures that are lethal for many human beings. There is no reason to expect the trend to cease or reverse itself if we continue to add millions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

          • “Temperatures are rising worldwide and there is no way to account for it except that CO2,”

            Temperatures have cooled 1.2C since the 2016 high temperture point. Meanwhile, CO2 levels conntinue to rise in the atmosphere. That’s just the opposite of what should be happening if CO2 was really the control knob of the Earth’s atmosphere. Something is wrong with the CAGW speculation.

            I haven’t seen Roy Spencer’s UAH chart for October but the cooling might be continuing lower.

            The temperatures are not rising.

          • Jesse,
            Temperatures have both risen and fallen since the sun first started shining.
            At no time in the past has CO2 played a role in those temperatures.

            The claim that CO2 is the only thing that can explain the current rise in temperature is so totally moronic that only someone who has no interest in reality could utter it.

          • You are correct MarkW, in the assertion that CO2 cannot be the only thing that explains the current rise in temperatures. However it is the best explanation. If you disagree, please provide a better explanation.

          • Non Nomen shows he doesn’t understand how science works. Today it is the “best” explanation. Tomorrow, new data could arrive that makes another explanation better. In Science, a theory/law/hypothesis is always discarded when something better comes along.

            So, do you have a “better” explanation than CO2 for the recent warming?

          • However it is the best explanation. If you disagree, please provide a better explanation.

            Today it is the “best” explanation. Tomorrow, new data could arrive that makes another explanation better.

            I miss the word “today” in your first quote. You were talking in present tense. Now, suddenly, you fall back to the line of “today”. Nice try, I call it deception.

        • Last winter alone in the UK 38000 death certificates had hypothermia officially noted as the cause.
          Each household in the UK paid out £256 levied on top of their Electric bills to pay for the obscene renewables, with most of the money going from the poor and pensioners to the landowners and rich investors in the renewables scam.
          You are either a gullible fool or a paid disseminator of fake news.

        • Jesse Fell:

          “But great and dangerous changes are coming”

          Yes, and they are unwittingly being CAUSED by the environmentalists!

          CO2 causes NO warming. It is all a hoax. But the reduction in the amount of strongly dimming anthropogenic Sulfur Dioxide aerosol emissions in the atmosphere due to Clean Air efforts DOES, and is responsible for all of the anomalous warming that has occurred since circa 1975.

          Anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions totaled 131 Megatons in 1975, and were reduced to 101 Megatons by 2014. This cleansing of the air allowed sunshine to strike the earth’s surface with greater intensity, causing increased warming, at the rate of approx. .02 deg. C. of warming for each net Megaton of reduction in global SO2 aerosol emissions.

          Continued efforts to reduce SO2 aerosol emissions WILL guarantee increased warming ,far beyond an additional 1.5 deg. C, but this warning has been totally ignored by essentially everyone on this site, including Anthony Watts.

          • CO2 has been known to play an important role in regulating the Earth’s surface temperature since John Tyndale published a series of papers on it in the 1840s. Since then, Tyndale’s ideas have been confirmed by both advances in theoretical knowledge and by observation. And no wonder: demonstrating the way CO2 absorbs infrared radiation is simple enough to be a high school science fair project — which it frequently is.

            We are dumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, where it accumulates; it doesn’t dissolve in rain as does SO2. The right question is not whether CO2 contributes to global warming, but how it could possibly not contribute.

          • Not correct, Jesse. Radiation physics is not a theory of climate.

            Climate models cannot resolve the effect, if any, of CO2 emissions.

            A look at the movements of the climate does not reveal any unusual changes.

            Neither you nor the IPCC have theoretical or empirical grounds for your claims.

            Complete refutation here.

          • The “complete refutation” in Sage Journals would refute a lot more than the current consensus (not = unanimity) on man made global warming. It would also refute most of our currently accepted understanding of physics and other scientific displines. It would refute work done by climate scientists going back to Fourier and Tyndall, in the first half of the nineteenth century. It would be one of the most famous scientific papers ever written.

            Of course, this paper may not have received to recognition it deserves because of an ideologically driven conspiracy to suppress the truth, which would implicate virtually all of the world’s climate scientists in fraud and collusion. Or, it may in fact be receiving the recogntion that it deserves; which is the say, it is poppycock. I find the latter conclusion more plausible.

          • It really is fascinating how the warmistas actually believe they are entitled to their own facts.

            No, it has not been known that CO2 controls anything. It has been postulated, nothing more.
            Real world data shows that CO2 has at most a minor impact on climate.

          • The complete refutation shows that the consensus neglect of model and measurement systematic errors indicates widespread incompetence in the field.

            The magnitude of these neglected errors obviates the possibility of any conclusions regarding the effect of CO2 on climate.

            Either you didn’t even read the abstract before rushing to judgment, Jesse, or you read it and understood not word one.

          • I read it and recognized immediately nonsense. Over and over again, someone finds the mistake, the misconception, or the slight of hand that no one else has found, but that at last has been revealed — BY ME!— as irrefutable proof that the thousands of scientists in dozens of countries, working away year after year, have been incompetent or radically dishonest co-conpirators, or both.

          • … the thousands of scientists in dozens of countries, working away year after year, have been incompetent or radically dishonest co-conpirators, or both.

            They are the conductors on the gravy train, not allowing those on board who doubt their timetable and destination.

          • Jesse, come on and stop bsing yourself.
            The heatwaves are well documented as within historical nirms.
            And cold, not heat, is the deadlier extreme.
            Even if CO2 was somehow controlled as the climate obsessed demand, there will still be heatwaves as hot or hotter than those you are so misled about.

          • Where’s the error in the paper, Jesse. You claim to have recognized “nonsense.” Where is it, specifically.

            Your comments so far are mere dismissals; empty of substantive content.

            Let’s see you factually refute word one of the abstract. I say you can’t do it.

          • Human beings can die of both heat and cold. The way to prevent people from ever again dying of cold is not to make the planet so warm that it will never be cold again, anywhere. That would lead to many more deaths by heat. The way would be to address the poverty that is the cause of deaths by cold, as you rightly say. And then we must take measures needed to prevent or slow down the further warming of the planet.

          • Human beings can die of both heat and cold.

            And they can die of old age in a warm and pleasant climate.

            And then we must take measures needed to prevent or slow down the further warming of the planet.

            Back in the day this planet has been much warmer than it is today. You find tree roots under the glaciers of the Swiss Alps. Antarctica has remainders of a once thriving jungle. So why are you so reluctant to accept that it is utterly mad to try to prevent a change in climate?

          • Jesse, come on and stop bsing yourself.
            The heatwaves are well documented as within historical nirms.
            And cold, not heat, is the deadlier extreme.
            Even if CO2 was somehow controlled as the climate obsessed demand, there will still be heatwaves as hot or hotter than those you are so misled about.

        • So you are at last prepared to openly reject the fear mongering anti-scientific nonsense of the climate change consensus! Congratulations.
          Now demand the third world be encouraged to develop cheap reliable electric power at industrial levels to make air conditioning availabl. And especially encourage third world entrepreneurship to create wealth and prosperity.
          That’s a scary step for a former climate imperialist, but it is the tight and rational thing to do.

        • “But great and dangerous changes are indeed happening.”

          Jesse,
          I accept that you fervently and religiously believe your statement but there is no evidence to back it up. Just projections of flawed computer models.

          “All hands on deck.”

          More like all lemmings to the cliff’s edge.

          • There is almost 200 years of science to back it up. I would suggest reading « The Warming Papers », an anthology of the classic scientific papers on the subject of greenhouse gases and global warming, beginning with Jean Baptiste Fourier’s seminale paper from the 1820s, and continuing through modern times. I much shorter and simpler book is « What We Know About Climate Change’ by Kerry Emmanuel of MIT.

            We don’t rely on computer models alone for our understand of global warming and climate change; rather, computer models use what we do understand to try to make projections about future climate change.

            But the computer models deserve a grade of « pretty good » overall. They have predicted that the most rapid warming would occur at the high northern latittudes; that nights would stay warming; that the stratosphere would become cooler — for example. And where they have been off the target, it has usually been in underestimating the climate change that woould be taking place.

          • Climate models are the only causal indicator, Jesse.

            The climate itself changes spontaneously all the time. Large swings in temperature have occurred in the past that are not associated with CO2 or any other known cause. Look up Dansgaard-Oeschger events, as an example.

            Air temperature has exhibited upward and downward trends throughout known history, and over geological time. During the Holocene, none of those swings were associated with CO2.

            So, establishing cause requires climate models that can resolve a CO2 effect away from all other possible causes.

            However, they cannot do that. Climate models cannot resolve the effect, if any, of the tiny perturbation that is CO2 emissions. The cause of the recent warming is completely unknown.

            As to recent warming, I’ve published on the air temperature record, too. It is so riven with systematic measurement uncertainty as to render it unfit to resolve either the magnitude or the rate of recent warming.

            I’ve debated people from the UEA climate research center about that problem. They are cavalier in their dismissal, and appear to never have worked with an actual instrument.

            Here’s the title and abstract of the linked paper:

            Title: “Uncertainty in the Global Average Surface Air Temperature Index: A Representative Lower Limit”

            Abstract: “Sensor measurement uncertainty has never been fully considered in prior appraisals of global average surface air temperature. The estimated average ±0.2 C station error has been incorrectly assessed as random, and the systematic error from uncontrolled variables has been invariably neglected. The systematic errors in measurements from three ideally sited and maintained temperature sensors are calculated herein. Combined with the ±0.2 C average station error, a representative lower-limit uncertainty of ±0.46 C was found for any global annual surface air temperature anomaly. This ±0.46 C reveals that the global surface air temperature anomaly trend from 1880 through 2000 is statistically indistinguishable from 0 C, and represents a lower limit of calibration uncertainty for climate models and for any prospective physically justifiable proxy reconstruction of paleo-temperature. The rate and magnitude of 20th century warming are thus unknowable, and suggestions of an unprecedented trend in 20th century global air temperature are unsustainable.”

            The analysis has never been falsified.

          • 1) Station measurement uncertainty and the uncertainty in the estimator of global temperature are two distinct and incomparable items. Uncertainty in the estimator of global temperatures (and anomalies) can be alleviated by increasing the number of observations. Your analysis fails on this fact.

            2) You say: “The climate itself changes spontaneously all the time,” and you say, “or any other known cause.” This is logically impossible. You are arguing that there is an effect with no cause. You cannot attribute changes in climate to magic. Just because you don’t know the actual cause does not mean that a cause does not exist.

          • PS Frank, another error in your “paper” is that you calculated systematic errors. Unfortunately you need to measure them, not calculate them, because the results of your calculations are dependent on the assumptions that went into the calculations, and not on physical reality.

          • Failure on every point, Remy.

            1) Systematic error is not known to be normally distributed. It does not decrease with repeated measurements. Systematic error may actually become larger with an increased number of observations.

            2) Chaotic systems, such as the terrestrial climate, can vary without a specific causal process, but merely from the behavior of the system itself. Coupled oscillators display such behavior. The climate is, in fact, a set of coupled oscillators.

            3) The systematic errors used in my paper were measured from ideally sited instruments, by reference to an aspirated RM Young PRT sensor as standard.

            No matter your use of scare-quotes, i.e., “paper,” the study was peer-reviewed, and remains unfalsified. Including, now, your failed criticisms.

            Try again.

          • Taking anomalies does not eliminate a ±uncertainty, Remy.

            In fact, when taking an anomaly using a 30-year normal (T_n)±(u_n) and a local (T_l)±(u_l), the uncertainty in the anomaly is the root-mean-square of the uncertainties, i.e., ±U_total = sqrt[(u_n)^2 + (u_l)^2], which is greater than ±u_n or ±u_l.

            Taking anomalies, in other words, increases the uncertainty.

            The compilers of the temperature record apparently don’t know this, and seem to never have taken any actual science classes, and seem to know nothing of physical error or how it impacts accuracy statements.

            When one reads their papers, one sees that they merely assume all errors are random. It’s the most self-serving set of unsupported assumptions, ever. Apart from the Critical Theories in sociology and *-ism cultural studies.

            You’re now 0 for 6.

          • 1) Frank says: “Systematic error is not known to be normally distributed”

            That is correct. However, irrespective of the distribution of systematic error, using anomalies eliminates it’s effect when you look at changes in the underlying measurement.
            ….
            2) “Chaotic systems, such as the terrestrial climate, can vary without a specific causal process”

            FALSE

            Not knowing the cause is not equivalent to saying none exists.

            ..
            3) There is no such thing as an “ideally sited instrument.” Your opinion of “ideally” is insignificant, and utterly worthless. Please tell me that moving one of your “ideally” sited instruments 10 feet south makes it “non-ideal.”

          • ” The climate is, in fact, a set of coupled oscillators.”

            If what you say is correct, please give us the number of oscillators , and the frequencies they operate at.

          • Tell me Frank, what instrument measurement errors are not normally distributed and quatified?

          • Remy: “ irrespective of the distribution of systematic error, using anomalies eliminates it’s effect when you look at changes in the underlying measurement.

            Not when one does not know the magnitude of the error, Remy.

            And in the air temperature measurements the magnitude of systematic error changes with the impact of uncontrolled environmental variables – mostly solar irradiance and wind speed.

            For actual field measurements, the only expression of cumulative error is as an uncertainty, expressed as the rms of the sensor calibration errors = ±sqrt[sum over (errors)^2/(N-1)]

            You wrote, “Not knowing the cause is not equivalent to saying none exists.

            Not correct. Not knowing the cause is a statement of ignorance. A lack of knowledge says nothing about causality or physical reality.

            Your comment about ideal siting is truly fatuous. Do you understand anything at all about instrumental calibration? Ideal siting refers to locating a sensor under prescribed standards. Your comment implies ‘ideal’ as a philosophical concept. It’s not. It refers to an empirical set of analytical standards relevant to the instrument used for calibration.

            0 for 8, Remy

          • “The climate is, in fact, a set of coupled oscillators.”

            Remy, “If what you say is correct, please give us the number of oscillators , and the frequencies they operate at.

            Madden-Julian oscillation, approximately 30-60 day period. ENSO, approximately biannual. PDO, approximate 30 year period, AMO, likewise, IOO, likewise, periods all probably ±20 years and that list is far from exhaustive.

            USDA on Climate Cycles.

            Science Direct on climate oscillations.

            Remy, “Tell me Frank, what instrument measurement errors are not normally distributed and quatified?

            Air temperature sensor systematic errors, which are those relevant to this discussion. See here: “Realtime data filtering models for air temperature measurements.”

            And that paper is not the only report of non-normal temperature sensor systematic measurement error.

            0 for 10.

          • 1) The “magnitude” of the error cancels when you use an anomaly Frank.
            ..
            2) “Not knowing the cause is a statement of ignorance.” …. EXCELLENT !!!! I love it when you admit to your ignorance. You posted: “the terrestrial climate, can vary without a specific causal process.” … The only valid conclusion is that you are ignorant of the causes of climatic variation. This is why we do not trust a chemist to opine on climate.

            3) Instrument calibration is not a “siting” issue. Do you understand the meaning of the word “siting?” Just tell me if moving an instrument 10 feet south of an “ideal” location makes it non-ideal. 100 feet? 1000 feet? How about 100,000 feet?

          • Frank, do you understand the difference between “Air temperature sensor systematic errors” and sampling errors for the estimator of a mean? Obviously you confuse the two. Your “Air temperature sensor systematic errors” are rendered moot when each and every sensor is used to calculate an anomaly. Irrespective of that mistake on your part, you do realize that the error of the individual instrument becomes less and less significant as the number of instruments increases?

          • Remy: “1) The “magnitude” of the error cancels when you use an anomaly Frank.

            Only when the error is known and known to be constant. Neither criterion is present in air temperature measurements. Let’s see if you can figure out what that means.

            Remy “…. 2) EXCELLENT !!!! I love it when you admit to your ignorance,” posted in response to my general statement, “Not knowing the cause is a statement of ignorance.”

            Great example of a deliberately false and manufactured inference, Remy. A three-letter word following from that definition is ‘lie.’

            Remy, “ You posted: “the terrestrial climate, can vary without a specific causal process.” … The only valid conclusion is that you are ignorant of the causes of climatic variation. This is why we do not trust a chemist to opine on climate.

            I’ve already explained that my work is error analysis, not about climate. Do try to parse the difference and apply it, OK?

            The only valid conclusion is that the climate can vary without any specific cause. That’s a direct consequence of the climate as coupled oscillators. A state I demonstrated in a prior post with reference to published work and to the USDA discussion.

            The minor conclusion stemming from your comment, also valid, is that you apparently can’t pass up an opportunity to show that you think blow-hard personal derogations are valid arguments.

            Remy, “ 3) Instrument calibration is not a “siting” issue. Do you understand the meaning of the word “siting?” Just tell me if moving an instrument 10 feet south of an “ideal” location makes it non-ideal. 100 feet? 1000 feet? How about 100,000 feet?

            Really dumb, Remy. Of course instrumental field calibration is a siting issue. The systematic measurement error varies with the field environment, i.e., with the site. That is the case for air temperature sensors.

            “Ideal” depends on the desired physical conditions in which the sensor is to be tested and calibrated.

            You’re now 0 for 13

          • Remy, in your November 2, 2018 at 6:08 pm, you’re confusing random error with systematic error.

            You’re also presuming that the Central Limit Theorem applies to systematic error. It does not.

            Systematic error is not normally distributed, and does not necessarily decrease with the number of measurements.

            In fact, systematic error due to uncontrolled variables can increase with the number of measurements.

          • So, Remy Mermelstein abandoned the debate after being mistaken on every single point, but of course without admitting any of it or changing his mind about anything.

          • This may be true — now. But it could change. And that is the whole point. A catastrophic heat wave on the subcontinent of India could very plausibly kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people. Can we really dismiss that out of hand by saying « But cold kills lots of people, too »?

          • Jesse, you have clearly lost this argument. I do have some advice for you; when you are in a hole, stop digging.

          • You lost, Jesse, because you haven’t made a single substantive argument in the face of thorough refutations.

            You wrote that, “We don’t rely on computer models alone for our understand of global warming and climate change…,” which is entirely wrong.

            Computer models are the only indicators of a CO2 effect on climate. Anyone who says differently does not understand how science works.

            Theory makes predictions. Observations and experiment test those predictions, and can falsify or verify (but not prove) the theory.

            Climate models deploy the known physics of climate. Only a physical theory of climate can predict the effect of CO2 on the climate.

            Not one paper on climate modeling has ever tested the predictive accuracy of a climate model. Not one.

            Testing accuracy does not mean adjusting parameters until you get a match with observations — which is all climate modelers ever do.

            Testing accuracy means propagating errors through the model into the prediction. Then seeing how the predictions with its uncertainty bars based in physical error compares to observations.

            When that is done, the uncertainties are so large that it’s immediately obvious that the models have no predictive value.

            I have yet to encounter a single climate modeler who grasps this sine qua non of science.

            They are not scientists. Are you a scientist? So far, there’s no indication of that status in your posts.

          • But climate models are not our only source of information about climate change. We have reliable records of temperature going back almost 100 years. And we have proxy data which gives us rough ballpark ideas of temperatures in the past.

            As to the climate models, they are not the abject failures that you say they are. They have correctly predicted that the most rapid warming would occur in the high northern latitudes, that nights would stay warmer worldwide, and that the stratosphere would start to cool. And they have correctly predicted slow but steady increases in atmospheric temperature. These increases have not be perfectly synched with increases in atmospheric CO2, but the have been happening as CO2 concentrations increase — as the computer models predicted.

          • By the way, Jesse, you never responded to my challenge to find an error, any error, in my paper that refutes the entire IPCC position.

            You called the paper nonsense. With such certainty, you ought to have seen a big mistake. What is it?

          • Pat Frank, most computer modelers have studied computer science which does in fact make them “scientists.” It’s very similar to a chemist doing climate science. One could argue you are unqualified because of that.

          • Frank, the biggest error in your paper is the fact that you do not acknowledge that using anomalies eliminates systemic error.

          • Einstein had NO formal academic background whe he published his first paper in 1900: “Conclusions from the Capillarity Phenomena”. He was an employee at the Swiss patent office by then.

          • Wrong Non Nomen. “Einstein had NO formal academic background.”
            ..
            ..
            He held a four year teaching degree in mathematics and physic in 1900 from Zürich Polytechnic.

          • That is what I paraphrased in my posting at 2:11 pm.
            It was teaching diploma and not an academic degree.
            It just isn’t good enought to read, it is always better to understand.

          • Yes Non Nomen, you don’t seem to understand that a teaching degree/diploma is an academic degree. Bonus points because the area(s) of this degree was in math and physics.

          • Pleas note that the conditions 120 years ago in Switzerland were completely different from those of the present. It was a” polytechnic” by then founded with a different background and intentions.
            A teacher does not qualify as a “scientist”. He, Einstein, did not study physics or mathematics and not even computer science, he held no degree in any of these. According to your own standards, that disqualifies him, at least before 1905 in these fields.

          • Quit while you are ahead Non Nomen.
            ..
            You say: “he held no degree in any of these.”
            ..
            The academic (teaching) degree he earned was in MATH and PHYSICS.
            ..
            The actual degree he received from Swiss Federal Polytechnic is a “BA.”

          • I emphasize once again that the standards of more than 120 years ago in a Switzerland polytechnic are not comparable to those of today. So, please, don’t ditherdrivel.

          • Non Nomen posted “Einstein had NO formal academic background”

            I have proven you wrong.

            He had a degree in 1900

          • You seem to be unwilling to accept that the standards of the polytechnic more than 120 years ago are incomparable to those of today.

          • Computer science isn’t physical science, Remy. It is methodologically distinct.

            And most climate modelers seem to have degrees in mathematics, which isn’t physical science either.

            My papers are not about the climate. They are about error analysis. As a physical methods experimental chemist, I am well-qualified to critically discuss that.

            You’re 0 for 5, Remy.

          • As a physical methods experimental chemist, you are not qualified to discuss sampling error which lies in the domain of mathematics and statistics. So you might be qualified to discuss measurement error, but you fail when it comes to using an estimator of a population mean.

            You have not addressed the fact that using anomalies makes systemic error moot.
            ..

            PS Chemistry isn’t Climate science it is methodologically distinct.

          • Every physical error analysis uses statistical concepts, Remy. You have yet to find a single mistake.

            You’re also wrong about anomalies when the qualifier is a ±uncertainty rather than a constant error offset, as I have already pointed out.

            Chemistry and Climate Science are methodologically identical, Remy. Methodologically, they are both falsifiable theory and replicable experiment/observation.

            Every branch of physical science is likewise identical.

            Any field of study that seeks objective knowledge will be likewise methodologically identical.

          • Non Nomen, 120 years ago, Einstein earned a degree. In order to earn that degree, he underwent formal academic study. Applying today’s standards (120+ years later) is not relevant. You posted: “Einstein had NO formal academic background”

            You were dead, flat wrong. His forma academic background was in physics and mathematics, in which he earned a degree.

  2. ??? I’m sure I’ve heard the greenies say over and over that this is what needs to happen, that millions and millions need to die because Gaia is so stressed…or because the envirowackos are so stressed. Others should die, not them, of course.

    • This 1.5º madness comes from the meaningless
      Paris Agreement. Has anyone read the full agreement? I have – of the 29 articles, 28 are devoted to expressions of good intentions and protocols and procedures of the Agreement. Nothing else! Only one, Article 2, has a meaningless reference to this 1.5º temperature.
      Article 2 says “….to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.Anybody knows what is the global average temperature of the “pre-industrial levels??

      • “Anybody knows what is the global average temperature of the “pre-industrial levels??”

        However low you want to make it.

        • Whatever it was in the Medieval Warm Period when the Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops there. Those crops are now under ice. Temps then probably about 2 deg warmer.

  3. Hundreds of millions will die anyway. In fact, everyone who is living right now will die. That is around 7.8 billion deaths coming within the next 90 years or so! What horrors!

      • just plotted my life, and used an simplified algorithm to extrapolate my life into the future :-
        Rate of change is slowing
        Rate of increase is heading towards asymptotic
        Annual change is a straight line.
        Hindcast exactly nails the day I was born
        No delta created by temperature of CO2 levels
        so far nothing in it to suggest anything other living forever
        what could possibly be wrong with that ?

      • Jesse, come on and stop bsing yourself.
        The heatwaves are well documented as within historical nirms.
        And cold, not heat, is the deadlier extreme.
        Even if CO2 was somehow controlled as the climate obsessed demand, there will still be heatwaves as hot or hotter than those you are so misled about.

  4. This is so Western politicians can blame the coming deaths of billions on the phony climate change problem if the UN’s UNFCCC carbon “policies” are implemented.

    20th Century Soviet Gulags and Nazi concentration-death camps will pale in comparison to 21st Century climate policy energy deprivations if the global socialists, using their climate change Trojan Horse, are allowed to rule.

    A feudal (2 class) society is where the fake Cargo Cult scientist’s and the Erhlichman’s and Holdren’s want us to return to — so they can continue to get their grants and accolades for their status. A system of the Elites and the peasants — us and our “betters.” Very much a Hunger Games society.

    A return to Cold is coming. Prepare.

    • It is less a matter of gulags and concentration camps. More a matter of mass starvation and deaths from hypothermia, like in Soviet Russia and Maoist China.

      • Yes indeed, wouldn’t a modest 1.5 C rise in temp over pre-industrial society really be an insurance policy on any cooling trend? History is littered with short cold snaps usually triggered by vulcanism that plunge the good Earth’s temps by a degree or two for a few years. That is just enough for a few crop failures that would now make for a really bad time for 7.4 billion fellow Earthlings. Or worse if a longer term natural variation cooling trend is in the cards. I always think that given a choice, warmer is always better than colder, even if there is other issues like flooding etc, but overall, a net plus. Historically, temps never seem to stay the same for long, so it is really a choice of what is better for humanity, colder or slightly warmer.

  5. So far, everyone has died, eventually. If I recall, the record was 123 years old for a French lady, so surely hundreds of millions will die.

      • Oh, you were faster, credits.

        Though I suspect the population 2100 is larger than now and no hundreds of millions of deaths have occurred for AGW reasons, on the contrary.

  6. Follow their agendas by cutting use of petrochemicals and millions, perhaps billions WILL die, and that is the sad truth.

    Journalism, as I used to know it, has already been the first casualty!

  7. We have had long periods when it was more than 1.5 degrees warmer than it was in 1800. How about the Holocene Climate Optimum. It was a good thing, that’s why it’s called optimum.

    All the historical evidence is that 1.5 degrees warmer than 1800 will be a good thing.

    • YES. THIS. The warmest period of the ENTIRE Holocene is called the “CLIMATE OPTIMUM,” and the deluded “believers” think what, that they called it that because the “weather” was so BAD?!

    • Such dehumanising simple arguments make you miss what”s actually going on.
      Not a single journalist spoke up? Is that because they agreed with the piffle? Not necessarily.

      •They may have thought they had a scoop and not wanted to let the others know the guy was an idiot.
      •They may have thought that the story would be diluted by forcing him to backtrack, thus wasting their time.
      •They may have thought that the story needed numbers and details to refute and so wanted to hold fire until they had consulted elsewhere.
      •They may have thought that the editors employ them to promote a certain view and cutting off one line of employment is bad business (especially freelancers).
      •They may have thought that the whole thing was too boring to and repetitive to bother engaging with.
      •They may have thought something else that you would never know if you write them off as NPCs.

      The NPC idea is a mirror.
      It shows a lack of subtle thinking. It shows a lack of engagement with alternative views.

      • Courtney – they couldn’t think of any questions to ask? Maybe they had no idea of what O’Shanassy was going to talk about, despite the position he holds. Thus, they were unable to prepare for this event.
        Sorry – that doesn’t pass the smell test.

  8. Around about 2000, ever since the World Chess Champion got beat by a computer in a match in 1997, the world went crazy by believing that computers knew more than humans. The climate modelers had already started believing intrinsically in the predictions of their models even before that, but their belief cemented around that time and the rest is history. Climate modelers have entered the virtual world of computers and there is no turning back. The genie is out of the bottle and they will never give up trying to perfect their programming code to model the earth. THE EARTH CAN NEVER BE MODELLED WITH ANY USEFUL DEGREE OF ACCURACY.
    It is a chaotic system which mathematics can never replicate. The IPCC has admitted this but climate scientists like Michael Mann,Ben Santer, and Gavin Schmidt and 1000’s of others under groupthink will never admit this. The world is paying dearly for this groupthink of worshipping computer code.

    • Computers are dumb, but they’re very very good at following directions. Lots and lots of directions in a very short time. This can give them the illusion of intelligence, when they’re really just repeating an algorithm created by human input. (Building a complex algorithm can be an intellectual challenge for the human programmer, but in of itself, it’s just a list of instructions the computer follows mindlessly.)

      Interestingly, in one of the games played in the match between the Deep Blue supercomputer and Gary Kasparov, DB made a mistake that GK did not recognize as such and exploit, because GK thought a computer would not make such obvious blunders. He too became mystified by the illusion of superintelligence and mindgamed himself into losing a game that the computer all but handed to him. 😮

    • Alan Tomalty

      As Richard Lindzen said in his presentation to the GWPF, and I paraphrase: Humans are bad at short term weather prediction, so how can we be good at long term climate prediction?

      • That’s an unusually weak argument from Professor Lindzen.

        Imagine a drunken sailor staggering back towards his ship in the dock. He might go left. He might go right. No-one knows where he goes one minute to the next.
        But by the morning he will have drifted down the hill to the sea. It’s easier and has a pull.

        The argument against long term weather prediction is that the climate is a chaotic system with many strange attractors. It needs to be stated that there is more than one semi-stable state for the long-term climate.

        • M Courtney

          An astonishingly silly comparison from you.

          If there’s one thing I know about, it’s drunks. I have incarcerated more of them than I care to remember even if was mostly to let them sleep it off in safety.

          A drunk has no instinct, none at all, not for the sea or for anything else. If a drunk finds a hill he will invariably fall down it, irrespective of its direction. Indeed, more often than not, he will fall uphill whilst believing he is going downhill.

          Richard Lindzen made his statement far more eloquently than me, but then he’s a scientist, I’m not. However his presentation is widely available online and well worth watching.

      • HotScot, that’s like saying that since someone is bad at sprinting, they must also be bad at weight lifting.

        Two entirely different problems requiring entirely different solutions.

  9. But…
    But…
    But…

    Isn’t this PRECISELY what is the unspoken, unspeakable reductio-ad-absurdum that’s been called for since … well … forever? The problem — without verily a single abstention — is continued overpopulation pressure on the finite Earth’s ability to “handle the shît”.

    So, get rid of a few percent.
    Hopefully per year.
    Indefinitely.
    Until the Dogs of War can be called off.
    If they can.

    100,000,000 a year? 1.5% mortality-to-Darwinian-causes every year was the natural, hundred-thousand-plus year long “normal” for mankind. We’re 7,200 million or so, so 1.5% of that is 100 million. Sounds about right. After 50 years, the world population is 0.985⁵⁰ = 45% of what it is today. 3.4 billion. Much easier for the Earth an its outrageous naked apes can work within.

    Might as well continue for another 50. Down to 22% of 7,200 million or a mere 1.6 billion.

    If what I’ve read over the years is possibly true — then the “carrying capacity” of Earth is only about 500 million people, indefinitely. There is enough wild forest regrowth to sustain pretty opulent living standards for half a billion souls. Only takes about 175 years at –1.5% per year to get there from 7,200 million people today.

    Not that long, not that short. The maturity of a certain nation.
    Just saying,
    GoatGuy

      • CodeTrader,

        in my experience, people minimalize the overpopulation problem because they don’t have kids. Without a genetic investment in the future of the world, who cares, as long as my DINK (double-income-no-kids) lifestyle isn’t impinged on by tax-happy bolshies, right?

        Wrong. Wait till your youngest daughter becomes a mother for the fourth time. I defy you to hold your miracle-triplet grandkids in your arms and explain to THEM why you can’t be bothered doing anything about the overcrowded world you’re bequeathing them.

        The science is clear, and it’s piling up every day, with peer-reviewed authors in every imaginable field all reaching the same conclusion regardless of what their papers are actually about: that unless we take draconian steps to cut our numbers on this planet, immediately, people are going to die (High Confidence, Moderate/Low Evidence).

          • Patrick,

            I sit on the board of not only one, but also two, grassroots orgs that are lobbying both our government and China’s to reinstate (and honor!) the latter’s One Child Policy. Our long term game plan is for Beijing’s example to then be taken up by other lands in the region and around the world.

            You can imagine my swelling with arrogance when my eldest grandson successfully defended his thesis on the threat of human population at a top-10 French university this year. He’s now weighing up a career in climate communication versus following his mum’s footsteps in the world of demographics policymaking. Leading institutes on three different continents are wooing him, and the air fares alone are practically bankrupting his young family, but as I keep saying him, it’ll all be worth it in the end. You can’t put a price on the quiet satisfaction you feel after a day spent improving the world.

            So the question is not whether I’m putting my money where my mouth is, but: what are YOU doing to prevent other people’s children literally choking your sons’ and daughters’ Lebensraum?

            —Brad
            Klimanürnberg, Bayern, Germany

            (Apologies if my vocabulary sometimes fails to convey my sanctimony clearly—English is far from my first language.)

          • You sit on more than one board talking about ways you can order people not to have families? How brave of you!

            I had people like you telling me that my grandchildren will suffer the pollution destruction of the planet when I was growing up. I grew up, had a child and she had children. The planet is fine, my kids and their kids are fine. What makes your grandkids so different?

          • Yes I can tell English is not your first language and German is as you come across as a know-it-all arrogant dictatorial worrier.

          • Mike,

            “What is it with Germans and their desire to control other nation’s populations?”

            Let me get this straight. We try pruning our OWN population, and the rest of the world jumps up and down and demands war crimes trials. So then we focus on interfering in other countries’ populations instead, and does that get you people off our backs? No, suddenly we’re ‘arrogant… neo-Imperialist armchair genocide-fantasizers.’

            We can’t win, can we?

            Let’s face it: no matter whose elimination Germans call for, you’re going to criticize us for it.

            If I didn’t know better, and if racism wasn’t one of the most serious accusations one can make in polite society, I’d almost speculate that maybe, just maybe, you people have something against Germans.

            On the off chance that anyone is interested in getting to know the real German character (knowledge being the best antidote for hatred, and all that), I wrote a primer on the top six things everyone should be legally compelled to know about Germany .

            But we all know you won’t read it.

          • Brad Keyes;
            Apologies if my vocabulary sometimes fails to convey my sanctimony clearly

            Have no fear. You come across quite clearly as sanctimonious. You should perhaps add arrogant and pompous to your vocabulary also.

            As for your poor son going bankrupt because he has to pay for flights all over the world to be wooed by various companies, news flash Mr. Sanctimonious, when companies are wooing you, they pay for your travel.

          • I wrote a primer on the top six things everyone should be legally compelled to know about Germany .

            But we all know you won’t read it.

            I read it.
            It starts out with the claim that the holocaust was a “local” event and ends with the claim that Germans are intellectually superior to the rest of the world.

            Thank you for pointing out to the readership precisely what you are, in your own words.

          • Sorry guys (Patrick & Mike), it is “some Germans”, the vast majority are just like you and me – live and let live.

            The issue I have with the idiots who think people shouldn’t have children is they never set an example (often quite the opposite). Take Brad, he appears to have several children (youngest daughter), but still thinks others shouldn’t have any kids.

          • Brad Keyes

            We try pruning our OWN population, and the rest of the world jumps up and down and demands war crimes trials. So then we focus on interfering in other countries’ populations instead, and does that get you people off our backs? No, suddenly we’re ‘arrogant… neo-Imperialist armchair genocide-fantasizers.’

            Thankfully you understand just what you are, commonly known in the civilised world as a Nazi.

            You sure did try to prune your own society, of all those nasty Jews, indeed, you even moved onto other countries to accomplish more pruning in other countries.

            Clearly, you find this acceptable, and don’t blame it on your limited vocabulary, it has never been an issue with you in the past, it’s your mental processes that are of grave concern.

          • davidmhoffer,

            “news flash Mr. Sanctimonious, when companies are wooing you, they pay for your travel.”

            Maybe that’s the custom in the Anglosphera, where chivalry has yet to be eradicated fully, but here we have achieved a more egalitarian balance as between the respective debts of the wooer and the wooee. The male (or boss) pays 50% and the inferior, or woman, picks up the other half of the tab, speaking metaphoric.

            I recommend getting wood some time. You will soon discover why Germany is known as the land of going Dutch.

            Speaking of my verdant parentland, who has had the intellectual integerheid to click and read my anti-prejudice infopiece Alles Ueber Germany (All About Germany)? Still nobody? Typical.

            The link is right there (see up). The only thing standing between you and a more correct understanding and tolerance is your own incuriosity.

          • Brad Keyes:
            who has had the intellectual integerheid to click and read my anti-prejudice infopiece Alles Ueber Germany (All About Germany)? Still nobody? Typical.

            Look up thread, I read it and called attention to it. Since you persist, I shall call attention to it again.

            Mr Keyes asserts in his comment that he has written things about Germans that everyone else should be legally required (compelled) to know. The six points that he makes include claiming that the holocaust was only 70 localized events and that Germans are intellectually superior. You are a sick and twisted human being who is a left over of a dark chapter in German history. Today’s Germany is a wonderful country with many exceptional open minded people. Too bad you aren’t one of them.

          • Brad Keyes November 1, 2018 at 12:14 am

            How to respond..
            Well I struck a nerve.
            I have been to Germany, well. west Germany. Someone close to me was on a Fulbright scholarship. Got to spend some time there, a few months. I got to know a good number people. All nice even a few “want to be hooligans”.
            My area of study while attending several universities here in the U.S. and the UK was history. Military History.

            Putting any pressure on the Chinese to further destabilize their population so you can pretend you’re saving the world is beyond words. And no, I see no reason to read what think I should.
            Maybe instead you should read a bit of the studies of the social costs the one child policy has had on the Chinese people.
            I stand by my words, you should not be doing this and you should know better.

            michael

          • @Brad

            who has had the intellectual integerheid to click and read my anti-prejudice infopiece Alles Ueber Germany (All About Germany)? Still nobody? Typical.

            I read it.

            Pure garbage.

            Starts off with “80 years of environmentally-conscious government”. Seriously? Are you taking the pee?

            And ONLY 70 death camps. Again, seriously?

            “Die Konsensusfrauen ” – that’s what Weinstein said.

            Can’t be bothered with the rest of the nonsense – maybe that’s why WUWT readers can’t be bothered too

          • M Courtney November 1, 2018 at 1:23 am

            Point taken, but it did stir the pot a bit. 😀
            michael

          • Lieber Herr Hoffer,

            what I actually stated was that Germans perform better on the Milgram Electrocution Challenge. This is not an ethnical prejudice but simply a scientific result, replicated and quantified ad nauseam. Reject the science if you like, but don’t expect your rejectionism to be taken seriously until you’ve published your own paper overturning this robust finding.

            To repeat, all I claimed was that

            “• On average, Germans score 125 volts higher than their US counterparts on standard tests of AQ or ‘authority intelligence’ (the ability to tell an expert from a non-credentialed source of commands).”

            To put it in concrete terms, as a population, we’re second only to North Koreans at deciding whether to listen to a credentialled psychologist or a sobbing, screaming actor.

            Not coincidentally, we also lead the world in trusting the science on climate. A celebrated paper by Dr Johannes Koch u.s.w. finds that ninety-nine percent of educated Germans believe the science.

            That’s right: as a population, Germans outperform scientists by a whole 2%.

            Does our high AQ mean that we’re smarter than other Folks? No, not necessarily—that’s an understandable, but fallacious, deduction.

            Of course, we probably would be smarter by now, if only we hadn’t spent the mid-20th century systematically disincentivising the existence of millions of German citizens of above-average intelligence in history’s most notorious example of reverse eugenics, a.k.a. cacogenics, a.k.a. When Holocausts Go Wrong. Still, live and learn.

            Is the German man or woman perfect? Are we gods among men? Again, not so fast. That doesn’t necessarily follow from the data.

            In fact you may be surprised to learn that our national character has been linked with certain characteristic flaws, just like anybody else’s.

            For example, some (minority of) Germans have a regrettable way of sarcastically satirizing themselves (there’s even a pop term for it—Mickeynehmung, which means something like Entpissung), then adopting a caveat lector or blame-the-victim attitude to anyone naive enough to miss the countless hints and take them literally.

            Unfortunately, we have no equivalent of the American ‘sarc’ tag in our culture, but forward-thinking legislators are working on that. Mandatory tagging, goes the reasoning, can never eradicate facetiousness, but at least it could make it harder for perpetrators of irony to trick unsuspecting interlocutors. But without buy-in from the W3C, which sets the worldwide rules for HTML use, I fear it will prove difficult to enforce.

          • Brad Keyes;
            we’re second only to North Koreans at deciding

            Wow Mr. Sanctimonious, so you’re not quite the superior race, you’re second to the North Koreans. So you’d like Germany to be more like North Korea? That’s what you aspire to? You’d like people to be compelled to know this by legal enforcement. Along with the holocaust being only 70 localized events. You complained in comments upthread about prosecutions in the world court for “culling” your own population and the “culling” the population of other countries.

            Keep telling us what you are Mr. Sanctimonious. You’ll be called out for it. Sad the your neighbours don’t do it to your face, I certainly would.

          • davidmhoffer
            I think we are being played.
            I’m not sure he (it)is even German.
            Brad? A name like Brad? Come on if he is German it’s because some G.I in west Germany was his Dad.
            Then again he could be from east Germany but changed his name from Boris, just thinking.

            Interesting buzz words he uses. Are they even real?
            michael

          • Well there is a real Brad Keyes who runs the blog in his link:

            http://en.gravatar.com/iskoob

            The guy looks rather young though to have a grandchild. So the persona and the blog and all it represents is real. There’s someone that believes and promotes this filth. What the real name is and what they really look like I have no idea.

        • I always love the overpopulation scare you only need to look at the science facts to see it’s myth.

          The usual problem cited is food. The world currently produces enough food to feed 10 Billion people with a current population of 7.2Billion. We are not expected to hit 10 Billion until sometime after 2040 and each year food production is still increasing currently. The backdrop to this is that also assume food is used and consumed as now, it assumes no improvements in food processing. Global food waste is also estimated at 30% if that problem alone was rectified you could feed 30% extra population. It is the old case necessity is the mother of invention and the world will feed itself.

        • Brad Keyes

          Speaking of my verdant parentland, who has had the intellectual integerheid to click and read my anti-prejudice infopiece Alles Ueber Germany (All About Germany)? Still nobody? Typical.

          I read it, well, reading it in the loosest sense of the term because it’s probably amongst the worst sites on the internet to read. It barely makes sense. A chore to read and an exercise in egotism.

          I mean your claims are idiotic enough but converting idiocy from your mother tongue to English merely compounds the idiocy.

          Just because one can have a stab at writing in English doesn’t mean one should, especially when ones English vocabulary is so limited, I suspect a result of the German language being far more limited that English.

          Stick to writing your blog in German Brad, someone might be able to make sense of it.

          And identifying you as a Nazi wasn’t meant as an insult, I was merely vocalising in concise terms what you had written earlier.

          • Jeepers some of you are thick. (“Boah seid ihr blöd.”)
            As a bilingual German who also sometimes thickens his accent (speaking, not writing, unlike Brad) for effect (in my case, so that people unlikely to care otherwise will slow down and pay attention, and being somebody who explains jokes when he shouldn’t, I’d like to boast that my English is good enough to only take a few extra seconds to recognize a retelling of the Holocaust in alarmists’ warming-pause-denial language as such.

            Q: How many Germans does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
            A: One.
            (Alternative A: One, why?)

        • The world could easily support 10 times the current human population merely by extending current technology to everyone in the world.
          With improved technology, that number increases.

          There is no “overpopulation crisis” and never will be.

      • We’re not even remotely near the carrying capacity of the planet.

        Vast areas of Australia, Africa, Siberia and Canada are utterly unterultilised, all these areas could be terraformed and brought into agricultural use with sufficient cheap energy to warm cold regions, supply missing sunlight or water regions which are too dry.

        7/8ths of the world has barely been touched – when we finally run out of land, the sea will provide as it always has.

        And by the time we run out of sea, space travel will be cheap enough to ship excess population to other worlds.

        • Since the dawn of industrialization mankind has cut down one half of the world’s trees, the oceans have not been this acidic in millions of years, and the atmosphere has never had the present level of greenhouse gasses in over the last million (and NEVER HAS A CHANGE HAPPENED IN SHUCH A SHORT PERIOD, short of a Earth sized moon slamming into the Earth) Do some research on the health of our Oceans, Climate Change is already having dire effects on their health,as well as overfishing and pollution. Vast areas have become hypoxic.

          • Oceans not been this acidic in millions of years. So an ESTIMATE of pH from 8.3 to 8.2 is more acidic the oceans have been in millions of years? Really?!

          • Another fool who believes that you can compare proxies that average 1000 years or more of data into a single reason, to daily measurements.

        • “7/8ths of the world has barely been touched”:, so go and green the Sahara.That’s where the population is.

    • ‘So, get rid of a few percent.’ So who decides who shell die? And: Why are we trying to saves every human life? So in the time of “Dogs of War” just let your family and friends die? Are willing to do that? I’m not.

  10. ” The heat in the summer will help the cause. Penrith for instance that has already experienced temperatures of 47 degrees last summer “highs we expect in the deserts of Oman, not the suburbs of Sydney ” (Kelly O’Shanassy, Australian Conservation Foundation chief executive officer):
    https://www.thefifthestate.com.au/business/no-more-playing-nice-on-climate-canberra-youre-warned-acf/
    That’s nonsense of course.
    Penrith is an outer Sydney suburb and the offical record starts 1996 however Windsor is about 10 km away:
    ” The extraordinary temperatures of the present summer verifies the conclusion at which I arrived some months ago ….
    … The maximum reading attached to each year is the maximum recorded for that year: — 1863, 113.4; 1866, 113.4; 1867, 113.0; 1868, 113.6; 1876, 113.9, 1878, 117.1; 1882, 114.0; 1884, 113.1, 1896, 116.8. John Tebbutt The Observatory, Windsor, Jan. 7, 1896 “:
    https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/72547559?

  11. This is just the next step in their plan to build a justification for using more and more strong-armed tactics against those that oppose them. Expect their voices to become even more shrill over time. And remember, all it takes for stupidity to flourish is for intelligent people to do nothing.

  12. Then that will solve the population issue that the One World One Government UN folks claim leads to their Climate Change concerns. They won’t have to pretend to be worrying about how to feed them etc. etc.
    They should be happy………….right?

  13. This kind of reportage is escapism of the most irresponsible genre.

    At the present rate, homo sapiens will be lucky to survive long enough to witness a single climate-related fatality. Put simply, there are too many of us, and if we don’t do something about it today, there will be nobody left to do so tomorrow.

    To quote the new Papal encyclical, which synthesizes and summarizes the science of thousands of scientists,

    ‘The latest scientists believe unequivocally (p < 0.05) that extinction due to overpopulation will occur in, or before, January 2035. We are treating the Earth, our Mother, like an orphanage in which to dump excess children. Fight the real enemy!

    —N Oreskes, for
    The Holy Father
    Eugéne IX"

    • That’s the 12 years we have to save the entire planet, according to the IPCC. Won’t have long to wait for that prediction to fail!

    • Mr Keyes. You are so waco that I keep looking for the sarc tag and never find it. You actually believe things that you say? The World Bank tracks population Sonce 1960 the rate of increase has been declining every year. Based on those trends, the max will be around the year 2100 at a level of 11 billion. At that point the rate of increase will be 0 and will start to enter negative territory. The reason is simple. Advanced societies have lower birth rates. The earth can easily accommodate 11 billion people. Almost all of the people live on only 19 million km ^2 including cropland; of a total of 149 million km^2 of land. Projections are another 1.5 million by 2030. But since 11 billion is only 46 % more than present population of 7.6 billion we can figure that until 2100, the total amount of land that humans will occupy will increase to a total of 19 million * 1.46 = 27.7 million km ^2. That will still only be 18.5 % of the total land. However we should subtract off Antarctica and Greenland which total 16 million. So that leaves 133 million km ^2 of liveable land . So if by 2100 we occupy 27.7 million km^2 that puts the % up from 18% (including Antarctica and Greenland) to 20.8 % if we exclude Antarctica and Greenland.

      So even in 2100 there will be 79.2 % of the earth surface that will still not be used by mankind. Plenty of room for growth.

      • Alan,

        You say waco, I say Texas, you say Tomalty—let’s call the whole thing off.

        Loved your comment though. I find it’s so important in life, don’t you?, when asking a question (“You actually believe things that you say?”), never to wait for the answer, but to barrel ahead as though you knew what it was going to be. Why waste precious time that could be spent prematurely committing to one particular interpretation and typing a detailed riposte predicated on your having guessed correctly?

        Your argument nicely illustrates the Zeroth Characteristic of Denihilism (J. Cook et al., telephone conversation): failure to fully accept what I’m telling you I’ve been told the science is telling us.

        There seems little to be gained by my attempting to correct someone who marshals such a torrent of facts and figures in defense of zis or zer opinion.

        (As my mentor Al Gore once put it, it is futile to try to reason someone out of a position they reasoned themselves into, because no matter what you assert and how stridently you repeat it, your opinions will come across as baseless by comparison.)

        I asked Pope Eugene IX to review your “logic” and he just laughed and shook his head in a patronizing simulacrum of compassion.

        I didn’t read it personally, so would you mind confirming please that you *deliberately* neglected (for ideological reasons) the fact that the more “advanced” a society, the more “chunkazoidal” its citizens become? With the average American expected to be visible from space any day now, your failure to allow for the ever-increasing area taken up by homo capitalisticus belies your tacit claims to be a tenured Professor and peer of the realm. If one of my third-graders turned in an essay like your blog comment, I’d fail them on the spot and recommend expulsion for omitting footnotes. As I make very clear to my students (and their guardians) on parent-teacher night, they’re free to have their own opinions, but if they want to impose them on me then they have to be prepared to pony up the extraordinary evidence concomitant with the crank fringeness of their views.

        And no, a blog comment is not “evidence.” If what you were saying had any merit, it wouldn’t be written here but in the relevant journals, where it can be ripped to shreds for having no merit.

        That’s why I didn’t read it, and why I think the Pope (with all due respect) made a dangerously irresponsible decision in doing so. He wasn’t misled by your claims, thank Renate Christ, but what about the next skeptic talking-point? And the next? How long will his luck hold?

          • Not name,

            ICYDK,

            Godwin’s Law doesn’t condemn the dropping of the H-bomb into arguments, it merely predicts it.

            In fact Godwin *expected* and *wanted* people to draw analogies (where applicable) between the Third Reich and the gilded age we now frequent.

            That being said, HotScot has indeed fallen prey to a well-known law of discourse—it’s just not the one you named, Not Name.

            It’s Poe’s.

          • @ Brad Keyes
            blockquote>In fact Godwin *expected* and *wanted* people to draw analogies (where applicable) between the Third Reich and the gilded age we now frequent.Nope.

            A term that originated on Usenet, Godwin’s Law states that as an online argument grows longer and more heated, it becomes increasingly likely that somebody will bring up Adolf Hitler or the Nazis. When such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Godwin’s Law has effectively forfieted the argument.

          • Non Nomen,

            I have to hand it to you. Simply putting blockquote tags around your own (incorrect) opinions is certainly an interesting twist on the whole ‘citation needed’ game!

            But let’s settle the bet by reading Godwin’s ipsissima verba, via Wikipedia, shall we?

            “Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics,” Godwin wrote, “its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler to think a bit harder about the Holocaust.”[12]

            In December 2015, Godwin commented on the Nazi and fascist comparisons being made by several articles about Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, saying: “If you’re thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump, or any other politician.”[14] In August 2017, Godwin made similar remarks on social networking websites Facebook and Twitter with respect to the two previous days’ Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, endorsing and encouraging efforts to compare its alt-right organizers to Nazis.[15][16][17][18]

            Bold added for your benefit.

            To repeat:

            Godwin *expected* and *wanted* people to draw analogies (where applicable) between the Third Reich and the gilded age we now frequent.

            But hey, what would people like me and James Godwin know about Godwin’s Law? 🙂

            Final question: would you say your reasoning/debating abilities make you an effective ambassador for climate skeptics?

          • Not Name,

            Which of the two disputants does “the person invoking Godwin’s law” refer to, in your brain?

            As I’ve said, word salad isn’t my first language, so thanks in advance for clearing up this mystery.

            HINT: What would you say the word “invoking” means in English, if you had to guess (which you clearly do), and why is it that I know more English than you?

            PS, what exactly do you imagine the phrase “Non Nomen” means in Latin?

        • I believe that Mr Gore is one of the leading exponents of “chunkazoidalness” and therefore he is mostly to blame!

        • Mr. Keyes

          Your response indicates that you have no idea of the mathematical falsehood of your beliefs about population and land area. Until you come back down to reality, we can’t have a scientific discourse. I was really searching for the sarc tag when you mentioned that Gore was your mentor. I am having problems with the idea that I am arguing with someone that is being sarcastic in every sentence he writes. Please put sarc tags on to your comments.

          • I now realize that Mr Keyes is so over the top that he simply is a troll who enjoys playing with us. I will never respond to you again Mr Keyes. Global warming is too serious a hoax to enjoy playing games with.

          • First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
            Attributed to Mahatma Gandhi.
            That Mr. Keyes seems to be the Volkssturm, the last recourse, in the fight against skepticism. People like him won’t build a better, prosperous future for mankind.

  14. With kids going on strike in Victoria and this, Australia really has gone batsh!t crazy…but it’s less than 6 months away from a federal election. Meanwhile, the results from the mid-terms in the US may be a surprise to many in that Trump’s support hasn’t diminished at all no matter how hard the snowflakes try.

    • I hope you are right. We’ll know for sure toward the end of next week.

      I’m always intrigued by the breathlessly-reported latest poll numbers, especially as I know that our household, and others, positively refuse to participate in polling.

    • “Meanwhile, the results from the mid-terms in the US may be a surprise to many in that Trump’s support hasn’t diminished at all no matter how hard the snowflakes try.”

      I saw a news report tonight which said that here in Oklahoma since January, 75,000 new or changed voter registrations have been requested with 50 percent of those being new Republicans, 25 percent being new Democrats and the remainder being Independents and others.

      Tulsa reported very heavy early voting today.

      It’s going to be a record vote turnout. Now the only question is who is the turnout going to favor. My bet is the Republicans. Let’s hope it is enough for Republicans to hold onto the House of Representatives. It’s going to be a real problem if the Democrats gain control. We’ll be trying to preserve our gains instead of making new gains, if that happens.

      • Most pollsters give the Democrats the better odds at taking the House and the Republicans the better odds at keeping control of the Senate. In either case, we will be stuck with the con man, liar, and pervert in the White House for four more years.

          • Specific about what — that Trump is a con man, liar, and pervert?

            Let’s start with con man. He claims to be the advocate for the interests of the common man, but the tax cut that he signed transfers an immense amount of wealth to the very rich away from everyone else. The resulting deficits — which will be immense —- will lead to calls for belt tightening. And whose belts will then be tightened? Enjoy you social security, etc while you have it. He promises to bring coal mining back, but coal cannot compete with natural gas. Ot the jobs at Carrier; he saved 800 jobs but did not prevent other jobs from being cut and has not done anything since to stop the hemorhaging of jobs in Indiana. Still, he proclaims himself the savior and the Indiana working man and woman.

            And liar. Let’s take his current campaign ad, in which he accuses Democrats of having let in an illegal immigrant who boasts about killing cops. The truth is that this guy was deported twice — by G. W. Bush and Obama, and that he last entered the US illegally. No one « let » him in. Or take his recent claim that the NY Stock Exchange was open the day after 9/11 (So why can’t I have my campaign rally the day after the attack on the Pittsburg synagog?). But the Stock Exchange was closed the day after 9/11. And so on, day in and day out. He lies, and when confronted with the truth, repeats the lie. And his constant lying is a corrosive that is undermining the possibility of democracy, which depends on a fair and objective discussion of the issues facing the voters.

            Or pervert. He has hung out in strip joints, had trysts with prostitutes, goes into the dressing room at the MIss America pageant to leer at the half-dressed or undressed contestants, gropes his own daughter in public, and makes smutty jokes about a female reporter’s menstual cycle.

          • He’s a whoremonger and an adulterer — so, yes, he’s a practicing heterosexual. He gets lots and lots of practice.

          • As the Democratic Party had no problem with Bill Clinton or Teddy Kennedy, I find this sudden attack of neo-Victorianism less than convincing.

          • Actually, Democrats had a lot of problems with Clinton and Ted Kennedy. Al Gore was never again on speaking terms with Clinton after his hanky panky and I and most other Democrats that I know formed the fervent desire that Bill and his libido would ride off into the sunset. As for Ted, it’s worth noting that although he was a Kennedy, the Democrats never saw fit to nominate him for president.

            But regardless of all that, would Bill’s and Ted’s bad behavior make Donald’s OK? I think not. He’s a pervert.

          • “Let’s start with con man. He claims to be the advocate for the interests of the common man, but the tax cut that he signed transfers an immense amount of wealth to the very rich away from everyone else.”

            About 50 million Americans have 401K investment instruments and their investments have increased at least 30 percent since Trump got into Office.

            Millions of new jobs have been created on Trump’s watch.

            It looks to me like Trump is spreading the wealth to the common man, not restricting it to the very rich.

            Do you have a 401K, Ivan? Now that I think about it, I believe you said you live in Poland, if I’m not mistaken, so I guess you wouldn’t have an American 401K, if that’s the case. That’s too bad. You would have profited handsomely. Thirty percent in two years is pretty good, don’t you think?

          • My 401(K) investments have gone nowhere since Trump took office.

            As for his tax cuts: A Republican tax cut is typically a banquet for the rich. They are clever enough to let some crumbs fall to the floor, because they know that a lot of people will come along, pick up the crumbs, and conclude that the banquet was for them. In a sense it was — they will pay for the banquet later on, when it comes time to deal with the resulting deficit.

            If you look at the movement of money resulting from Trump’s tax cut, you will see that it was only a modest boon for ordinary Americans, with consequences that they will have to pay later.

            As for job growth, Trump inherited a strong economy from Obama, who inherited an economy on the point of collapse from Bush.

          • “Or take his recent claim that the NY Stock Exchange was open the day after 9/11 (So why can’t I have my campaign rally the day after the attack on the Pittsburg synagog?). But the Stock Exchange was closed the day after 9/11. And so on, day in and day out. He lies, and when confronted with the truth, repeats the lie. And his constant lying is a corrosive that is undermining the possibility of democracy, which depends on a fair and objective discussion of the issues”

            Any “lies” Trump tells are inconsequential. Like the one you cite above about him getting the opening of the New York Stock Exchange date wrong. Do you think he intentionally lied about this, or was he just mistaken? How consequential is this misstatement?

            And they complain that Trump lied about the number of attendees at his inauguration ceremony. Did Trump deliberately lie, knowing that an accurate count would eventually be made, or was he misinformed by someone (I assume Trump didn’t make the count personally)? How consequential is this misstatement?

            Now the Left claims Trump lies all the time but I listen to Trump all the time and other than a few little nitpiks, such as those above, I haven’t heard him tell any lies. The Left distorts what Trump says so maybe that’s what they are calling lies, and they are lies, but they are lies that belong to the Left, not to Trump.

            Can you produce a consequential lie that Trump has uttered? I’m serious. I can’t think of any, and I pay attention. So enlighten me.

          • Jesse: “Or pervert. He has hung out in strip joints, had trysts with prostitutes,” gropes his own daughter in public, and makes smutty jokes about a female reporter’s menstual cycle.”

            Well, he may have visited strip joints, and he might have had a legal tryst with a prostitute, although Stormy would probably object to you calling her that. Trump is a man. Mother Nature made it so that men are very attracted to women, and women to men. So being attracted to women is not a crime nor is it a perversion.

            There is no evidence that Trump ever forced himself on any woman. Of all the women the Democrats threw out there to make claims against Trump, not one of them ever produced any evidence that Trump did anything out of line with them.

            You would think that out of the over one dozen women involved in accusing Trump, at least one of them would have some kind of evidence to back up their claims. But not one of them did. The same with Justice Kavanaugh: Lots of accusations and no proof whatsoever. Right out of the Democrat playbook.

            Jesse: ” goes into the dressing room at the MIss America pageant to leer at the half-dressed or undressed contestants,”

            What a ridiculous claim! I know you didn’t originate this claim, Jesse, it was a claim made by one of Trump’s beauty contest participants. The one who claimed Trump told her she was too fat and needed to lose weight. I imagine a beauty contestant thinks *every* man is leering at her, and she may be right, but in order to make such a charge stick, one would have to be a certified mindreader, and I don’t think this beauty contestant qualifies.

            Jesse: “gropes his own daughter in public,”

            I must have missed that one. My guess is that is a distorted version of what really happened.

            Jesse: “and makes smutty jokes about a female reporter’s menstual cycle.”

            When I first read that I thought to myself, “what is Jesse talking about?” And then it dawned on me: Megyn Kelly! Jesse, Trump wasn’t talking about Megyn’s menstrual cycle. What he said is an expression denoting a person feeling extreme anger and blood comes out of their eyes.

  15. The ACF used to be a genuine ‘conservation’ organisation.Nowadays it’ been taken taken over by green fanatics..
    The Greenies in charge hve been issuing this kind of ideologicalbull sh*t for about 15 years…So here in Oz we are all tuned out to the ACF….

    It’s a not respected as it once was & is a ‘reduced’ mob now

    • It a plays to it’s small supporter base that pay subscriptions etc. It has marketing material for all it’s different market sections and there will be a more moderate message for the general public.

      Groups like the RSPCA have mastered this they even invented “RSPCA approved” as a way to extract money from producers wishing to portrait an image. When they start “ACF approved” labeling you know the marketing has really developed, at the moment they are amateurs.

  16. If the Earth is uninhabitable, then everyone will die, not just 100s of millions.

    Where do they get this stuff? Never mind…I actually blame the gullible among us. We must want it this way, or it would be different.

  17. The best guess that I have heard of the earths average temperature is somewhere between 13 and 15 degrees . If it rose 1.5 degrees, how would we know? I for one would hardly feel the difference?

  18. OK Head of the Australian Conservation Foundation Kelly O’Shanassy, In just a few short years or with the advent of another strong El Nino like 2016 produced, we will gain the increase of the .3C needed to cross that threshold. When that time comes, and it will, and the Earth hasn’t tipped over like Guam was supposed to, and the birds still chirp, and the bees still buzz, and the trees still sprout leaves (at an even faster rate due to CO2 fertilization), and life flourishes on Earth and in Oz, do kindly stop spouting moronic nonsense and sit down in obscurity.

    • But, but, but, passing the 1.5 deg C anomaly level will not lead, immediately, to the coming catastrophes. No, it will just “bake-in” the inevitable catastrophes out their in the future, somewhere. (Do I need a \sarc?)

  19. https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
    ****************************************************************

    ” The colder the air, the less heat it radiates. So if we add more greenhouse gases the air needs to be thinner before heat radiation is able to escape to space. So this can only happen higher in the atmosphere. Where it is colder. So the amount of heat escaping is reduced.

    By adding greenhouse gases, we force the radiation to space to come from higher, colder air, reducing the flow of radiation to space. And there is still a lot of scope for more greenhouse gases to push ‘the action’ higher and higher, into colder and colder air, restricting the rate of radiation to space even further.

    The Greenhouse Effect isn’t even remotely Saturated. Myth Busted!”
    ******************************************************************

    Another example of ridiculous reasoning. The air doesnt need to be thinner before radiation escapes to space. The proof of that is that even at the surface; there is an atmospheric window that lets some IR wavelengths escape to space directly. We are talking about convected air that contains CO2 that has been irradiated. That convected air rises higher and higher in the troposhere and the CO2 is radiating in all directions and colliding with N2 and O2 (but these collisions are less and less the higher you go, because there is less molecules of N2 and O2 the higher the altitude) as the air is rising. The author concludes that because it is colder, the higher you go in the troposphere, the amount of heat that can escape gets more and more restricted. The CO2 is radiating IR at every level of the atmosphere. It is even radiating in the thermosphere.
    https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

    He forgets that the troposphere changes to the tropopause, which then changes to the stratosphere which reverses the lapse rate of cooling. In reality, without the CO2 collisions with N2 and O2, the colder the atmosphere would become. So yes Virginia, CO2 is a greenhouse gas but one that is far less important than water vapour that acts like a thermostat with the released latent heat from condensation. That latent heat rises in a convective process until it reaches the statosphere. If that released latent heat from condensation of the water molecules got back to the surface, the oceans would have boiled over eons ago.

    Since the new CO2 that is put into the air mixes completely around the globe and at all altitudes, the CO2 at the surface soon gets saturated. Increasing CO2 brings increased photosynthesis which needs light energy thus means more cooling. Witness the lateset greening of the earth’s surface in last 30 years. With no CO2 in the atmosphere, there would be no collisions with the N2 and O2 molecules, so there would be less energy absorbed by the air molecules and the atmosphere would be colder. Also because CO2 absorbs some of the incoming direct sunlight and reradiates to space, the atmosphere would be hotter without the CO2. So what the net balance would be is unknown. However all plants would die. With huge amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, the surface temperature wouldn’t change much; unless the amount of CO2 overwhelms the air molecules. At that point we would have trouble breathing, so as long as the amount of O2 at the surface atmosphere stays around 21% , mankind will be fine. The reason that the surface temperature wouldn’t change much; is because of the saturation effect mentioned above.

    Skeptical Science’s argument is that at high altitudes of the troposphere, there is a limit of how much heat can escape. Skeptical science is confusing heat with IR. IR only becomes heat when the photons are absorbed by physical bodies or by collisions with N2 and O2. Since the top of the troposphere is -57C, even at that temperature, the amount of air is so thin that IR does indeed escape to the stratosphere and beyond. Also, the amount of heat contained within the N2 and O2 molecules from collisions with the CO2, also escapes to space. In any case, Skeptical Science does not make a case against the concept of saturation. Their arguments are straw men arguments that don’t stand up to reality. The lapse rate will change slightly as more CO2 gets added, but at the same time, the atmosphere is expanding slightly. Since the CO2 molecule is heaver than the air molecules(N2 + O2), and the heat capacity of the CO2 molecule is less than the air molecules, once you are above the saturation point of CO2, the amount of total heat in the expanded volume of the troposphere is actually less; the more Co2 that is added.

    • “Another example of ridiculous reasoning. The air doesn’t need to be thinner before radiation escapes to space.”

      That is in their “Basic” explanation.
      Try reading the “Advanced” version.

      But it needs to be at a certain pressure (height) in order for more to escape upwards than downwards.

      “The proof of that is that even at the surface; there is an atmospheric window that lets some IR wavelengths escape to space directly.”

      That in no way falsifies the above as the “atmospheric window” as a particular wavelength that GHGs do not absorb/emit.
      The article obviously is talking of those that are.

      “We are talking about convected air that contains CO2 that has been irradiated.”

      No, we are not, as convection is not the issue, it is radiation. That is the method by which the GHE works. From the surface up (overwhelmingly).

      “That convected air rises higher and higher in the troposhere and the CO2 is radiating in all directions and colliding with N2 and O2 (but these collisions are less and less the higher you go, because there is less molecules of N2 and O2 the higher the altitude) as the air is rising. The author concludes that because it is colder, the higher you go in the troposphere, the amount of heat that can escape gets more and more restricted.”

      Correct, it does as those molecules radiate at a lower temperature and via Plank …
      Air all air is radiating not just “convected air”. There is far, far mormair that is not comvecting than is.

      “So yes Virginia, CO2 is a greenhouse gas but one that is far less important than water vapour that acts like a thermostat with the released latent heat from condensation. ”

      WV is a more powerful GHG, yes … but is not the most important – for the simple reason that it condenses and drops out as precip … that dependent on temp ….. which is not the case with CO2, and so it’s GHE can increase and ‘warm’ as it builds up concentration.
      Which then allows more WV to evaporate into the aIr before it then condenses.
      That is called the WV feedback.
      LH is but a small part of the Earth’s cooling to space.
      But then no doubt you dont go this the Earth’s energy balance diagram….

      https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1-figure-1.html

      The GHE makes the planet habitable.
      Without non-condensing GHGs, there would be far, far less WV to provide your case that CO2 “is far less important than water vapour”.
      It could not sustain itself as global atmospheric temps dropped and concentrations fall away chasing the demimishing GHE …..

      https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Lacis_la09300d.pdf

      “that acts like a thermostat with the released latent heat from condensation”
      No the thermostat (obviously) must be the non-condensing gas and the relevant one as we are injecting it at a precipitously large rate is CO2.

      “Skeptical Science’s argument is that at high altitudes of the troposphere, there is a limit of how much heat can escape. ”

      No it isn’t at all.
      The reasoning is that at a certain height (~6km as a global ave) and increaingly so above that – more will go up than goes down.

      “Since the top of the troposphere is -57C, even at that temperature, the amount of air is so thin that IR does indeed escape to the stratosphere and beyond.”

      Yes, we know that … else the Earth would boil.

      “Their arguments are straw men arguments that don’t stand up to reality. ”

      No it is empirical science – are then, all those scientists, who have added to the empiricism this last ~ 150 years either incompetent or scammers?
      Or do you know better than them?

        • You really want to burn them? That is not sustainable, the Greenies know that.
          You really want to bury them? How long would it take to bury so many? Who shall do it? Use Excavators? Not sustainable, the Greenies know that.
          Soylent Green? Hmmm…I doubt the Greenies will swallow that…

  20. Okay. First up, ‘National Press Club’.

    Our no doubt extremely qualified guest speaker in this situation was addressing the National Press Club.

    “Who are the National Press Club?” we hear you ask.

    Short answer is “Grud knows”. Less flippant is that it is a private club with the elites of media and business to rub shoulders with each other, listen to guest speakers once a week and generally remind each other just who actually runs the country. They are important because the media tells us they are important and the media knows this because most of them are members.

    The associated question is who is Kelly O’Shanassy when she is at home and why is she important and then we end up back in that circle of mutual back scratching. Kelly is important because ‘non important’ people do not get to grace the Press Club and because she has addressed the Press Club her views are now clearly important.

    The big question here is less why did the massed Australia press not question Kelly’s bold statements, but instead how have the media been allowed to become the defacto rulers and gate keepers of knowledge. Reality check – they write columns that either inform, entertain or offer opinion. They are a service, not our Moral Betters.

  21. I wonder how this “breach” actually works?

    Like do the people die instantly? Like at +1.5 degrees everything is OK and then at +1.500001 hundreds of millions of people drop dead?

    • If the Population Matters folk have their way, this is exactly how it works, although the figure is 1 billion

    • And apart from old age, what do all the rest die from? The Australian press must be more gullible than the British press.

  22. FMD. Can we please get a list of the ‘journalists’ that attended this event and write to each of them demanding to know why they didn’t question this bullsh!it? (Or were questions not allowed?
    Samples of the questions I would ask them: Is is because they are too ignorant of basic science (or statistics) to tell that they were being fed a crock, is it because they are ‘true believers’ of this CAGW cr@p and didn’t want to upset the apple cart, is it because their bosses would have been very cross with them for ruining a good ‘story’, is it because the owner of their media organisation has a hidden agenda, etc. (I could go on but you get the idea by now).

    • To get a list of the journalists that attended the lecture is a very good idea. We can then research their publications and we can all write to them asking why they did not question such an outrageously stupid statement made by this woman and point out a few more inaccurate facts that they have all been taken in by. Can one of our Australian friends do some research for us and let us know the result.

  23. Investigative journalism in Australia has certainly died. They just get paid to publish news releases that attract paying eyes. This is news training 101, provided by Al Gore. Find a great headline: “an unhabitable planet”; “hundreds of millions will die”. Evidence, you ask? Sorry, that’s not newsworthy. Fake news? Never mind, next headline?
    Disasters are far better than good news stories. Good news: “the earth is getting greener;” “there are less people living in poverty.” Boring.

    • Hey Robber, I live in Oz. Investigative journalism is certainly not dead. But the journalists here are mighty selective about what they investigate.
      Unfortunately Human Caused Climate Change is the ruling ideology.So it is not that much investigated in the MSM.

      But there’s plenty of heretics writing investigative journalism of it..Just they don’t get published in MSM..Try JoNova’s blog for example.

  24. Did the speaker suggest that we tell the IPCC come Greeen UN to demand that all countries stop burning fossell fuel immediatly, especially those Öff limit”countries such as China and India.

    Of course not, therefore they the audience are just a bunch of hyprocrits.

    Remember the David Attenborough programmes showing that as the food supply is eaten, then animals either move or die. Inn our case with the human animals we must stop accepting people from overpopulated countries, or it will be our countries which will die.

    MJE

  25. “100s of Millions of People will Die”, that s why must hang skeptic right now. The are criminals to be.

    • Mod

      bearing in mind the recent discussion about threatening behaviour, please not the above comment from lemiere jacques

      • That fellow seems to be French, so it might be taken as one of these continental eccentricities, the “Calais” proverb is, in my opinion, not too far-fetched in this case.
        Nonetheless, I concede that being too lenient towards enemies of free speech won’t end well.

    • And that alarm comes from the very crowd that would herd people into concentrations camps for mass execution.

  26. If we cooled the planet and dropped the CO2 to pre industrial levels, 1 billion people would die within 3 years and crop prices would triple to ration the shortage as a result of plunging yields and production world wide.

    No amount of advanced farming technology could offset the losses.

    We rescued the planet from dangerously low CO2 levels.

  27. I saw a man pursuing the horizon;
    Round and round they sped.
    I was disturbed at this;
    I accosted the man.
    “It is futile,” I said,
    “You can never —”

    “You lie,” he cried,
    And ran on.

    Stephen Crane

  28. Well, with this all skepticism on this blog, I will most certainly have to cancel my planned trip to the Great Barrier Reef. The million year old plus wonder of the world was once a site to behold. What happened the last two years?
    I guess the money will be better spent at a Trump resort. Trump, one of World’s smartest men, certainly backs the majority of the skeptics on this blog.

    • The GBR is most threatened by pollution (real, not fake), and likely to various human activities, including overfishing. It is actually quite resilent though, and has been bouncing back. Climate Numptys love to latch onto things like polar bears or the GBR as “proof” of their fictitious manmade climate change/warming.

  29. Why would they ask, they have heard it all before , as we all have. There would be a lot of condescending waffle about settled science, 97%, extreme weather (even when it not and not even trending up)and of course shooting the sceptical messenger. Most in the room would nod sagely and shift slightly away from the questioner.

  30. Alarmists can’t keep their story straight. And when someone spews utter nonsense like this, you don’t hear anyone else on the alarmist side correcting them. No journalists even ask, “Is that the mainstream view?” No, they all just let it stand, because even if it’s wrong and misleading, it’s still “helpful.”

    You want to reduce emissions? Maybe tell your cohorts to stop standing in the way of nuclear power.

    The last time we had a warmer climate, the planet was so hostile to life that lizards grew to be 100 feet long, there were dogs the size of horses, and butterflies with 2′ wingspans.

  31. Regarding Nuclear power being the answer, I agree, but remember the 60 tees and the picture of the Mother holding a child, and in th background the Mushroom shaped cloud of th aftermath of a bomb.

    Never mind that th enrichment of Uramium for a Power station is about 11 %, as against th bomb needing about 97 %.

    The Greens will always find another way to scare us with. The sad thing is that our politicians with few exceptions appear to believe in this nonsense, or is it just the quest for votes and don’t worry about the damage to the country.

    MJE

  32. Add a few billion to the deaths of the existing population by 2100 unless we can defeat poverty. Many places people don’t live to be anywhere near 80 and we will have peaked at ~9B (probably get to ~10B and then decline as poverty is finally erased). Ive predicted a “Garden of Eden Earth^ тм” by about 2050 with peak population and “The Great Greening тм”. It will be a world of plenty with bumper crops, available mineral and other resources. I guess the only way to get this forecast out there is to hsve it engraved on my tombstone.

  33. The Climate Numptys know their ideology is going down the tubes so, having nothing to lose, they have raised the rhetoric to DEFCON 1. We knew this would happen. They no longer care how batshit crazy they sound. They are at their most dangerous now, like a cornered rat.

  34. “But get this: not a single journalist in the room said: “Are you nuts?” Not one asked: “What’s your evidence?””
    ______________________________________________

    Where d’ya think reporters reap their punch lines.

  35. Having been in the room with a bunch of “journalists” during a similar presentation I was also gobsmacked at their attitude. Talking to some of them during the break I discovered they fell into two categories, (1) True believers and (2) those that believed only they were too ignorant to understand but believed everyone else did. The true believers would have accepted anything the “famed and renowned” speaker had said as gospel no matter how bizarre and outrageous. The “I am to dumb to understand” truly believed since they didn’t really understand what was being said, no matter how illogical and bizarre, they didn’t want to look even more stupid by asking questions. There was a group in between, a sort of ‘I want to believe but what the speaker said was really outrageous’, but since no one else asked they didn’t either.

  36. Basically they are claiming that if the world gets as warm as it was during the Roman Warm Period, to say nothing of the Minoan Warm Period or the Holocene optimum, we are all going to die.

    These dudes are so far past delusional that I can’t think of a word adequate to describe them.

  37. “IF we continue to burn coal AND breach the 1.5C IPCC climate limit…”

    So, in other words, it’s NOT going to happen.

    On the other hand, if the Climate Nazis get their way and implement their “climate policies,” THEN BILLIONS WILL DIE, and THAT will be the ACTUAL human-induced catastrophe.

  38. Millions will die, or Billions will die. What’s the big deal? Isn’t our surplus population part of the problem to begin with? As long as the Warmists are first in line at the 1.5C cliff…..

  39. Wait a minute. Wasn’t this supposed to have happened between 1970 & 2000 when climate change of one form or another was to have led to widespread crop failures and the associated famines? The US population was to have shrunk to about 23 million by 1995, while Britain was predicted to cease to exist almost entirely. And even if this nonsense does materialize, won’t that be a good thing since the environmentalists are also always warning us about overpopulation?

  40. Jesse Fell:

    Nov. 1, 9:17 am

    You wrote “The right question is not whether CO2 contributes to global warming, but how could it possibly not contribute”

    When there is a large volcanic eruption, especially VEI5, or higher, there can be millions of tons of SO2 injected into the atmosphere, where it converts into the strongly dimming SO2 aerosol (fine droplets of H2SO4).

    The NASA fact sheet on SO2 aerosols states “Stratospheric SO2 aerosols reflect sunlight, reducing the amount of energy reaching the lower atmosphere and the Earth’s surface, cooling them”.
    Human-made sulfate aerosols “absorb no sunlight but they reflect it, thereby reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface’ (cooling it).

    These dimming aerosols eventually settle out of the atmosphere, and temperatures rise to pre-eruption levels, or higher, simply because of the cleansed air.

    The RIGHT question is not whether reduced anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions (due to global Clean Air efforts) contributes to global warming, but how could it possibly not contribute.

    Nature confirms this mechanism after essentially every eruption. There has never been any similar confirmation of warming in the global atmosphere due to CO2, it is all a hypothesis. All of the observed warming has due to reductions in atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels.

    • And “The right question is not whether food contributes to obesity, but how could it possibly not contribute”
      Ipso fact we must get rid of food or we’re all doomed to perish in our millions.

    • There is no question that reductions in SO2 emissions will have a warming effect. The aerosols of SO2 are reflective and so reduce the amount of solar energy that reaches the surface of the Earth.

      But none the less, CO2 emissions have a powerful warming effect, and it is not true, as you maintain, that this effect has never been demonstrated. It has been demonstrated over and over again, in tests on the ground and through satellite spectography. We know WHY CO2 is a greenhouse gas — that is, how its molecular structure absorbs electromagnetic radiation in the infrared range and then re-emits it. This has been known and understood since John Tyndall published his pioneering papers on the subject in the 1840s.

      We are pumping milliions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. It doesn’t wash out of the atmosphere they way SO2 does. It persists — for a long time — to that our additions of CO2 to the atmosphere are cumulative.

      I don’t understand some people’s need to deny this basic science. We should be arguing about the best way to deal with the problem, whether through government regulation of emissions, or incentives to conserve energy, or through a Manhattan project to develop alternate sources of energy (my favorite idea).

      • Nobody here is denying basic science. Just the hyped up supercalifragilistic political séance and the histrionics that goes hand in hand with it. Not to mention how with each failed prediction the doomsday cult has morphed from catastrophic warming to climate change to extreme weather, inundating seas, mass extinctions, coral bleaching, yada, yada and whatever comes into their heads. Their list beggars belief for all but the delusional-
        http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html
        and as the popular belief fades with self evident reality the hysterics of the true believers rises exponentially in a mockery of their false hockey stick that began it all and their ongoing GIGO computer models. They’ve become like a dotty old relative that the family makes allowances for and rolls their eyes that they’re off their medication again and what can be done with them.

      • Yet, on Mars, where CO2 is the dominant gas, it’s quite cold. It’s not just a distance from the Sun thing. If CO2 was in fact a “greenhouse” gas as the panickers were led to believe it is, this distance from the Sun should be canceled and overwhelmed by the percentage of gas in the atmosphere.

        In reality, CO2 is a nothing gas, in terms of warming planet. They just concocted the idea to get morons frothing at the mouth. Well, that and a reason to tax the population. If you’re seriously factoring CO2 into scientific thought or calculations, you’ve been scammed.

        But if you’re really worried about CO2, maybe we should tax the population to build a mechanism to move the Earth further from the Sun. How would that be? What else could we possibly do with trillions of dollars siphoned from the public?

  41. Frank, your problem is that you are trying to extrapolate instrument error to affect sampling error. There does not exist an “instrument” capable of measuring the GAST. GAST is measured using statistical methods, which makes all of your experience and your “paper” on instrument error moot. Since there is no single “instrument” to measure GAST, your instrument error analysis is meaningless. Nothing you’ve said nor done has impacted the actual theory/execution of using a statistical estimator to measure GAST

    • Not correct, Remy.

      The GAST is calculated as the average of instrumental measurements. Every measurement has a systematic error associated with it.

      When an average is taken, the systematic errors combine as their root-mean-square.

      You wrote that, “GAST is measured using statistical methods….” Wrong again.

      Nothing is measured using statistical methods. Statistics is mathematics, and incorporates no measurement methods at all.

      Magnitudes are measured using physical instruments. Averages are taken of magnitudes measured using physical instruments.

      Statistics is used for computations, not for measurements.

      You wrote, “Since there is no single “instrument” to measure GAST, your instrument error analysis is meaningless.” Instrumental error propagates into any average of measurements.

      Your comments make it appear as though you have never actually measured anything, or evaluated actual physical error and its meaning, or worked through a measurement average±uncertainty.

      In other words, you’re fit to be a climate scientist.

      You wrote, “ Nothing you’ve said nor done has impacted the actual theory/execution of using a statistical estimator to measure GAST

      At last you’re correct about something. Nothing I’ve written has been different from the way the GAST should be calculated.

      You, however, have been mistaken in every single critical instance.

  42. Jesse Fell:

    You state that CO2 doesn’t wash out of the air like SO2 does.

    Yes, SO2 will wash out of the air from an INTERMITTENT source, but essentially all anthropogenic sources, such as power plants, factories, foundries, home heating units, shipping, etc., etc. are continuous sources, so that anything that is washed out is immediately replaced, giving most anthropogenic SO2 aerosols an essentially infinite lifetime.

    You also say that “I don’t understand some people’s need to deny this basic science”

    As Karl Popper wrote, Scientific theories must be falsifiable (that is, empirically testable), and that prediction was the gold standard for their validation”.

    The greenhouse gas hypothesis fails on both counts: it is not empirically testable, and it cannot make accurate temperature predictions. As such, it cannot be called “basic science”, just sheer speculation.

    On the other hand, temperature changes due to changing levels of SO2 aerosol emissions has been empirically tested, and validated, and temperature changes resulting from different levels of SO2 aerosol emissions can be predicted: .02 deg. C. of change for each net Megaton of change in global SO2 aerosol emissions, either volcanic or anthropogenic.

Comments are closed.