The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change
2022 Nobel physics winner John Clauser ripped the pseudoscience and ‘techno-con’ that is climate last week in South Korea.
For this and more on why Climate Change is not a Crisis, go to our ClimateTV page.
This sort of take down of the IPCC has occurred before and will again. For example:
“The 1995 IPCC draft report said, “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.” It also said, “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes.” Those statements were removed, and in their place appeared: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate.” Michael Critchten lecture
Is it know when the original comments were replaced? Back near ’95 or recently?
The draft report was altered in 1995. From a discussion by Lord Monckton:
“Reply: The scientists’ final draft of the 1995 Report said plainly, on five separate occasions, that no evidence of an anthropogenic influence on global climate was detectable, and that it was not known when such an influence would become evident.
However, a single scientist, Dr. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, rewrote the draft at the IPCC’s request, deleting all five statements, replacing them with a single statement to the effect that a human influence on global climate was now discernible, and making some 200 consequential amendments.
These changes were considered by a political contact group, but they were not referred back to the vast majority of the authors whose texts Dr. Santer had tampered with, and whose five-times-stated principal conclusion he had single-handedly and unjustifiably negated.”
This is the origin of the Human-caused Climate Change lie and all the misery and waste of taxpayer money it has subsequently caused.
The Republican Congress should investigate Ben Santer’s rewriting of this report as a fraud on the People of the United States.
As the real UN report says, there is no evidence humans are causing the climate to change. It was true then, and it’s true now. Nothing has come about to change this conclusion.
A huge fraud has been perpetrated on the Public by Ben Santer.
I wonder if anyone in Congress currently is even aware of this.
I wonder that myself.
Republicans are pretty clueless themselves when it comes to human-caused climate change. Some of them get it, but I’m not sure enough of them do.
I don’t see hardly any of them questioning the basic premise that CO2 is capable of overheating the Earth’s atmosphere.
My man, former U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Ok) was one of the few who questioned the CO2/climate change premise openly and the left hated him for it. It didn’t deter him, though. Good on you, Jim.
And by Michael E. Mann in the UN IPCC Third Assessment Report in 2001 with his fraudulent Hockey Stick graph of temperatures. All of these frauds happened with the direct interference of Leftist, Socialist and Marxist U.S. and UN politicians.
Come now Tom! Any honest observer must admit that there has been a fundamental shift in the climate since about April and even more dramatically since about January.
Many locations have seen 50-60° increases in max T. More perhaps in the northern hemisphere than in the southern (apparently due to natural variability). That our most alarmist models do not predict this kind of dramatic rise is terrifying!
If this is not a frightening proof of climate doom, I don’t know what could persuade you. If this trend continues for just another six to nine months, Tom, most life on earth will be extinguished. The oceans will begin to boil. Every coastal city will be inundated! Already today we see some locations reporting meters of sea level rise in just a matter of hours.
Some deniers pooh pooh these concerns and call it “summer “and “high tide”, but we true believers know better.
You probably should have added /sarc some readers may have missed your humor.
It’s sad (for Nick, Izaak, and the Rusty Nail) if people mistake that for just more of their nonsense.
That was funny, Rich. 🙂
We have “global boiling” in the U.S. right now, but I have a suspicion that there are cooler days coming our way. The alarmists will have to find something else to obsess over.
It happens every year, so far, anyway. My bet is it will happen again this year. I don’t think we have hit the tipping point yet.
Yes, especially since the only tipping points that can be shown to exist are the descent into glaciation and the subsequent deglaciation leading to interstadial conditions like we enjoy today. Anything which supposedly warms the globe during current conditions is opposing the next tipping point, not triggering it.
Please be careful Tom. Ol’ Ben might be ‘tempted to beat the crap’ out of you.
I’ve heard stories about him being prone to violence. Violent rhetoric, anyway.
I don’t live in a Democrat-controlled area, so my local police do their job quite well and they may slap ole Ben in jail if he shows up around here. 🙂
Your link isn’t working. But, anyway, this is shocking to me. Never heard of it.
Joseph, U.S., UN and Santer political manipulation of the 1995 IPCC Second Annual Report (and subsequent Reports) has been common knowledge for decades. It is a testament to Leftist propaganda and information suppression that you would be unaware of it.
I only started giving serious though to this issue about 3 years ago when I tripped across Tony Heller’s YouTube channel. Then, a friend told me about WUWT soon after. I’ve always read a great deal – many newspapers and magazines and never knew there was a vigorous resistance to this new religious cult- other than some mention of “deniers”. What also helped enlighten me is – again about the same time- when climate whack jobs started coming after forestry. Their goal is to stop as much of it as possible and what they can’t stop- to force it to have “longer rotations and lighter cutting”. It’s true that some forestry is terrible but not all of it. They can’t make the distinction. They say it’ll help save the climate, of course! I keep telling forestry people that the best way to resist this movement is to become enlightened to the idea that the “climate emergency” is a religious cult- telling them about this site, Tony Heller, Steven Koonin, and other such climate smart people. Unfortunately, forestry people also like to sustain their careers if they are in government of academia- that crowd runs the forestry world- not those of us who actually work in forests.
It was 1992 when geologist Warwick Hughes first alerted me to dubious temperatures from Uni of East Anglia. It was new territory for me and I acted too slowly. A year before Climategate more time was available and the fuller scope of this rather poor science started to emerge. I read of Santer’s solo about then.
How can it be that there are only a few of us who were sceptical from the start? Most commenters here say they went green first, then saw the light. I have never understood why they went green. I was fighting green in business from 1972, took an Environment Minister to our highest court in 1987. Anyone else here who was always sceptical? Geoff S
Yes. Since around 1989.
The same people who promoted junk science environmentalism (e.g., anti responsible logging in the forests of Washington State and or claiming that all the wetlands were disappearing due to human causes (not))
were the ones loudly (as usual) claiming that there was such a thing as dangerous, human-caused, “global warming.”
That made me skeptical.
Also, analysts whose judgment on economics and history I had observed as being reliabilly consistent with the facts and data (according to disinterested experts), e.g., Mark Steyn, presented powerful arguments against “global warming.”
Then, as the years passed, the evidence supporting the anti-“global warming” arguments far, FAR, outweighed the negligible, feeble, conjecture of the AGW crowd.
That confirmed my skepticism.
The OBVIOUS scams of solar, wind, electric vehicle, cladding, carbon storage, and ESPECIALLY the denying of fossil fuel energy to places such as Africa have CONFIRMED me as STRONGLY OPPOSED to AGWism.
If there was one single AGW charlatan who opened my eyes to the utter moral bankruptcy of the “climate change” scam, it was this man:
“Inventor of the internet, Al Gore
(Paul Shanklin as Gore)
“How can it be that there are only a few of us who were skeptical from the start?”
I think the reason is that most people have way too much to ponder every day – other than the issue of climate so most people are susceptible to the lies of the MSM. I bet most people here are either retired or sufficiently confortable, economically, that they have time to dig deeper. I notice it takes hours every day to really stay on top of- just this site, never mind all the web sites, journals, etc. It’s going to be important for us to help enlighten people complaining about the cost of energy and the demands that will be put on them to change their life style- then they will push back hard. Every day I tell people about ways to learn more about the climate- but few show any interest. Their lives are busy.
As I noted, it got personal with me when climate whack jobs started coming after forestry, which is what I’ve been doing since Nixon was in the White House. My resentment is infinite. They refuse to listen at all to those of us who’ve been working in forests for generations.
My skepticism of alarmist climate change didn’t have anything to do with “Green” but rather began with the Human-caused Global Cooling narrative of the 1970’s.
At first, I thought the advocates might be on to something, but as time went along, I realized they did not actually have the facts on which to base this assertion, all they really had was unsubstantiated speculation and assumptions.
I wanted so bad to complain about the way this science was being done, but there was no internet then, so I just had to steam inside at the bastardization of science.
But not any more!!! Now I get to complain all I want about shoddy climate science and the message gets to the shoddy scientists. I’m in skeptics’ Heaven here at WUWT.
So, seeing the shoddy science that made up Human-caused Global Cooling set the stage for me for the Human-caused Global Warming narrative.
I was skeptical from the beginning, and definitely required proof of the claim, and the alarmist did the very same thing they did with Human-caused Global Cooling and had/have no facts, and all they really have is unsubstantiated speculation and assumptions. Again!
This isn’t hard to figure out. All you have to be able to do is know the difference between evidence and speculation, assumptions and asserions.
If you know the difference, then you will see that the Climate Change Alarmists have NO evidence to back up their claims other than the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Beyond that, they have not one thing. They can’t tell you if CO2 net warms or net cools the planet. That’s the state of the art today. But you wouldn’t know that listening to climate alarmists.
I just wish the internet was around in the 1970’s. I would have had a lot less frustration reading all the climate change propaganda being put out by scientific publications of the time. They were, and are, all onboard with the speculation, assumptions and assertions. None of which are evidence of anything. It was, and is, sickening.
Then, to ‘Save The Planet’ they clear cut vast swaths for windmills and biomass. Go figure.
It is a testament to Leftist propaganda and information suppression that you would be unaware of it.”
Indeed! I realized the enviro movement had gone from grass roots to fund-raising fraud before the seventies were over. Anti-nuke revealed people who won’t see reason, and they are in the agw camp. When global warming came along, it resembled other enviro activist memes so much that I was sceptical early. Mark Steyn cited this site and Climate Audit somewhere around 2010, and I learned of Santer’s founding role in the scam through the writers at this site. And info suppression by lefty enviros.
I was conned into participating in an animal ethics committee that was hiding both embezzling from the university by one member, and inconsistent standards depending on who the applicant was. I tried to report the latter to the dean, but the extent of the embezzling only came out later. The dean refused to even discuss the matter, so I resigned.
I would expect that any honest person on the science side would distance himself from an organization the corrupted the science.
Who apart from readers of blogs such as this will even know there was a critique, let alone a brutal dismantling? And from a Nobel Laureate?
Therein lies the problem.
I do not know about this specific talk but his critique is spreading quite well within the skeptical community.
Preaching to the choir is not what is needed to bring down the misinformation and disinformation spread by The Cause
I disagree. Skeptics need a constant flow of fresh ideas, facts and arguments to counter the flow of junk alarmism. Blogs like WUWT and CFACT are a big part of that process.
I meant no disrespect.
Blogs like WUWT, CFACT and others are very useful, but until the Misleadia sit up and take notice the current madness will not stop.
I was with my brother and sister-in-law a few weeks back and no amount of careful explanation would shift their view that we were living in a “climate crisis”.
But I do see a chink of light in the wall of mass media – we now need a crow bar to widen that gap.
Preaching to the choir isn’t in itself a problem. It is good and useful but only if the choir members understand that they must spread the word during the week to those who don’t hear the sermon.
“No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes.” We are still waiting for that first study. The hockey stick paper was proved to be a fake. The truth is that with no “hockey stick,” i.e. no 20th century uptick in world temperature measures from the 19th century trend, there is no evidence that any observed trend is anything other than normal climate, not significantly affected by human interventions. It is possible, of course, that there is a human influence of some kind, but, so far, such an effect does not show itself above the noise of natural climate phenomena, even though such phenomena are well-studied and have been, with increasing accuracy, for over 100 years. We are still waiting!
Many studies have claimed that attribution. There is a whole literature on attribution, which alarmists point to. Many extreme events now get numerical probabilistic attribution claims. So it is not that simple, alas.
Here are the leaders in “rapid attribution”
Money for junk.
Attribution = Guessing.
This is what people do when they don’t have any evidence. 🙂
Alarmists regard modeling results as evidence. Alarmism is modeling all the way down.
“Alarmism is modeling all the way down.”
Yep, attribution studies compare the output of one unvalidated fake model against another unvalidated fake model, both with built-in pre-assumptions..
It is actually the very opposite of science
False attribution is the basis for all those studies. The human forcing is too small to be isolated from the much larger range of natural variability.
Yes it is false but there are lots of studies so one cannot say there are no such studies. They do it by comparing model runs with and without human forcing, but the models are designed such that the only forcing is human so the reasoning is circular.
See my https://www.cfact.org/2021/11/19/the-silly-science-of-climate-alarmism/
I think the comment that no studies exist to prove the AGW attribution is still correct when all the “studies” are false and circular, so therefore don’t prove anything.
Research fraud, science misinformation is a heeeuge problem and perpetrated at the highest levels: “On July 19, Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne resigned from his position after an extensive investigation by the university’s student-run newspaper exposed manipulation in his scientific research.”
It is that simple. Logically assumed in Mr. Havelock’s assertion was that the studies made a bona fide, scientifically valid, claim.
Havelock was clearly NOT asserting that there are no PSEUDO-studies claiming that the conjecture about human CO2 is true.
As of today, there is NO data proving that human CO2 causes meaningful shifts in the climate zones of the earth.
As of today, the climate “change” observed is well within the bounds of natural variation. (bolding that not for you, Mr. Wojick, but for anyone who might have been confused or misled by your remarks).
If you google the hockey stick paper you will find most site say it was never debunked. That is where we are at, they keep rewriting history. How do you win when they lie and cheat all the time.
That was Santer’s edit, I believe.
I agree that it’s not unprecedented and may not have a big impact.
He didn’t really give clear arguments to support his views, so it is essentially an appeal to authority. Not entirely meaningless that an expert Nobel laureate rejects the mainstream view, but not too difficult to dismiss or ignore either.
After all, he is white, male, old, probably cis-gendered, and somewhat grumpy. So many red flags even if he claims to be an atheist!
Wow! Talk about ad hominem reasoning!
You picked up on that Ronald, but didn’t detect the sarcasm I guess. Speaking as an old, white, cis-genderred, male who is extremely grumpy most of the time, and not even an atheist. More red flags than a Stalinist May Day parade over here.
Clauser said this about climate change: “The dominant process has been misidentified, I believe, by factors of 200.”
10:50 in the video.
As I see it, this implies that even to expect a harmless 1C of direct no-feedback warming from a doubling of CO2 is based on a process misidentification. It also implies that the “forcing + feedback” framing of the question of climate system response was a misconception from the beginning.
In reality, there are two forcings. The first is the radiative forcing that we all hear about. The second is an evaporative cooling forcing that is replaced by false water vapor feedback. This may be where the … off by a factor of 200 … is derived.
When these two sub-forcings are combined we end up with no warming. IOW, no net forcing at all.
Yet we see warming and its manifestations everywhere. Do we deny the evidence of our own eyes?
“Yet we see warming and its manifestations everywhere. “
No… YOU see it , because you are brain-washed to see it and GULLIBLY/ IGNORANTLY fall for all the media HYPE and MISINFORMATION. !
You deliberately close your eyes and ears to all the COLD RECORDS set only last year.
Do you DENY the evidence that shows the only warming in the last 45 years has come at two major El Ninos.
Other than that…
… you have proven that YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE
You need to watch the news a bit more, nicey.
And don’t be so shouty. It ill-becomes you.
Rusty, for a nail, you oddly don’t seem to get the point. The propaganda news is the reason for your delusions.
I need to get the message across to you somehow.
You are totally devoid of rational thought or reason.
You are totally devoid of any evidence.
You have nothing but yapping !
What evidence? Your imagination? The current 8 year cooling trend hasn’t ended. The long term warming correlates very well with longer term ocean cycles.
The AMO may very well have started its transition to the next cool phase. It will probably take a couple of years and then we can start watching Arctic sea ice increase and the planet cool.
Every single bit of data that isn’t corrupted by urbanisation, bad sites etc shows there is no problem.
DATA shows that there is nothing untoward happening with weather extremes, hurricane, heat etc etc..
There is no climate crisis, it is all in your gullible little scientifically-bereft mind. !
You really need to at least TRY to catch up with actual real science, not hyped media nonsense.
Actually, the “forcing + feedback” hypothesis has been conclusively falsified by actual experimentation: There has been no measured tropospheric “hot spots” as is demanded by the assumptions input to UN IPCC CliSciFi climate models. The various denials of this measured scientific fact by paid liars would be amusing if they didn’t fool so many supposedly intelligent people into wrecking Western civilization
Pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo propaganda has been wildly successful in the West. So much so that existing trends will lead to scientific, economic and political domination by the BRICS coalition. [Learn Mandarin, young man. Learn Mandarin.]
Yes and they knew that in the 90s, which in a valid science process it would have been back to the drawing board. Yet it already was to lucrative to give it up so they lied and have been ever since.
So what IS this misidentified by a factor of 200 process ?
Clauser does not say in this short speech. I am curious about what he may have said elsewhere on this point.
10:27 “[One] must correctly identify the dominant processes. That’s the starting point. The best way to do this is with order of magnitude estimates of the various conceivable processes.
One of my examples I can give [in my keynote address] later (I won’t have time to do it now) regarding ‘climate change’ [will show that] the dominant process, I believe, has been misidentified by factors of 200.
If you’re off by a factor of 100, 200, your process is way too small to be important.”
TO DO: publish that keynote address or, at least, excerpts from it (with a transcript — I would take the time to transcribe the above video, but, every time I have done that in the past for various videos, WUWT never puts them into the body of the article. While I am happy to take the time (and sometimes a long time!) to do that even to help even just one reader, here, I am not going to do it an have it just sit in the comments, once again, ignored by WUWT (as usual).
Given that natural CO2 is estimated to be around 150 gigatons per year and human CO2 emissions to be around 5 gigatons per year, i.e., natural CO2 is 2 orders of magnitude greater, I’m guessing that this is where Dr. Clauser is focusing.
It’s about clouds, especially in respect to how much sunlight is reflected.
Oh. Thanks for the information. 🙂
He explains here. Clouds.
Makes sense. This follows many other skeptics including Dr. William Gray who points out both clouds and water vapor are a problem for climate science.
“The main problem with the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory is the false treatment of the global hydrologic cycle which is not adequately understood by any of the AGW advocates. The water vapor, cloud, and condensation-evaporation assumptions within the conventional AGW theory and the (GCM) simulations are incorrectly designed to block too much infrared (IR) radiation to space. They also do not reflect-scatter enough short wave (albedo) energy to space. These two misrepresentations result in a large artificial warming that is not realistic”
I should add that Clauser emphasizes the powerful thermostatic control of energy input exerted by the formation and dissipation of clouds. So in concept, he holds dynamic self-regulation as the dominant process.
Here is the answer to the factor of 200.
I hope more and more climate realists speak out with Dr John – if biased western institutes won’t give them a fair hearing, I’m sure many in the BRICS nations will
I find myself aligning with BRICS ever more on energy and climate matters, so will developing nations who need fossil fuels to develop
“I hope more and more climate realists speak out with Dr John – if biased western institutes won’t give them a fair hearing, I’m sure many in the BRICS nations will”
There’s a thought!
I bet the BRICS nations *would* like to hear that there is no reason for them to reduce their CO2 output. That the science doesn’t support doing so.
I would think a scientist telling them that would be welcome. Al Gore might have a fit, but who cares what he thinks.
“Al Gore might have a fit, but who cares what he thinks.”
Hope that the climate mafia will let him speak for a while !!!
They are trying to claim “He’s not a climate scientist” already.
Like climate science isn’t fundamentally physics. Paid “scientists” get the physics so wrong that they actually predict tropospheric hot spots.
So called climate scientists have their own special brand of phiisics. They observe the output of their models.
In fact, I have it in writing from the Australian CSIRO that their ACCESS model is the very best because it predicts close to the average of all other models. in their words “middle of the road”.
Measured data has little relevance to climate scientists other than its need for adjustment to match the model output.
because it predicts close to the average of all other models
The very definition of consensus science.
W.S.Gilbert would like that:
“I am the very model of a climatitic modeler.” etc.
I am not a good ryhmer, so maybe somebody else can pick it up from here.
Did you see this early comparison of CSITRO modelling with the average of other climate models? I wrote to the chief about this superb agreement and he replied to the effect that that was what their science showed, IIRC. I have lost his verbatim reply in a disc crash.
Accuracy of CMIP modelling can be seen by comparisons. In 2007, David Douglass et al published in Int. J. Climatol. (2007), “A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model prediction”.
Table 2 from it:
From the Abstract,
“We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs.”
Here is the modelled trend of temperatures at various altitudes above the Earth surface, expressed in milli⁰C per decade.
Pressure Results #15 Average of all 67
hPa milli⁰C/decade milli⁰C/decade
1000 163 156
925 213 198
850 174 166
700 181 177
600 199 191
500 204 203
400 226 227
300 271 272
250 307 314
200 299 320
Model # 15 is Australia’s CSIRO MK3.0.
Attention is drawn to the exceptionally good model results at mid-altitude, which I have bolded. They agree with the average of the other runs/models to one millidegree C per decade. Accurate estimates to one thousandth of a degree per decade?
I don’t know of any school that is giving degrees in “climate” science.
The vast majority of people who are claiming to be “climate scientists” do not have degrees in anything related to climate, or science.
They’re mostly computer gamers.
Shocking that people would claim that someone who is not a climate scientist is not a climate scientist.
Except that he is ..
He has studied “climate” as a top level atmospheric and other physicist.
That makes him far more a climate SCIENTIST than basically anyone in the AGW cult. (Scientist being the operative word)
Their very approach shows that most self-style “climate scientists™” are the very much TOTAL OPPOSITE of scientists.
That is why you follow them so gullibly.
You have shown many times that you have zero understanding of science.
All the basics of meteorology (climate) are founded in physics. He is in fact better educated to understand climate processes than most climate pseudo-scientists. It appears you are also not well grounded in basic science.
Do you ever wish people would face reality about CO2 and temperatures? Most of us do.
I wish this site and its highly intelligent commenters would face reality about our Enemies–those pushing CO2-hate are trying to KILL us. This site is full of articles like this one, brilliant and accurate–and playing into the hands of the genocidalists by attacking them on their chosen ground. Carbon dioxide is the basis of LIFE (not temperatures) and that is what the Alarmists are trying to destroy. They are trying to kill most or all the people, replacing us with robots whose very thoughts come from outside. They would kill all the doggies and kitties, and cows and giraffes and elephants and turtles and frogs and trees and flowers and mushrooms and ferns. Everything needs to eat or photosynthesize and it all comes from
CO2 +H2O +sunshine in a green plant—> sugar and oxygen. (The oxygen is a trivial byproduct as all CO2 in the atmosphere turned to oxygen would be only .042%–a tiny fraction of the 20-21% oxygen in the air).
LIFE is the issue–and yes, there IS dangerous climate change from the point of view of living organisms. Not the blessing of more CO2, which increases the carrying capacity of the Earth for Life, but the water cycle damage from wrecking the world’s soils through plow-based annual agriculture. Soil turned to dusty dirt does not contain the nutrients needed to produce health-giving food, nor does it retain mosture after a downpour. The water runs off in a flood, and then is not there, otherwise known as drought. Ironically, there IS dangerous warming as well, not globally, but exposed dirt-surfaces can reach temperatures of 160F. That cooks microorganisms.
We have reached the point where the plow-based annual agriculture of the past 10k years cannot possibly be sustained much longer. Organic helps, but organic is not enough. Survival of the species requires a new paradigm–and that paradigm is already here. Several breakthroughs allow a return to perennials and forest agriculture, with abundance and vitality.
You started out OK, but then veered wildly off the rails.
I for one have no interest in trading one brand of jackass doomsday alarmism for a different flavor.
Farming is doing just fine.
Better than ever, as anyone who checks the numbers can readily see.
There is no chance to feed this hungry world and maintain standards of living, let alone elevate them, without things like pesticides and chemical fertilizers.
Just ask Sri Lanka.
Yes, Sri Lanka, indeed, the first instance where the global warming panic has cost lives!! Now, that’s an untold story that deserves screaming headlines!
No, the global warming panic has also cost millions of lives in Africa and Asia alone. The zealot’s monomania about CO2 is denying life saving development in the Third World.
Elderly people in several European countries have been dying for several years, because they can no longer afford to heat their homes, thanks to renewable energy making all forms of energy more expensive.
Sri Lanka came unstuck via the personal greed, incompetence and corruption of its then leaders.
They mismanaged so badly and stole all the money that Sri Lanka didn’t have any foreign exchange or currency reserves with which to pay for fertiliser imports.
The import of almost everything else had already ceased because of that.
Thus the import of fertiliser and last on the list of imported goodness had to stop also – their Line Of Credit had run out.
To try blind the world to its incompetence & greed, the leadership confected the ‘Organic Story’
And A Gullible World, for most part, swallowed it.
Where exactly does that put defenders of the ‘Organic Story’?
Because that’s all it was.
Cowardly BS to pass a buck and ‘get away with robbing the bank’
i.e The Global Warming Scam and all of Climate Science is no more than what the leadership of Sri Lanka tried to pull off.
They copied the west in their insane lust for money.
Sri Lanka is coming to a supermarket near you soon for the exact same reasons, greed, incompetence and junk science
Such is the fantastic gift that Magical Thinking is…
(Borne of chronic physical & mental depression occasioned by rubbish food)
You say:“”There is no chance to feed this hungry world and… blah blah blah
Errrrr, if the present system is soooo good, why did you use the word ‘hungry‘
Because people require food, on an ongoing basis.
Not very good with language, are you?
I was on board with that until the agriculture part. Modern industrial agriculture produces more abundance in a smaller footprint with less manpower than any other method, and it’s not possible to feed billions of people without plow-based methods of production. I can’t operate my own 30′ x 60′ garden plot without plowing it, killing the bugs that destroy the crops, and fertilizing the crap out of it. The first year of trying to do otherwise proved that, and that little plot and six raised beds are stupidly labor-intensive. I really have better things to do with my time. Over a 25-year career I flew from one end of the US to the other, and agriculture just does not have a big presence in the context of the whole country, nor relative to the millions of people it feeds. Niche methods like forest agriculture, on the other hand, will guarantee the starvation of billions of people.
Those who worry about permanent damage to farm soils should be aware that farming can easily be done as if the soil did little more than hold the plants in place and act as a water tank. Hydroponics is an extreme demonstration of a range of growing techniques that scarcely harm soils.
The key, of course, is fertilizers. Add synthetic or mined ones rather than deplete the original natural soil abundance. Consumers of food cannot distinguish between synthetic and natural fertilizers. Think of them not as an alien soil additive, but as the central part of a chemical production process to convey food and energy to the mouth to enable growth and life.
I have never been able to work out why some people hate fertilizers. Even after working at a young age in the research lab of a large urea plant for a few years, I did not see any cause for concern. Optimizing fertilizer application was rewarding work.
Modern agriculture has been practiced in Europe for over two centuries. It has a shorter history in other climates, but the experience of Sri Lanka suggests that it works even there.
I have relatives on my ancestral family tree who have been farming the same plots of land for longer than 300 years, in Pennsylvania Dutch Country.
There are individual plots that have been continuously farmed going back to the time of the Jamestown colony.
At least one such plot has recently been the place where world record yields of corn have been raised, despite being in continuous production for many centuries.
And they do it on a sandy loam type soil.
They have routinely been achieving yields that are in excess of the astounding quantity of 600 bushels of corn per acre.
Meet David Hula:
“David Hula didn’t just eclipse the 600-bushel-per-acre mark to win the 2019 National Corn Yield Contest – he crushed it, hitting a record 616.195-bushel-per-acre yield.
And no, it wasn’t on super-fertile, jet-black land. It was generated from one of Hula’s sandy-loam fields in Charles City County, Virginia.”
How David Hula Grows 600-Bushel-Plus Corn (agriculture.com)
In another article, he talks about the land he farms:
“Hula’s land, which was part of Captain John Smith’s Jamestown mainland farm and has been farmed for more than 400 years, has been a no-till since 1991. His soil is fine sandy loom (sic), with 6 to 8 good inches of top soil, then clay, and some gravel below that so it drains really well. The soil also does not hold moisture or nutrients very well. Hula said it causes him to do a lot of spoon feeding of fertilizer particularly with irrigated environments and a lot of split applications on small grain as well as corn.”
David Hula: A five finger approach to growing corn | AGDAILY
I wish this site and its highly intelligent commenters …
It is my judgement that the commenters on this site have the highest average intelligence and education of any web site I have visited — including the trolls. Whatever else is the problem with the trolls, they are not stupid or uneducated. I’m reminded of the old saying, “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”
What about those who are paid not to see?
It is my judgement that the commenters on this site have the highest average intelligence and education of any web site I have visited — including the trolls.
You need to visit more websites.
The bent nail troll shows very little evidence of having an intelligence that has developed much past primary school level.
Probably little point in you visiting any more websites, nicey. Think you found your level here.
“More websites” are so modest that they don’t want to be named 🙂
So, a level with some of the top climate researchers around.
Many with degrees or higher in science, engineering and physics related subjects.
Thanks. I only have degree in maths/science, engineering and PhD in Engineering… so yes, I feel I fit in.
You on the other hand will never fit in here…
Go find a childrens’ play site, or something similar, that matches your ability.
They are trying to kill most or all the people, replacing us with robots whose very thoughts come from outside. They would kill all the doggies and kitties, and cows and giraffes and elephants and turtles and frogs and trees and flowers and mushrooms and ferns.
Could you possibly point us to some data to support this belief of yours? Without supporting data, I’m afraid you come off as sounding astonishingly daft.
I would also love it if you could come up with evidence that plow based agriculture is destroying soil.
BTW, are you related to Peta?
Learn about the journey of Roberto Silva-Rodriquez, Executive Director of Agropiura, a table-grape and banana operation in Peru.
The premiere of the mini-documentary brought together the key players in this inspirational story, and provided deeper insights into the transition to regenerative agriculture.
We have reached the point where the plow-based annual agriculture of the past 10k years cannot possibly be sustained much longer.
So what do you propose? How do you feed people?
Organic helps, but organic is not enough.
At least you got the second part right.
A bit off-topic, but I finally found some truth in a Guardian article about climate!
Re: the Antarctic sea ice lows
‘Meier says it is hard to know if the changes are natural or human caused – or a mix of both – and says there is some evidence of a similar sudden swing from high levels of sea ice to very low in photographs from mid-1960s satellites.
Dr Andrew Meijers, an oceanographer at the British Antarctic Survey, says many climate scientists who were “not necessarily sea ice folk” suspect the drops since 2016 showed climate change had “finally burned through the natural barriers around the sea ice formed by the unique wind and atmospheric circulation”. But there was a lack of concrete evidence to support that view’
This sums up the behavior and scientific knowledge of climate ‘scientists’ quite nicely. Anything and everything to support their narrative. They ignored (or are ignorant of) the fact that this seems to happen naturally about every 50 years or so.
The timing of the “mid-1960s” correlates well with the last AMO cool phase. This could be the precursor of a colder NH and increases in Arctic sea ice.
– or a mix of both –
It is highly improbable that the natural influences and their impacts stopped suddenly at the beginning of the industrial Revolution. Any impact that humans might have would be in addition to the natural drivers, and would just as likely be subtractive rather than just additive.
It is worth recognizing that South Korean young scientists listened to John Clauser, the IMF (and Izaak) considered his opinions ‘inappropriate’. Therein lies a lesson, and prediction of who will lead honest science in the future.
But did the organisers of the Korean conference have any idea that Clauser would trash the IPCC before he opened his mouth.
The opinion of a Nobelist should always be considered inappropriate. Equity, please.
Amen. The problem students face is that if their answers don’t accord with the lecturer’s way of thinking … they fail. The problem has metastasized into the very bones of academia.
This is not new. In my Ph.D. thesis, circa 1970, I came to the conclusion that what my Committee members taught was false. This was not a finding they were prepared to believe so I failed my oral exam in a minute flat. I was stopped after my third sentence. They ultimately gave me the degree for political reasons.
Yes I too had an economics professor who made it very clear that he was set to down-mark any of us who questioned his demonization of capitalism and his lionization of Marxist theory.
I changed courses to business studies, but didn’t complete.
In any case, I always wanted to be –
My Master’s thesis was rejected because my findings from work with newish specific ion electrodes circa 1970 did not match their expectations of what measured numbers should have been found. Mine were actual, theirs were theory. The problem is, not one of them had ever used such electrodes, which I had obtained from John Ross or Orion who was inventing them. That single blow is why I stopped trying for a Ph.D. Geoff S
Geoff, have heart. Your commission members could not very well acknowledge that their science was being falsified. It is a destiny of most scientific theories to be falsified, but .. we all want to go to Heavens, but please not tomorrow!
And you’re okay? H/t Monty Python
(I cut down trees, I skip and jump
I like to press wild flowers
I put on women’s clothing
And hang around in bars)
Well climate changers there were 398 EVs out of the 3783 cars onboard and once one EV had thermal runaway it was time to jump off the doomed 6000 capacity RoRo car carrier-
Fremantle Highway Update | Why So Many Fires on Car Carriers? – YouTube
and you want to fill them fully with thermal runaway cars by 2035?
Apart from paying thrillseekers enough to crew them the insurance underwriting cost is about to go hockey stick for any ship ferry or barge carrying EVs. In fact Govts everywhere need to ban EVs on car and people ferries forthwith as you’ll notice the crew of the RoRo didn’t even have time to launch the lifeboats but jump for their lives into the sea.
“and you want to fill them fully with thermal runaway cars by 2035?”
I think that’s the plan.
I don’t think our leaders have thought everything through to the end.
“I don’t think our leaders have thought everything through to the end.”
With apologies to Winston Churchill, they have not even thought through to the “end of the beginning.”
I already told all this to DFDS ferries last summer – but they just went on as if it didn’t matter, –
while they routinely confiscate perfectly safe petrol cans off people if they find them in the boot of car in Newhaven and refuse to give them back.
I told them very clearly, the day an EV catches fire on a top deck of that ferry they are in deepest kaka cos it will immediately catch fire to all the normal vehicles all around it, then you have the beginnings of a Herald of free Enterprise (HOFE) disaster shaping up.
Chances are it won’t happen in port like in Zeebrugge, making it like the ESTONIA ferry disaster
I am just hoping I am never on the ferry where it happens.
You simply can’t put out a fire in an EV on a channel ferry apart from craning it out if poss and dumping it overboard… (good luck to them!).
Remember what happened to Mont Blanc Tunnel and the infamous channel tunnel fires.
They cost billions in compensation and insurance claims!
Wouldn’t make me happy to come back and say “I told you so”!
I predict that it will soon be too expensive to import EVs from overseas because of the increased insurance costs. The next issue will be home owner’s insurance costs for those who own an EV and charge it in an attached garage.
Presumably these were all brand new cars with minimal transit charge on them whereas ferries in future will have used ones of various ages and states of repair with anything up to full charges. Good luck with that. Unless authorities mandate EVs and passengers transit separately right now another Titanic type episode is guaranteed and another and…?
At best when you think about it a car and passenger ferry would need enough lifeboats on every quarter of it to evacuate all its passengers and crew from there the moment a fire alarm is triggered.(depends on alarm source and fast prevailing weather decisionmaking)
Australia no longer makes cars so we fully import over a million cars a year for our needs right now. Calling Mr Musk…calling Mr Musk!
Oh, I think they know good and well that this is a ponzi scheme. They (and the “techno-cons” — J. Clauser) see themselves making a killing off their “renewables” investments before the whole scam collapses.
There was a report, several years ago, supported by considerable detail (true or not true detail?) that said, at least for the USA (north) that state pension funds, always running way behind legal resource limits (I forget the common term but meaning that their reserves are inadequate for the committed demands) due to finally giving civil service employees the power to vote themselves ever greater rewards.
The pension agencies have long abandoned proper fiduciary practices because those approaches are unable to keep up with the frequently increasing demands upon the funds. The funds had been heavily invested speculative, as in the .com bubble, making matters worse. The need to somehow recoup those loses lead to schemes that the state legislatures can control through legislation and regulation which can be declared publicly required because of emergency conditions — investment in “green energy” development.
Correction, they haven’t thought anything through to the end.!
If they had, we wouldn’t be in this stupid half-way house to economic oblivion.
That’s right, bob. 🙂 They are flying blind.
You are assuming that they are capable of deep thought. The reasons that most politicians are in the line of work they are is that they can’t even teach teachers.
Speaking of thermal runaway cars, it’s hilarious to watch the propaganda press try to obscure yet another cargo ship full of EVs and other cars burning up. This time in the North Sea off the Dutch coast.
First they tried to say that there were only 25 EVs on board out of “nearly 3000” on the Fremantle Highway bound for Singapore from Bremerhaven so that it would cast doubt on how the blaze started. Now it comes out that at least 500 are EVs out of 3,800.
The way this works is a lot of people might see the first reports and “learn” that it’s unclear what caused the fire. It sounds like it might not have anything to do with the EVs. Later on, many of those people won’t bother to read the follow-up stories and will be left assuming it’s not obvious that an EV battery started this and that the reason the fire can’t be put out is because EV batteries are burning, regardless of the irrelevant red herring of exactly how the fire started.
For those who are too curious and do click the link, not to worry, though. There will be new regulations to prevent this in the future. It just points out a lamentable problem where cargo ships have outdated fire suppression systems. (Apparently meaning that they can’t suppress a lithium battery fire that essentially can’t be suppressed even on land and usually just have to be allowed to burn themselves out). Talk about market failure! Big government to the rescue!
Oh, and this is rich! There’s still a risk of an environmental disaster because the ship has oil on board. Omg, when are we just gonna stop oil?!
OK now people. Old news! Move along, nothing to see here!
The issue the crew had and why they jumped was not especially the fire and or flames
It’s that when Lithium Ion batteries burn they produce what is effectively Hydrofluoric Acid
It’s right up there with Ozone as Truly Ugly Stuff – except that HF is capable of eating glass.
Eyes, noses, mouths and lungs wouldn’t last even just a few seconds
Then look at the design and construction of that ship, just one single car on fire in there would make it an inescapable gas chamber and the ‘smoke’ was impossible to get away from even up on deck
That’s why they jumped, to escape being eaten/digested alive by the acid fumes
HF is far worse than O3. There are some real horror stories about what has happened to people in the semiconductor industry — people who have lost fingers because the HF attacked the bones in their hands.
For two years in the late 1960s I was part owner of a fairly big lab for geochemical analysis supporting mineral exploration. We routinely dissolved powdered rock in boiling hydrofluoric acid HF in Teflon containers in conventional fume cupboards. We also used Nitric and Hydrochloric as aqua regia, all as concentrated as we could buy. Several hundred rock samples were dissolved on a busy day, 10 ml of HF each.
Not one employee, nor me, (who was often hands-on when not absent corrupting gullible others to send their business my way) ever showed a sign of chronic or acute adverse effects of HF use. We were aware of its dangers.
Thank you for your occasional poetry, but please define in future when you are reporting science as opposed to poetic fantasy.
You should take into account that the technical/science community in in our familiar societies is in progress of being assaulted by many ignorant people who place ‘feelings” “ambitions” and the like over “observation and measurement” with the objective to frighten your pants off and to demonize whatever topic they take a hate to. Surely an astute observer like you has seen this hate in progress?
Geoff, I upvoted your comment because it is true, but Peta’s comment might also be true – I don’t know how much HF such a fire produces. You did not force your employees to breathe HF.
Whilst recognising Clauser knows his stuff, his presentation was poor so the Misledia will ignore him or worse quote a “bumbling old fool” out of context.
A printed transcript (with the “uhms, etc.” left out) would create a much better impression — A POWERFUL impression, in fact, which could only be denied by ignoring the strong arguments he makes and by grossly mischaracterizing his science knowledge as a Nobel prize-winning physicist of worldwide, stellar, reputation.
Also, they will have to overcome the highly relevant, enormously weighty, evidence of his being invited to be the keynote speaker at such an event. 🤨
The popular press is very good at doing what you say could not be done. All true believers accept their versions with blinking an eye.
Yes, I agree Janice
Can ChatGPT/AI create a transcript from the dialogue in a video?
I would rather do it myself. I LOATHE ChatGPT. I’ll bet it would get several words wrong and mess up the grammar in places. You can see its shoddy “writing” in online news sources and in YouTube videos. Those “crazy” mistakes can’t ALL have been made by some poor soul who is doing her or his best to speak English as a second language… 🤨
Anyway, that said, thanks for the idea, WUWT pal. 🙂
ChatGPT might refuse to make a transcript if a skeptic was making the presentation. ChatGPT seems to believe in Human-caused Climate Change from the anectdotal reports I have heard.
I’ve never used ChatGPT. I never felt a need.
….a “bumbling old fool”…
Exactly what I saw, as another bumbling old fool.
True but given their adulation of the utterances of sleepy Joe and Kamela you’d expect he’s speaking their language for cut through with the message.
ie, Flaming Nitwit didn’t comprehend a single word said.
All of it went straight over his head.
Now, little muppet, point out one place where he was wrong.. with evidence.
His speaking ability is several magnitudes higher than your heroes Biden and Kamala.
And what is your opinion (please support with facts and logic) of what he SAID?
Hopefully this won’t have the effect the BBC hopes, especially after many calling Rowlatt a hypocrite for his trip to the Greek Islands burning
False claims that heatwave is bogus spread online
Neil Oliver is sounding increasingly unhinged.
Flaming Nitwit calling someone else “unhinged”… Oh the irony !
Again… Neil is basically correct with everything he says.
You are the total opposite.
Just like BBC to use a photo of a Stevenson screen that is (seemingly unknown to them) non-compliant. Too many big, high, heat-emitting rocks too close to the thermometer and outside specification for a flat surrounding, depending on which authority design is used., Geoff S
Did you see the one in Palermo that registered the high temperature.