We’re all gonna die

First from Australia.

Malcolm Roberts 

Adam, Can you confirm the credentials of Professor Micky Mouse from the Micky Mouse Institute For The Blind that is included in your list of “scientists”? Unprecedented propaganda.


Quote Tweet
Adam Bandt
This is unprecedented. 11,000 scientists from around world unite to declare global climate emergency. Governments, including our own, have not got global warming under control. #Greens will press on with getting Aust Parl to declare a climate emergency. https://sbs.com.au/news/11-000-scientists-from-around-the-world-unite-to-declare-global-climate-emergency
5:24 PM · Nov 6, 2019·Twitter Web App


And then from Canada.

Replying to the con-servationists

On the same day that Greta Thunberg harangued the UN about her fears of a climate emergency, 500 scientists sent a registered letter to the UN Secretary-General stating that there is no climate emergency and climate policies should be designed to benefit the lives of people. Here are the specific points about climate change highlighted in the letter:

1 Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.
2. Warming is far slower than predicted.
3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models.
4. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
7. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic.

For more detail, go here.

Of course, if you want to actually make progress against these people, you will need to show how there is more money to be made in opposing the climate agenda than in supporting it.

On the Ball on climate

Dealing with post-modernist global warmists is the kind of contradiction the left thrives on. There’s no truth but my truth so long as it’s their truth; at least that’s their mantra. Except on global warming, where they know the truth, although the truth cannot be known for at least thirty years (or perhaps it will now all be revealed within twelve years).

I am always meeting global warming cranks and they are always willing to discuss it. So I say, why do you believe such things? What’s your evidence? And they always have evidence that convinces them. The last three that I can recall:

The Solomon Islands are sinking beneath the waves – the oceans are therefore rising when in fact the islands are sinking
The glaciers in the Alps are receding – which they have been doing since the 1850s
Flying foxes are coming into Victoria where they never were before because it used to be too cold which turned out to be a completely garbled story of zero global warming significance.

People are determined to believe the most nonsensical things, and they find confirmation everywhere. Perhaps they should have a word with Tim Ball who can set them straight. A very brave man. I’m afraid you may have to wind the start of the video back to the beginning.

How dare you!

Having to deal with the global swarmists must be unbelievably difficult for any political leader who finds they are dealing with the con in con-servation to the extent it has now become mandatory. That elections depend on such matters really does suggest our Western supposedly rational way of life is heading off into the wilderness. There is a ton of money to be made through channelling various projects subsidised by public funding.

It is not just how fantastically gullible these people are, but how the left has latched onto these various issues. There are no skeptics on the left, and not all that many on the right. Bi-partisan madness.

And then there are real issues that also need deep consideration but who can understand the intricacies of the Middle East, other than that for the left, anything that is done that is different – or even exactly the same – from how it was previously done, and for which some victim can be conjured, or some responsibility can be manufactured, becomes a focal point for criticism. The alliance of Socialists, Climate activists, University far-left academics and the Media (SCUM for short) will ruin our lives. California here we come.

As Victor Davis Hanson asks, Is America Entering a Dark Age? And not just America but the whole of the West, and that means you.

The children’s crusade

“In climate change, the left has found an emergency big enough to justify taking control of everything.”

I went along myself yesterday to the demo in Treasury Gardens, and truth to tell, I found it boring. It was so clearly a Marxist, anti-capitalist, pro-socialist network of the kind I had been part of in my long-ago youth, right down to:

What do we want?
Climate change action!
When do we want it?

Fifty years later, even the lines are the same although the issue is different. Except it’s all so new and exciting for these ignorant and uninformed students who have not an independent or educated thought in their heads – I’d like to see how they’re going in their maths and chemistry courses. Every statement from the podium was a cliche, so much so that within ten minutes the cheers simply evaporated and everyone just got to talking to the people they were with. No one any longer cared what the speakers had to say.

The point I was trying to make yesterday is that it is all very well to be speaking among ourselves on our side of the fence but useless if we cannot force these climate totalitarians to engage in a dialogue. The Conversation – in my view out of weakness and not strength – now seeks to shut down debate on climate change within its confines. There is, of course, nothing that these ignoramuses say that we are unaware of. They, on the other hand, are unaware of every bit of the counter-arguments that have been made on our side. They are certainly unaware of the massive evidence proving that they are almost certainly wrong. This, from Cut and Paste at The Oz yesterday, is typical of the attitude they have:

Climate warrior/worrier Tim Flannery confesses to failure, Guardian Australia website, Tuesday:

Each year the situation becomes more critical. In 2018, global emissions of greenhouse gases rose by 1.7 per cent, while the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere jumped by 3.5 parts per million — the largest ever observed increase. No climate report or warning, no political agreement nor technological innovation has altered the ever-upward trajectory of the pollution. This simple fact forces me to look back on my 20 years of climate activism as a colossal failure … My children, and those of many prominent polluters and climate denialists, will probably live to be part of that grim winnowing — a world that the Alan Joneses and Andrew Bolts of the world have laboured so hard to create … As I have become ever more furious at the polluters and denialists, I have come to understand they are threatening my children’s wellbeing as much as anyone who might seek to harm a child.

The dams are full and he mentions not a world. His failure was to be WRONG!!! And you know who is really “threatening my children’s wellbeing as much as anyone who might seek to harm a child”? And not just my children, but every one of those children all around the world who showed up to show off their ignorant concerns before returning to their comfortable, well-provisioned homes of first-world high consumption. Not only do these cruel and thoughtless airheads jeopardise their own futures, both economically and politically, but do so to an even greater extent for their counterparts in the less prosperous parts of the planet. My disgust at these people, especially for their adult leaders who corral these students into these ignorant jaunts in the park, is almost unbounded.

The question I wanted to raise in my post yesterday is to ask how we can make the climate people engage in dialogue so that everyone can hear both sides of the argument being presented at the same time with rebuttals and replies. How do we have a true Q&A? The ABC is filled with leftwing dolts who pander to their own side and ignore the other. You can have The Outsiders and Andrew Bolt who reflect our views, while also discussing both sides, but only viewed among ourselves.

The Conversation has turned into The Monologue. And they don’t care. Like all pseudo-academics of their kind, they already know the truth so do not have to discuss anything with anyone who disagrees. This decision ought to be seen as a great intellectual scandal, that a website designed for academics to discuss issues amongst themselves has shut down one half of the debate. They are the true terrorists, the actual fascists, the genuine Nazis. They are the people you read about in 1984.

I would say we cannot let them get away with it, except I don’t know what to do so that they do not get away with it. Really, what is to be done?

Proving that the climate has been on a warming trend since the 1850s

Why the climate has been warming consistently since 1850 must be the first thing you need to know before taking action.

This week’s issue is devoted to climate change. The stripes on our cover, developed by Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading, represent the period from 1850 to 2018. The colour marks each year’s temperature, compared with the average in 1971-2000. We have found that, whether it is in Democratic politics or Russian dreams of opening an Arctic sea passage, climate now touches on everything we write about. To illustrate this, we decided to weave articles on the climate crisis and what can be done about it into all parts of this week’s coverage. As our main leader explains, because the processes that force climate change are built into the foundations of the world economy and of geopolitics, measures to check climate change have to be similarly wide-ranging and all-encompassing. To decarbonise an economy is not a simple subtraction; it requires a near-complete overhaul.
 Zanny Minton Beddoes, Editor-in-Chief

The Scholastic Monologue Solipsists of climate science

I will put the title on this last, after I have written whatever I find out I have said when I finish. But it’s about those dolts at The Conversation who, without an ounce of shame or reflection, have decided that they will no longer print comments (and probably, therefore, articles) critical of the ignoramuses who peddle climate change ideologies.

My original choice for the title was “The Monologue” since they no longer think they are about to join into a Conversation about something. It’s not that they are so sure they are right that there is no point in talking about it. They actually now find that they are on the wrong side of the debate; they find that everything they have been saying is complete rot, so they are now going to stop talking about it, and will not give the other side a platform because they have no actual answers to what sceptics argue.

The next title I thought of was “The Solipsist”. Solipsists are self-absorbed jerks who only know what they know so there is no point in debating anything with others since these others who they would be debating don’t really exist anyway. The world around them exist only in theory from what appears inside their own minds. They therefore have no genuine reason to believe people who disagree with them have an independent existence. In the dictionary Solipsism comes out like this: “the theory that the self can be aware of nothing but its own experiences and states”. More philosophically:

Solipsism (/ˈsɒlɪpsɪzəm/ ( listen); from Latin solus, meaning ‘alone’, and ipse, meaning ‘self’) is the philosophical idea that only one’s mind is sure to exist. … As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.

When I looked the word up on Google, there was a further link which asked whether solipsism is a mental disorder. Whatever they say, if someone says that climate change is the most important issue in the world but doesn’t any longer wish to discuss it with anyone else, even if the policies that lead from their beliefs lead to massive harm to millions of others as we abandon proven forms of energy production, then solipsism is a mental disorder, related to narcissism and a disgusting lack of care for anyone else but themselves.

Then I thought about this as a title: “The return of the Schoolmen”. The Conversation is supposedly a forum for academics. This is how the academic world is supposed to work. Someone proposes some proposition and provides reasons for believing it is true. Others then enter into the discussion, with some perhaps agreeing and others disagreeing. The search is, of course, for truth. For the truth to emerge, different sides of the debate must be tested and reason and evidence applied.

To choose an example. Suppose some group of scientists proposed that the use of fossil fuels will for a variety of reasons cause the atmosphere to heat and the climate to change in ways that will create immense harm in say 50 to 100 years. They would then provide reasons for holding these views. Others might be convinced, but still others may think this belief is wrong. The first group provides evidence, such as here is the reason this will happen, and here is some evidence that the process has already begun. Others may look at the evidence, and argue that the process mentioned would not occur as stated, or perhaps the argument leaves out many important variables that also need to be considered. As for the evidence that the process has actually begun, those who disagree might point out that every prediction has turned out to be wrong.

The first group might then respond that they are benevolent social and physical scientists who are interested only in the welfare of others. Others might then reply that those arguing in favour of climate change don’t appear to be all that benevolent but seem to be highly self-interested since they are making a ton of money from this belief, either through the academic grants and promotions they receive, or from the vast amounts of money splashed towards various new and unproven technologies in the form of the billions of dollars governments are lashing out replacing power sourced from fossil fuels.

That is how debate has been conducted during the past 300/400 years since Scholastic Philosophy gave way to the Enlightenment. Scholasticism was based on argument from authority. So and so had said something so that was all the evidence needed. The modern age – the age that has discovered the atom, the electron and then electricity – has based many of its discoveries on actually trying to work out how things work, partly through collective thought about some subject, but also by discussing amongst themselves different possibilities and theoretical alternatives. Today only intellectual cowards argue from authority and close down debate before a firm conclusion is reached.

My only conclusion when looking at Climate Change advocates who will not debate is that we are dealing with Scholastic Philosophers. Because what never happens is that something said by a sceptic is picked up by a Climate Change Scholastic who then replies using reason and evidence. What is done instead is ignore everyone who disagrees, call them names, and as we see from The Conversation The Scholastic Monologue Solipsist, have no intention of getting into an actual debate or discussion. Instead they will if they can close down any debate they are likely to lose in an open exchange of ideas.

They are mediaeval primitives who have no place in a modern academic institution.

AN ADDITIONAL COMMENT ON SCHOLASTICISM: Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough about the point of this post, but it is about the nature or climate science and not about scholastic philosophy. So let me bring the scholastics a bit closer to the tale. Here is Will Durant discussing the scholastics, which to me has an incredibly close family relationship to the preachers of modern climate change theology. Do not doubt that these people would burn deniers at the stake if they could. I have put in bold the statements about the Scholastics that are identical to the approach taken by climate so-called scientists.

The caput Nili of the faults that disfigure philosophy: it dishonours truth in the very search for it. It becomes the apologist of a transient dogma, and falls tragically short of that intellectual conscience, that patient respect for the evidence, that uphill attention to negative instances…. The Scholastics, who are wrongly rated as philosophers, having been primarily theologians, set the fashion for subordinating the search for truth to the promulgation of the Faith…. The great fathers of modern philosophy – Bacon, Descartes and Spinoza – protested against this philosophic harlotry.” (Will Durant. The Mansions of Philosophy 1929: page 9)

That is how I understand both scholasticism and climate science. Backwards and ignorant. If you want to say that something is true, but you are not prepared to search for the evidence to back up your statements and then go where the evidence takes you, then you are a fraud and a charlatan. It may make you wealthy, but your morals are non-existent.

How does one deal with friends when political issues come up?

It is kind of a problem dealing with friends when political issues come up. I clearly do not say to them directly that I think they are fw of the highest order so am very polite, adjusting for how impolite my thoughts at many such moments in fact actually are. This from The Diplomad is, however, more in keeping with what I think: The Lost Minds of the West.

And there is so much of it around. Trump, climate change, socialism, abortion, border protection, Brexit, the defence of Western Civilisation, the politics of the Middle East, and the list goes on. As The Diplomad writes, these people are “repulsive beyond words”. I, of course, never have to worry they will come across my thoughts on the net since not one of these ever opens up the blog, even though they know I post things from time to time.

But it really is their complacent stupidity that gets me. Had two of them the other day going on about how the Solomon Islands are sinking, proving climate change. So, I said, if the oceans were rising in the Solomon Islands, they would also be rising at St Kilda Beach. Oh no, they said, the oceans are variable in their height. So I said, I know that the tides in the Bay of Fundy (New Brunswick who are not au fait with Canadian geography) are the highest in the world so there is variation from the moon and the winds.

But with the Solomon Islands, part is “sinking” but other parts are “rising”. What you see is not the rising of the oceans but the shifting of the land itself. This is from the ABC of all things: Is the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu growing, and not sinking, as Craig Kelly says?.

Speaking at a local party event, audio of which was leaked to the Guardian, Mr Kelly set out to debunk several justifications for climate change action, including the argument that Tuvalu, the Pacific island nation, was slipping beneath the sea.


“The science tells us that Tuvalu, which I often hear about, is actually growing not sinking,” he told colleagues.

The notion that it was “leaked” is bizarre since there is no doubt that if asked by a reporter, Craig would have said the same thing and into a microphone and on camera. And this is what the fact check found out.

In the four decades to 2014, Tuvalu’s total land area grew by 73 hectares, or 2.9 per cent.

Well fancy that. Do they know? Do they care? But the real question is: do I tell them they are ignorant fools. I could alienate my wife’s best friends since these are their core beliefs, and here I deal only with climate which is from The Diplomad discussing the CNN candidates forum on climate change..

For SEVEN HOURS (!) the Dem candidates came forward to prove that they have lost their minds, or, at least, that they assume the voters have. I, of course, did not watch this idiocy for seven hours but would pop in and out. My disgust quota was quickly filled. Let me sum up the doings: the CNN show revealed the left as comprised of totalitarian morons. One after another, these politicos came forward trying to outbid each other in the Stalinist lunacy auction. In the end, we got a Democratic Party leadership doing their best Ayesha (“She who must be obeyed!”) impression, committed to abolishing the internal combustion engine, ending fracking, ending offshore drilling, forcing Americans to give up meat, banning plastic straws, condemning “industrial farming,” and, the best for last, killing babies of color in foreign lands. You read that last one right. Bernie “Honeymoon in the USSR” Sanders wants the USA to fund a huge abortion scheme to kill unborn babies in South America in the name of fighting “climate change.” The brown children must be sacrificed to the Goddess Gaia! I guess he’s going for the Margaret Sanger White Supremacist vote, or he’s just trying to burnish his credentials as a Socialist, you know, a National Socialist . . .. Don’t build a border wall or put babies in cages! No, kill them before they’re born! Bumper sticker, anybody?

You got an answer to this, I’d love to know what it is.

Lies, damned lies and global warming

We are surrounded by scammers everywhere. This is taken directly from Powerline and in full: NO U.S. WARMING SINCE 2005.

One of the problems in assessing global climate is that the surface temperature record is terrible. There are very few weather stations world-wide, and fewer all the time. Seventy per cent of the world is ocean, and therefore hard or impossible to measure accurately. Most temperatures that go into calculations of a global average are not even measured: they are interpolated, assumed temperatures based on records at other stations.

Even when measured, temperature records are not very reliable. The U.S. is generally considered to have the best records, but surveys show that over half of our weather stations do not comply with written standards. Some are located in places that obviously will be warmer than surrounding air, e.g., next to airport runways. Many are in cities, where temperatures are artificially inflated by concentrations of people, motor vehicles, buildings, etc. And on top of all of that, the alarmists who curate weather records have systematically fiddled with them, lowering temperatures that were recorded decades ago and raising recent ones, to exaggerate the supposed phenomenon of global warming.

In order to address some of these problems, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) implemented, beginning in 2005, a new surface temperature measurement system in the U.S.

[The U.S. Climate Reference Network] includes 114 pristinely maintained temperature stations spaced relatively uniformly across the lower 48 states. NOAA selected locations that were far away from urban and land-development impacts that might artificially taint temperature readings.

Prior to the USCRN going online, alarmists and skeptics sparred over the accuracy of reported temperature data. With most preexisting temperature stations located in or near urban settings that are subject to false temperature signals and create their own microclimates that change over time, government officials performed many often-controversial adjustments to the raw temperature data. Skeptics of an asserted climate crisis pointed out that most of the reported warming in the United States was non-existent in the raw temperature data, but was added to the record by government officials.

The USCRN has eliminated the need to rely on, and adjust the data from, outdated temperature stations.

So–not to keep you in suspense–what does the USCRN show so far? No warming:

At Real Clear Energy, James Taylor adds:

There is also good reason to believe U.S. temperatures have not warmed at all since the 1930s. Raw temperature readings at the preexisting stations indicate temperatures are the same now as 80 years ago. All of the asserted U.S. warming since 1930 is the product of the controversial adjustments made to the raw data. Skeptics point out that as the American population has grown, so has the artificial warming signal generated by growing cities, more asphalt, more automobiles, and more machinery.

If anything, the raw temperature readings should be adjusted downward today relative to past temperatures (or past temperatures adjusted upward in comparison to present temperatures) rather than the other way around. If raw temperature readings are the same today as they were 80 years ago, when there were fewer artificial factors spuriously raising temperature readings, then U.S. temperatures today may actually be cooler than they were in the early 20th century.

More at the link. USCRN promises to be a valuable contribution to the raging debate over climate, as long as the alarmists don’t get their hands on the data and start changing it.