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.

If you want to know how socialists think

I was alerted by the title of Graham Richardson’s column today: Diplomacy’s a challenge when Trump goes rogue. Not his own title, of course, but as usual more anti-Trump rubbish that one expects from the socialist cabal. But it was more than that; there was this:

President Xi is a dictator and, in my view, China will need to be run by a dictator for a long time yet. Democracy is just too slow for a nation building its economy at the rate the Chinese are achieving.

Possibly the most revealing statement we have seen from the Labor Party, revealing their true sentiments towards democracy and the market economy. How do we ever trust these people in government?

There was more, of course, but this truly made me wonder how out of it such people are.

The biggest problem in the area of energy policy is the gap between supply and demand, which has not been plugged by the market — we lack a large, new power plant on the east coast…. The failure to lure any investment to bridge the energy sector’s coal deficit will mean the wide-eyed proselytisers of the new world energy renewables push will get to see the implementation of more of the schemes they have been promoting in recent years, and see if they work and at what cost.

And who does GR think is responsible? Does the Labor Party have anything to do with it? Perish the thought:

The Green-GetUp coalition has had enormous success in ensuring that no finance from any source can go to coal…. For the past five decades we were the country with abundant cheap power so the logical question is how did we manage to squander this advantage? When you have abundant reserves of coal of good quality at a good price the tragedy of worrying about energy supply is obvious.

Clearly, Australia also needs to be run by a dictator. At least in China there is no hesitation to burn coal to produce electricity.

“Mann-made” global warming shown to be a fraud

I remember meeting Tim Ball because it was on the day that Donald Trump was elected and so it was a double pleasure to have shared the moment with him. And now he has won his libel lawsuit against Michael Mann, the inventor of the “hockey stick”, who sued Tim because he described Mann’s science as fraudulent. Let me fill in more of the details via Powerline: MICHAEL MANN REFUSES TO PRODUCE DATA, LOSES CASE.

Some years ago, Dr. Tim Ball wrote that climate scientist Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.” At issue was Mann’s famous “hockey stick” graph that purported to show a sudden and unprecedented 20th century warming trend. The hockey stick featured prominently in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001), but has since been shown to be wrong. The question, in my view, is whether it was an innocent mistake or deliberate fraud on Mann’s part. (Mann, I believe, continues to assert the accuracy of his debunked graph.) Mann sued Ball for libel in 2011. Principia Scientific now reports that the court in British Columbia has dismissed Mann’s lawsuit with prejudice, and assessed costs against him.

What happened was that Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it. Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.

Beyond even that, with Tim Ball, Mark Steyn, who has also been sued by Mann, and myself all Canadians by birth, it is also an indefensible case of cultural appropriation for Michael Mann to have used the hockey stick for his imagery.

Nothing stands still

Sources of oil on an annual basis since the mid-1960s. Takes you to 2017. Just watching the total volume of oil production grow over the years is instructive in itself. There is no going back, unless it is going back to the Dark Ages.

And then this one shows the growth in GDP by country. A better, more useful measure is perhaps GDP per capita, but you get the idea.

Far more stability here with China the outlier although there is real reason to doubt the accuracy of their numbers. Also sad to see Australia fall and then eventually drop out of the Top 20 in 2020. Economic management has been abject for many years.

And now I have found the per capita GDP measure which doesn’t end up looking all that meaningful. Australia is there both at the start and at the end but the numbers seem to suggest that having an oil well is the optimal approach to wealth.

And then economic growth ranked one to ten over the years since 1962. Never have I come across such meaningless economic numbers.

Exports, on the other hand, really seem to say something significant.

But imports seem to say something even more accurate. The ability to import is what does make an economy more wealthy. Yet once again a per capita measure seems essential for a more insightful comparison.

With this one you can watch both total GDP and GDP per capita to get a sense of how it matters. It compares Japan, China, South Korea and India, with the UK thrown in as a first world example.

On Uri Geller the science is settled

Uri Geller said he could bend spoons with the power of his mind, and did so in front of television audiences around the world. A couple of years ago he was inducted into the Magicians Hall of Fame, but he has never admitted that it was all a magic trick. But so what, since all kinds of scientists have been willing to state that Geller really did bend those spoons with the power of his mind. Here are a couple of examples.

First this: ‘There was no way I could explain it’: the CIA scientist convinced by Uri Geller’s psychic powers. The last two paras:

How does Dr Green feel when he hears magicians and sceptical fellow scientists say all such things relating to Uri Geller and others are simple magicians’ tricks and of no scientific interest?

“The fact of the matter is that that isn’t correct. Anybody who has studied Geller and seen what he does, and the films of what he does, recognizes that there are profound differences between what Geller does and magicians’ tricks. There’s not even a remotely qualified individual who’s ever investigated Geller who believes this orthodoxy – that it’s all trickery – has any value. It does not.”

And then there’s this: CIA files: Uri Geller has real powers.

According to the papers, scientists from Stanford University tested Israeli mentalist Uri Geller in 1973. Geller was already famous all over the world by this point.

The scientists said of Geller that he had “proven his supernatural perception unequivocally.”


The modern version of spoon bending is global warming and climate change. From bending spoons, Geller was able to make quite a good living. From climate change, many many people are making a very good living. Do you really want to waste your money giving it to people who are in on this worldwide pseudo-scientific scam?