Hot Topic not even warm

Some days it’s all too easy to find material for blogging. Here it is, 11:15 pm, I’ve spent all weekend installing software on my new PC (thanks for the early birthday present, Christopher), the All Blacks face Scotland at 6 o’clock in the morning and Andy sends me over to Hot Topic, where I find this among a series of election briefs:

Damian Carrington in the Guardian:

What does a second term for Barack Obama as US president mean for action on climate change? The short answer is that some action is now at least conceivable. It would not have been under Mitt Romney, whose statement that the president’s job was not to stop the sea rising was hideously exposed by the inundation of New York and New Jersey by the surge of superstorm Sandy.

The only thing exposed was the truth. Nature gave a demonstration of the truth of what Romney said.

It’s not the president’s job because it can’t be done.

Visits: 406

19 Thoughts on “Hot Topic not even warm

  1. Clarence on 12/11/2012 at 11:01 am said:

    If it was Obama’s job to stop Sandy from striking New Jersey, what should he have done?

    Diverted it to Philadelphia? Reduced its force (energy) by changing its route through the Atlantic? Deferred it until late November when the ocean is much cooler? Instruct the EPA to regulate storms?

    Trenberth and some other extreme scientists say the President could’ve reduced the damage by forcing a reduction of emissions throughout his term. If he had reaced the target of reducing US emissions by 5 per cent, global emissions would have been about 1 per cent less. If that somehow had an even effect worldwide, the North Atlantic would have been around 0.01 deg cooler in about 20-30 year’s time. How could that have changed Sandy in 2012? Or in 2040, for that matter?

    that matter?

  2. Ross on 12/11/2012 at 11:48 am said:

    Sorry to be off topic , but does anyone know what this UN agreement Tim Groser says NZ is signing up in 2013 instead of any extention of Kyoto ( if the latter actually exists ) ?

    • Ross on 12/11/2012 at 4:09 pm said:

      Thanks Niff. But from the dates on this document do I take it that Groser is referring to signing an extention or modification of this ? This incredibly bureaucratic doc appears to have been around for sometime or am I reading it incorrectly.

    • Niff on 14/11/2012 at 11:21 pm said:

      The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions .These amount to an average of five per cent against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012.

      The major distinction between the Protocol and the Convention is that while the Convention encouraged industrialised countries to stabilize GHG emissions, the Protocol commits them to do so.

    • This is the original Kyoto Protocol. There is no successor.

  3. Ross on 12/11/2012 at 4:48 pm said:

    Richard and Niff

    This was the article I was refering to in my original question

  4. Richard C (NZ) on 13/11/2012 at 8:07 am said:

    Skeptical Science not even warm either:-

    Publication Of “Reply to “Comment On ‘Ocean Heat Content And Earth’s Radiation Imbalance. II. Relation To Climate Shifts’ ” by Nuccitelli Et Al. By Douglass and Knox 2012

    by rpielke

    David Douglass alerted me to his reply to

    Dana Nuccitelli, Robert Way, Rob Painting, John Church, John Cook: 2012: Comment on “Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts” . Physics Letters A


    D.H. Douglass, R.S. Knox, 2012: Reply to “Comment on ‘Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts’ ” by Nuccitelli et al. Physics Letters A

    The first and last paragraphs of his Reply summarize with

    Nuccitelli, Way, Painting, Church and Cook [1] comment on our Letter “Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts” [2]. Their criticism is unwarranted on at least three essential grounds. (1) It is based on a misunderstanding of the climate shift concept, which is central to our Letter; (2) in making its claim of incompleteness because of neglect of the deeper ocean heat content, it ignores our statement of possible error and introduces incompatible data; (3) it over-interprets our comments about CO2 forcing. We expand on these points.

    In sum, we show that the criticism of our results (change of slope in the implied FTOA at the climate shift of 2001–2002) by Nuccitelli et al. is unwarranted because they used different data of less temporal resolution. A more careful analysis of this data shows, in fact, consistency and not conflict with our results.

    I recommend reading the Douglass and Knox original article, and both the Comment and Reply. The original article is

    D.H. Douglass, R.S. Knox, 2012: Ocean heat content and Earthʼs radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts. Physics Letters A, Volume 376, Issue 14, 5 March 2012, Pages 1226-1229

  5. Andy on 22/11/2012 at 1:32 pm said:

    Hot Topic is starting to disappear up its own backside

    I posted a link to Der Spiegel where an engineer discusses the shortcomings of Germany’s massive expansion of renewables, and this gets dismissed as “activist propaganda”

    What is the point of discussing anything with these zealots?

  6. CTG March 16, 2013 at 8:03 am

    New research shows just how toxic our little impotent troll friend really is. The so-called health problems associated with wind farms spruiked by andyS are in fact caused by none other than – andyS!

    Every time the little prick shows up at a resource content hearing on wind farms to spread his lies, I will be there with this research to debunk him.

    Dear CTG,
    This “little prick” here would be delighted to provide real word evidence of the health problems attributed to wind farm noise.

    I could call upon the residents of Makara NZ, Waterloo SA, Fullabrooke Devon who suffer health problems thanks to your useless windmills.

    I could give evidence of people in he USA who have abandoned their houses because wind farms make their properties uninhabitable.

    You may strut around earnestly “debunking” arguments with your “approved sources”, but unfortunately as we get to the scrag end of the global warming scare, real people who don’t give a stuff about your “debunkings” are suffering real personal hardship.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 16/03/2013 at 12:47 pm said:

      “The study found that 63 per cent of Australia’s 49 wind farms had never been the subject of any health complaint from nearby residents”

      Read more:

      But – I think I can be sure of this – 100% of the nearby residents had never been approached directly by the authors sequestered in their Sydney University offices – no doubt soundproofed from that nasty background traffic hum (i.e. they have no representative sample of would-be complainants, what specific complaints they might have, and why or why not complaints were made or not).

      Or that the doughty authors had never spent any length of time within sufferance of a wind farm – Sydney ‘burbs not being renowned for the proliferation of wind turbines ‘n all.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 16/03/2013 at 1:30 pm said:

      >”I think I can be sure of this”

      Now I know I can:-

      Methods Records of complaints about noise or health obtained from wind farm companies regarding residents living near 49 Australian wind farms, expressed as proportions of estimated populations residing within 5km of wind farms, and corroborated with complaints in submissions to 3 government public enquiries and news media records.

      Pre-Print: submitted for publication

      Acknowledgements: Mia Rose for research assistance; wind farm proprietors for data in Table 1.

      Chapman and Waller criticize the exploratory questionnaire-type investigations that have been made – as if they have the credibility to do so.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 16/03/2013 at 2:03 pm said:

      Articles by Simon Chapman:-

      Wind farms, the Waubra Foundation [see Chapman and Waller] and a post-office box

      Latest wind farm research is a load of hot air

      The web of vested interests behind the anti-wind farm lobby

      Windfarms will make your children hate school, apparently

      Can wind farms make people sick?

    • People are leaving their homes without compensation because of wind farm noise, yet the local eco-fachists think it all one big hissy fit.

      Maybe Bill and CTG should get a job in the Christchurch insurance industry. It provides a similar outlet for these thugs to bully people.

    • I had heard that you can elect to pay more for your electricity in South Australia so that it is “100% wind”. I am not sure if this is correct, and if it is, how they separate out the electrons. Maybe Bill can explain; I think he is on one of these plans. At least, Bill has claimed to be on 100% wind energy and in the same breath talks about his gas bill.

  7. Here is your daily update from my personal hate mail at Hot Topic

    I absolutely admire the patients (sic) and dedication to providing the information and links (Gareth, Rob, Bill, Macro and others) to try and educate Dopie but as with Andy S if you feed the trolls they keep coming back like rats.
    They live in a delusional world where the reality of the “Inconvenient Truth” does not exist and they resent your attempts to burst their little `happy happy` bubble with real and well researched, peer reviewed science. As with rats their basic function revolves around nothing more than eating (everything), defecate and fornicate. They can be taught to do tricks for food but science, forget it. Best thing about them is if you don`t feed them they die.

    Charming, oh and I admire the patients (sic) too. Don’t let the straightjackets straitjackets pinch [sorry, couldn’t resist! 🙂 – RT]

    • Andy on 09/05/2013 at 9:32 pm said:

      Always glad of the proofreading RT, although I blame the Apple autocorrect and anything that Aaron Gilmore can think of for my mistakes these days 🙂

    • Right, good idea. Blaming the night shift can be quite successful, too.

  8. Andy on 07/09/2017 at 2:42 pm said:

    I haven’t posted much at HT recently. However, I am now being accused of ideological bias for trying to defend some organic farming practices.

    This little rant by Thomas, who apparently is a big fan of artificial Nitrogen fertilizers made in big German factories, had me tickled

    You have laid bare your deep ignorance often in your online postings for all to see. But your ignorance on why humanity depends so much on Nitrogen fertilizers is a new low on the open ended Richter Scale of AI (Andy’s Ignorance). Really, your bellicose and oversized opinions are not sustained by the general knowledge that these days should be assumed by a person like you. Bags of hot air

    I thought these guys were greenies?

    (and for the record I was just asking them for their views, not offering mine)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation