Eco-minimal criminals

Greenpeace vandalism on an irreplaceable treasure


Eco-nazis show their true colours

Greenpeace have brazenly damaged a timeless treasure in Peru by stamping all over the ground and installing a garish activist slogan. – h/t Andy

Their self-granted licence to trample the environment and the law around the world has been curbed in Russia, New Zealand and now, and hopefully more forcefully, Peru.

Self-aggrandising ego-mongers.

Views: 266

57 Thoughts on “Eco-minimal criminals

  1. Andy on 12/12/2014 at 11:21 am said:

    Meanwhile, in Peru, NZ has been ranked “just above China” (at 43rd out of 58 countries) for climate change issues

    I guess we aren’t giving them enough money.

    • Richard Treadgold on 12/12/2014 at 12:47 pm said:

      Yes. Considering about 75% of the energy we use to generate electricity comes from renewable sources, we surely lead the world.

    • Andy on 12/12/2014 at 1:24 pm said:

      If you look at the analysis, there is a weighted mean for various categories. About 10% goes to “policy” for example, as does rollout of new renewables

      So if we are not rolling out new windfarms (because electricity demand is not increasing and they cost too much) then we get penalised.
      We also get penalised for having weak policy, (presumably a weak ETS and no Kyoto).

      However, Germany does well, with its rapid expansion of coal and lignite power stations.

      Pay the piper, get a good ranking.

  2. And what they were potentially destroying is a one of a kind that cannot be replaced.

  3. Alexander+K on 12/12/2014 at 1:46 pm said:

    The destruction by the Green Taliban of a even a tiny part of an ancient relic of an ancient civilisation in the name of ‘saving the earth’ is unpardonable. It was not carelessness, it was absolute bloody-minded arrogance
    The article in the Horrid outlining our environmental sins is nonsense on a stick and makes clear that if we don’t pay the UN climate scammers enough, they will be nasty to us. But I am heartened to read in today’s issue of WUWT that the US Congress has blocked the payment of the US$3 billion that Obama promised the UN in his ridiculously one-sided deal with China re emissions. It’s quite obvious the NZ government is willing to go along with this rubbish despite the obvious con.
    It becomes clearer with each the day ‘the pause’ continues that CO2 has no causal relationship with global temps; the wheels have not only fallen off the climate models, the warmist organisation known as the Royal Society has gone into full-bullshit mode with the publication of it’s wee book of fallacy and obfuscation designed to shut down questions from rational people who have active and enquiring minds.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 12/12/2014 at 2:57 pm said:

      >”But I am heartened to read in today’s issue of WUWT that the US Congress has blocked the payment of the US$3 billion that Obama promised the UN in his ridiculously one-sided deal with China re emissions.”

      A poke in the eye for Obama.

      These caught my eye:

      Second week COP ritual: Hopes for Lima climate conference unravel. As thousands of people took part in a colourful march through the centre of Lima demanding action to “save Mother Earth”, ministers and delegates from more than 190 countries were struggling to salvage the UN climate conference here. Earlier optimism about a successful conclusion this weekend is unravelling as the text being negotiated has “ballooned” out of control, with more and more amendments tabled by countries and blocs seeking to have their points of view reinforced. Miguel Arias Canete, the new European climate action and energy commissioner, conceded that “not a single paragraph has been agreed” in a text that had grown to 100 pages or more, making it “very difficult for ministers to reach agreement”. –Frank McDonald, The Irish Times, 11 December 2014

      Second week COP ritual: For a sense of the frustrating tenor of climate negotiations underway here, which aim to agree on a clear outline of a new international climate-protecting agreement, consider this: One of the two draft documents being thrashed out had, by Wednesday morning, with just three days of a fortnight of talks remaining, ballooned into an unworkable 52-page opus. And not a single paragraph within the latest iteration of that 52-page draft had been agreed upon by the troop of international climate negotiators. The ballooning text is a manifestation of what has become normal practice during annual climate negotiations, with nations posturing for days before finding some middle ground just as the talks wrap up. –John Upton, Business Spectator, 11 December 2014

      One they started with was this:

      Advancing the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action
      Draft by the Co-Chairs
      11 November 2014

      Excerpts and NZ delegation here:

  4. Alexander+K on 12/12/2014 at 2:07 pm said:

    Also worth mentioning on this thread are the very slightly rude comments from Prof J Curry and the estimiable Mr Macintyre (of Climate Audit) about the tendency of Prof Jones (of Climategate fame) to ‘creep’ up the warming by tiny amounts in his continual adjustment to ‘his’ records. Very naughty behaviour, I would have thought. When I was a schoolby, it was considered very bad form to rewrite history, but perhaps PostModern science allows that sort of thing.
    But what would I know, not being a climate pscientist.

  5. HemiMcK on 12/12/2014 at 2:57 pm said:

    That picture is so offensive,

    RT could you please cross out renewable and replace it with NOT.

    • Richard Treadgold on 12/12/2014 at 11:07 pm said:

      So you’re offended, Hemi.
      I’m sorry you’re offended, Hemi.
      But I’ll do nothing to relieve it.
      They have the right to say anything.
      As we do.

  6. Gary on 12/12/2014 at 7:55 pm said:

    The arrogance of greenpeace to think they can do as they please for their cause. They are right up there with the Taleban who took upon themselves to destroy heritage sites.

  7. Richard C (NZ) on 13/12/2014 at 6:53 am said:


    [The Guardian] – “The talks – scheduled to end at noon local time on Friday after 10 full days – are intended to provide a clear blueprint for a global agreement to find climate change by the end of next year.”


    [The Guardian] – “The talks – scheduled to end at noon local time on Friday after 10 full days – are intended to provide a clear blueprint for a global agreement to fight climate change by the end of next year.”

  8. Andy on 14/12/2014 at 10:05 am said:

    Actually, damaging an area that is sacred or of natural beauty and of value to people is entirely consistent with the future is renewable” message

    Take, for example, the proposed 67 turbine development near Loch Ness in Scotland.The industrial wind facility will be the same areal extent of the city of Inverness. It will be built on a fragile Eco system of peat bogs that are a natural CO2 sink, and which will gets released into the atmosphere when the wind farm is built.This a,one with the other wind farms planned for the area will be visible from many Scottish tops and National Parks. The stone and concrete required will be about 5 times that the Berlin Wall required.

    • Richard Treadgold on 14/12/2014 at 10:31 am said:

      You draw an accurate conclusion, for the thinking that produces such solutions is surprisingly out of touch with the very planet it longs to save.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/12/2014 at 10:44 am said:

      Wind. Woo hoo – let’s go off topic with a comment in turn off topic too:

      TonyfromOz #31.1
      December 13, 2014 at 1:04 pm · Reply

      I just want to show you just how utterly laughable this whole thing is about the money being donated to this UN climate fund.

      “By midweek, a little over $10bn had been raised for a green climate fund, intended to help poor countries invest in clean energy technology.”

      Let’s pretend for just one fleeting second that in the infinite altruism of the UNFCCC that this whole $10 Billion goes toward the actual construction of renewable power, and that there will be no graft and corruption in the Countries on the receiving end of all that lovely free money.

      This total of $10 Billion will construct FIVE large scale wind plants, each of 500MW with around 200 wind towers at each plant.

      So, here we a total of 2500MW in Nameplate.

      This will increase the total wind power generation versus total World Generation from all sources from:

      2.17% to 2.19%

      If it wasn’t so seemingly serious, you’d just have to laugh.

      Incidentally, the same power delivered from this $10 Billion allocated to these wind plants in their first year of operation is delivered by Bayswater in 137 days.

      Lips, don’t purse!


    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/12/2014 at 10:55 am said:

      >”2500MW in Nameplate”


      ‘Hinkley Point C nuclear power station’

      Hinkley Point C nuclear power station is a project to construct a 3,200 MW two reactor nuclear power station in Somerset, England.

      Construction cost £24.5bn
      Strike price = £92.50/MWh

      In October 2013, the government announced that it had approved subsidized feed-in prices for the electricity production of Hinkley Point C.,[2] with the plant scheduled to be completed in 2023 and remain operational for 60 years.

      A protest group, Stop Hinkley, was formed to campaign for the closure of Hinkley Point B and oppose any expansion at the Hinkley Point site. In October 2011, more than 200 protesters blockaded the site. In December 2013, the European Commission opened an investigation to assess whether the project breaks state-aid rules [7][8] with reports suggesting the government’s plan may well constitute illegal state aid.[9][10][11]

      On 22 September 2014, news leaked that “discussions with the UK authorities have led to an agreement. On this basis, vice-president Almunia will propose to the college of commissioners to take a positive decision in this case. In principle a decision should be taken within this mandate” with a final decision expected in October 2014.[12] On 8 October 2014 it was announced that the European commission has approved the project, with an overwhelming majority and only four commissioners voting against the decision.[13]

      “an overwhelming majority”. Well, there ya go.

      [Actually this (nuclear) is the off topic topic. Just realized that wind (“renewables”) is not off topic, really]

    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/12/2014 at 11:11 am said:

      JoNova troll update. Troll Silly Filly, known universally as Stupid Horse, has now been dubbed Dopey Donkey by the Griss.

    • Richard+C+(NZ) on 14/12/2014 at 11:55 am said:

      [Telegraph] – “Stronelairg is one of six wind farms either built or proposed on the west side of Loch Ness”

      Stronelairg wind farm:
      67 turbines
      Installed capacity of approximately 240MW

      [Telegraph again] – “the proposed project [Stronelairg] was massive, covering an area around the size of Inverness, with 443ft turbines that could be seen from the national park and from many of Scotland’s mountain tops.”

      So if this one of six proposed wind farms on the west side of Loch Ness creates this much contentiousness for 240MW, what about the other five?

      If the Stronelairg layout is anything to go by:

      8.5km x 4km

    • Richard C (NZ) on 14/12/2014 at 12:22 pm said:

      >”….the same power delivered from this $10 Billion allocated to these wind plants in their first year of operation is delivered by Bayswater in 137 days”

      ‘Bayswater Power Station’

      Bayswater Power Station is a bituminous (black) coal-powered thermal power station with four 660 megawatts (890,000 hp) Tokyo Shibaura Electric (Japan) steam driven turbo alternators for a combined capacity of 2,640 megawatts

      Greenhouse emissions
      Carbon Monitoring for Action estimates this power station emits 19.80 million tonnes of greenhouse gases each year as a result of burning coal.[1]………..

      In 2009, the power station was the subject of “the first ever legal action aimed at curbing greenhouse gas pollution from a coal-fired power station”. Environmental activist Pete Gray went to the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, asking it to find that the power station had been “wilfully or negligently disposing of waste […] by emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in a manner that has harmed or is likely to harm the environment in contravention of section 115(1) of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997”, and sought an injunction against the station. The case, Gray and Anor v Macquarie Generation, was ongoing at the time of Gray’s death from cancer in April 2011.[3][4][5][6][7]

      Note the CO2 (minor GHG) billowing out of the emission stacks and the water vapour (major GHG) billowing out of the cooling towers.

  9. Richard Treadgold on 14/12/2014 at 11:18 am said:


    Just realized that wind (“renewables”) is not off topic, really.

    No, the protest was in the cause of renewable energy, and nuclear is the best there is on that score. The universe is constructed with it, so while we survive it will never be depleted.

    I like the comments from TonyfromOz. It’s very much moolah for not much moorah. (sorry :-/ )

  10. Richard Treadgold on 14/12/2014 at 11:25 am said:

    now been dubbed Dopey Donkey by the Griss

    This, finally, is surely off-topic. Reference, please, or tell us why, and who’s the Griss? 8-o

  11. Richard C (NZ) on 14/12/2014 at 4:38 pm said:

    Bayswater Power Station, NSW Australia

    Carbon Monitoring for Action estimates this power station emits 19.80 million tonnes of greenhouse gases each year as a result of burning coal.

    ‘Improved Plant Performance and Reduced CO2 Emission Through State-of-the-Art Condenser Cleaning
    and Air In-leakage Detection’

    Conco Systems, Inc.

    A significant amount of work has been done in Australia to quantify the effects of improved
    plant performance on reducing CO2 emissions. The following three sets of results
    demonstrate the plant performance improvements and CO2 reductions achieved through the
    application of Conco System’s technology at three major power plants.

    Bayswater Power Station, NSW
    Four x 660 mw Steam Turbogenerator/black coal fired boilers.
    Savings per annum/Turbogenerator unit.
    • 5% improvement in condenser back-pressure
    • 0.15% improvement in unit thermal efficiency
    • $500,000/operational (fuel) savings
    • 26,000 tonnes greenhouse gas (CO2) reduction
    Bayswater Power Station is considered the most efficient Power Generator in Australia

    Kwinana Power Station, WA
    Five x 200 mw Steam Turbo Generator/natural gas fired boilers
    Savings per annum/Turbo Generator unit.
    • 1.5 kpa improvements in vacuum obtained (back pressure reduced)
    • 8% gain in heat transfer coefficient
    • $278,000 operational (fuel savings)
    • 13,329 tonnes greenhouse gas (CO2) reduction

    Wallerawang Power Station, NSW (Hovland et al (9))
    Two x 500 mw Steam Turbogenerators/black coal fired boilers
    Savings per annum/generator unit
    • 3 to 6 kpa improvement in back pressure
    • $203,731 operational (fuel) savings Unit 7
    • $293,512 operational (fuel) savings Unit 8
    • 2,992,380 cubic feet/day greenhouse gas (CO2) reduction Unit 7
    • 4,311,056 cubic feet/day greenhouse gas (CO2) reduction Unit 8
    Giving a combined (two unit) reduction of greenhouse gas (CO2) emissions of 2.7 billion cu.
    ft. per annum

    ‘Power station stack gas emissions, a review of control techniques: current and projected’

    Richard J Hunwick

    Figure 2. Bayswater Power Station near Muswellbrook, NSW.

    No plume from the emissions stacks.

    Figure 6. Centralia Power Station Washington State, USA.

    A need for plume abatement.

    The two units of this [Centralia] 1970s vintage 1,500 MWe coal-fired power station were successfully retrofitted with wet scrubbers in 2003, leading to a 98 per cent reduction in emissions of SOx.


    8. What about carbon dioxide?

    The designers of PF plant systems appear likely to be capable of achieving carbon capture (in a form suitable for sequestration) at acceptable cost within a decade. Feasible CO2 capture systems should stem from an extension of the various multi-pollutant control systems under development such as that shown in Figure 10.

    Amine solution-based scrubbing systems are widely deployed in the oil and natural gas industries for purifying gas streams. They effectively remove CO2 and all other acid gases from gas streams including power station boiler stack gases, and yield CO2 in a form suitable for sequestration i.e. highly concentrated, and under pressure. But in a power station stack-gas cleaning context the costs of these systems are high in terms of the energy penalty to regenerate the amine solution: perhaps 30% of the power station’s gross output.

    Ammonia promises to overcome these problems. In a promising process under development: the Chilled Ammonia Process, the stack gases would be scrubbed with an ammonia-rich solution to form ammonium carbonate. This solution would be heated under pressure to drive off the CO2 and re-cycle the ammonia. The title reflects that the ammonia solutions will need to be chilled to keep ammonia gas out of stack gases. This process’ energy penalty is around 10%, while by 2020 its cost is estimated (by the Electric Power Research Institute) to be of the order of A$10-15/t CO2. Even after the costs of sequestering this carbon dioxide permanently have been absorbed, near-emissions-free coal-fired power generation is likely to be able to sustain its competitive advantage as a clean source of electricity in comparison with nuclear power and natural gas for decades to come.

    This is to say, foreshadowed emission limits do not yet justify a shift away either from coal, or from pulverised-fuel firing.


  12. Richard C (NZ) on 17/12/2014 at 8:11 am said:

    ‘Germany’s “energy transformation:” unsustainable subsidies and an unstable system’

    Is avoiding shame worth the high cost of renewable energy?

    – See more at:

  13. Richard C (NZ) on 18/12/2014 at 9:06 am said:

    Ian Forrester December 18, 2014 at 5:13 am [Hot Topic comments policy update]

    andyS moans:

    “Etc, without a shred of evidence to back up your claims.”

    That is another lie.I provided lots of evidence for your lies. If you simply ignore them and pretend that they do not exist that is just more of your dishonesty.

    Get lost! You have the morals of a rabid skunk and a personality to match.

    # # #

    News to me that rabid skunks have morals.

    Mind you, I didn’t know skunks got rabies either.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/12/2014 at 9:15 am said:

      The implication being that healthy skunks have no morals.

      That’s how I’ve always understood the animal kingdom anyway.

    • Andy on 18/12/2014 at 10:11 am said:

      Good stuff eh? But the worst gets snipped, thankfully.

    • Richard Treadgold on 18/12/2014 at 11:05 am said:

      Didn’t your mother warn you against telling lies, Andy?

      But, seriously, you get such poor treatment at HT I even wonder sometimes whether they might actually be saying they don’t want you over there. The difficult question is, why don’t they want you? Though you’re good fun, offer perspicacious comments and relevant, interesting information, it might just be that you make them feel, I don’t know—inferior?

    • Andy on 19/12/2014 at 11:14 am said:

      Haven’t heard any more from Mr Forrester. I think the men in white coats have sedated him.

      I never realised that the IPCC Summary for Policymakers is a political document and shouldn’t be used (according to IF).

      Who’d have thought?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/12/2014 at 2:19 pm said:

      IF staunchly discounts MDV, instead points, via chapter 2, to the 1951 or 1986 start points (1850 outside the IPCC attribution period).

      Never mind that only 2 of those 6 decades (20 years, 1980s and 90s) in the “long-term” trend starting 1951 exhibited any warming on average as shown in the SPM Figure 1. Or, conversely, 4 of the 6 decades were in pause mode.

      BTW, good of Rob Taylor to highlight my critical element in bold:

      “The model-data difference is the only anomaly worth watching now. Same for SLR.”

      Rob Taylor December 19, 2014 at 2:34 am

      Links back to CCG, which in turn links to McIntyre (in turn to Curry) and Tisdale.

      While you are at it Rob, you might get your head around this (if you can):

      Rather than guess or pay for what was in Macro’s paywalled paper (nothing free in Scholar either), look up this earlier paper:

      ‘A Bayesian Change Point Model for Historical Time Series Analysis’
      Western and Kleykamp (2004)

      Long paper but if you go straight to the Figures starting page 43 then the references in the text to each Figure that’s probably enough to get the gist of it (or don’t bother).

      Seems to be what Andy describes as:

      “Secondly, these “proofs” seem to be based on the assumption that mean global temperatures behave as a set of connected linear trends separated by discontinuities.”

      So they (Western and Kleykamp) look for a break on that assumption.

      Western and Kleykamp: Abstract
      “We describe a Bayesian model that treats the change-point in a time series as a parameter to be estimated.”

      Page 21,

      5. Application: Real Wage Growth in OECD Countries
      “Exploratory analysis strongly indicates a change point in 1976. By fitting linear regressions for [time] = 1966 . . . , 1990, we see the best fitting model is obtained at [time] = 1976 (Figure 3).”

      Singular spectrum analysis (SSA) is fundamentally different. From Wikipedia:

      “In time series analysis, singular spectrum analysis (SSA) is a nonparametric spectral estimation method. It combines elements of classical time series analysis, multivariate statistics, multivariate geometry, dynamical systems and signal processing. Its roots lie in the classical Karhunen (1946)–Loève (1945, 1978) spectral decomposition of time series [PCA] and random fields and in the Mañé (1981)–Takens (1981) embedding theorem. SSA can be an aid in the decomposition of time series into a sum of components, each having a meaningful interpretation.”

      See also the Prediction, Forecasting by SSA, and Detection of structural changes (change detection) sections. “SSA could be used for change detection not only in trends but also in the variability of the series”.

      So whereas the linear approach analyses one component (the series), spectral analysis decomposes the series into multiple components as you are probably well aware. Which brings us back to Macias et al (2014) as presented by Andy via article:

      ‘Application of the Singular Spectrum Analysis Technique to Study the Recent Hiatus on the Global Surface Temperature Record’
      Macias, Stips,and Garcia-Gorriz (2014)
      [Full paper in HTML]

      Figure 1. SSA reconstructed signals from HadCRUT4 global surface temperature anomalies.

      Figure 3. Global warming rate analysis.
      a) Warming rates (°C year−1) obtained from the different signals identified in the SSA: ST (red line), MDV (blue line) and reconstructed signal (black line). The dashed thin red lines are the confidence intervals for the warming rate associated with the ST obtained from each individual month’s time series.
      b) Zoom on the last 25 years of the time series.

      Figure 4. SSA reconstructed signals for Northern Hemisphere surface temperature.
      b) Warming rates (°C year−1) obtained from the different signals identified in the SSA for the Northern Hemisphere.
      c) Zoom on the last 25 years of the warming rate time series

      Figure 5. SSA reconstructed signals for Southern Hemisphere surface temperature.
      b) Warming rates (°C year−1) obtained from the different signals identified in the SSA for the Southern Hemisphere.
      c) Zoom on the last 25 years of the warming rate time series

      MDV changes rate at 1985 in Global and Northern Hemisphere, 1996 in Southern Hemisphere i.e. an inflexion.

      MDV changes phase at 2003 in Global and Southern Hemisphere, 1997 in Northern Hemisphere.

      ST changes rate in 2001-2 but has not changed phase i.e. only an inflexion so far.

      The single component approach of Western and Kleykamp, Cahill, Rahmstorf, and Foster, fails to identify MDV and ST, therefore fails to identify the respective inflexions and change of phase. Basically, they have missed the all important ST inflexion because their technique lacks the necessary sensitivity that decomposition provides.

      Having identified a ST inflexion the next objective obviously is to identify a ST change of phase if/when it occurs (peak or zenith) as more data is added to the series over time. The multi-millennial solar-temperature lag is around 30 – 40 years:

      ‘Correlation between solar activity and the local temperature of Antarctica during the past 11,000 years’
      X.H. Zhao and X.S. Feng (2014)

      • SSN [Sunspot Number] and Vostok temperature (T) had common periodicities in past 11,000 years.
      • The millennial variations of SSN and T had a strong and stable correlation.
      ►The millennial variation of SSN led that of T by 30–40 years.
      • Correlations between CO2 and T were neither strong nor stable

      Therefore a millennial solar peak at 1986 (non contentious) should be followed 30 – 40 years later by a ST temperature peak around 2016 – 2026 (ignoring MDV influence). SSA analysis is capable of identifying this peak (change of phase), the linear change point approach of Cahill, Rahmstorf and Foster is not capable.

      In other words, spectral signal analysts will know about a peak long before linear analysts like Cahill, Rahmstorf and Foster.

  14. Richard Treadgold on 18/12/2014 at 11:43 am said:


    Following these comments by RC and yourself I’ve had a quick look at HT’s “Is earth’s temperature about to soar? (No pause, no hiatus, only warming)” and I notice that Tamino concludes:

    In no case does the p-value for any choice of start year, for any choice of data set, reach the “statistically significant” range. Therefore, for no choice of start year, for no choice of data set, can you make a valid claim to have demonstrated a slowdown in warming. As a matter of fact, in no case does the p-value for any choice of start year, for any choice of data set, get as low as the 10% level. To put it another way, there’s just no valid evidence of a “slowdown” which will stand up to statistical rigor.

    Then CTG said brightly: “No one is disputing that there has been a slowdown in the rate of warming, and there are indeed many possible explanations for why this might have happened.” So he masterfully misses the point of Foster’s obfuscating, yet excellent, statistical essay.

    For his part, Foster has missed the point that sceptics make of the hiatus and inserted a straw-man argument for good measure. They do not say that a new long-term trend can be declared, nor (the straw man) that global warming is over (not the serious sceptics, anyway). They simply say what is undeniable, which is that a new trend has emerged for a relatively long period. It may change one way or the other but for about 20 years it has, undeniably, gone significantly neither up nor down. Foster is clever with statistics and just doesn’t want to say this, but even he cannot deny that the recent raw data show no trend.

    To emphasise: Tamino implicitly acknowledges that over about the last 20 years temperatures have shown no trend, because he insists on starting in 1970. Sceptics don’t deny that, but point out what is obvious: that for about 20 years there has been no trend.

    PS: I’d be tempted to make this comment at HT but Gareth doesn’t let me. I think he’s afraid of me.

    • Andy on 18/12/2014 at 12:13 pm said:

      I think it was Rutherford who said something along the lines:

      If your experiment needs statistics in order to understand it, you need to do another experiment

    • Richard Treadgold on 18/12/2014 at 12:15 pm said:

      Yeah, nice.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/12/2014 at 12:25 pm said:

      Don’t bother RT. Andy has an arsenal of contra-arguments to Cahill/Rahmstorf/Foster and the Hot Topicers (their linear approach is spurious), the starting point of which he has already presented but was dismissed out of hand. They can’t respond in kind, they respond from the gutter, or irrelevant SkS memes.

      Thing is, the question is not “Is earth’s temperature about to soar?” but, is the earth’s temperature ever going to reach the predicted levels? i.e. quibbling over statistical significance of the observations is pointless when the model-observations discrepancy is at the widest margin it has ever been.

      I sent this to Andy:

      CTG’s argument avoids the real issue – model-data difference.

      Model mean 0.33 C/Decade out to 2050.
      GISTemp 0.064 +-0.127 C/Decade 1998-2014

      “Unprecedented” Model Discrepancy – McIntyre


      The model-data difference is the only anomaly worth watching now. Same
      for SLR.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/12/2014 at 12:40 pm said:

      >”Same for SLR”

      The 2 C limit is the big, and expensive, UN issue but SLR is what preoccupies local and national authorities – not atmospheric temperature.

    • Richard Treadgold on 18/12/2014 at 12:40 pm said:

      I agree with you, RC, and I know Andy can hold his own in a fight. I’m not so much offering him material as addressing our opponents, who do visit, though they don’t often acknowledge it.

    • Andy on 18/12/2014 at 12:58 pm said:

      “The morals of a rabid skunk” is definitely a keeper, though ..

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/12/2014 at 1:42 pm said:

      Given you have a personality to match Andy (apparently), I’m wondering what personality traits a rabid skunk might exhibit e.g.

      Primary Personality Traits

      Positive Traits (234 = 37%)
      [1 – 10 of 234]

      Neutral Traits (292 = 18%)
      [1 – 10 of 292]

      Note that “Amoral” is a negative trait. This implies to me that a rabid skunk with morals (as per Forrester) exhibits a positive personality trait.

      Sure enough:

      1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct
      2. A system or collection of ideas of right and wrong conduct
      3. Virtuous conduct

      I don’t think this makes you a bad person Andy.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/12/2014 at 2:08 pm said:

      Perhaps Forrester meant – the morals of an immoral rabid skunk.

      not conforming to accepted standards of morality.

      That’s assuming rabid skunks do actually have morals of course.

    • Andy on 18/12/2014 at 2:09 pm said:

      One of the symptoms of rabies is foaming at the mouth

      Quite appropriate really, given the context.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/12/2014 at 2:23 pm said:

      Turns out skunks do contract rabies:

      ‘Rabid skunk reported in North Hall’ – September 12th 2012

      GAINESVILLE – The number of confirmed rabies cases in Hall County has hit 18 following recent contact between a skunk and a dog in the Sardis Drive area of North Hall. Officials with Hall County Animal Control said the skunk was shipped to the Georgia Public Health Lab in Decatur where it tested positive for the disease. They said positive alert signs will be posted in the area where the skunk was located.

      No report as to whether they tested for morals, immorality, or amorality.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/12/2014 at 2:28 pm said:

      >”rabies……following recent contact between a skunk and a dog”

      Let this be a lesson to you Andy – the moral if you will.

    • Andy on 18/12/2014 at 2:33 pm said:

      “Furious rabies
      Furious rabies is characterised by episodes of increasingly odd and hyperactive behaviour, separated by periods of relative calm. During these episodes a person may have some or all of the following signs and symptoms:
      aggressive behaviour, such as thrashing out or biting
      hallucinations – seeing or hearing things that are not real
      delusions – believing things that are obviously untrue
      excessive production of saliva
      high temperature (fever)
      excessive sweating
      the hair on their skin stands up
      a sustained erection (in men)

      So it’s not all bad, then

    • Richard Treadgold on 18/12/2014 at 4:03 pm said:

      Hey, hey! This is hilarious, boys! I begin to suspect, though, that we may have strayed into the nearer fringes of off-topicness.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/12/2014 at 3:35 pm said:

      No, not all bad.

      >”delusions – believing things that are obviously untrue”

      Suspect John Kerry might be afflicted:

      ‘Kerry’s COP20 speech was packed with misinformation’

      Kerry at Climate Change Meeting in Peru: transcript 11 December 2014

      “Measured against the array of global threats that we face today – and there are many – terrorism, extremism, epidemics, poverty, nuclear proliferation – all challenges that know no borders – climate change absolutely ranks up there equal with all of them.”

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/12/2014 at 5:26 pm said:

      ‘John Kerry warns of ‘moral failure’ at climate conference’

      US secretary of state urges ambitious deal in powerful speech to UN delegates in Lima

      Thu, Dec 11, 2014

      If an ambitious agreement is not reached urgently to tackle the grave threat posed by climate change, it would be seen by future generations as a “massive collective moral failure”, according to US secretary of state John Kerry.

      In a powerful and impassioned speech at the UN’s Lima climate conference, he said every nation had a responsibility to take action. “We can rise above the debates that have dragged us down … for the sake of our children and our grandchildren”.

      With Peruvian fighter jets screeching over the conference venue and former US vice-president Al Gore sitting in the front row, Mr Kerry conceded that there was “no silver bullet”, but said “science is screaming at us, compelling us to act”.

      Nothing forthcoming so “massive collective moral failure” it is then.

      And the science can stop screaming. Odd, because Ban Ki-moon said the science had only “spoken”.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/12/2014 at 3:17 pm said:

      Hot Topicers. If you have arrived here by following Rob Taylor’s link to CCG, go here:

      Basically answers Bill:

      bill December 10, 2014 at 5:50 pm

      “I predict *crickets* from the Denialiati regulars on this one! ”

      Yes waste of time unless the Denialiati is a linear analyst. Spectral analysts (those in the climate sector) will be rolling their eyes and going on with what they’ve been doing (which is streets ahead of what Cahill, Rahmstorf, and Foster are doing), or just taking no notice of Real Climate whatsoever (more likely).

      And what if a Denialiati is a spectral analyst?

    • Andy on 19/12/2014 at 3:27 pm said:

      “Denialiati” sounds like a form of pasta dish

  15. Andy on 18/12/2014 at 5:02 pm said:

    On-topic this time, some drone footage and other photos show the extent of the damage done by Greenpeace

  16. Andy on 21/12/2014 at 9:10 am said:

    Greg Laden calls for Greenpeace to be disbanded over this incident

  17. Andy on 23/12/2014 at 4:34 pm said:

    IPCC Lead Author Sven Teske, as alertly observed by Shub Niggurath, was one of the leaders of the vandalism of the Nazca lines during the recent Lima conference.
    Several years ago, I had criticized Teske in his role as IPCC Lead Author, a criticism also taken up by Mark Lynas.
    Like the Nazca vandalism, Teske, a Greenpeace employee and activist, had promoted the Greenpeace scenario in the IPCC special report on renewables. Teske had been Lead Author of the chapter responsible for critical assessment of the feasibility of the Greenpeace renewables scenario – an assessment that was not carried out in the chapter or report, despite expectations of policy-makers and the public

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation