Like alarmists everywhere ahead of Paris, Gareth “Running Man” Renowden flees honest inquiry. He’s happy to allow readers to make any wild predictions they like about global warming, but ask for details and he deletes your question. What’s he afraid of?
When a question I left recently at Hot Topic under The Age Of Resilience starts tonight did not appear, I left a second asking where it went. The replies exemplify the mischief and dissimulation so commonplace at Hot Topic.
The reader nigwil says: “Regardless of what the report says, the sea is going to rise, probably by as much as 2 to 5 metres by 2100.”
I say: “Really? Let me address the minimum sea level rise (SLR) of 2 m you say we should expect by 2100. There are 84 years left in which to achieve this, remembering that we’ve had 27 mm since 2000 (1.8 mm/yr × 15 yr). The ocean has 1973 mm to go, which at the current rate will require 1096 years. When will the acceleration begin? When will it reach the 23.5 mm/yr required to achieve 2000 mm by 2100?”
If the rate does not reach 23.5 mm/yr by 2017, the rate of acceleration thereafter must be even greater, yet it requires some extraordinary event even to achieve 24 mm by next year—it’s a whopping 1300 per cent more than last year. Still, if it’s not achieved soon, the prediction cannot come true.
So it’s a reasonable thing to ask, in my opinion. It’s also restrained, there’s no abuse and the arithmetic makes sense. It’s a genuine inquiry. When it failed to appear on the HT blog, I asked about it and received an answer:
I posted a reply but where did it go?
[It was deleted. Your misrepresentations already have enough exposure at your “CCG” without HT having to give them additional exposure. GR]
So I tried again: “But surely, Gareth, you jest?” But he was unbending:
[Nope. You want to indulge in tortuous, incomprehensible and long-winded ramblings, but you have a blog already devoted to that. Stay there, please, unless you are willing to apologise to the NIWA and other NZ climate scientists you have maligned over the years. Oh, and you could pay back some of the taxpayers money you so egregiously rorted by folding your “Education” Trust. Until then, your presence is not welcome here. GR]
So he blusters away. But he still hasn’t answered my questions and he’s using bombast and blather to justify it. Like this.
NIWA climate scientists have never wanted an apology. In fact, they responded to our public and Parliamentary criticisms by reconstructing the NZ temperature record, which by any measure is an outstanding victory for us. It directly recognises the Coalition’s work as contributing to a more robust national climate record. Not many people can say they’ve helped the country’s leading scientists achieve a better result, although Renowden is too mean-spirited to acknowledge this.
Listening to their apologists at Hot Topic, you’d think NIWA’s scientists could do no wrong, but they’ve been guilty of losing work paid for by taxpayers. They also refused to answer our questions about their work. It was this obstinacy which eventually forced us to seek help in the courts.
Renowden resurrects appalling fabrications that he himself invented to demean our civil suit against NIWA. But as regular readers know, I have many times patiently explained that forming the NZ Climate Science Education Trust was required to meet the expectations of the Court. A non-existent body cannot appoint an agent or open a bank account, much less bring a suit to court.
As to his malicious accusation of “egregious rorting”, dissolving the trust was no fraud. Nobody predicted the damages Justice Venning suddenly awarded against us, because never before had a group of New Zealand whistle-blowers, challenging the actions of a government body, been required to pay costs. It was unprecedented in a hundred and seventy-three years of New Zealand legal history, and thus we were entirely unprepared to pay nearly $90,000. All we could do was dissolve the Trust, but Justice Venning’s cold-hearted ruling creates a grim precedent that will forever threaten honest citizens seeking answers from powerful public bodies.
Although the taxpayers weren’t defrauded, they might have hoped to reap an unexpected windfall—and remember we were simply asking how they did things; how brutal might NIWA’s response have been had we asked them for money?
NIWA is not a conventional government department but a state-owned enterprise, required to earn a profit for the benefit of its one shareholder, the Crown. This invests it with the flexibility and legal protections of a private company and the bounty of the public purse.
But there’s this propaganda benefit, too, which Renowden plugs at every opportunity. When the Crown enterprise was waiting for the money granted by the Court, we were no longer dealing with an ordinary company: we suddenly discovered that we were actually “defrauding” the taxpayer (where did he suddenly come from?). Yet NIWA engaged top-of-the-line Queen’s Counsel to defend a civil suit against their commercial activities by using public funds.
By what perverted legal logic can NIWA at once hide their actions behind a veil of commercial confidentiality, enjoy the status of a respected government authority and protect all this by spending public funds? They have it both ways, so how can anyone call it to account? And how can it be seen as open or transparent when it refuses to answer its critics?
The legal barriers around a Crown enterprise are sensational—a formidable public-private partnership in law and custom that bulwarks it against honest inquiry yet grants it the full defensive power of public resources. Justice should run the other way, for it should defend the private citizen against powerful government authorities that stray from fairness. Here the court not only failed to defend us, but by its inequitable ruling on costs colluded with NIWA’s efforts to crush us and it succeeded.
It’s disappointing to see Renowden running from my straightforward inquiry about predicted sea levels, since his own claims of urgency that we must save the earth gave rise to it. If he cannot justify urgency, there is no need to act quickly. But if he doesn’t know when the sea will begin its dangerous rise, it is scarcely urgent, and if the beginning is a long way off, the dangerous rise he predicts (two metres by 2100) cannot occur.
We do not believe him. Even the IPCC predicts only about 450 mm by 2100, and their worst-case scenario, RCP8.5, will produce, by their guesswork, only 1000 mm. To double that requires good evidence, which we are entitled to know; to quintuple it to 5000 mm is witless.
Sceptical people don’t go along with everything the IPCC expects us to swallow. When reasonable questions go not merely unanswered but brazenly ignored, reasonable people will treat these baseless “predictions” with scorn.
By the way, for the sea level to rise by five metres at the current rate of 1.8 mm/yr would require over 2700 years. But of course those brainiacs at Hot Topic have calculated that already, right?
Visits: 206
>”David Evans seems to allude to the energy imbalance / climate model mismatch”
Bob Tisdale has a post on the lack of agreement among climate models to the TOA energy imbalance but doesn’t address the mismatch in detail either:
‘No Consensus: Earth’s Top of Atmosphere Energy Imbalance in CMIP5-Archived (IPCC AR5) Climate Models’
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/08/10/no-consensus-earths-top-of-atmosphere-energy-imbalance-in-cmip5-archived-ipcc-ar5-climate-models/
Bob cites an observational imbalance from Trenberth et al (2014) that differs a little from the IPCC’s Loeb et al (2012) citation ( 0.5 to 1 vs 0.6) but that’s not really an issue. What these guys should be doing is plotting the theoretical CO2 forcing curve against a) TOA imbalance observations, and b) modeled TOA imbalances. It didn’t occur to me to suggest that when Bob’s post was current. I suppose I should email him and suggest it. We often see CO2ppm plotted against temperature but that’s not the relevant comparison.
At least Bob says this:
OK, but it’s more than than that. The imbalance theoretically moves synchronous with and commensurate with the theoretical GHG forcing. You can see this in the Multi-Model Mean in Bob’s Figure 2 (a):
Figure 2 (a)
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/figure-2.png
Except the models don’t agree on this, there is wide disparity. Of most relevance to you Andy is RCP8.5. Bob deals with that here:
Figure 14 RCP8.5
https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/figure-141.png
By 2015 the top RCP8.5 group is well above the theoretical 1.9 W.m-2 CO2 forcing AND well above the observed 0.6 W.m-2 imbalance, and, bizarrely, the bottom group has a negative imbalance around -2 W.m-2.
It is on is this crazy unrealistic modeling that CCC have based their SLR policy and regs.
>”and, bizarrely, the bottom [RCP8.5] group has a negative imbalance around -2 W.m-2″
The IPCC states that the TOA balance “controls” surface temperature. If the bottom group’s imbalance of -2 W.m-2 was anywhere near reality then the surface temperature would be cooling (according to the IPCC) and the earth would be losing energy instead of accumulating it.
And it follows, by IPCC rationale, that sea level would be falling.
>”What these guys should be doing is plotting the theoretical CO2 forcing curve against a) TOA imbalance observations, and b) modeled TOA imbalances.”
>”The imbalance theoretically moves synchronous with and commensurate with the theoretical GHG forcing.”
OK, we can calculate the theoretical forcing from dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co) or we can use what is derived from observations. For example:
Except the effect, according to the IPCC, should be effective and should be measurable at TOA, not the surface i.e. UW are applying their observations to the wrong criteria, their observed effect does not correspond to the correct criteria which is the observed TOA imbalance.
Now look at the UW figure:
[UW Figure] North Slope of Alaska (NSA) CO2 surface forcing time-series showing: (1) the similarity between the red curve (greenhouse effect) and grey curve (CO2 concentration), and (2) the blue shading is the uncertainty in the trend. After 11 years the trend is statistically significant.
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/news/media/2015/02/NSA_CO2_surface_forcing_time_series_gero.jpg
The red line is the theoretical CO2 forcing as an anomaly. The calculated actual is 1.9 W.m-2 at 2015 and the observed trend 0.2 W.m-2 so the anomaly baseline (“0” W.m-2) for the figure is 1.9 – (0.2 x 1.5) = 1.6 W.m-2 approx at 2000 which corresponds to the horizontal dotted anomaly baseline 2000 – 2011.
UW say:
But this is what the IPCC says re the observed Loeb et al (2012) TOA imbalance cited in AR5 Chapter 2, 2.3.2 Changes in Top of the Atmosphere Radiation Budget:
And,
From AR5 Chapter 2
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf
This is highly problematic. What the University of Wisconsin CO2 “forcing” should be plotted against is Loeb et al (2012) Figure 1, which shows immediately that there is no relationship whatsoever between the earth’s energy imbalance and CO2 “forcing”:
Loeb et al (2012) Figure 1: Observed TOA Imbalance
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Loeb2012-TOAfluxvsOHC.jpg
Versus,
UW Figure: North Slope of Alaska (NSA) CO2 surface forcing time-series
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/news/media/2015/02/NSA_CO2_surface_forcing_time_series_gero.jpg
These should be graphed one against the other.
Put these images side-by-side in tabs and flick between them but keep in mind that dotted line in the UW figure is 1.6 W.m-2, not 0 W.m-2. It is obvious that CO2 “forcing” is NOT forcing the TOA imbalance according to the IPCC’s criteria. And the IPCC implicitly confirms this.
Apparently there is a graph from CSIRO that shows an acceleration in SLR. I’m not sure where it came from (IPCC?) and what data was used to infer the acceleration.
Apparently this is sufficient evidence to convict us, though.
Link is here
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/files/2012/12/CSIRO_GMSL_figure_thumb.jpg
>”Apparently there is a graph from CSIRO that shows an acceleration in SLR.”
Yes, this one:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/files/2012/12/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg
>”I’m not sure where it came from (IPCC?)”
No, CSIRO via Deltoid (Tim Lambert):
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/12/12/sea-level-rise-acceleration/
>”and what data was used to infer the acceleration.”
Deltoid is/was just making it up by ignoring tide guage and moving to satellite (as they do):
But you only have to look at the graph to see that the slope of the tide guage data does not conform to the slope of the satellite data.
Also, this is global average which has no relationship whatsoever to sea level rise (and fall) in say, the Pacific. As we’ve already raked over.
The Deltoid graph is from this page at CSIRO:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html
CSIRO say nothing of an “acceleration” on that page or the other pages e.g. “Last decades”. What they say is:
And,
And,
“An increase in the rate” is NOT an “acceleration” and certainly NOT what the IPCC is referring to with their speculative RCP “scenarios” which only begin at 1990. To be an “acceleration” as per IPCC, the rate must increase EVERY YEAR i.e. acceleration is mm/yr/yr – NOT mm/yr as in 1.6mm/yr or 3.2mm/yr.
NZ Herald, Tuesday Sep 29, 2015 :
• Within the same period [by the end of the century], sea level is expected to rise between 50cm and 100cm, leaving populations to adapt by either abandoning coasts and islands, changing infrastructure and coastal zones, or protecting areas with barriers or dykes.
• A recent report on sea level rise by Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Jan Wright said the impact of even a small rise in sea level would be significant and very costly for some landowners.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11520315
# # #
“A small rise” is exactly what is happening now at historical rates that were not “significant and very costly for some landowners”. In fact, no-one has even noticed.
And “50cm and 100cm” might be expected in La La land but that is the wildest of Wild Arse Guesses for NZ.
A small victory for the Christchurch residents
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/72501997/controversial-coastal-hazards-zonings-dropped
As the coastal hazards part of the district plan have been dropped.
We still have the issues to deal with though, the putative issue of sea level rise and the appropriate response to that under NZ legislation.
Anyway, I expect a few beers will be downed during the next couple of days to celebrate some kind of democratic process,and the affect a residents group can have,
We should be thankful for that, at least.
RandomCapitals10 hours ago
Great news. The issue with the earthquake legislation-driven proposals were many:
– the complete lack of a Section 32 assessment of the effects of the proposals
– the lack of any real Consultation about the options behind the proposals – Wellington City Council advanced 5 options ranging from Do Nothing, to Expand into the hazard, and noted that Managed Retreat needed extensive and ongoing community buy-in. CCC tried to force one option – Managed Retreat – down our throats.
– the shonky nature of the research behind it all: CCC had tasked consultants to deliver (amongst other things) a comprehensive understanding of the effect of climate change on Waimak sediments, which have historically advanced the shoreline seawards over thousands of years and metres of sea level rise. Result: regurgitation of a single 20-year-old paper, not anything new or even updated. And yet CCC regarded this as a ‘key factor’ in the whole Coastal Hazards equation. This is simply pathetic.
– the disconnect between communities and the Council, and between the Council and its own staff, have been highlighted. Staff very nearly managed to get their version of our future into a District Plan. You can rest assured that nothing like this is ever going to happen again. We all know what to look for.
– the social and cultural effects on communities had already started (despite CCC turning Nelson’s eye towards them) – sales fell through, consents were denied or stalled, insurance began to be a real issue, and all this on top of 5 years of sheer earthquake hell for some residents.
None of this was necessary. By yanking the entire chapter from the Replacement District Plan, we all have the chance to participate in a much more sensible, respectful of community wishes, and workable set of policies.
After all, the ocean is not like a rock, posed to topple at any time. It can be mitigated against, ignored, retreated from as circumstances and actual measurements dictate.
But We the People, not a bunch of unelected mandarins, are going to get to say what happens, how, where, and over what timescale.
None of this is Over.
It is, however, the end of the beginning.
# # #
Know who this is Andy? Not implying it is you BTW.
And I saw the ONE News clip on this too.
No idea who the above commenter is, though it is quite a good message.
There are still unresolved issues. For example, we don’t know whether the hazard notices will remain on our LIMs and whether this will affect insurance.
We never got to present our submissions. I, at least, was looking forward to presenting my case about RCP 8.5
That will have to wait for another day
Speaking of running and hiding, I notice that I can no longer post on Gareth Morgan’s blog, having also been blocked on his Facebook page
I quoted IPCC Chapter 10, detection and attribution, which he and his house Facebook trolls took great exception to, hurling all sorts of abuse at me..
Dr Morgan seems to admire North Korea. You can see why
>”I quoted IPCC Chapter 10, detection and attribution”
You should be in jail. You are killing people. You are paid to lie to people. You are a criminal. You have five million climate refugees. Dead children — your responsibility. It’s all the consequence of climate change.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/09/29/listen-warmist-thom-hartmann-asks-skeptic-why-should-you-not-be-in-jail-you-are-killing-people-i-am-calling-you-a-criminal/
“The Government acknowledges the advocacy of local residents groups who have sought this revised approach This deferral is an opportunity for the councils and communities to re-engage and find a better way to deal with these coastal hazards risks,” the Ministers concluded.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/15aeJs0p1hDZn6k0fjmaCfBg_bcAwmyUJMmHnw8i_G30/edit
Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Associate Minister Ms Wagner says.
Interesting development.
More doublethink from mayor Lianne Dalziel
http://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/news-releases/show/204
Strange, I thought this was her idea and didn’t want anyone to know about it.
“Coastal hazards zones dropped”
Lead headline in today’s print edition of The Press. 2/3 of whole front page
“Coastal hazards zones dropped”
Here’s the link:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/72501997/controversial-coastal-hazards-zonings-dropped
Good news Andy!
That was stage 1 complete.now for stage 2, get the hazard notices removed from LiMs
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/the-rebuild/72579872/Residents-to-fight-LIM-listing-on-coastal-hazards
Richard C – for some reason I can’t see your “controversy and scandal” links.
If I click on these I get to the top of the page, not the comment. Using Chrome on Windows or Mac is the same
Andy.
>”…..for some reason I can’t see your “controversy and scandal” links. If I click on these I get to the top of the page, not the comment.”
The reason is the recent comments have gone to Page 2. The blog setting is now 120 comments per page I think. At the top you see: 219 Thoughts on “Controversy and scandal”.
Just go to the bottom of page and click “Newer Comments →”
Same for all the other comment threads at CCG. I don’t think anyone else realizes. BH and SkS provide the links to the comment pages (50 comments per page I think) but we’ve only got the “Newer Comments →” link.
JoNova, Climate Etc, Hot Topic, Kiwi Thinker have all comments on one page so you might end up with 1000+ comments to load and wade through at Climate Etc. Gets a bit unwieldy I find but at least everything is in one place and contiguous, much easier to refer up and down thread in long discussions.
>”JoNova, Climate Etc, Hot Topic, Kiwi Thinker have all comments on one page”
So does WUWT.
This means you have a comment URL that will directly link you to any comment and the URL will take you there. We cannot do that anymore at CCG. We can only usefully link to comments on the first page. Once comments go to page 2, 3, etc then the URL will not resolve to the comment, it will only take you to the top of the first page of comments.
I would prefer that all CCG comments are on the same page so that we can link to them from outside CCG and the URL will take anyone directly to any comment, let alone linking internally. I have links to key comments at Climate Etc, WUWT, JoNova that are deep in 500 – 1000+ comment threads but I can get to where I want directly no problem.
Looks like Stage 2 will be a longer battle Andy.
Morning Report on the LIM issue
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/201772817/coastal-group-pushing-for-lim-change
Stage 1 of the battle was about process and democracy.
Stage 2 is still about that, and also about what constitutes a “hazard”
Christopher Ruthe in the above radio NZ slot sums it up pretty well.
>what constitutes a “hazard”
1.
a danger or risk.
“the hazards of childbirth”
synonyms: danger, risk, peril, threat, menace; difficulty, problem, pitfall; jeopardy, perilousness, endangerment, imperilment
“the hazards of high-energy radiation”
a potential source of danger.
“a fire hazard”
a permanent feature of a golf course which presents an obstruction to playing a shot, such as a bunker or stream.
2.
chance; probability.
“we can form no calculation concerning the laws of hazard”
# # #
Re 1 “endangerment”. An “endangerment finding” is written into the law of the United States (SCOTUS). In effect, a violation of the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is made legally permissible:
‘Overview of EPA Endangerment Finding’
https://www.edf.org/climate/overview-epa-endangerment-finding
Re 2 “we can form no calculation concerning the laws of hazard”. This appears to be from ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’ by David Hume:
SECT XI. OF THE PROBABILITY OF CHANCES
https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=XD-cCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT130&lpg=PT130&dq=%22we+can+form+no+calculation+concerning+the+laws+of+hazard%22&source=bl&ots=c6GLRqu-o7&sig=aqubPaRTI685vSO8N2HVo4AM8uo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAmoVChMIl9uvk-afyAIVRraUCh2awgcu#v=onepage&q&f=false
There is also a non-zero probability of being hit by a meteorite or a piece of space debris.
Why isn’t that notified on our LIMs?
Which has the higher probability? One metre sea level rise by 2115 or being struck by a meteorite?
Hang on, you mean they don’t know??
The CCC have constituted the hazard as the worst of a worst case scenario. This is deficient. They have not expressed the hazard in terms of all possibilities that can be monitored over time, as North Carolina does.
Once other possibilities are considered, the worst of worst case expression of the hazard just becomes one of several to be monitored and can be addressed accordingly as needs be. Meantime, in the absence of evidence of the worst of worst case occurring, realistic planning can proceed as Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Associate Minister Ms Wagner put it (from upthread):
This is going to be quite a battle because we have government ministers contradicting the advice councils have been given by MfE, Jan Wright and others.
At least we are getting some good press coverage now. Front page Press yesterday, Morning report today, NBR yesterday
Yes, CCRU does have a PR guy by the way. Looks like he is doing his job
The LIM on my North Canterbury property was flagged about 18 months ago with a HAIL (Hazardous Activities and Industries List) along with thousands of other rural properties, with no notification to landowners. We only discovered it when a neighbour had the sale of his property fall through because of the same HAIL flag on his LIM. There has been no soil testing by the Council, yet they arbitrarily pick properties ‘at risk’ and slap a flag on them which seriously affects their saleability While I understand the need to warn potential buyers that there is a risk, the process could be much improved to notify land owners of the LIM change and give them the right of appeal. Otherwise it seems arbitrary and draconian.
Thanks for that Mike. The lack of notification bothers me
and on that note:
Councillors call for coastal hazard listings to be dropped
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/72598924/Councillors-call-for-coastal-hazard-listings-to-be-dropped
Christiana Figueres (“carrying the weight of the world with humor and good cheer”):
And,
And,
“Even Figueres is willing to give thanks for the blessings of hydrocarbon.”
she admitted.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/un-official-climate-change-should-not-be-about-politics
Coastal Scientist – Tauranga
Become an integral member of our team at Tonkin & Taylor, where your hard work and positive work ethic will be rewarded!
We are looking for an experienced Coastal Scientist to join our great Tauranga team. In the role you will provide strong knowledge and expertise on the coastal and beach environment both locally and nationally. You’ll work closely with other engineers within the business and provide guidance and advice on coastal work.
At T&T, we offer an environment in which innovation, technical rigour and achievement of results are rewarded. With our commitment to training, we will support your career needs and provide opportunities for development.
http://www.careers.tonkin.co.nz/jobdetails/ajid/SeNq7/Coastal-Scientist-Tauranga,8852.html?utm_campaign=joranz&utm_medium=organic&utm_source=joranz
Preference will be given to applicants demonstrating the ability to regurgitate IPCC scenarios /Sarc
# # #
Not a good omen for coastal residents of Tauranga.
There is a mention of the NZCSET in tbe LSE paper cited in this article
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/10/5/sceptics-impact-on-climate-science.html
Page 19, The impact of controversy on the production of scientific knowledge’, Amelia Sharman , September 2015:
What exactly is “their [NIWA’s] science” in respect tp the 7SS?
Still waiting for that. And no mention of de Freitas et al (2014). I’m guessing Sharman doesn’t know about that.
Make that
“And no mention of de Freitas et al (2015). I’m guessing Sharman doesn’t know about that.”
They have made no reply to the paper whatsoever, so NIWA have evidently abandoned science, or at least the scientific method.
Sharman is just doing a study of “sceptics” vs “scientists”. It is better by a long shot than Lewandowsky. I’m not sure how useful it is but she can only work on the information she was given, since it was an interview style paper.
NBR article by Rodney Hide on the Christchurch issue
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_I8DYcwW8qRTFI2Y0pWWU93YllSRU4zLWdTOTJPenhrbEpv/view
BBC apologises for Radio 4 show that mocked climate science
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/07/bbc-apologises-radio-4-show-that-mocked-climate-science
I think it’s about time we mocked the BBC for apologising for people mocking climate science
In fact we should mock everything and then mock all the offenderati who furiously tweet about being offended at being mocked.
Thought you guys might like this nice little article about fake nobel prize winners being ‘de-nobled’:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/07/global-warmings-fake-nobel-claims-bite-the-dust/
Magoo, I loved the de-nobeling essay, thanks.
Andy, mocking is outmoded and politically incorrect and should be therefore mocked.
Word of the week: “offenderati” Noun, that segment of society that is particularly attuned to that which may be construed as offensive in any way. Example: “There’s plenty more where that came from too. The offenderati have been out in force this weekend.”
h/t Andy S
Christopher Monckton points out the discrepancy between observed TOA imbalance and theoretical anthropogenic forcing (basically what I’m saying proves man-made climate change theory is busted stated in 4 sentences and 2 graphics):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/08/theres-life-in-the-old-pause-yet/
Theoretical forcing 4 times actual is a wild exaggeration in my books. Monckton neglects to mention (or doesn’t realize) that the TOA budget is the IPCC’s primary climate change criteria.
Also perhaps doesn’t realize or just doesn’t bother to mention that the observed TOA imbalance is trendless but the theoretical anthro forcing is increasing. And that the surface imbalance is the same as the TOA imbalance i.e. anthro forcing doesn’t fit between surface and TOA. And that the IPCC neglected to address all this in AR5.
But the truth will out slowly but surely. And 4 sentences and 2 graphics are about all that is needed. This from Monckton is the first I’ve seen from any of the big hitters on the sceptic/luke-warm side.
A Short Summary of Soon, Connolly and Connolly, 2015; “Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th Century”
by Andy May, October 8, 2015
Soon, Connolly and Connolly (2015) is an excellent paper (pay walled, for the authors preprint, go here) that casts some doubt about two critical IPCC AR5 statements, quoted below:
The IPCC, 2013 report page 16:
“Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence).”
Page 17:
“It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.”
Soon, Connolly and Connolly (“SCC15”) make a very good case that the ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity) to a doubling of CO2 is less than 0.44°C. In addition, their estimate of the climate sensitivity to variations in total solar irradiance (TSI) is higher than that estimated by the IPCC. Thus, using their estimates, anthropogenic greenhouse gases are not the dominant driver of climate.
Continues>>>>>
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/08/a-short-summary-of-soon-connolly-and-connolly-2015-re-evaluating-the-role-of-solar-variability-on-northern-hemisphere-temperature-trends-since-the-19th-century/
I’ve got some basic maths questions for the MfE and beyond
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/adapting-climate-change/adapting-sea-level-rise
The Men from the Ministry state
I’m wondering what “an additional allowance of 10mm per year” means.
Does it mean a sea level rise of 10mm a year, or 10mm a year in addition to something else?
If you take the CCC one metre projection, then basic division gives 10mm a year for 100 years. If you take the CCC hockey stick, then the rate at 2100 is around 14-15mm a year. So should we the rate in 2100 to be 10mm a year, or 10mm+ 14mm = 24mm a year?
I think the guys at HT have been “triggered” and are in their safe spaces. Haven’t heard a boo in days
>”Theoretical forcing 4 times actual is a wild exaggeration in my books”
I’ve got this wrong. Monckton is stating “total natural and anthropo-genic net forcing” is 2.3 W.m-2 from AR5. Of that and plus another 2+ years of data, 1.9 W.m-2 is theoretical CO2 which is about the same as net anthro.
So I should say – “Theoretical [anthro] forcing [3] times actual is a wild exaggeration in my books”.
Here’s a bit of fun for you all.
Gareth Morgan and his “whiteboard Friday”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAx1UbJAvcc#t=124
Since I have been banned from his facebook page and blog, I can’t point out all the errors in this video.
‘Supreme Court Justice Carnwath: Climate Activist’
A sitting UK Supreme Court judge has a longstanding relationship with the United Nations Environment Programme. A Rio+20 event he attended issued a declaration urging the expansion of UN authority.
October 4, 2015 by Donna Laframboise
The closer one examines the recent climate conference co-sponsored by the UK Supreme Court, the worse it looks. I’ve previously discussed the 45-minute keynote address given by Philippe Sands, in which that law professor urged international courts to “play a role here in finally scotching” non-mainstream climate perspectives.
But the video recording of that speech includes the remarks of three other individuals. Strung together, this is among the most terrifying 90 minutes I’ve ever witnessed. The event at which Sands’ speech was delivered was chaired by sitting UK Supreme Court Justice Lord Robert Carnwath. His opening remarks demonstrate that activist scientists have been joined by activist judges.
It isn’t possible to listen to Lord Carnwath’s remarks and conclude that, where the climate debate is concerned, he’s keeping an open mind.
[…]
As chairman, Lord Carnwath set the tone. His remarks signaled to other participants that it’s OK to promote climate treaties (political instruments) at an academic law symposium. Judicial neutrality is at enormous risk if these smart people didn’t understand that wearing one’s personal climate politics on one’s sleeve is verboten in a professional setting.
As Lord Carnwath himself points out, the courts may yet be the ultimate arbiters where climate action is concerned. They may be called upon “to give effect” to the climate commitments signed in Paris. In his words:
Ah, yes. That word debate. It means something rather different to climate activists than to normal people. The four individuals who appear on that 90-minute video fall within an exceedingly narrow range of climate opinion. Law professor Lavanya Rajamani, who gets the floor for 10 minutes, has been a consultant to the UN’s climate secretariat, and a climate negotiator for the Alliance of Small Island States. This woman earns a living off the ever-expanding international climate infrastructure.
She says there’s “a pressing need for an authoritative statement by an international court on the legal obligations of states in relation to climate change” (1:13:07). Admitting that she feels discouraged by the current state of climate negotiations, Rajamani suggests a profoundly anti-democratic solution:
The political realm isn’t delivering the desired results. So the courts should step into the breach. She said this. Out loud. And not a single person in that room gasped.
I’ve previously mentioned that some of the prominent legal minds who attended this conference had their travel expenses paid by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). This is wholly improper, since the UN isn’t a disinterested party where climate is concerned. The Paris summit is, after all, a UN gathering aimed at keeping alive a UN treaty.
How does a law conference secure funding from UNEP? Perhaps it has something to do with Lord Carnwath’s longstanding relationship with that organization. The UNEP website tells us he has worked with them since 2002.
A month after he was sworn in as a Supreme Court justice three years ago, Lord Carnwath traveled to Brazil to take part in a UNEP Rio+20 event. Indeed, he wrote about it for the Guardian under the headline “Judges for the environment: we have a crucial role to play.” His article tells us about a Brazilian judge who “regularly orders offenders to attend an environmental night school he has created,” and that former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has praised a particular legal approach. But more worrisome is that the event in which he participated issued a political statement advocating an increase in the UN’s authority and reach.
In Lord Carnwath’s words:
The full text of that 3-page declaration is here. The admirable nature of the UN is a major theme on page one, where various UN meetings and documents are extolled and the “important role” played by UNEP is recognized. On page two, the assembled legal minds declare that UNEP should be put in charge of global environmental law:
On page three, we read that the document’s authors should be awarded positions of influence in that new UN bureaucracy:
Ladies and gentleman, the UN is doing with judges and lawyers what it has long done with scientists. Wooing them with titles and travel. Coaxing them into the fold. Lobbying and co-opting them.
And it’s all happening right out in the open. A sitting member of the UK Supreme Court is participating in overtly political UN activities. Rather than hiding this fact, Lord Carnwath has advertised the details in a major newspaper – and on the Supreme Court’s website.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/10/04/supreme-court-justice-carnwath-climate-activist/
Also see Bishop Hill:
‘The judge, the presidential hopeful and some strange conflicts of interest’
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2015/10/7/the-judge-the-presidential-hopeful-and-some-strange-conflict.html
# # #
It is starting to add up, Massachusetts v. EPA and NZCSET v. NIWA, Philippe Sands.
And now this.
The UN is such a great organization.
Saudi Arabia is now the UN human rights advocate.
A country that executes people by beheading for apostasy, adultery, consensual homosexual activity, anti state dissents, etc.
No one says a word, because it would be…. Racist ….
Finally Herr Thomas of Hot Topic gets out of bed and responds with a fairly predictable comment that I am “racist” for commenting that Germans, Swedes and others are being targeted at the expense of the local population
http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-advice-of-fools-newman-and-kelly-risible-on-rising-seas/#comment-46908
For your information, Herr Thomas of Hot Topic, my mothers side of my family were from the fatherland, and had to endure death by disease, starvation, and also rape.
So if you and your Coromandel Social Justice Warriors feel strongly about this, I suggest you pack your bags and leave your “lebensraum” and either protect the country of your own birth, or turn it into an Islamist theocracy.
It’s your choice really, but don’t expect me to consider you are part of anything I consider my home.
Have a nice day.
>”Saudi Arabia is now the UN human rights advocate.”
They could start with this:
‘Saudi employer accused of chopping off Indian maid’s arm’
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/10/9/saudi-employer-accused-of-chopping-off-indian-maids-arm.html
Back to the Gareth Morgan video. He claims that the world warmed by 0.8 degrees over the 20th C, and that 0.6 occurred since 1950, therefore warming is accelerating.
Is he thick, a liar, or both?
In the German vein…….
‘Climate change could cause second Holocaust, says Yale historian’
According to Prof. Timothy Snyder, the struggle to feed populations may ‘encourage new variations on Hitler’s ideas’
By Gabe Friedman September 19, 2015,
“The danger is not that the Chinese might actually starve to death in the near future, any more than Germans would have during the 1930s. The risk is that a developed country able to project military power could, like Hitler’s Germany, fall into ecological panic, and take drastic steps to protect its existing standard of living,” Snyder writes.
Snyder further argues that the strain of climate change denial common in American politics is reminiscent of Hitler’s attitude toward science. Hitler thought war was necessary because he refused to believe that advancements like irrigation, crop hybrids and fertilizers could help feed his people. The denial of climate change could again push the world toward conflict, Snyder writes.
“By polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the United States has done more than any other nation to bring about the next ecological panic, yet it is the only country where climate science is still resisted by certain political and business elites,” he writes.
“These deniers tend to present the empirical findings of scientists as a conspiracy and question the validity of science — an intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s.”
http://www.timesofisrael.com/climate-change-could-cause-second-holocaust-says-yale-historian/
# # #
Polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases?
Empirical findings of scientists?
No Mr Snyder, climate scientists present hypothetical theory first and foremost. And you are presenting dogma.
And when the climate scientists do actually present empirical findings that are critical to their hypothesis (TOA imbalance is their primary criteria), those findings are not applied to their hypothesis whether by sloppy incompetence or willful neglect.
So of course we “question the validity of [climate] science” and “refuse to believe” until proof is established. None to date.
And to characterize the scientific method as Hitleresque is a scurrilous and intellectually barren ploy.
Gareth Morgan’s MtM “beach house” is a 2 story concrete edifice.
‘Emissions from the Cement Industry’ – by Madeleine Rubenstein|May 9, 2012
A single industry [cement] accounts for around 5% of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/05/09/emissions-from-the-cement-industry/
”How China used more cement in 3 years than the U.S. did in the entire 20th Century’ – By Ana Swanson
March 24
China used more cement between 2011 and 2013 than the U.S. used in the entire 20th Century.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/03/24/how-china-used-more-cement-in-3-years-than-the-u-s-did-in-the-entire-20th-century/
“Ghost Cities of China” – Wade Shepard
1. They’re not actually finished yet
2. They were built too early
3. They were built to encourage land sales
4. Developers must build immediately
5. The chicken-or-egg scenario
6. The housing that’s bought by people with no intention of living in it
7. The housing that’s bought for the future
8. There’s a shortage of “Economically Affordable Homes”
9. Local government just isn’t ready to support a mature population
Conclusion: the ghosts of cities yet to come
http://www.citymetric.com/skylines/enough-empty-floor-space-cover-madrid-so-why-are-chinas-ghost-cities-still-unoccupied-1180
# # #
People who live in big cement houses (occasionally), like Gareth Morgan, are in no position to criticise other’s lifestyles.
Besides, I don’t think China is listening anyway.
A (misplaced) case for Ecosocialism:
‘Hope in Abandonment: Cuba, Detroit, and Earth-Scientific Socialism’
by Paul Street, October 9, 2015
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/09/hope-in-abandonment-cuba-detroit-and-earth-scientific-socialism/
Interesting essay if you can get past this bit:
Yes, “critical factor” indeed. Although the demise of capital is imminent IMO but environmental catastrophe is not the reason. It will be fiat money, avarice, and unbridled credit (QE) that does it (see “Babylon” below). This leads to the interesting use of biblical phraseology (“beast”):
Christian interpretation of Revelation 13 fits USA to the attributes of the second beast in 13:11:
11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth [the “New World”]; and he had two horns [separation of powers] like a lamb [looks Christian], and he spake as a dragon [Globocop – like Roman Empire].
On the same page so far then.
But the modern financial system (money) however, comes out of ancient Babylon. Revelation 18 prophesies the fall of modern international trade – shipping in particular (an example already in 2008). A new global credit crisis, as is developing right now, will hamstring trade finance for shipped merchandise. US$6 – 8 trillion is required for that each year and it comes from modern Babylon (in biblical terms), which is now global, but the predominant currency is US$.
Rev 18:2……..Babylon the great is fallen [ancient], is fallen [modern]
In respect to modern Babylon, international trade shipping, and credit crunch:
17 For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,
18 And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!
19 And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate
# # #
No trade finance, no shipping. Period.
Once “deleveraging” really sets in cash will be king (promissory notes or negotiable metal coinage). This is what happened in Greece, a run on banks and a limit of €60 per day from money machines and banks. Credit will be just too risky for banks (think 2008), and credit drives international trade. Witness China, US and Europe scrabbling to deal with debt mountains for which there are no means to pay.
[Disclosure: one of the papers I took for NZ Dip Bus was International Trade and Finance i.e. I have more than average interest and knowledge in this – and I currently work in the export sector which faces humongous credit risk right now. There is already huge overcapacity in shipping and I vividly remember the ships laid up post 2008 and empty log ships sailing out of Port of Tauranga for lack of trade finance]
I’m actually inclined to think the socialist scenario in the above essay (or variations on the theme) is not out of the question in the not too distant future but “Earth-Scientific” will not be the catalyst.
>”Once “deleveraging” really sets in….”
‘How to Build a Lifeboat’
January 24, 2012 Posted by Nicole Foss
Stoneleigh: Yesterday we talked about why we are facing deflation and today I wanted to review and explain the suggestions we have made previously for dealing with a deflationary scenario. In short, this is the list we have run periodically since we started TAE (with one addition at the end):
1) Hold no debt (for most people this means renting)
2) Hold cash and cash equivalents (short term treasuries) under your own control
3) Don’t trust the banking system, deposit insurance or no deposit insurance [e.g. Kiwibank in NZ is “govt guaranteed”]
4) Sell equities, real estate, most bonds, commodities, collectibles (or short if you can afford to gamble)
5) Gain some control over the necessities of your own existence if you can afford it
6) Be prepared to work with others as that will give you far greater scope for resilience and security
7) If you have done all that and still have spare resources, consider precious metals as an insurance policy
8) Be worth more to your employer than he is paying you
9) Look after your health!
1 – 9 expanded >>>>>>
http://www.theautomaticearth.com/2012/01/how-to-build-a-lifeboat/
It is most amusing reading Rob “death loving Jew hating leftist scum” Taylor and Herr Thomas of Hot Topic who can’t even construct a grammatically correct English sentence (wired and wicket problems) trying to argue that they hold the moral and intellectual high ground when trying to force people from their properties based on their pseudo-science
The really great news is that now that the sea level rise issue will become a national debate, Herr Thomas of Hot Topic and the psychopath Jew Hater Rob Taylor will have the full spotlight on them .
I can hardly wait.
Bring it on ….
Maybe Gareth Morgan would like to step up to the plate and deliver his sermon on “dangerous global warming” based on his easily shredded lies.
Given that there is over 1 trillion dollars of coastal property invested and dependent on your pseudo-science lies, I’m sure we’ll be waiting with baited breath…
Come on guys….
Thomas September 27, 2015 at 9:01 pm [@ Hot Topic]
Andy for the very last time:
1.7mm/y is the AVERAGE GLOBAL SLR from 1900 to 2014
3.2mm/y is the CURRENT GLOBAL SLR rate averaged over the last 20 years.
These are the GLOBAL average rates! And the CURRENT GLOBAL average rate is currently increasing with 0.02 m/y^2.
http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-advice-of-fools-newman-and-kelly-risible-on-rising-seas/#comment-46883
Thomas September 27, 2015 at 2:52 pm
Andy:
[Citation – Understanding global sea levels: past, present and future
John A. Church Æ Neil J. White Æ Thorkild Aarup Æ W. Stanley Wilson Æ
Philip L. Woodworth Æ Catia M. Domingues Æ John R. Hunter Æ Kurt Lambeck
Received: 7 September 2007 / Accepted: 20 December 2007 / Published online: 1 February 2008]
http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/hastindw/MS1410-001_FA08/handouts/2008SLRSustain.pdf
http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-advice-of-fools-newman-and-kelly-risible-on-rising-seas/#comment-46879
# # #
>”the CURRENT GLOBAL average rate is currently increasing with 0.02 m/y^2″
Well yes, if you define “current” as 1807–2009:
Trends and acceleration in global and regional sea levels since 1807. Global and Planetary Change 113: 11-22. Jevrejeva, S., Moore, J.C., Grinsted, A., Matthews, A.P. and Spada, G. 2014.
Abstract
“We calculate an acceleration of 0.02 ± 0.01 mm·yr− 2 in global sea level (1807–2009).”
Link to paper here (or try Google Scholar etc)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/20/new-study-finds-sea-levels-rising-only-7-in-per-century-with-no-acceleration/
That’s obviously not the theoretical acceleration attributable to AGW which only takes off at 1990 (see Figures 6 &7 Church et al 2008 above for IPCC acceleration and the long-term blue line natural acceleration Fig 3).
>”3.2mm/y is the CURRENT GLOBAL SLR rate averaged over the last 20 years.”
Basically the satellite era but not representative of the data over last 30 years of the series in his citation, see Figure 3 (a) and (b) Church et al (2008) above. There was a big drop in the rate of the 20 yr tide guage trend from the mid 1970s to 1980 i.e. just prior to the satellite era. The 3.2mm/yr rate just takes levels back to the previous 1.7mm/yr tide guage trendline 1870 – 2001, and at end of series the 20 yr trend is leveling off, see red line in (b).
Thomas has the awkward situation (as do Church et al who must toe the party line to get published) where the 20 yr trend increased from 0 to 2.5mm/yr 1920 – 1940s then fell – rose – fell from 1950 – 1980. The 2.5mm rate increase from 1920 is much the same as the 2.3mm rate increase from 1980 i.e. AGW cannot be the driving factor in the latter given the former.
Should be perfectly obvious to Thomas that there is no AGW “fingerprint” in Figure 3 (b) Church et al (2008), his own citation. For that speculation you have to go down to page 9, Outlook for the future – Projections of 21st century sea-level rise.
But then, is anything ever perfectly obvious to Thomas?
>”there is over 1 trillion dollars of coastal property invested”
The greatest risk to this, as I see it, is not SLR but the impending collapse of global finance i.e. property values driven by unsupported currency are a bubble about to burst. Ok, maybe the NZ central bank has not been indulging like China or US but the trickle down here will be horrendous and unavoidable (more like a flood).
That will mean many mortgaged properties, not just coastal, financially underwater and freehold values slashed (if you can find a buyer) but you wont read of that risk on a LIM. Hence the reason for my off-topic comments upthread.
Any ideas of the Green Climate Fund finally receiving $100bn per year at Paris are pie-in-the-sky in today’s financial environment. Unless central banks just print it as they have been doing, which overseas has led to negative interest rates:
Negative Interest Rate Policy (NIRP)
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/negative-interest-rate-policy-nirp.asp
Climate and SLR is just not today’s pressing issue in my view (except CCC-type overeach cases of course), it is a distraction from the real threat even given the power grab behind climate change politics. We’ve let ourselves become fixated on something that will evaporate instantly as a societal concern in the face of financial wipeout.
Pessimistic I know, but I’ve been following international trade and finance lately much more than I have climate.
>”Any ideas of the Green Climate Fund finally receiving $100bn per year at Paris are pie-in-the-sky in today’s financial environment.”
‘Development banks pledge $15 billion a year by 2020 to fight climate change’
Posted on: 10:56 AM IST Oct 10, 2015
Lima: Development banks including the World Bank have pledged an additional $15 billion a year by 2020 to fight climate change, taking the world closer to the clutch target of USD 100 billion, officials have said.
Just two months before key UN climate talks in Paris, world leaders are scrambling to reach the magic number of $100 billion in funding to combat global warming and help vulnerable nations cope with the impact of climate change. The figure, agreed in previous rounds of talks, is seen as a make-or-break issue in the years-long negotiations to reach a comprehensive carbon-cutting pact to save the planet from the potentially catastrophic impacts of global warming.
The World Bank announced it would increase climate financing from 21 per cent of its total funding to 28 per cent in 2020.
In dollar terms, that would be an increase from an average of $10.3 billion a year now to USD 16 billion a year in 2020, at current funding levels. “We are committed to scaling up our support for developing countries to battle climate change,” World Bank president Jim Yong Kim said in a statement.
“As we move closer to Paris, countries have identified trillions of dollars of climate-related needs. The Bank, with the support of our members, will respond ambitiously to this great challenge.” French finance ministry officials said other development banks including the European Investment Bank, Asian Development Bank and Inter-American Development Bank had made similar pledges for a total of around USD 15 billion in new funds.
http://www.ibnlive.com/news/world/development-banks-pledge-15-billion-a-year-by-2020-to-fight-climate-change-1149850.html
# # #
>”potentially catastrophic impacts of global warming”
But highly speculative and unrealistic.
>”countries have identified trillions of dollars of climate-related needs.”
That will be a non-issue come next credit crisis which is looking much sooner than 2020. There just wont be USD 16 billion a year for “climate-related needs”, let alone $100 billion.
These people seem totally naive and completely ignorant of the lessons and pointers from the eurozone’s Greek debt crisis and the 2008 credit crunch. 2008 was just a trial run, so is Greece.
>”Ok, maybe the NZ central bank has not been indulging like China or US but the trickle down here will be horrendous and unavoidable (more like a flood).”
>”Unless central banks just print it as they have been doing”
‘Bank of America: Here’s the Precise Moment When We Should Have Known QE Went Wrong’
Bad news became good news.
Julie Verhage, October 9, 2015
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-09/bank-of-america-here-s-the-precise-moment-when-we-should-have-known-qe-went-wrong
Moreover, he [Bank of America’s FX strategist Athanasios Vamvakidis] notes that despite the continued expansion of balance sheets at a number of central banks around the world, monetary policy conditions have tightened and liquidity has fallen, as shown in the below BofAML charts
Chart 6: Change in monetary conditions index since 2014 [see New Zealand]
http://assets.bwbx.io/images/iw5cefdG47Xk/v1/488x-1.png
Chart 7: Global Liquidity Conditions Index
http://assets.bwbx.io/images/iU4Ys0zheVK0/v1/488x-1.png
‘China is becoming a big red flag for U.S. stocks’
By Tomi Kilgore, Published: Oct 9, 2015
http://ei.marketwatch.com//Multimedia/2015/10/09/Photos/NS/MW-DW127_ChinaP_20151009105303_NS.png?uuid=710cdf26-6e95-11e5-9281-0015c588e0f6
See chart: S&P500 vs China Maunufacturing Index
http://ei.marketwatch.com//Multimedia/2015/10/09/Photos/NS/MW-DW127_ChinaP_20151009105303_NS.png?uuid=710cdf26-6e95-11e5-9281-0015c588e0f6
# # #
The effect of QE1, QE2, and QE3 has run out for the US. And now their White Knight QE funder (China) is leaving the party and going home. Rest of the world not much better if at all, many a lot worse e.g. Brazil..
I just hope our NZ Treasury are onto this but their silence is ominous i.e. I don’t think the significance of it all has sunk in here either govt or corporates like Zespri, Fonterra, etc. The general populace is oblivious of course, busy splurging on real estate. The Reserve Bank Governor should be issuing cautions with a loud hailer but no.
Thomas at Hot Topic seems to find my suggestion that single mothers (plural) have been evicted from their residences is “abhorrent”, as the article he read only mentioned one person.
Thomas might want to read this rather depressing article about the escalation of violent crime in Germany thanks to the new migrants.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6668/germany-migrant-crime-wave
To put this in context, I was pointing out to Thomas that his reaction to the Christchurch coastal residents situation was one of complete lack of empathy, and I suggested he compare the situation in Germany, and whether he would “puke” (his words) at the situation people find themselves there.
Obviously Thomas has been “triggered” (to use Social Justice Warrior speak) and needs a safe space
I really don’t feel that optimistic about western civilisation right now. Maybe Thomas will wake up and realise we are not his enemies.
>”I really don’t feel that optimistic about western civilisation right now. Maybe Thomas will wake up and realise we are not his enemies.”
You’re not alone on that Andy. I’m following Automatic Earth blog Debt Rattle. Left-leaning on refugees, climate, and a few other issues but on economics, finance, and trade, these guys are onto it big time irrespective of perspective. The minor issues e.g. climate, are about to be relegated to obscurity. Debt Rattle October 11 2015 features 19 articles, 1 is climate, 1 is refugees directly with another touching on it (see below). but 14 are economics, finance, and trade.
Their refugee perspective is naive I think (a bit like Thomas) but certainly no naivety on the major global issue right now which is the path of our future, unfortunately.
The Eco-socialists are about to get what they want but they really have no idea what they will be really getting. They will NOT be getting Eco-socialist utopia. Socialist re-distribution thrives on other people’s money (gushing flows of it), but that paradigm is failing fast. The debased financial fuel that once drove the productive sector (think industry, manufacturing, exporting, agri/horti culture etc) that provides the wealth for Socialists to redistribute no longer creates growth (massive recession looming now instead). These are the sectors that Eco-socialists want to close down but what is left? Public sector jobs but what and who will pay for that?
Debt Rattle October 11 2015
http://www.theautomaticearth.com/2015/10/debt-rattle-october-11-2015/
First article (from Debt Rattle link) is in the same vein as your comment Andy”
Some of the other featured articles [Debt Rattle comment precedes articles]:
[Never could. Only thing they could do was to make things much worse. Mission accomplished.]
• Central Bank Cavalry Can No Longer Save The World (Reuters)
[The liquidity squeeze is universal.]
• Quantitative Frightening (Economist)
[The ‘rescue’ has chased many ‘investors’ out.]
• Beijing’s Market Rescue Leaves China Stocks Stuck in the Doldrums (WSJ)
[Give them a shot at making things worse, and they won’t disappoint.]
• Fed Officials Seem Ready To Deploy Negative Rates In Next Crisis (MarketWatch)
[That’s the same as saying a crash is inevitable.]
• IMF: Keep Interest Rates Low Or Risk Another Crash (Guardian)
[The inventory-to-sales ratio.]
• Last Time This Ratio Soared Like This Was After Lehman Moment (WolfStreet)
[What future do we have left?]
• Why We Shouldn’t Borrow Money From The Future (John Kay)
[Right. It won’t help, but it should be done anyway?!]
• Euro Superstate Won’t Save Dysfunctional Single Currency: Ex-IMF Chief (Telegraph)
[It makes no difference what IMF and World Bank say. Or do.]
• The Real Fight To Win The International Currency Wars (Telegraph)
[Big problems for big funds. Just starting.]
• When Pension Funds Go Empty, All Bets Are Off (NY Post)
# # #
The Eco-Socialist, Social Justice Warriors wont know what has hit them – think of a world where your wedding ring finger is cut off for the gold that is on it. Domestic stress will be bad enough when times get really tough, eventually, so allowing in a flood of people whose own domestic structure has already failed leaving them with nothing is inviting a whole extra pile of insurmountable problems.
I used to accommodate foreign backpackers. One Dutch guy even a decade ago was in despair. He had been a govt social worker trying to integrate immigrants into the Dutch way of life but it was impossible because they kept to their respective ethnic groups (think ethnic soccer team aligned violence in Australia a few years ago). And within the ethnic groups are different forms of anti-social (even just ignorance and flouting of fishing and border rules in NZ for example) and criminal and militant behavior (the reason their country is imploding). So instead of the social structure of the host country being lifted it is dragged down. This in good times.
We’re heading for a new world economic order but forget about an Eco-socialist utopia.
>”Germany: Migrant Crime Wave, Police Capitulate”
Gee, who saw THAT coming?
>‘The world economic order is collapsing and this time there seems no way out’
‘Waiuku community react to job losses at NZ Steel’s Glenbrook mill’
JOHN BOYNTON, NATALIE POLLEY, October 6 2015
http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/business/72733211/waiuku-community-react-to-job-losses-at-nz-steels-glenbrook-mill
Green dream come true at Waiuku and in China. But not much fun for people in the line of fire – Waiuku or China. Now multiply those stories around Australia, New Zealand, United States, Canada, Brazil, etc, etc,
RC – yes, US currency has a very limited lifespan in it’s current form. The day Nixon broke the Gold Standard the banksters’ Genie was unleashed. Combine that with the “asylum seekers” Genie and there is a very rough ride ahead. Hold on. Buy gold or silver and hang on.
Oh, by the way, where on Earth are those 50,000,000 climate refugees?
Apopos the migrant crisis, Sweden has been giving us a foretaste of this for years. Their open door immigration policy has led to no go areas in Stockholm and beyond, where firefighters are attacked by the locals if they try to put out fires. Gang rape is widespread, violent crime is escalating. I get these stories in my inbox everyday.
I can’t see this working out well.
Back to the Christchurch situation, we haven’t made a lot of ground really. The hazard notices are still on LIMs.
If we want to repair a house, we have to prove that the repair won’t be damaged by flooding, or have a hazard notice put on our house so that the council don’t have liability. i don’t know how the latter will affect insurability.
The fight continues …
I came up with an analogy that describes the sea level hazard. The numbers are approximately proportional.
A man is driving down a motorway at 100kph, careful not to exceed the speed limit. A police car flags him down.
Policeman: “Excuse me Sir, we noticed that you were driving a car that our models indicate might be travelling at 800kph in an hours time, therefore we need to issue you an infringement notice”
Car Driver: “But my car can’t even travel at 800kph if I wanted”
Policeman: ” I don’t engage with car science deniers. Our experts have made a model based on completely unrealistic assumptions and determined that your car could “possibly” travel at 800kph in one hour. Therefore you are a potential hazard and I need to issue an infringement notice. If you continue to argue I will also arrest you for car science denial.
Oh, and is that a diesel VW, … ??
Mike >”Buy gold or silver and hang on.”
Silver in negotiable currency form yes, gold not so much I think. There’s a number of problems with gold:
a) You can’t eat it and try getting change for even the smallest gold bar for a purchase less than the value of it when buying essentials.
b) Although gold is a store of wealth it is a long-term store i.e. you really have to hold it through the entire crisis but how long will that be or how long can you hang on (me, not long)? I think the coming crunch will be a permanent change. The intrinsic value of gold in terms of say a standard nutritional value of a staple food type has not changed since Roman times (barley was once a currency before wheat became staple) but has gold ever been used as “ready” currency other than minted coinage? I’d like to know of this to see if it translates to our times, maybe gold coinage is an option but gold does not wear well i.e. it must be handled with care (“kid gloves”). Just handling it with your bare hands dislodges molecules and will reduce its weight.
c) Gold is a problem in terms of security i.e. you will draw attention to yourself if word gets around. And don’t bother entrusting storage to anyone else, all that happens then is that it either disappears or gains multiple claims on it as is the case now.
d) Tungsten will fool most people when gold plated.
And so on.
I think liquidity is what people will focus on and there’s still a place for promissory notes once true value is restored. Problem is, people just don’t let go of what they have in a crisis. In the 1930s US depression perfectly good farms were passed in at auction for lack of buyers. That was before gold was confiscated.
The rush for cash and liquidity is what causes a run on banks (think Greece) who operate on hope that everyone doesn’t want their deposits at once. Now that most transactions are electronic no-one holds cash at home (storage problematic for that too) but I’m seriously thinking about returning to holding cash somehow. I know a Scotsman who owns a rental property of 3 units who only takes cash for rent. That’s his cash cow, it is not a capital gain exercise for him and he doesn’t sell even when offered a couple of million i.e. capital value collapse is not a risk. He’s conditioned by long memory and operates according to that, not to what everyone else is doing.
A case of going back to the future.
>”Our experts have made a model based on completely unrealistic assumptions” [car analogy]
And our experts call this “science”.
This is where all future “projections” go wrong and climate “science” is no different. Model projections are NOT science. No different in the economics sector either (another analogy):
‘Don’t let the Nobel prize fool you. Economics is not a science’
Joris Luyendijk, 11 October 2015
The award glorifies economists as tellers of timeless truths, fostering hubris and leading to disaster
A Nobel prize in economics implies that the human world operates much like the physical world : that it can be described and understood in neutral terms, and that it lends itself to modelling, like chemical reactions or the movement of the stars. It creates the impression that economists are not in the business of constructing inherently imperfect theories, but of discovering timeless truths.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/11/nobel-prize-economics-not-science-hubris-disaster#img-1
# # #
To date climate scientists have not been able to model the physical world with any realism when the models run outside constraints. All that has happened, as in economics, is glorification of climate scientists and modelers “as tellers of timeless truths, fostering hubris and leading to disaster”.
The disaster in this case is an inappropriate re-allocation of resources, opportunity cost, and a waste of the resources allocated to a manufactured problem (think multiple supercomputing centres and billions in funding down the gurgler). If the resources had been applied to real pollution Beijing would have relatively clear air, international shipping would have cut emissions of toxins to a minimum, and Paris air would not be clogged with diesel fumes.
>”The disaster in this case is…..”
Forgot regulatory overreach.
The guys at HT are fizzing over a recent climate conference where local government leaders vowed to “take action” on climate change
Yawn.
Meanwhile, our battle to keep our democratic and property rights continues.
Since my comments take up to four days to clear moderation, here is my latest reply to Rob Taylor
I’m not really sure what they mean by “vested interests”. I presume they mean the notion that I can build or repair my house without the expertise of a coastal engineer, who will no doubt charge like a wounded bull.
I’m also not really sure what he means by NIMBYism. I don’t want the sea in my back yard, that is true, but the only evidence that this will happen due to sea level rise is a computer model.
Not sure how that makes me a NIMBY, unless that is now the generic term for anyone who doesn’t obey the whims of Big Government, Big Wind, or any of the other rent-seeking parasitic organisations that have attached themselves to the host like a leech, sucking it dry of life.
Herr Thomas of Hot Topic writes
Let me translate that from Herr Thomas speak.
Christchurch City Council commissioned Tonkin and Taylor to write a report. T&T wrote their own Terms of Reference. T&T then cut and paste from a 1999 report and made a few minor changes
They used a methodology and assumptions that may even be illegal under the RMA, but we await info on that,
Then CCC try to force through a policy on “people with vested interests” (citizens and ratepayers to you and I) under emergency earthquake legislation, giving the public only a few weeks to respond using an impossible to understand process, and imposing extra stress on people already worn down by 5 years of earthquakes and dealing with insurance and EQC.
Even after the council and the government (and even Gareth) seem to agree with me on the process issue, I cannot get it through to either Thomas or Rob Taylor.
They seem to think that one metre SLR by 2115 is a “fact”.
Ian Forrester makes a cameo appearance on the sea level thread with some content free abuse.
Liars cheats and frauds, all of them. All they have left is abuse.
The remarkable thing is that I get accused of lying, yet I provide peer reviewed references, and yet Thomas can claim, completely unfounded, that SLR at Lyttelton is 7mm a year,
Unfortunately this level of corruption has filtered into the council too, where people on staff there make completely unfounded claims, and no one challenges them.
Sickening. I don’t know how you keep your sanity. I suppose we can only keep striving to bring their obfuscations and deceits finally to the notice of a wider audience.
If SLR is accelerating according to the peer reviewed literature, you’d think someone could provide a link, at least.
Oh I see now that Thomas is claiming that SLR is accelerating because of a graph sourced from NOAA. No attribution, no peer reviewed link, nothing. They just accuse me of lying because I don’t accept their graph at face value.
Given that NOAA are involved in the latest climate data scandal as reported in the WSJ, I’m not really sure why anyone wouldn’t treat graphs from NOAA with some caution,
Fine for Thomas though. When your entire life is based on some “faith” that humans are destroying the planet due to CO2 emissions, you’ll grab onto any slim piece of “evidence” to support this view, even if it is from an organization being accused of criminal fraud.
Shame I can’t respond to these accusations of lying. Gareth seems to have gone awol and abandoned his blog.
Never mind. They can talk amongst themselves.
There is no evidence for any acceleration of sea level rise in data from the 20th century data alone (Woodworth, 1990; Gornitz and Solow, 1991; Douglas, 1992).
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/425.htm
That was from the TAR. The info in AR5 looks a bit woolly. Mixing up tide gauge, satellite and paleo data
At Hot Topic, no-one has yet dared to respond to this comment:
“Its just nonsensical, denialist drivel” apparently. “Utter pseudo scientific drivel”, “[in]comprehensible”, and “[un]intelligible” too.
How can these people possibly critique IPCC Assessment Reports or peer-reviewed scientific papers or the man-made climate change conjecture in respect to the IPCC’s primary criteria? Let alone address simple questions as above. They don’t even know the source of this El Nino heat in the troposphere (Renowden and Taylor) or agree on where it exhibits in the metrics (Kiwiiano and SimonP) i.e. they can’t deduce from graphs either.
Any more than about 2 (inconvenient) sentences and their eyes glaze over (excepting Andy here).
Any more than about 2 (inconvenient) sentences and their eyes glaze over (excepting Andy here).
Thomas is questioning Richard C’s mathematical abilities.
http://hot-topic.co.nz/februarys-global-temperature-spike-is-a-wake-up-call/#comment-47428
My response (as yet still in moderation) is that you have to use median, not mean, to split the population into two based on an average.
Andy, it was capoeiranick, I’ve replied with this comment:
richardcfromnz says: March 31, 2016 at 2:01 pm
capoeiranick says: Richard, please explain this comment:
>”Why would temperature distribution affect the mean?”
That’s not what I said. Read carefully:
“…..if there was the same quantity of heat released in 2015/16 as 1998 (yet to be determined)”
A total quantity of heat (in Joules) passing thermometers in the dissipation process i.e. sampled by temperature (in Celcius), when evenly distributed either side of the equator (as it was in 1998), exhibited a spike in GMST of 1998 proportions.
If the same quantity of heat (yet to be determined) is concentrated in the NH this 2015/16 El Nino, the GMST spike would be 2x 1998 because there is only minimal SH detection (and that is in the SH tropics only) and the AREA OF AVERAGING is half as much when just NH than it is when NH+SH. But I didn’t say it was 2x did I?
I think it is greater than 2x but I really don’t know unless the total quantity of heat is determined. I’m inclined to think there have been other coincident factors in addition to just El Nino e.g. here’s an insurance report stating the NAO:
‘2015 Global Insured Losses Lowest Since 2009 Despite El Niño Effects: Carpenter’
“One of the strongest El Niño periods on record and a positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation were the climate drivers in 2015 ……”
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2016/03/25/403052.htm
But is the AO another factor for example, or AMO?
http://hot-topic.co.nz/februarys-global-temperature-spike-is-a-wake-up-call/#comment-47434
# # #
Still nothing forthcoming re my El Nino OLR question. They don’t want to go there.
“Andy, it was capoeiranick ”
Yes but Thomas followed up with a comment about you not understanding means, when he clearly doesn’t understand means.
Maybe I am just being mean.
Yes I saw you being mean to Thomas Andy, I left you to it.
I’ve followed up with a simple numeric analogy to NH El Nino heat as applied to GMST which hopefully explains the situation better than my first effort above.
Basically, just looking at global means without a distribution breakdown is meaningless.
Basically, just looking at global means without a distribution breakdown is meaningless.
Yes I agree
But they feel sorry for us. How touching
Thomas writes
Now Richard, I do not have the time or the patience to teach you out of the plethora of misconceptions and outright nonsense that seem to occupy your mind. It is my sensere advise though to stop pouring rubbish into the internet blog sites. It is unfortunate that the sciency sounding tosh you excreet impresses a few gullible minds here and there.
So I plead with you to simply stop your silly quest. Go and get a sound education in science. Perhaps enrol into a course on climate science.
Such arrogance from someone who can’t tell the difference between mean and median or construct a meaningful sentence in English, despite working as a school teacher in NZ.
How do these guys become such narcissistic windbags?
Thomas thinks he knows enough to “teach” me about climate science, El Nino in this case.
But his statements on El Nino are contradicted by NOAA / PMEL. PMEL support my statements. I’ve responded to Thomas with PMEL quotes here:
http://hot-topic.co.nz/februarys-global-temperature-spike-is-a-wake-up-call/#comment-47475
I’ll follow that with a challenge re the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Thomas also is shocked that a “science denier with a public resume” (?) such as myself should be involved in a peer review
Except I’m not.
It always helps to ask a few questions first, before hammering away at the keyboard
>”Looks like Gareth is back indoors and telling you off”
Yes I’ve posted his comment link in the ‘Magical Month’ thread and saved it on file. Here again:
Gareth’s question
http://hot-topic.co.nz/februarys-global-temperature-spike-is-a-wake-up-call/#comment-47514
I’ll have an answer for him in a few month’s time when this spike has played out. Meantime, the UKMO 5-yr forecast below (blue zone) is what the “leading climate scientists” imply GMST trajectory will be out to 2020 given they’ve claimed the spike for AGW:
UKMO 5 yr “decadal” forecast issued January 2016
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/q/o/fig3_dp2015_fcst_global_t.png
I’ve got my doubts (to say the least) but time will tell.
>”I’ll have an answer for him in a few month’s time when this spike has played out.”
Just posted my answer. Only had to wait a few days for the UAH March 2016 report. Corroborates me, contradicts Gareths “leading climate scientists”..
Gareth’s got nothing:
Gareth says: April 6, 2016 at 8:46 am
The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one.
Richard: nothing that you have written means what you think it means. Please confine your drivel to RT’s place. At least there everybody will be on the same page as you.
http://hot-topic.co.nz/februarys-global-temperature-spike-is-a-wake-up-call/#comment-47520
# # #
Heh. He’s replying to the UAH March 2016 report written by John Christy.
We welcome your “drivel” and promise not to psycho-analysis you, or anyone else
We are either “blokes on the internet” with a psychological disorder, or we are shills for Big Oil that should be imprisioned or executed.
Not a great choice, really
Picked up from the HT Twitter feed:
NDEFENSIBLE! Scientists slam Key’s climate change attitude
Wednesday 6 Apr 16 10:00am
Scientists are calling the Government’s lack of leadership on climate change indefensible, after Prime Minister John Key said that science would solve the problem.
http://www.carbonnews.co.nz/story.asp?storyID=9821&src=newsletter
So science won’t solve the problem?
And wait there’s more:
Professors of religious studies, English, psychology, not to mention a former All Black and a Cricketer. No doubt all experts in radiative atmospheric physics, all DEMAND a leader.
Not a single “bloke on the internet” amongst them . Cricketing and rugby GREATS, no less.
I am stumped for words, though I could try
Back on the above again.
Isn’t it ironic that people like us get called “science deniers”, “anti-science” and all sorts of other pejoratives, yet this group of scientists and cricketers are claiming that science can’t solve all the world’s problems, and that we need a “leader”
Why all this clamouring for a leader?
Andy,
I love the way you think. Your analyses are refreshingly commonsensical.
However, playing devil’s advocate (yet again), are we sure this group is claiming what you say? I haven’t read the whole article, as it’s behind quite an expensive paywall and $600 p.a. (if I miss the end of the 7-day trial) is a bit much just to dive into their turgid anti-carbon pool. Since they slam Key for his faith in science it’s a strong presumption they hold an opposing view, but have we heard exactly what their view is and have we heard it from them?
RT –
There is an Open Letter to the PM here from Wise Response
http://wiseresponse.org.nz/?page_id=103
that sums up the main points.
Cogitating. . .
The premise that science can’t “solve” climate change (i.e CO2 emissions) is falsified by the mere existence of RCP scenarios, which project various socio-economic pathways that depend, amongst other things, society’s development of science and technology
Most environmental problems are solved by a mixture of regulation and innovation.
Presumably Wise Response would prefer to see draconian regulation.
It is all getting a bit tiresome.
The Onion ( a satirical website) gets it
‘The Time To Act Is Now,’ Says Yellowing Climate Change Report Sitting In University Archive
http://www.theonion.com/article/time-act-now-says-yellowing-climate-change-report–52675
From the “Wise” letter:
El Nino’s and NH weather events are now “warming continues” apparently. Give the system a couple of months to compensate and the wise ones wont be looking very wise.
But then, “nothing that [I] have written means what [I] think it means”. Even when I didn’t write it.
Looking at the Wise Response manifesto, they seem to be yet another neo-Malthusian group with the usual “limits to growth” viewpoints that I don’t share.
I’ve been reading Hayek’s “The Fatal Conceit” this week which puts a lot of this stuff to bed.
>”Give the system a couple of months to compensate and the wise ones wont be looking very wise.”
The process starts with ocean dissipation. That’s just curtailed:
‘Global Sea Surface Temperatures Have Fallen Sharply …”Cooled Surprisingly” …Negative Global Temperature Anomaly By End Of 2016?’
http://notrickszone.com/2016/04/06/global-sea-surface-temperatures-have-fallen-sharply-cooled-surprisingly-negative-global-temperature-anomaly-by-end-of-2016/#sthash.Ym3wGOG8.dpbs
No more excess heat transfer to the troposphere for a while so air temperature will fall in turn.
In other words, the hiatus, that never went away, will be back.
‘Notions of a delayed La Niña might have been hasty: Braun’
MODEL GLITCH
Not only is the atmosphere supporting a faster switch to La Niña, but now so is a major climate model. It was announced last week that the Climate Forecast System Version 2 model, commonly known as CFSv2 and run by a division of the U.S. government, had accumulated an error that was massively skewing the results.
In a nutshell, the model built up an erroneous cold bias in the Atlantic Ocean which significantly altered global sea surface temperature forecasts. This bias has since been corrected, but before the correction, CFSv2 was one of the only models predicting a continuation of El Niño (tmsnrt.rs/1N5h4Lk).
Now the model predicts a healthy La Niña by July, further dismantling the delayed La Niña theory (tmsnrt.rs/1N5h1PA).
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-weather-lanina-braun-idUSKCN0X215F
[Gareth Renowden] – “Richard: nothing that you have written means what you think it means”
Through The Looking Glass:
[Humpty Dumpty] – “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
[Alice] – “The question is whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
No comments by anyone at Hot Topic(comments have stalled) since Gareth’s Humpty Dumpty-esque missive on April 6, 2016 at 8:46 am.
I don’t think I’d want to associate with it either, even if I was a warmey.
Let’s be perfectly clear what this is all about. Gareth’s post is by Stefan Rahmstorf and Steven Sherwood. Scroll down and you get this (in respect to the February anomaly):
Stefan Rahmstorf (PIK) and Gavin Schmidt (NASA GISS) are on record as attributing by far the bulk of the recent GMST spike to [man-made] climate change. The El Nino contribution is minimal apparently.
But turns out that NEITHER man-made climate change nor El Nino were the largest contributor to the February spike. First Dr Tim Ball explains in his essay ‘How Much Of Global Temperature Increase Is Due To El Niño?’:
This supported my contention that another factor was the cause of the February spike. To which Gareth responded “Referencing Tim Ball as some kind of credible source is beyond the pale.”
Then along came John Christy’s corroboration:
To which Gareth’s Humpty Dumpty alter-ego responded ““Richard: nothing that you have written means what you think it means”.
In Gareth’s world, Schmidt, Rahmstorf and Sherwood are “some of the world’s leading climate scientists”. He cannot even begin to entertain the notion that, perhaps, they’re wrong.
Thomas writes
http://hot-topic.co.nz/februarys-global-temperature-spike-is-a-wake-up-call/#comment-47552
(* rolls eyes *)
>’Thomas writes Wow, the conspiracy to……….”
According to Lewandowsky, Cook et al, it’s sceptics who have “conspiracy ideation”.
Thomas not get the memo?
The conspiracy is all laid out here:
https://www.smokeandfumes.org/
I expect the “Zionists” feature in the story somewhere.
Herr Thomas presumably thinks the “conspiracy” is a bigger crime against humanity than the Holocaust and all the communist genocides, the continued ethnic cleansing in the middle east of Christians, and the crimes of Pol Pot.
Presumably he will be advocating for people like me, who according to him have a “public record of science denial”, to be tried for aiding and abetting the “greatest crime in humanity”
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
In a similar vein
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/14/exxon-strikes-back-against-the-climate-witch-hunt/
In a similar vein
Bill Nye, the science guy, is open to criminal charges and jail time for climate change dissenters
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/14/bill-nye-open-criminal-charges-jail-time-climate-c/
I guess if you have run out of arguments and evidence then the only option is to either incarcerate or kill your opponents.
Most amusing
Yes, it’s amusing, but not really. Because the argument is not about the right to be sceptical and it’s not about denial. It’s being fashioned as complicated to avoid the real issue, which is simply the refusal to answer some specific questions. Sceptics must learn to rephrase these allegations against them. For example, I deny nothing, but why has there been no significant global warming for about 25 years? I deny nothing, but why has there been no explanation of a mechanism by which the minuscule accumulated atmospheric CO2 emitted by human activity might significantly heat the ocean by radiation? Hint: heat rises. I deny nothing, but why don’t climate scientists protest when activists claim that increased atmospheric CO2 will result in greater warming, when they know full well that the warming of each increment of CO2 is logarithmic? There is much more, of course. These questions make sceptics of us all. I deny nothing, but why don’t the alarmists answer our questions? We need to rephrase the blimmin’ debate (if you can call it that).
In the USA it is about first amendment rights to free speech.
These are rapidly being taken away from us on many fronts.
“Islamophobia”, climate change, LBGT issues etc.