WORLD ENDS? WELL IT MAY TAKE A BIT LONGER NOW… Melanie Phillips

Melanie Phillips writes that the  climate “scientists” are startnig to admit that the computer models might be running “on the hot side” and we may have a bit longer to repent of our sins against  Gaia.
So the long walk-back from the doom merchandising begins. It will take a few more years and a few more trillion dollars thrown into emissions reduction and expensive renewable energy, but our politicians (except the Greens of course who are the thickest of the lot) will eventually wake up to the con.
The tragedy of lives lost by people who could not afford to heat or cool their homes, the jobs lost in manufacturing industries, the hospitals and schools that could have been funded on money diverted is all incalculable.
climate-activists

WORLD ENDS? WELL IT MAY TAKE A BIT LONGER NOW…

Climate scientists have now admitted they were wrong about man-made global warming and I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

Not very wrong, you understand, just a bit wrong. Apparently the planet is still going to hell in a carbon-lined hand-cart, just more slowly.

A study in the journal Nature Geoscience says the world has warmed more slowly than had been forecast by computer models, which were “on the hot side” and overstated the impact of emissions. You don’t say.

Global average temperature has risen by about 0.9C since pre-industrial times but there was a slowdown in the rate of warming for 15 years before 2014.

Er, would that be the slowdown that was authoritatively said not to have happened because the computer models all said it was impossible for it to happen, because everyone knew that rising CO2 levels inescapably caused global temperatures to rise and anyone who said the evidence of the slowdown showed the entire theory was bunkum and hogwash was a “denier”?

Yes, it would.

The Times reports:

“Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and another author, said: ‘We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.’

“He added that the group of about a dozen computer models, produced by government institutes and universities around the world, had been assembled a decade ago ‘so it’s not that surprising that it’s starting to divert a little bit from observations’. Too many of the models used ‘were on the hot side’, meaning they forecast too much warming.”

Nevertheless, according to the study rapid reductions in emissions will still be required – but the world now has more time to make the changes.

But if the computer models were wrong, on what evidence do these scientists base any calculation of what reductions in emissions will be required? On what basis do they still maintain there is a need for any reductions at all?

According to Myles Allen, the group of about a dozen computer models, produced by government institutes and universities around the world, had been assembled a decade ago “so it’s not that surprising that it’s starting to divert a little bit from observations”.

Oh really? Why isn’t it surprising? The theory hasn’t changed: you know, the theory – sorry, not a theory but the unchallengeable and incontrovertible and inconvenient truth – that rising CO2 levels cause a rise in global temperature.

So what exactly was it that had been fed into the computer models a decade ago that caused them to fail to predict that rising CO2 levels would not continue to cause such a rise in global temperature – or to be more precise, that they would cause a slowdown for a few years? Does the theory itself have a break for R&R? Because such a slowdown was certainly not included in the catechism of anthropogenic global warming theory.

Well, it was just those darned pesky computers that screwed up, wasn’t it, and led those scientists astray. Not the scientists’ fault at all, was it.

The truth is rather different. As many of us have been saying since AGW theory was first invented in 1988, the idea that computer modelling could ever predict something as stupendously complex as climate change was always scientifically illiterate. Computers are only as good as the information that is fed into them. If you feed rubbish in, you get rubbish out. Fed inadequate information designed to prove AGW theory, the computers disgorged predictions that proved AGW theory.

The whole thing was a scam from start to finish. Will these Potemkin scientists ever admit that? Even now the Met Office, among others, is still trying to spin the data, as David Whitehouse reports here.

For the past three decades, AGW zealots have insisted that “the science is settled” (itself another piece of anti-science illiteracy). They not only denounced as “deniers” those who actually looked at the evidence and questioned the theory but also sought to ruin their reputations and careers.

Climate-related science has been corrupted by ideologically-bent grant-funding only given to projects designed to prove the theory; government policies have been catastrophically skewed to undermine energy production and screw the poor through fuel bills inflated to meet the costs dumped on energy production through an orthodoxy no-one in government had the intelligence or cojones to fight.

We have been the victims of junk science. Maybe the highly limited admission of error in this study will help blow down the whole rotten facade of pseudo-science and finally expose this charlatanry for the ideological con-trick that it is.

Advertisements

Jo Nova- 91 Volcanoes in Antarctica Found Under The Melting Glaciers

Who would have thought it? Volcanoes, not CO2 melting the Antarctic Ice

Jo Nova writes

Antarctica – 91 volcanoes coincidentally found under glaciers warming “due to climate change”

It’s possibly the densest concentration of volcanoes in the world, some as high as 4km and we didn’t even know these existed til recently.  Despite that overwhelming ignorance, we’re 97.00% certain that all the warming in Antarctica is due to your car and airconditioner. Robin McKie, The Guardian writer, talks about the recent discovery of so many volcanoes under the ice. Not surprisingly, we have no data on how active these volcanoes are. However because we *know* climate change is definitely wrecking Antarctica, it follows that your car, air conditioner and pet dog could melt more ice, take the pressure off the tectonic plate and set one off. Then things will really get out of hand.

Anyhow, it’s just a coincidence that all the warming in Antarctica is where the volcanoes are.

Antarctica, Warming, Climate Change, volcanoes, West Antarctic, glaciers melting.

Warming in Antarctica   |    New volcano discoveries

Spread the hagtag #allvolcanosmatter.

From The Guardian: Scientists discover 91 volcanoes below Antarctic ice sheet

Scientists have uncovered the largest volcanic region on Earth – two kilometres below the surface of the vast ice sheet that covers west Antarctica.

The project, by Edinburgh University researchers, has revealed almost 100 volcanoes – with the highest as tall as the Eiger, which stands at almost 4,000 metres in Switzerland.

Geologists say this huge region is likely to dwarf that of east Africa’s volcanic ridge, currently rated the densest concentration of volcanoes in the world.

These newly discovered volcanoes range in height from 100 to 3,850 metres. All are covered in ice, which sometimes lies in layers that are more than 4km thick in the region. These active peaks are concentrated in a region known as the west Antarctic rift system, which stretches 3,500km from Antarctica’s Ross ice shelf to the Antarctic peninsula.

Electricity Price Shock

Electricity-bill-shock-energy-cost

The brave new world of energy poverty is about to hit one of the most prosperous and energy-rich nations in the world. With electricity prices jumping by about 20% next month we are in for a tough time economically and financially. And of course the burden will as always fall hardest on the poor.

As Jo Nova points out this is how the climate change scare mongering policy is working out:

Many are blaming a “failure of energy policy”, but miss the point entirely — this is not failure but success. The aim of those energy policies was to close down coal fired stations and it worked. The Renewable Energy Target, the carbon tax, and other anti “carbon” policies did what they were supposed to do and forced the closure of both the Port Augusta power stations and Hazelwood (which supplied as much as 5% of Australia’s electricity). That left us dependent on gas instead of having the flexibility to ignore the current gas price outlandish cost.

With politicians and Chief Scientist Finkel colluding to drive up the price of electricity by forcing more renewables on us, there is no way that electricity prices are going to stabilise or fall.

At the moment, Government policy requires that retailers must take all wind and solar available at whatever price is set. Coal generators then get the left overs, but here is the rub- they cannot quickly slow down their systems (or speed them up for that matter) and coal generators run most efficiently at close to maximum power. Ironically all those wind turbines and solar cells do little to reduce the CO2 production at these plants.

So the operators of coal generators have to basically burn more coal than they optimally need to, take the price set by the Energy Market Operator and provide the “left overs” that wind and solar cannot supply on any day. Despite all the hidden subsidies in the electrical supply market, wind costs about $80 per Megawatt hour, solar $100 MWh and the wholesale price for coal is about $20 MWh.

The system is set up to destroy our cheapest form of energy generation in the long term. There will be no  more coal powered generators constructed because the current policy makes them unviable The only reason the we have any coal powered generators left in Australia is that the costs of constructing them were paid off decades ago.

Throw into that horrible mix the requirement of the Finkel review that all renewable systems must include batteries, that must surely double the cost of power generated that way- great for energy security but lousy for affordability. And then require all operators to give three years notice before exiting the industry- you have to maintain a loss-making business for three years- what planet are these people living on?

Meanwhile all of that heavy industry that used to be the life blood of Australia’s economy will go to places where electricity is cheaper- India and China most likely. Ironically the cheaper electricity in those two countries is partially fuelled by Australian coal. And of course under the Paris agreement those two countries get a free pass until 2030 from any reductions in their carbon emissions.

Australia is either being run by lunatics or traitors. I’m not sure which.

 

Inventor of Gaia Hypothesis Now Claims Climate Change Is Religon Not Science

From wattsupwiththat, news of a remarkable conversion

James Lovelock on Climate Prediction: “I’ve grown up a bit since then.”

A 2005 photograph of James Lovelock, scientist and author best known for the Gaia hypothesis.

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t RichardJames Lovelock, inventor of the Gaia hypothesis which underpins much of modern environmentalism, now thinks global warming is a religion. He also points out Singapore, one of the warmest cities in the world, is also one of the most desirable places to live.

What has changed dramatically, however, is his position on climate change. He now says: “Anyone who tries to predict more than five to 10 years is a bit of an idiot, because so many things can change unexpectedly.”But isn’t that exactly what he did last time we met? “I know,” he grins teasingly. “But I’ve grown up a bit since then.”

Lovelock now believes that “CO2 is going up, but nowhere near as fast as they thought it would. The computer models just weren’t reliable. In fact,” he goes on breezily, “I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy, this climate change. You’ve only got to look at Singapore. It’s two-and-a-half times higher than the worst-case scenario for climate change, and it’s one of the most desirable cities in the world to live in.”

But there is a third explanation for why he has shifted his position again, and nowadays feels “laid back about climate change”. All things being equal – “and it’s only got to take one sizable volcano to erupt and all the models, everything else, is right off the board”

Lovelock maintains that, unlike most environmentalists, he is a rigorous empiricist, but it is manifestly clear that he enjoys maddening the green movement. “Well, it’s a religion, really, you see. It’s totally unscientific.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/30/james-lovelock-interview-by-end-of-century-robots-will-have-taken-over

Lovelock also points out that the rise of robots will completely invalidate concerns about people becoming “heat stressed” performing manual labour. As an IT specialist I have to say completely agree with him on this. Just as smart phones have evolved from huge bricks into intricate computerised assistants, so will the clunky automated vacuum cleaners and other automated appliances of today rapidly evolve into machines which take care of daily housework, and other manual tasks.

What I find most remarkable is that The Guardian is giving airtime to this climate heresy. Perhaps they are testing the water, to see how readers react.

After all, it is obvious to anyone remotely objective that the green religion is dying. It won’t take too many more South Australia style renewable energy disasters to completely finish what remains of the credibility of the green movement.

Jo Nova: There Were Warnings That Renewables Made The SA Grid Unstable

Jo Nova digs deeper than the politicians and mainstream media want you to see about the effect of wind power on the statewide blackout in SA. On the other side we have simultaneous claims that the storm was made worse by climate change (remember weather is not climate except what climate “scientists” say so) and a journal article that says that the flooding in SA was all imaginary because climate change is driving all the clouds in the Southern Ocean south leading to drought. Meanwhile the Greens are saying that now is not the time to “politicise” the issue by blaming the windmills, thereby politicising the issue.

Jo Nova writes:

The South Australian black out — A grid on the edge. There were warnings that renewables made it vulnerable

Australians are going to be talking about this for weeks. Indeed, the SA Blackout is the stuff of legend.

The Greens are blaming coal (what else?) for causing bad storms and blackouts. Forget that Queensland gets hit with cyclones all the time and the whole state grid doesn’t break. Some greenies are also raging against “the politicization” of the storms. Yes, Indeedy. Go tell that toWill Steffen.

We are not being told the whole story. We do know that South Australia has the highest emphasis on renewables in the world. It also has a fragile electricity network, andwild price spikes to boot. (Coincidence?) The death of a few transmission towers should not knock out a whole state, nor should it take so long to recover from. The storm struck worst north of Adelaide near Port Augusta but the juicy interconnector from Victoria runs in from the south, and goes right up past Adelaide and most of the population. Why couldn’t the broken parts of the system be isolated?

Digging around I find ominous warnings that while the lightning and winds probably caused the blackout, the state of the South Australian grid appeared to be teetering on the brink, without enough reserve, or without well planned protection mechanisms to cope with an inherently unstable system.  The excess of wind power made the system more fragile, and also made it harder to restore. There appear to be three reasons (at least) that excessive wind power is less fun, more costly, and golly, but if windmills don’t stop storms, why buy those expensive electrons?

Read the full article here (trigger warning- contains real facts)

Turnbull’s True Colours

download

I don’t often blog on party political issues these days. It could be boredom or disillusionment with the political process or the gradually growing realisation that we can’t fix the nation until we fix the people.

The re-elected left-wing “Labor-lite” Liberal Government is now starting to show the disastrous path we will be walking  for the next three years. Forget about Budget repair and even moderately conservative values, it’s all soft pedalled Labor/Greens socialism until at least the next three years.

This morning Greg Hunt was on AM on ABC Radio proudly announcing that they are reversing the CSIRO cuts to climate “science” research and establishing a new climate centre in Hobart. Best of all they are spending more tax payers’ dollars on this folly.

The head of the CSIRO, Dr Larry Marshall, is looking a bit lame right now, and he should be sending his resume out looking for a job where he can make a difference. Last year he announced that since the “science is settled” we don’t need those costly scientists investigating why the climate apocalypse is not happening yet. That caused much gnashing of teeth in the climate industry, but rejoicing in the scientific circles which could now look forward to extending their own projects.

So it looks like more of the rubbish of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd years rearing its ugly head again.

I think we can expect that the plebiscite for same sex “marriage” will have to go now to pay for the increased funding for climate “science.” The “Safe Schools” anti-hetersoexuality program will become mandatory at all schools.

And forget about the Federal Budget ever coming into balance again.