Past time for more thread.
More thread.
Sorry it's late, I blame the carbon tax!
Do you think the alarmists who predicted doom because of the carbon tax will shut up?
By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.
Matt Ridley’s first response to my post about his failed prediction was denial: I did not write for the Globe and Mail in 1993 let alone about climate! Then he moved onto stage 3, bargaining: global av temp (ignoring pinatubo drop) is about 0.2C above 1991 level after 22 yrs - so I was spot on so far! As you can see, the graph he cites shows 0.5 degrees of warming since he made his prediction, so it seems that he is applying a 0.3 degree correction for Pinatubo.   Which brings us to Ridley’s next column, published in The Sunday Telegraph on 30 Jan 1994 (one month after his column with the…
Matt Ridley, in The Globe and Mail, 31 Dec 1993. Global warming, too, has shot its bolt, now that the scientific consensus has settled down on about a degree of temperature increase over a century-that is, little more than has taken place in the past century. Actually, the scientific consensus at the time, as summarised by the IPCC was for an increase about three times that.  We can compare how the IPCC and Ridley’s projection fared over the next two decades: (Graph modified from Skeptical Science) Given how wrong his prediction was so far, Ridley reconsidered his beliefs.  Ha ha, just…
Australia makes into 2013 in good shape despite the carbon tax. How can this be?
The Australian is notorious for its attacks on climate science and its hypersensitivity to criticism, so this segment on the Science Show on the psychology of the rejection of climate science where this Maurice Newman opinion piece in the Australian was (correctly) described as "drivel" was pretty well guaranteed to draw lots of responses. So far there have been eight published. On the front page of Tuesday's paper we had the headline “It's OK to link climate denial to pedophilia, ABC tells ex-chairman Maurice Newman” (search for it if you wish to read the article).  You have to read right to…
You only have to look at the graph below showing sea level rise since 1880 to see that it has accelerated from about 1mm/year at the end of the 19th century to about 3mm/year at present.(from CSIRO). If you take a closer look at recent sea level rise you’ll see that it has been very consistent, only deviating from the trend line by about 10mm at any time.   So if you were unscrupulous, and wanted to try to make it look like sea level rise had decelerated what could you do? You could split the series at a point where sea level was above the trend line and compare trends before and after. …
Despite carbon tax, Australia is still not in the Stone Age.
Maurice Newman, former chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, has the necessary lack of scientific qualifications to write about climate science in The Australian (Google “Losing their religion as evidence cools off”): So when in 1969 Paul Ehrlich claimed because of global cooling it was an even-money bet whether England would survive until the year 2000, he could not immediately be proven wrong. After all, this was a cooling period. Newman is just making things up here. Ehrlich did say that there was a 50% chance of England’s collapse by 2000, but not because of global cooling…
Graham Lloyd is back with a story headlined “Climate link to Sandy invalid” (Google the title if you want to read it).  As we've come to expect from The Australian the headline is contradicted by the story, with both scientists quoted agreeing that sea level rise caused by global warming had worsened the flooding from Sandy.  Lloyd writes (all links in quotes added by me): In a statement on the disaster that hit North America on Monday, the federal government-sponsored Climate Commission said "all the evidence suggests that climate change exacerbated the severity of Hurricane Sandy". ……
It's a new month!
Yale Environment 360 has damaged its credibility by publishing a piece by Fred Pearce claiming: When Rachel Carson’s sound case against the mass application of DDT as an agricultural pesticide morphed into blanket opposition to much smaller indoor applications to fight malaria, it arguably resulted in millions of deaths as the diseases resurged. But the public health use of DDT was not banned. Look at the graph below (from Nature Vol 294 26 November 1981 page 302) plotting DDT usage against malaria cases in India during the malaria resurgence in the 70s. It is arguable whether the increased…
More thread.
Nominate Tim for a Vice-Chancellor's Award for Teaching and Supervision Excellence.
Time for more thread.
Still here. It seems the carbon tax has not destroyed the Australian economy. Phew!
Watch Peter Sinclair’s latest video: