They are successfully creating a story that is unifying the conservative message on a range of issues, I am referring to the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship that will be meeting in London this week. They include so many influential politicians even Mike Johnson the 56th Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. Donald Trump mentioned him by name second, or was it third, in his inaugural address on becoming President. Johnson is on the advisory board of ARC and spoke at the first ARC conference in London in November 2023. I was there.
They claim to be working to “re-laying the foundations of our civilisation”, but there will be no mention of science.
The conference will be in London the home of the Royal Society, that has more recently been captured by much that is fashionable. And fashion is of course the lowest form of ideology. Founded on 28 November 1660, the Royal was granted a royal charter by King Charles II and is the oldest continuously existing scientific academy in the world.
Then there is the British Museum of Natural History, also in London. This, and so many other science institutions, including Australia’s science agency the CSIRO, now take their lead from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The IPCC sits under the United Nations. It was established under the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), ostensibly with the aim of measuring the impact from humankind on the Earth’s climate, to the extent that the FCCC have instructed the IPCC to only consider the human component of climate change. For simplicity, this would mean that if there was for example 100 mechanisms of action and interaction driving changes in climate, and the category of human action was one of those mechanisms, the FCCC has instructed the IPCC they are only allowed to talk about that one mechanism and must ignore the other 99. This kind of myopic directive is how you get nonsense claims like the one on the front page of the CSIRO website that “90% of the world’s emissions of carbon dioxide are from the burning of fossil fuels”.
What they might mean is that 90% of human emissions are from fossil fuels, but the way it is written most people would assume that 90% of the carbon in the atmosphere is from us – you and me, our cars, factories and plastic bags. That is a nonsense! When all the natural sources are considered, emissions from combustion of oil, gas and coal are a small percentage and impossible to separate from other plant sources including all the carbon dioxide breathed out by forests and phytoplankton, not to mention forest fires. Carbon dioxide is in deed a well mixed gas, and very soluble in the ocean.
Meanwhile, at the conference this week, in London, ARC will likely also continue to promote the policies of one of the darlings of the heterodox climate consensus community, political scientist Bjorn Lomborg.
Lomborg will likely tell the delegates that global warming is real, human caused, but he will say, it is just not an emergency. It will speak nonsense and he will be applauded by all the conservatives and the hangers-on. He will tell them what is fashionable or what could be fashionable never mind the facts.
Lomborg and one of his funders, Bill Gates, now see an advantage in an energy transition to nuclear. That was something Margaret Thatcher first spruiked back in the 1980s, only to be told by Nigel Lawson that nuclear could only be competitive with North Sea gas etcetera if there was government intervention, subsidies, and on it goes.
When I attended the first ARC conference, I was dismayed by all that I heard, especially the penultimate closing address that was by Lomborg. As well as assuring us that carbon dioxide was responsible for climate change, he mentioned the advantages of vaccines. Almost in the same breath, and without context, certainly without acknowledging the role of big pharma in the Covid fiasco of mandates and adverse events denied at the time and at the first ARC conference, and it is not on the agenda for discussion this week.
At the conference this week a book will be launched, ostensibly bringing together the sharpest minds of our times in history, economics, philosophy, as well as artists and statesmen. So, their story goes. There is no mention of science or women. There is mention of this new book uncovering the best that our civilization has given us, but again no mention of science.
I put some effort into a series of blog posts when I attended ARC in 2023. I explained how I was dismayed at how many conservative Australian politicians were there, all agreeing vigorously with everything that was said that did not include any discussion of the direction of science that has been critical to western civilization.
There is ARC Research that claims to be a not for profit company which exists to renew social fabric, develop a pro-human vision of energy, business, and governance, and ultimately, tell a better story for our future. But how can any organisation undertake research if it does understand the fundamental principles of evidence and method. If it will use words as the IPCC does to quarantine discussion to a minuscule component of the natural world, of the natural order of things.
For sure science has been abandoned by today’s conservatives, who are on the political ascent, and this should be of concern to us all.
My blog posts from November 2023 with a focus on climate are here:
Reconciling with Nature, God and Qantas, Part 1, https://jennifermarohasy.com/2023/10/reconciling-with-nature-god-and-qantas-part-1-arriving-london/
In Denial about the Science, ARC Part 2, https://jennifermarohasy.com/2023/11/04/
The second half of Part 3 gives something of an overview of who attended and what they said, once you get past my short history of how the Thames and Europe used to freeze over, https://jennifermarohasy.com/2023/11/political-and-natural-hazards-arc-part-3/
In Part 4 ( https://jennifermarohasy.com/2023/12/2024-carbon-dioxide-warming-part1/ , that I wrote from Seattle, I included comment that:
“ … at the ARC conference in London, there was this assumption that everyone knows carbon dioxide causes warming of the Earth and the oceans and that as atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide rise we risk even more warming, but no-one was prepared to engage in any detail or explain the physical mechanisms. Certainly, no-one wanted to explain to me how the spike that was occurring in global temperatures while I was in London, how it had been caused by carbon dioxide.”
I wrote back in December 2023 in my final blog post about ARC, that I wanted to begin some discussion about the science, about carbon dioxide and climate change. It has taken me some time to get going, and I thank you for your patience.
It was a year later, in December 2024 that I interviewed Bill Kininmonth, and next Tuesday I will be interviewing Ivan Kennedy – a professor at Sydney University.
We will be discussing both the surprising history of how it is that carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa has come to define global trends, and the chemistry of carbon, it being so soluble in seawater. Kennedy is quite the expert when it comes to carbon chemistry, especially issues of acidification and calcification.
It is likely that we will hypothesise that what is being measured at Mauna Loa is almost certainly degassing from the ocean, I am going to suggest from the equatorial Pacific Ocean, rather than emission from the combustion of coal, gas or oil – and certainly not uneven respiration from northern hemisphere forests that is so often proposed to explain seasonal trends in carbon dioxide concentrations at Moana Loa.
If you are so inclined to come down this rabbit hole with us, you will need to register for what will be my first Zoom webinar!
When: Feb 25, 2025 12:00 PM Brisbane
Topic: Oceans Breathe Out Carbon Dioxide. Part 2/Towards a New Theory of Climate Change
Register in advance for this webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_NfQkdaPZR46zfrKSxrKTBQ
After registering, you should receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.
Part 2 follows on from Part 1, that was my discussion with Bill Kininmonth about convection and how the tropical oceans don’t overheat because of the hot towers/the massive anvil cumulonimbus clouds that transport energy from the bottom to the top of the troposphere at the equator. There is a summary of this meeting, also as a blog post, https://jennifermarohasy.com/2024/12/oceans-warm-atmosphere-with-meteorologist-william-kininmonth-audio-and-summaries/
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
From the CSIRO website.
“Fossil fuel CO2 includes emissions from the combustion and use of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) and cement production. These emissions account for about 90 per cent of all CO2 emissions from human activities.”
I like you Jennifer, find it hard to understand why these people will not look at the science and I wonder if it would destroy their narrative if they were to do so, none more than Bjorn Lomborg.
Will Happer and Richard Lindberg have effectively destroyed the CO2 causes Global Warming narrative, and Bjorn has built a career on saying the opposite but telling us there is no need to panic.
The one hope we have is that President Trump will make good on the commitment given to Will Happer that he will run a Red Team Blue Team examination of the scientific facts and not the rhetoric and then the truth will come out.
Well done. Meanwhile, it’s still the same old conservative establishment world view that occupies the so-called intellectual space , like a half eaten week old sandwich they espouse their views about controlling the masses. Money speaks many languages, ideologies and interests.
The vanguard of the current Solar-induced Orbital Dry Cycle, is moving East to West at 15 degrees Longitude per 30 Day/Night Interval Month around the planet – and will reach the South Pacific Ocean, (75 degrees East Longitude) circa mid-March, 2025.
Africa and Europe are now completely under the canopy of this severe Dry Cycle and the Americas will follow suit.
The ‘mechanics’ of this impending temperature rise over the Pacific Ocean and subsequent reduction in precipitation over land masses under the Dry Cycle Canopy, have nothing to do with ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’, or CO2.
Explaining the Temperature/Precipitation Paradox, influencing the Dry Cycle Terrestrial Footprint.
As the Dry Cycles circle the planet, surface temperatures under the Dry Cycle ‘canopy’, are elevated by the destruction of water vapor Albedo (reflectivity,) via the interaction of charged Solar Particles expelled from the Sun.
If the Dry Cycle is passing over what is predominately a land-mass – enhanced evaporation and subsequent Drought Conditions are likely to ensue, (without mitigating circumstances, such as associated volcanic activity.)
However, as the Dry Cycle passes over significant bodies of water,(Oceans/Seas/Lakes,) the increased surface temperature exacerbates evaporation from these sources, which may result in severe localized precipitation events (storms) over these bodies of water, or nearby land masses – depending on prevailing weather conditions, (such as pressure gradient movement and wind direction.)
Thus, there is a destruction of water vapor in the upper atmosphere, at the same time as there is an increase of evaporation from the surface. Overall however, the prospect of precipitation,(whether over land or water,) is lessened under the influence of an orbiting Dry Cycle.
The confrontational ‘interface’ between the Westward moving vanguard of the Dry Cycle, associated with the Eastward and towards the Poles movement (Axial Spin) of the ‘default’ Wet/Normal weather patterns that are being ‘overtaken’, is manifest in a seemingly ‘compressed’ precipitation regime immediately to the West of the ‘vanguard longitude’.
‘Extract from ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ thirty years on….’ (p 271)
TW– Part 1
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VI_-2FuVXgUuObpBusFQP1j87Sc3xDJz/view?usp=sharing
TW– Part 2
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Nea7N5AiVoklvg9gGA1b3932Uq0-4qPK/view?usp=sharing
TW – Part 3
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UqxyNzLq14Jv7-kf6ZKHDOdmjgfst9zp/view?usp=sharing
TW – Part 4
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qsbYVDYzzGFOOAfE5-cuuOlLPW8Pg3Df/view?usp=sharing
Hi Jennifer. I spend a lot of time interacting with the msm which is the dominant driving force behind AGW. Their knowledge of AGW is abysmal and anything even remotely complicated gets short shrift from them and they default to some current alarmist position such as the hottest year ever. I’m always looking for the simplest argument possible against AGW which can satisfy the limited attention span of the msm and give them a satisfactory talking point. One of my favourites is the tiny % of human CO2, ~3%, going into the atmosphere each year compared to natural CO2, 97%. This argument has the authority of the IPCC via Figure 7.3 from AR4:
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-7-3.html
Some of the msm are now regurgitating the egregious counter argument that natural emissions of CO2 were in balance with the sinks of CO2 before human emissions came along. My counter counter argument to this specious nonsense is that nature is NEVER in balance because if it were we would not have weather, seasons or climate.
What do you think is the best, most simple and resonating argument against AGW.
Cohenite, here’s some resonating talking points for you…
https://www.earthday.org/6-arguments-to-refute-your-climate-denying-relatives/
Nature…The international journal of science / 13 February 2025
“Actionable implications
Acknowledging the need for Geological Net Zero makes clear what it takes for any continued fossil fuel use to be consistent with Paris Agreement goals. Offsetting emissions with enhanced CO 2 uptake in the oceans and biosphere can provide immediate benefits30 if and only if it is genuinely additional to passive CO 2 uptake. In a durable net-zero world, 100% of the CO2 generated by any continued fossil fuel or fossil carbonate use will almost certainly need to be either captured at source or recaptured from the atmosphere and committed to geological-timescale storage. A commitment from high-ambition participants to report and scale up this ‘geologically stored fraction’92is needed urgently: it is currently about 0.1% globally 93, even including CO 2 injection for enhanced hydrocarbon recovery, and accelerates smoothly over time to reach 100% at the date of Geological Net Zero in cost-effective scenarios that meet the goals of the Paris Agreement 92,94. This implies, in addition to reducing emissions, achieving a 10% geo-logically stored fraction by the mid-2030s95 and investing now for a further 10-fold increase in the stored fraction over the following 20 years, including demonstrating secure and verifiable geological CO2 storage capacity to match any new fossil fuel reserves. These are ambitious but achievable goals for the fossil fuel industry and its customers.”
I don’t care karen. I’ve refuted that gibberish for a decade. Take the first rubbish point of your 6 refutations; that is, the climate today is changing 50-100 times faster than any time in history. This is beyond BS and is certifiable. Go and google, if you can, Heinrich and Dansgaard-Oeschger events. Dansgaard-Oeschger events for instance were rapid warming events which featured global temperature increases of up to 15C in 10 years.
Karen the yarn about heat related deaths is hotly debated.
‘The number of people who died in the United States from cold weather-related causes more than doubled between 1999 and 2022, according to an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association Thursday, and scientists say increasing extreme winter weather events due to climate change could be to blame.’ (Forbes)
I have a basement apartment in my house that is climate-controlled via a heat-pump system. I stood in front of the exterior unit for a few seconds recently. (It was as long as I could bear.) It was like being in a very intense Arctic blast!
All of these systems blasting out Arctic air in the winter time and adding plenty of heat to the atmosphere on hot summer days…
I bet that could have way more of an effect on ‘climate’ than a trace amount of CO2.
Meanwhile, here in New England, I am so sick of the snow and the cold and the shoveling this winter. I loved last year’s mild winter! I enjoyed hiking all winter long. Bring it back! (I’m done with downhill skiing, now that the ski areas price tickets the same way the airlines do. A same-day ticket is likely to bankrupt the average person.)
‘ … give them a satisfactory talking point.’
Perhaps the only way to get the MSM to listen is when Donald tells them that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming. Happer is on board to advise the President.
In the meantime, I tell them that the recent spike in world temperature is down to a lot more water vapour in the stratosphere, caused by the Hunga Tonga eruption.
They scoff at that, even when I mention that NASA accepts H2O in the stratosphere traps heat like a greenhouse gas (sic). They are bamboozled and change the subject.
Karen, considering North America weather right now I think a quote from question 3 is of interest.
‘ … as the cold becomes rarer, it will feel more intense and hit unexpecting places. For example, in February of 2021, Texas got hit with an unprecedented winter storm that shut down their electricity supply for multiple days and froze the ground for more than 8 days.’
Clearly this cold air outbreak is in the same category and has the characteristics of global cooling.
Ironicman, weather and climate are not the same.
That is true, 30 years is the standard and here we see it playing out.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2025_v6.1_20x9-scaled.jpg
Clear evidence that its been warming, but no substantial proof that CO2 has any part to play. They had an expression, the ‘precautionary principle’, which became the foundation stone for a cult following and exonerated politicians from liability.
History will not be kind to the scientists who jumped on the gravy train just to get a grant.
Cosmic forces and oceanic oscillations are the main drivers of climate, the Eemian Interglacial was a time before humanity.
‘Here we present a near annual resolution reconstruction of climate developed from a speleothem that spans the Eemian from 117,500 to 123,500 years BP—the most recent period in the Earth’s history when temperatures were similar to those of today.
There is clear ‘indication of solar and teleconnection cyclic forcing of Eemian climate in southeast Australia, a region at present often affected by severe drought and bushfires.
‘We find evidence for multi-centennial dry periods interpreted as mega-droughts, and highlight the importance of understanding the causes of these in the context of a rapidly warming world, where temperatures are now, or projected to exceed those of the Eemian.’ (McGowan et al 2020)
“Should such prolonged periods of drier conditions occur again, then they may be reinforced by anthropogenic global warming, thereby increasing their severity.”
(McGowan etal., 2020)
No shout out for the closure of the Whyalla Steel Mills Karen just think of the CO2 it puts out every day. But don’t worry we will waste more billions of dollars on Green Hydrogen. It has never and will never work but what the hell it is only taxpayers money not theirs.
Of course most of the papers written today have to mention AGW or they won’t get a government grant.
This is the problem with climate science, if you’re not in the tent you become a fringe dweller.
“Karen Klemp says
February 20, 2025 at 10:32 pm”
And AGW, which doesn’t exist, would therefore vitiate cooling periods; which would be a good thing. One of the more stupid aspects of global boiling is that alarmists NEVER think (sic), if humans could control the climate then good things might happen, say for instance the increase in world agricultural output over the last 20 years. Instead all alarmists do is bleat about bad things, none of which are happening.
The Holocene Climate Maximum is a time long forgot, here is a brief abstract from an Australian perspective.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666033422000144
Note the extraordinary low level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Ironicman, can your provide evidence that “papers written today have to mention AGW or they won’t get a government grant.”?
While you are looking, keep an eye out for fossil fuel funded by the climate change deniers (hint, you won’t have to look too far).
“The Trump administration is stripping away support for scientific research in the US and overseas that contains a word it finds particularly inconvenient: “climate.” The US government is withdrawing grants and other support for research that even references the climate crisis”
‘ … can your provide evidence …’
Not off hand, its a job for AI.
The US Administration is on the right track.
Iconicman, I have to add something to your comment on AGW you are almost 100% correct what you miss is if it contains the word Aboriginal it will also get grants. I have a friend who tried for three years to get a grant for some very promising Software Research and on the fourth year he was advised by a colleague to include a paragraph “that the end product could be used to work on the different Aboriginal Dialects / Languages (300 or more of them exist) and although the research had nothing to do that it got the grant.
The whole Grant System and Peer Review System is totally and utterly corrupt at present as it is administered by Left Wing Bureaucrats. Thank heaven that Trump is removing the Climate from the grants list, it is simply a scam of taxpayer funds and not based on science.
Brian Combley, how do you now that, “The whole Grant System and Peer Review System is totally and utterly corrupt at present as it is administered by Left Wing Bureaucrats.”? Have you worked in science or academia? Have you published through peer review? Have you applied for a research grant?
Googling web sites that espouse your preconceived ideas is not research.
Karen many a good paper, not directly related to AGW, usually put something in the conclusion on the prospect of global warming.
This is obviously bad for science and all those scientists who have smudged their copy books.
Clearly you don’t even read what I post before you launch off on your Ideological rants, I do not have to have done something to know about it, I can read and understand. In my post I related a story of an academic who had lived the experience and he is a highly qualified Professor who works in the IT industry whom I have known for more years than I care to remember. I express both his and my own views, and after seeing the Peer Reviewed Homogenization of the temperature data by the Bureau of Meteorology, participated in the attempts to debunk it and liaised with very qualified people in the field I understand the matter. Karen you don’t seem to grasp that a University Education which whilst very nice (I pushed my children and am trying to get one of my grandchildren to follow at the moment) is a long way from the only source of knowledge.
As I have related to you previously I am a High School drop out who was paid by a University to teach university professors. I doubt they cared at the time if I had a degree or not, but they did care that I knew more about the subject than their University staff.
Your Holy than thou, attitude is typical of Ideologues, yet you refuse to read the peer reviewed papers by Will Happer, Richard Lindzen, or for that matter a resident expert and owner of this site Jennifer Marohasy who has extensive experience and qualifications on these matters. I do and can understand how corrupt the PAL sorry you would call it Peer review system has become. Clearly you are part of the problem not the Solution.
Maybe Jennifer, you would care to enlighten Karen as to the validity of the Peer Reviewed homogenization of the temperature data by the BoM.
So Brian, you talked to a single academic and that was enough for you to decide that, “the whole Grant System and Peer Review System is totally and utterly corrupt at present”. Totally and utterly! You would need a fair bit of data to justify that analysis.
There is a body of growing evidence to show that peer review has become corrupted.
https://researchwhisperer.org/2024/11/12/perils-of-peer-review/
Karen I assume since you have as usual launched into tirades, without telling us what you have achieved, instead you attempt to discredit others, This seems to be the only thing you are good at. Have you read Jennifer Marohasy’s comment on the Bureau of Meteorology’s Peer Reviewed Homogenizing of the temperature data and can quote me the the peer reviewed papers you have published since you are an expert in the field of PAL reviewing papers and Global Warming. I find it amusing that you claim to be an expert in this matter yet will not even tell us what you have published or Peer Reviewed or for that matter what your area of expertise is. (If any, as from what I know of you so far is that you were a career bureaucrat who stayed in one job long enough to gain seniority over others). Not what I would be using as a basis of criticism of others. What intellectual property did you create or patents do you hold. Have you ever run a business, created intellectual property and employed people as I have, and as many as 35 people worked for the company I created from nothing. So I may not have written PAL reviewed papers but are clearly smarter than you because I can see that the PAL review system is failing. Now please go read of Jennifer Marohasy’s experience with the Peer Reviewed Bureau of Meteorology and then WHEN you have read it come back and tell me the Peer Review system is sound, because any person capable of rational thinking will see it is not. What the BoM has done is verging on criminal. If a Company was to reduce all of its previous earnings results so as to create an increase in percentage profit it’s directors would be in prison. Yet the BoM has reduced previous temperature records so as to create higher reading in later records to support its and your Global Warming Narrative. All PAL sorry peer reviewed of course.
Netherlands cool the past to warm the present, the practice is commonplace in Oz.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2025/02/23/tampering-with-temperature-records-in-netherlands/#more-85870
You are right there Jennifer, some time back had Josh Fridenburg agree to look into it because the BoM wont release their data as they know what they have done, but then there was a change of Government and they have been able to continue on the basis that it was all Peer Reviewed but the don’t publish who did the Peer Review or the information that was reviewed. I was told off the record that it was the Californian Equivalent of our BoM which would really be a reliable mob to do a Peer Review. We need a DOGE here in Australia as well, hope Peter Dutton is reading Jennifer’s data.
First an audit, then a Royal Commission followed by DOGE.
I will certainly vote for that when we get a chance to have our say, bet Albo will not release a budget before going to an election. All we need from Dutton is to say he is doing away with this Global Warming and DEI nonsense and he will romp it in. Far too many wets in the Liberal Party so I am going to have to Vote National.
Karen, maybe it’s you who should be answering the questions….
Have you worked in science or academia? Have you published through peer review? Have you applied for a research grant?
Brian Combley, please provide evidence supporting your claim that, “the whole Grant System and Peer Review System is totally and utterly corrupt at present”.
Can I emphasize, “totally and utterly corrupt”
Karen
I have already pointed you to evidence which as usual from you, you refuse to read.
Please look at this very site, at Jennifer’s attempt at righting a wrong with our own Bureau of Meteorology where its PAL Reviewed Homogenizing of Temperature Data which they had to do TWICE to get the answers they wanted. Now please stop being a Karen and read the DATA see what happened with the PAL reviewed system, which adjusted down early data and up more recent data to create Global Warming in line with the BoM narrative.
This is one of the best examples of the corruption of the Peer Review system a PAL review of what is clearly CORRUPTION OF VALID DATA to serve a political end. The position of the BoM is so corrupt that they wont give Jennifer their Data because they know she will tear them apart and that people like Sky News and Peta Credlin will publicize their corruption.
If you do actually read the information (which I don’t expect you will as foundation member of the left) Please take the time to tell my why an austere organization like the BoM with all its over paid scientists wont release OUR DATA and needed to Homogenize and PAL review the Data TWICE did they screw it up the first time or was it because the could not find the warming they needed for their narrative.
I await your advise on your qualifications since you spend all your time attacking mine.
What did you do other than spend all your life in a government department on a over paid taxpayer funded position, with your only claim to fame that I know of, is that you were the highest paid person in the government at the time of your retirement, I think is how you put it. Please correct me if I have it wrong, I am assuming it was a state government as there are some other highly paid bludgers in the BoM.
For the record I don’t use the Bureau of Meteorology for weather forecasting I learned some time ago when I used to pilot an aircraft which I used to get around Western Australia for my business, that they had changed from when I first learned to fly some 50 years ago and that Windy was much more reliable than the BoM. I needed reliable weather reports as I was traversing vast distances and did not want to fly into bad weather. I remain a paid subscriber to the Windy service and an unsubscribed taxpayer to the Bureau of Meteorology.
Brian, the claims that BoM are politically motivated and withheld data from Marhasy have been debunked many times. I doubt you would see this given that you exist in a conservative echo chamber.
But just for fun, let’s pretend that you are correct. Are you therefore claiming that a single (hypothetical) example of peer-review and funding being politcally motivated; is enough for you to declare “the whole Grant System and Peer Review System is totally and utterly corrupt at present”?
Brian, still nothing about her qualifications. i think you’re being trolled.
I think Karen is very appropriately named, she is a Karen. You will note how ever no denial of her over paid position in the public service so we can assume the facts are correct. Karen just for you a few more tip bits from the USA and the CO2 Coalition.
EPA to Challenge CO2 Endangerment Finding:
CO2 is NOT a Pollutant
Apparently on the verge of extinction is the odious greenhouse gas rule of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that underpins climate policies stifling economic growth and human flourishing worldwide.
Known as the Endangerment Finding, the regulation treats carbon dioxide and certain other gases as pollutants that threaten to overheat the planet with their “greenhouse” effect.
However, media outlets reported February 26 that EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin had recommended against the rule in a communication to the White House. Although it remains to be seen exactly what Mr. Zeldin has recommended and what process would lead to a repeal of the 2009 Endangerment Finding, we are clear that the time is past for it to be scrapped.
Abandoning the rule would necessarily reverse policies that have contributed to the closure of coal mines and power plants fired by fossil fuels, the loss of thousands of jobs in the energy and manufacturing sectors, higher electricity and fuel prices and an increased risk of power blackouts. In the last decade, regulations have contributed to the closing of more than 40 percent of the nation’s coal-fired power plants – one of the most economical and reliable generators of electricity.
All this destruction is the result of rulemaking that put ideology ahead of science.
Nationally, the Clean Power Plan, the Affordable Clean Energy Rule and stringent vehicle emissions standards all stem from the endangerment finding.
States point to the regulation to justify their own climate initiatives. California, for instance, has used it to defend its waiver for stricter vehicle emissions standards, while Northeastern states have relied on it to uphold the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a cap-and-trade program.
Of all the rule’s absurdities none is greater than the claim that CO2 is a pollutant catastrophically overheating the planet. More than a century of accepted science has established that the warming potential of each molecule of CO2 decreases as its atmospheric concentration rises. This phenomenon of diminishing returns means that even doubling the amount of CO2 from current levels would have only a modest effect on temperature.
EPA also has failed to account for the benefits of CO2. Higher levels of the gas increase plant growth and agricultural productivity through CO2’s fertilization effect – a factor in the greening of Earth over the last several decades, as affirmed by NASA.
EPA’s endangerment finding must be repealed. It is the basis of wrongheaded climate regulation that puts ideology ahead of science. The regulation has been an impediment to economic growth, a cause of rising energy costs and a destroyer of thousands of jobs at power plants, coal mines and manufacturing facilities.
Relying on false computer models and pseudoscience, the EPA erroneously claims that carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases threaten to overheat Earth. The agency disregards complexities of climate dynamics – from solar cycles to clouds to ocean currents – and a mountain of real-world data accumulated over decades and centuries that disprove the endangerment finding.
Repealing the rule would de-fang fearmongering climate alarmists and the lawfare emanating from the U.N. and allow a return of common sense and scientific integrity befitting a free society.
https://co2coalition.org/
Karens have a reputation for being entitled, our colleague is a Greta zealot.
Jumping to the chase, Peter Dutton take note, time to advocate for the building of coal fired power stations because CO2 doesn’t cause endangerment.
https://www.joannenova.com.au/2025/02/like-dropping-napalm-on-the-whole-climate-blob-us-epa-recommends-dropping-endangerment-finding/
“The Trump administration is stripping away support for scientific research in the US and overseas that contains a word it finds particularly inconvenient: “climate.” The US government is withdrawing grants and other support for research that even references the climate crisis””
Isn’t it great. Trump is the greatest POTUS ever!!
PR is corrupted:
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/10/over_500_scientific_papers_to_be_withdrawn_by_publisher.html
https://joannenova.com.au/2014/12/nature-admits-peer-review-filters-out-controversial-champion-papers/
https://joannenova.com.au/2014/11/the-peer-review-scam-why-not-review-your-own-paper/
Climate change deniers are afraid of science; it works towards answers they don’t want to hear. So their solution is to shut science down. Enjoy the conservative, fact-free echo chamber President Musk has created.
Karen, the only thing being ‘shut down’ is the climate gravy train. Most free thinking people would applaud that.
If you really care so much about the planet… you could try protesting outside the Chinese embassy about their relentless construction of new coal fired power plants. China started construction on 94.5 gigawatts of coal-fired power in 2024.
https://joannenova.com.au/2025/02/china-is-so-committed-to-net-zero-last-year-it-started-building-95-gigawatts-of-coal-plants/
‘Enjoy the conservative, fact-free echo chamber.’
The Australian Brainwashing Corporation fits the bill.
Sorry I must correct you it is not The ABC it is Their ABC. Totally agree with your summary though. Although I watched Sara Furguson last night and for a moment there, I thought she was a real journalist, she actually asked a Labor politician some real questions not the usual “Dear Dorothy Dix” ones I have come to expect of Their ABC. Even more surprising he actually gave some honest answers…….He will be of Albo’s Christmas card Woops no sorry Birthday Card List Albo does not believe in that sort of thing.
Karen you just don’t understand all that university education you undertook was wasted. We are not Climate Change Deniers we accept that Climate Change is Real. It is the Cause and Effect from you Alarmists that we don’t accept. I have just been reading (yes, I can read unlike you) about the great floods that happened after the Younga Dryas some 12,000 plus years ago, and guess what, there was no Anthropogenic CO2 to cause that massive Climate Change plus Sea Levels rose hundreds of feet.
Do you know who Ashurbanipal was and that he had a large library of Clay Tables with Cuneiform writing on them, now the good thing about clay tablets and Cuneiform is that Ideologues like you and the Bureau of Meteorology can’t rewrite history on them, and the writings confirm the Great Floods in that period. I wonder if Ashurbanipal was a climate change denier. Possibly like me he had experienced climate change in his lifetime.
Anybody who has spent any time out on the Australian desert or on a farm will be able to tell you that water vapour plays a very significant part in Global Warming and Cooling. Even just wispy cloud can keep the heat in and a clear sky out on the desert will see temperatures fall from +40c to -2 in the space of a couple of hours. You may be surprised to learn that the CO2 levels do not change though. Another little gem for you, frost seldom occurs if you have cloud cover as the heat is retained by the clouds and cannot escape to space like it does if you have a clear sky.
You really should have gone outside that nice airconditioned office you worked in and gained some real-world experience and common sense.
Brian had developed, “making stuff up”, into an art form. Real scientists do research, analysis and publication; they don’t “make stuff up”.
Perhaps Brian can elaborate on his claim that he, “spent some of [his] time teaching University Professors about computers and how to analyse data”.
When? For how long? What type of computer. What sort of data? What software? What analysis?
Talk is cheap.
Brian is good at talking.
Karen
We await your advice as to what you did that makes you such an expert on all these matters. Your statement is correct I did as I claimed and when you even tell us what you did to justify all that taxpayer money and where you turned up each day to collect you taxpayer funded salary I might be interested in filling in a few blanks. As I previously explained to you, I built up a business in the computer industry, employed people and was able to sell the business and intellectual property we had developed when I was 50 and have not worked since then, so I have had plenty of time to read and study these matters. In the time since my retirement, I have been able to travel and attend conferences and learn quite a lot. Clearly you have not learned much as you still believe in this Global Warming Scam.
Fortunately for the world, Elon Musk and Donnald Trump are in the process of dismantling this Anthropogenic Global Warming Scam, a lot of people will be disappointed, they wont get their taxpayer funded flights in massive CO2 producing aircraft to COP and other things like the Paris Agreement, as the US Taxpayer is not going along for the ride.
Brian is very famous, if you are in doubt, just ask him. FIGJAM.
So why are you so ashamed of your career that you won’t even tell us what your qualifications or job role was. Nothing I have related is incorrect, now what did you do to justify retiring as the highest paid person in what I assume was a state public service or did I miss read that statement. Oh by the way did you have to wait on the public service list till you were 67 to make that goal.
What I can’t work out is how your parents were smart enough to name you Karen. Did they know something we don’t. Was it on your birth certificate or did they change it latter.
Brian’s public, ad hominem attacks are tiresome.
Recent forecasts of an imminent collapse of the AMOC are patently false.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/03/01/why-isnt-the-mainstream-media-reporting-that-ocean-circulation-is-doing-well/
Good news, the remnant of Alfred is going to drench the Murray Darling Basin.
ironicman, only if it turns west like they’re predicting.
Remember when it was never going to rain again and they built those Desalination Plants that have hardly been used. You folks in the Far East are still paying for them. At least the ones we built are being used in the Wonderful West as we don’t have and nice big rivers like you guys. Still running of Coal fired power stations most of the time though. I wonder what will happen when Collie is shut down.
Common sense prevails – at least somewhere. Mark Steyn has been vindicated in court with a ruling from a District of Columbia Superior Court on 4 March 2025.
The following is extracted from WUWT:
Steyn’s 2012 blog post criticizing Mann’s iconic “hockey stick” graph, a cornerstone of climate change narratives. Back in February 2024, a D.C. jury awarded Mann a symbolic $1 in compensatory damages and slapped Steyn with a jaw-dropping $1 million in punitive damages, alongside a similar $1,000 penalty for Rand Simberg of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). The awards, disproportionate and chilling, threatened to silence critics of Mann’s work and set a dangerous precedent for free speech.
But justice has prevailed! The court’s ruling not only slashes Steyn’s punitive damages to a reasonable $5,000 but also declares the original $1 million award unconstitutional—too excessive, too punitive, and out of step with the actual harm (or lack thereof) Mann suffered. This isn’t just a win for Steyn; it’s a victory for every skeptic, scientist, and citizen who dares to question orthodoxy in the public square. The $5,000 figure, aligned with the jury’s nominal $1 compensatory award, restores proportion and reaffirms that robust debate—however sharp—remains protected under the First Amendment.
Adding to the celebration, Mann has been ordered to pay over $500,000 in legal costs to National Review, Steyn’s co-defendant in the case. This award, rooted in D.C.’s Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law, recognizes the frivolous nature of Mann’s decade-long legal crusade against those who challenged his research.
Steyn’s post, while biting, was an opinion, not a factual falsehood, and the jury’s initial $1 million penalty seemed less about justice and more about punishing dissent. Today’s ruling overturns that injustice, ensuring that critics of public figures like Mann can speak without fear of financial ruin.
This moment isn’t just about numbers—it’s about principle. The reduction to $5,000 sends a clear signal: courts won’t tolerate weaponizing defamation lawsuits to silence debate. It’s a rebuke to Mann’s “lawfare” tactics, which have drained resources from Steyn, National Review, and CEI while raising millions in crowdfunding from supporters rallying for free speech. Now, those supporters can celebrate a hard-fought victory, knowing their voices helped tip the scales.
Steyn himself has weathered this storm with grit, representing himself in court and refusing to back down. His resilience, paired with the court’s wisdom, has preserved a critical space for scientific skepticism and public discourse. Meanwhile, the over $500,000 in legal costs awarded to National Review—and the potential for CEI file for and secure similar relief—underscores the absurdity of Mann’s claims and the toll they’ve taken on his opponents.
Common Sense prevails and yet the Hockey Stick that has been torn apart by so many still last time I looked remained on the IPCC web site.
Yet again we are Post Woke and Freedom of Speech will bring down these Global Warming Alarmists who LIE.
To Quote one of my favorites on these matters Will Happer.
The promotion of a false climate alarmism and of “dangerous” public policy began in the early 1990s, recalls legendary physicist and Chair of the CO2 Coalition Dr. William Happer in a recent interview by Hannes Sarv of the Freedom Institute.
Happer argues that climate is very important to humanity and that is not going to change. Therefore, understanding how climate works is also important. But as climate science has suffered greatly in recent decades due to a manic focus on the demonization of greenhouse gases, things are not that good, for the trend is all based on a lie. “It’s dangerous to make a policy on the basis of lies,” Happer says.
In the interview, Happer explains that Earth’s climate has always been in a state of flux. For instance, the current warming period follows the Little Ice Age, which ended in the 19th century. In other words, climate change is one of Earth’s natural processes, and the influence of humans on it should not be exaggerated. The discussion also covers the role of CO2 on Earth, its capacity to warm the climate, the significant costs associated with reducing it in order to go to Net Zero, and whether it is feasible for humans to completely stop using fossil fuels.
Must see interview can be viewed here.
https://www.freedom-research.org/p/exclusive-interview-with-prof-william?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
PS I bet you don’t hear about Mark Styne’s win on Their ABC tonight either.
‘ … its capacity to warm the climate …’
I heard a rumour that Happer thinks CO2 causes a bit of warming, what do you reckon?
Hooray …
‘The Albanese government’s ambitious green hydrogen plans have faced a harsh reality check as dozens of proposed projects have been quietly “archived”.
‘The government boasted of “more than 100 projects announced since 2019” in its latest National Hydrogen Strategy report, but many of these have since been scrapped.
‘At least 61 previously planned projects have been listed as “archived” according to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).’ (Sky News)
February temp number is up.
https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2025_v6.1_20x9-scaled-1.jpg?ssl=1
Who would have thought that Labors Green Dreams would not work. Well as long as you had not done high school level science you might.
Wonder how many FMC shareholders dollars were wasted on Twiggy’s efforts at virtue signalling Green Hydrogen. Finally, somebody must have explained the science and the maths to him as that has gone very quiet as well. Bet you won’t hear about any of this on Their ABC before the state elections, where we are being promised Green Steel in WA. Why the so-called conservatives are not calling them out prior to the State Elections I do not understand.
Dutton is waiting for the election to be called, green hydrogen is not a workable proposition and deserves ridicule.
Gosselin thinks climate is no longer on the agenda.
‘With the election of Donald Trump and the ongoing geopolitical conflicts, the climate issue has lost much relevance over the recent months. It’s exceedingly clear that people are much worried about other issues. Few people care about the climate issue.’ (Notrickszone)
Brian, is this judge’s ruling your idea of a “big win”?
“An award of punitive damages here remains appropriate given the reprehensibility of Mr. Steyn’s conduct.”
Karen you really don’t understand much about anything do you.
Courts in America are notoriously shall we biased towards the left.
Mr Steyn called out Mann for what he was a Liar and a Fraud now the important issue is that the world now knows Mann and his hockey stick graph for what it actually was “fraudulent”. Because he did this in a little bit offensive way is one thing the real issue is that he called out Mann.
Have you even heard of Stephen McIntyre, BSc (mathematics) MA (philosophy, politics, and economics) Alma mater University of Toronto University of Oxford or Ross McKitrick (he has a PHD so in your eyes are both very intelligent) and they totally demolished Mann’s Hockey Stick science. Steyn was just a little boisterous in calling Mann out but was 100% correct about Mann and his science. Needless to say the Left sprang to Manns defence as they always do, however although sites like Wikipedia will tell you Mann did nothing wrong, the fact that Mann in the tradition of the left had hidden the true data to hide the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age which even the IPCC originally used to accept. However, that disappeared from their web site some time back, also as I understand from one of my associates, so has Mann’s Hokey stick. So I would say over all it was a massive win for both logic common sense and Steyn.
I would recommend that you read up about what happened to Dr Peter Ridd who called out a Queensland University and what he said was the truth, he was fired from his position for offending his colleges by telling the truth, so the court ruled that his dismissal was valid even though all he did was tell the truth.
The right of politics has to constantly battle against issues like this and the Mann Hokey Stick.
“McIntyre has been described as a “persistent amateur who had no credentials in applied science before stepping into the global warming debate in 2003” and has been a prominent critic of temperature records that suggest increasing global temperatures over the past 1000 years.”
https://www.desmog.com/steve-mcintyre/
McIntyre has been described in a many ways that hardly deboonk his criticisms.
Hansen, on the other hand has been called a political fraudster who lied about the future sea level rise so many times we could nominate him to the climate CAGWist hall of fame prehumously.
Look, wet feet (3mm a year mid ocean, less here) won’t kill us. But energy poverty surely kills. That’s the order we march in, Karen.
Karen we still await your qualifications, job role and some indication of your intelligence, as we know you cant read any references you are sent, true to form for a bigot you immediately turn to denigrating people without even reading the peer reviewed information that they may have published or confirming the validity of the left wing nutter spouting it. What are his qualifications, I suspect similar to yours.
For somebody is is totally unqualified in your eyes and that is why I listed his qualifications, both he and Ross McKitrick did a dammed good job of totally and utterly destroying Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick, so much so that your sacred IPCC had to remove it from their web site.
Now send us your qualifications as it is sounding more and more that it is you who is ignorant of the scientific process. Instead of finding some left wing nut jobs opinion which nobody believes, why don’t you try reading the SCIENTIFIC papers dismantling Michael Man by Stephen and Ross. When you have done that please come back and I will give some references to some more real science and not some self proclaimed left wing nut job who is trying to make a career out of Bigotry and shooting the messenger.
A quick skill test for you Karen, Do you know who John Muir was and what was claimed about him by his major de-bunker.
Brian, I still await your qualifications, job role and some indication of your intelligence (or lack of) l, as I know you cant read any information you are sent, true to form for a low intellect person, you immediately turn to denigrating people without even reading the peer reviewed information that they may have published or confirming the validity of the right wing nutter spouting it.
This infantile behaviour is becoming so tedious that I suggest ignoring the Google AI Chatbox as nothing delights it more than to see people wasting everyone’s time in responding. Grow up or go away but please stop insulting Jennifer’s attempts to put forward topics that invite serious and thoughtful comment.
Here is some serious and thoughtful comment…
https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/ipa-climate-change-book-includes-derided-authors,19282
Peter as one of the perpetrators of this offense I agree with you, one continues on with the hope you can get people to engage in rational discussion, but clearly it is a waste of time. I will desist.
Brian
Peter Etherington-Smith (MSc Petroleum Engineering (Imperial)); Jennifer’s post that claim to put forward topics that invite serious and thoughtful comments are not always worthy.
More often than not, they are exposed as, how should I put this politely… incorrect.
All one has to do is follow the money. And the money leads to the fossil fuel industry.
Brian, your response is well taken and appreciated, it is easy to get sucked in hoping for a better outcome but being disappointed and can happen to anyone.
A tedious and infantile response from Peter Etherington-Smith (MSc Petroleum Engineering (Imperial)), that adds little to serious and thoughtful comment.