How much of this from the climate change religion has proven to be true?


Quote:

Sun 22 Feb 2004 Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters. A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer,warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world. The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents. The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority. Climate change ‘should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern’, say the authors,Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network. An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is ‘plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately’, they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions. Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change. Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change. Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon’s dire warnings could no longer be ignored. You’ve got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you’ve got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It’s pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,’ said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace. Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain.By 2020 ‘catastrophic’ shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated. Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. ‘We don’t know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,’ he said. More here- https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

Interesting that they got it so wrong.
Gullible people like Monk and Al Gore fell for it.

Quote:

50m environmental refugees by end of decade, UN warns Wed 12 Oct 2005 Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade, experts warn today. Janos Bogardi, director of the Institute for Environment and Human Security at the United Nations University in Bonn, said creeping environmental deterioration already displaced up to 10 million people a year, and the situation would get worse. "There are well-founded fears that the number of people fleeing untenable environmental conditions may grow exponentially as the world experiences the effects of climate change," Dr Bogardi said. "This new category of refugee needs to find a place in international agreements. We need to better anticipate support requirements, similar to those of people fleeing other unviable situations." Tony Oliver-Smith, a natural hazards expert at the University of Florida, said: "Around the world vulnerability is on the increase, due to the rapid development of megacities in coastal areas. Combine this trend with rising sea levels and the growing number and intensity of storms and it is a recipe for a disaster, with enormous potential to create waves of environment-driven migration." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/oct/12/naturaldisasters.climatechange1

Where are these 50 million environmental refugees the experts claimed we would have by the end of the decade?

If Sydney gets its first recorded Cyclone - then you know the world has its head down the toilet trying to vomit the pollutants in its system up.

Mankind is helpless in times of universal cyclical change.

I think there has been 5 mass extinctions on earth in the past, we're probably over due for another one.

moses wrote on Mar 9^th, 2021 at 4:18pm:

Mankind is helpless in times of universal cyclical change. I think there has been 5 mass extinctions on earth in the past, we're probably over due for another one.

True. There's the 'Meteor' extinction - which the Military love, because it gives them an excuse to make Nukes, just in case they have to send em into outer space to destroy an oncoming meteor.

Then there are a few 'Methane' and other gaseous Extinctions (95% apparently). Greenies like these ones because they represent Pollution extinction.

As life was primordial, the earth suffered another mass extinction by freezing entirely over for millions of years. Guess the sun dimmed a bit?

Now we have another potential mass extinction via one of the planet's own 'life-forms'... humans.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 8^th, 2021 at 9:18am:

Interesting that they got it so wrong. Gullible people like Monk and Al Gore fell for it.

When the predicted outcomes don't match the observed results the science used to predict that outcome is bullcrap.

When the data doesn't match the predictions - change the data.

I 100% believe in agw and the need to decarbonise the economy, BUT....most of the modelling is total garbage.

I also think the more pressing matter is to stop the plastification of the ocean.

Gordon wrote on Mar 9^th, 2021 at 8:52pm:

I 100% believe in agw and the need to decarbonise the economy, BUT....most of the modelling is total garbage. I also think the more pressing matter is to stop the plastification of the ocean.

I am not convinced on the global warming stuff it has many problems that people ignore while claiming the science is settled. If the predicted outcomes don't match observed results and aren't even close it's absurd to claim the science is settled as the only thing that is settled with that is the science used for predicted outcomes is garbage and must be thrown out.

I am not convinced with decarbonising the economy it's buzzwords used by those from the global warming religion. If we look at Organic chemistry it deals with carbon compounds.

Quote:

Organic chemistry Organic chemistry is a branch of chemistry that studies the structure, properties and reactions of organic compounds, which contain carbon in covalent bonding.[1] Organic compounds form the basis of all earthly lifeand constitute the majority of known chemicals. The bonding patterns of carbon, with its valence of four—formal single, double, and triple bonds, plus structures with delocalized electrons—make the array of organic compounds structurally diverse, and their range of applications enormous. They form the basis of, or are constituents of, many commercial products including pharmaceuticals; petrochemicals and agrichemicals, and products made from them including lubricants, solvents; plastics; fuels and explosives. The study of organic chemistry overlaps organometallic chemistry and biochemistry, but also with medicinal chemistry, polymer chemistry, and materials science.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_chemistry

I think we should strive to reduce pollution which is something the global warming cultists never mention.

Hansen (the father of AGW) 2011 -

"The basic physics underlying this global warming, the greenhouse gas effect, is simple. An increase in gases such as CO2 makes the atmosphere more opaque at infrared wavelengths. This added opacity causes the planet’s heat radiation to space to arise from higher, colder levels in the atmosphere, thus reducing emission of heat energy to space. "

https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1140

Opacity -


https://i.ibb.co/QfTqJ5B/ghge-2-optical-thickness-of-atmosphere-is-unchanged.png

There is no sudden drastic change in opacity.

https://i.ibb.co/0QGsPMn/ghge-3-OLR-1985-2018.png

Out going radiation (OLR) has increased not decreased.

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 8^th, 2021 at 10:34am:

Quote: 50m environmental refugees by end of decade, UN warns Wed 12 Oct 2005 Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade, experts warn today. Janos Bogardi, director of the Institute for Environment and Human Security at the United Nations University in Bonn, said creeping environmental deterioration already displaced up to 10 million people a year, and the situation would get worse. "There are well-founded fears that the number of people fleeing untenable environmental conditions may grow exponentially as the world experiences the effects of climate change," Dr Bogardi said. "This new category of refugee needs to find a place in international agreements. We need to better anticipate support requirements, similar to those of people fleeing other unviable situations." Tony Oliver-Smith, a natural hazards expert at the University of Florida, said: "Around the world vulnerability is on the increase, due to the rapid development of megacities in coastal areas. Combine this trend with rising sea levels and the growing number and intensity of storms and it is a recipe for a disaster, with enormous potential to create waves of environment-driven migration." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/oct/12/naturaldisasters.climatechange1 Where are these 50 million environmental refugees the experts claimed we would have by the end of the decade?

Did you post this as an example of how gullible climate "skeptics" are?

freediver wrote on Mar 10^th, 2021 at 9:25pm:

Did you post this as an example of how gullible climate "skeptics" are?

That would only be the true believers. ;)

What do you think the UN actually warned 17 years ago?

If the IPCC where serious about cleaning up the planet the first things they should have done is

1. Stop deforestation (Rain Forrest)

2. Plastification of the ocean

This idea that CO2 is the bad guy and we will all have to pay billions on the stock exchange to save ourselves is nothing short of stupidity.

Anyone who believes those circulation models is stupid especially now after 30 years that empirical data (observations of nature) have proven the models wrong and has shown that they are showing nearly twice the warming we have experienced.

If CO2 affected the temperature of the Earth and caused a greenhouse effect it would be in our history, there's a good place to start.

Because the science of AGW doesn't hold up they have had to conjure up all sorts of doomsday scenarios which have not come to fruition now that we have past the use by date.

After covid-19 global warming will be the next big item to get ticked off, in other words we will have to join up and pay billions for the air we breathe.

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 8:00am:

What do you think the UN actually warned 17 years ago?

Surely that is the wrong question. The UN is a framework that according to them merely repeats the peer-reviewd studies. Although sometimes they don't use peer-reviewed studies. So it is the "climate scientists" who should he held to account.

But her we go -

"The report, entitled Climate Change and Human Health – Risks and Responses, is a study of how climate change has an impact on human health, from influencing weather patterns and air pollution to causing water and food contamination.

It is co-authored by the World Health Organization (WHO), the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and was launched at the 9th Session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Milan.

The report says climate change was responsible for 150,000 deaths, 2.4 per cent of the world’s cases of diarrhoea and 2 per cent of all malaria cases in 2000."

"Natural disasters, the lion's share of them weather-related catastrophes, cost the world over $60 billion in 2003, up from around $55 billion the year before, and are part of a worrying trend that is being linked with climate change, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) said today."

Shouldn't costs be increased by GDP? Shouldn't 1 year be a weather difference?

"Many low-altitude ski resorts face economic hardship and even ruin due to global warming, with the internationally celebrated Austrian town of Kitzbuehl threatened with extinction as a winter sports resort, according to a new study released today by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)."

[color=#ff0000]There is a plenty happening in Kitzbühel for the winter 2020 ski season. That is the correct spelling.
https://www.ski-austria.com/blog/kitzbuhel-2020-ski-season/

https://news.un.org/en/search/climate/date/2003

And that is just page one of eight

Quote:

Surely that is the wrong question.

I was responding to the title of the article quoted, which was clearly intended to catch out climate "skeptics" in an obvious lie.

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 2:15pm:

I was responding to the title of the article quoted, which was clearly intended to catch out climate "skeptics" in an obvious lie.

Crap.

"Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade, experts warn today. Janos Bogardi, director of the Institute for Environment and Human Security at the United Nations University in Bonn, said creeping environmental deterioration already displaced up to 10 million people a year, and the situation would get worse."

oh you mean it was a stalking horse for the UN? The UN tried a deliberate lie? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

and 17 years ago from 2005 would make it next year. ;)

Thanks for trying to tell me what I was responding to Lee. But here it is in black and white.


freediver wrote on Mar 10^th, 2021 at 9:25pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 8th, 2021 at 10:34am: Quote: 50m environmental refugees by end of decade, UN warns Wed 12 Oct 2005 Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade, experts warn today. Janos Bogardi, director of the Institute for Environment and Human Security at the United Nations University in Bonn, said creeping environmental deterioration already displaced up to 10 million people a year, and the situation would get worse. "There are well-founded fears that the number of people fleeing untenable environmental conditions may grow exponentially as the world experiences the effects of climate change," Dr Bogardi said. "This new category of refugee needs to find a place in international agreements. We need to better anticipate support requirements, similar to those of people fleeing other unviable situations." Tony Oliver-Smith, a natural hazards expert at the University of Florida, said: "Around the world vulnerability is on the increase, due to the rapid development of megacities in coastal areas. Combine this trend with rising sea levels and the growing number and intensity of storms and it is a recipe for a disaster, with enormous potential to create waves of environment-driven migration." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/oct/12/naturaldisasters.climatechange1 Where are these 50 million environmental refugees the experts claimed we would have by the end of the decade? Did you post this as an example of how gullible climate "skeptics" are?

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 2:36pm:

Thanks for trying to tell me what I was responding to Lee. But here it is in black and white.

Yes petal. The garudian - So it must be true. Ergo The UN through its University published that 50 million figure.

So what happened?

Well The UN disappeared it.

And since? Well the American Association for the Advancement of Science pushed the 50 million claim out to 2020.

"Fifty million "environmental refugees" will flood into the global north by 2020, fleeing food shortages sparked by climate change, experts warned at a major science conference that ended here Monday.

"In 2020, the UN has projected that we will have 50 million environmental refugees," Cristina Tirado, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)."

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/50-million-environmental-refugees-by-2020-experts-say-20110222-1b31i.html

Also reported at PhysOrg news -

https://phys.org/news/2011-02-million-environmental-refugees-experts.html

Via the wayback machine -

https://web.archive.org/web/20080501091406/http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/fifty-million-climate-refugees-by-2010

You are welcome.

Quote:

50m environmental refugees by end of decade, UN warns

Would you describe this as an accurate statement, or a demonstration of the gullibility of climate "skeptics"?

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 4:00pm:

Quote: 50m environmental refugees by end of decade, UN warns Would you describe this as an accurate statement, or a demonstration of the gullibility of climate "skeptics"?

It is the gullibility of climate alarmists petal. They made a claim. It has not turned out to be true. It was never likely to be true. They believed.

Much as you want to put it onto the "skeptics".

Even the AAAS prediction has been shown to be false. But maybe they were targeting "skeptics" as well.;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 4:32pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 4:00pm: Quote: 50m environmental refugees by end of decade, UN warns Would you describe this as an accurate statement, or a demonstration of the gullibility of climate "skeptics"? It is the gullibility of climate alarmists petal. They made a claim. It has not turned out to be true. It was never likely to be true. They believed. Much as you want to put it onto the "skeptics". Even the AAAS prediction has been shown to be false. But maybe they were targeting "skeptics" as well.;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Do you understand what is being said in the quote, or do I need to explain it to you?

FD,
what is a climate skeptic?

Do you mean someone who doesn't believe in
global warming causing an apocalypse?

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 6:37pm:

Do you understand what is being said in the quote, or do I need to explain it to you?

I know what it means. If you think it means the UN were dissembling and didn't believe their prediction say so.

Nothing to do with "skeptics" or "believers". ;)

Bobby. wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 6:41pm:

FD, what is a climate skeptic? Do you mean someone who doesn't believe in global warming causing an apocalypse?

Someone who rejects mainstream science out of ignorance and fear.

lee wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 7:15pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 6:37pm: Do you understand what is being said in the quote, or do I need to explain it to you? I know what it means. If you think it means the UN were dissembling and didn't believe their prediction say so. Nothing to do with "skeptics" or "believers". ;)

Good. Does that mean you won't have any trouble giving a straight answer?

Would you describe this as an accurate statement, or a demonstration of the gullibility of climate "skeptics"?


Quote:

50m environmental refugees by end of decade, UN warns

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 7:15pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 6:41pm: FD, what is a climate skeptic? Do you mean someone who doesn't believe in global warming causing an apocalypse? Someone who rejects mainstream science out of ignorance and fear.

OK so let's keep it simple -

Someone who believes that global warming will cause an apocalypse.

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 7:16pm:

Would you describe this as an accurate statement, or a demonstration of the gullibility of climate "skeptics"? Quote: 50m environmental refugees by end of decade, UN warns

1. It is not an accurate statement as it has proven untrue.
2. It is not a demonstration of the gullibility of climate "skeptics". Unless you label the UN as climate "skeptics".
3. It is a demonstration of the flawed "science".

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 7:15pm:

Someone who rejects mainstream science out of ignorance and fear.

Ok. Where does that leave me. I have shown the climate science as espoused by James Hansen, the nominal modern father of climate science.

""The basic physics underlying this global warming, the greenhouse gas effect, is simple. An increase in gases such as CO2 makes the atmosphere more opaque at infrared wavelengths. This added opacity causes the planet’s heat radiation to space to arise from higher, colder levels in the atmosphere, thus reducing emission of heat energy to space. "

https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.1140  Hansen et al 2011

https://i.ibb.co/QfTqJ5B/ghge-2-optical-thickness-of-atmosphere-is-unchanged.png

There is no sudden drastic change in opacity.

https://i.ibb.co/0QGsPMn/ghge-3-OLR-1985-2018.png

Out going radiation (OLR) has increased not decreased.

Ergo AGW as espoused by Hansen is debunked. Now that is mainstream science.

And I have no fear of AGW. 0.8C? it changes more than that overnight and daily. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 7:28pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 13th, 2021 at 7:16pm: Would you describe this as an accurate statement, or a demonstration of the gullibility of climate "skeptics"? Quote: 50m environmental refugees by end of decade, UN warns 1. It is not an accurate statement as it has proven untrue. 2. It is not a demonstration of the gullibility of climate "skeptics". Unless you label the UN as climate "skeptics". 3. It is a demonstration of the flawed "science".

Try reading it again. You do not realise what it is actually saying. Perhaps you realise this, seeing as you studiously avoid including it in your quotes. Here it is again for you:


Quote:

50m environmental refugees by end of decade, UN warns

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 4:00pm:

Quote: 50m environmental refugees by end of decade, UN warns Would you describe this as an accurate statement, or a demonstration of the gullibility of climate "skeptics"?

Untestable hyperbole.
All 'climate prediction' are.

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 7:51pm:

Quote: 50m environmental refugees by end of decade, UN warns

"Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade, experts warn today."
as defined by the UN.

So tell us where these environmental refugees are. Note not fleeing from war, not fleeing from short term drought just those to which they referred. ;)

But let's look at them individually.

Rising sea levels? Zero have gained movement because of rising sea level. The Indian and Pacific ocean islands are growing according to expert evidence (Kench).

Desertification - a 2017 publication says that Desertification threatens lives and livelihoods. Not that they have already occurred.

http://www.perryinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2017/01/Environmental-Refugees-Debate-Nov-Dec-2016.pdf

Shrinking freshwater supplies? I can't find any evidence of refugees linked to this. You?

I suppose we cannot expect climate "skeptics" to realise they are being duped if they do not even realise they are being told something.

freediver wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 10:21pm:

I suppose we cannot expect climate "skeptics" to realise they are being duped if they do not even realise they are being told something.

Poor petal. Can't even explain his position. Such a numpty. Just repeats his mantra "skeptics are gullible". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Sure I can. This:


Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 8^th, 2021 at 10:34am:

Quote: 50m environmental refugees by end of decade, UN warns Wed 12 Oct 2005 Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade, experts warn today. Janos Bogardi, director of the Institute for Environment and Human Security at the United Nations University in Bonn, said creeping environmental deterioration already displaced up to 10 million people a year, and the situation would get worse. "There are well-founded fears that the number of people fleeing untenable environmental conditions may grow exponentially as the world experiences the effects of climate change," Dr Bogardi said. "This new category of refugee needs to find a place in international agreements. We need to better anticipate support requirements, similar to those of people fleeing other unviable situations." Tony Oliver-Smith, a natural hazards expert at the University of Florida, said: "Around the world vulnerability is on the increase, due to the rapid development of megacities in coastal areas. Combine this trend with rising sea levels and the growing number and intensity of storms and it is a recipe for a disaster, with enormous potential to create waves of environment-driven migration." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/oct/12/naturaldisasters.climatechange1 Where are these 50 million environmental refugees the experts claimed we would have by the end of the decade?

is a classic example of the gullibility of climate "skeptics" and you cannot figure out why.

freediver wrote on Mar 14^th, 2021 at 7:06pm:

Sure I can. This: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 8th, 2021 at 10:34am: Quote: 50m environmental refugees by end of decade, UN warns Wed 12 Oct 2005 Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade, experts warn today. Janos Bogardi, director of the Institute for Environment and Human Security at the United Nations University in Bonn, said creeping environmental deterioration already displaced up to 10 million people a year, and the situation would get worse. "There are well-founded fears that the number of people fleeing untenable environmental conditions may grow exponentially as the world experiences the effects of climate change," Dr Bogardi said. "This new category of refugee needs to find a place in international agreements. We need to better anticipate support requirements, similar to those of people fleeing other unviable situations." Tony Oliver-Smith, a natural hazards expert at the University of Florida, said: "Around the world vulnerability is on the increase, due to the rapid development of megacities in coastal areas. Combine this trend with rising sea levels and the growing number and intensity of storms and it is a recipe for a disaster, with enormous potential to create waves of environment-driven migration." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/oct/12/naturaldisasters.climatechange1 Where are these 50 million environmental refugees the experts claimed we would have by the end of the decade? is a classic example of the gullibility of climate "skeptics" and you cannot figure out why.

You are throwing  the switch to 'Gandalf', fd.

How many pages will it take for you NOT to say what you mean?

Can you spot anything there that might make climate skeptics appear gullible?

Monk needs to watch this then apologise:

https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6241858863001?utm_campaign=audience-mobile&utm_content=Malcolm+Turnbull+is+%27a+traitor+to+the+nation%27&utm_medium=Discovery&utm_source=Outbrain&utm_term=The+Daily+Caller


'So much for all those global warming predictions'

19/03/2021|6min

watch the video:

Sky News host Rowan Dean says record cold snaps and rainfall globally are making the continued "global warming predictions" and alarmism "laughable or criminal".

"I drove home last night from the studio through an absolute deluge; trees down, roads flooded, swollen rivers, and a thousand waterfalls along the motorway," he said.

"Naturally, I only had one thought that kept replaying over and over in my mind. That was of course one of the key climate change predictions from Tim Flannery from the beginning of this century, and just one of the many, many predictions that was so wrong it is either laughable or criminal.

"Indeed, it was also predicted that by 2020, children in Europe and Australia wouldn't know what snow was anymore. This prediction was repeated as recently as 2014 by the New York Times who postulated 'the end of snow?'."

The northern hemisphere winter this year was one of the “coldest in decades”, with experts in Finland suggesting record snowfall will likely not even melt through summer.

"Who can forget over in America, it was so cold the windmills froze, plunging the state into blackouts with people tragically dying simply trying to stay warm? More cold weather is due again this week in Texas," Mr Dean said.

"Yet this morning in Melbourne's CBD, the climate crazies were out in force again with Extinction Rebellion protesters causing peak-hour chaos, blocking the intersection of Flinders and Swanston streets with a moving truck.

"That would be, of course, a large fossil-fuel-powered truck emitting an abundance of carbon emissions, but what's a little hypocrisy when you're saving the planet from imminent Armageddon?"

Mr Dean pointed to the high level of emissions from China, noting it has “over 3,000 coal-fires power plants built or being planned”.

"Instead, our leaders are hellbent on paying lip service to an unproven scientific hypothesis that CO2 is heating the globe to levels that threaten mankind - and even the planet's - existence when the evidence of our eyes and the tips of our fingers and noses is often completely the opposite.

"As far as I can tell, major economic decisions across the planet are predicated on a theory from two decades ago – if not longer - that doesn't stack up, for the obvious reasons that so many predicted outcomes have not occurred."

Quote:

The northern hemisphere winter this year was one of the “coldest in decades”, with experts in Finland suggesting record snowfall will likely not even melt through summer.

Does more snow mean it was colder or warmer Bobby?

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2021 at 1:23pm:

Quote: The northern hemisphere winter this year was one of the “coldest in decades”, with experts in Finland suggesting record snowfall will likely not even melt through summer. Does more snow mean it was colder or warmer Bobby?

Climate change global warming fanatics like Monk
will say the extra snow is caused by the warmer air
creating more clouds which then turns into snow.

Normal people just say that - it's because it's colder.

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2021 at 1:23pm:

Does more snow mean it was colder or warmer Bobby?

I would love to see the peer-reviewed paper that says it snows when it is warmer. ;)

lee wrote on Mar 20^th, 2021 at 2:52pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 20th, 2021 at 1:23pm: Does more snow mean it was colder or warmer Bobby? I would love to see the peer-reviewed paper that says it snows when it is warmer. ;)

Monk will find it.   ;D

Ajax wrote on Mar 13^th, 2021 at 10:07am:

If the IPCC where serious about cleaning up the planet the first things they should have done is 1. Stop deforestation (Rain Forrest) 2. Plastification of the ocean This idea that CO2 is the bad guy and we will all have to pay billions on the stock exchange to save ourselves is nothing short of stupidity. Anyone who believes those circulation models is stupid especially now after 30 years that empirical data (observations of nature) have proven the models wrong and has shown that they are showing nearly twice the warming we have experienced. If CO2 affected the temperature of the Earth and caused a greenhouse effect it would be in our history, there's a good place to start. Because the science of AGW doesn't hold up they have had to conjure up all sorts of doomsday scenarios which have not come to fruition now that we have past the use by date. After covid-19 global warming will be the next big item to get ticked off, in other words we will have to join up and pay billions for the air we breathe.

Exactly. But let's not forget the elephant in the room - population control.  But this is at odds with the mantra of the acolytes of the Cult of Warming.

did Greta see that report??.... or has she finally found an interest in boys?

lee wrote on Mar 20^th, 2021 at 2:52pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 20th, 2021 at 1:23pm: Does more snow mean it was colder or warmer Bobby? I would love to see the peer-reviewed paper that says it snows when it is warmer. ;)

It's actually common knowledge in cold places. Ignorant people, typically from warmer climates, tend to associate snow with cold weather, meaning weather that is colder than where they live, then simplify this association to assume that the colder it is, the more snow falls. Then they hear of an increase in snow fall in a particularly cold place, and ignorantly equate this with colder weather.

I'll give you a simple tip, if you want to now the temperature, look at the temperature, not the snowfall.

freediver wrote on Mar 21^st, 2021 at 8:46am:

lee wrote on Mar 20th, 2021 at 2:52pm: freediver wrote on Mar 20th, 2021 at 1:23pm: Does more snow mean it was colder or warmer Bobby? I would love to see the peer-reviewed paper that says it snows when it is warmer. ;) It's actually common knowledge in cold places. Ignorant people, typically from warmer climates, tend to associate snow with cold weather, meaning weather that is colder than where they live, then simplify this association to assume that the colder it is, the more snow falls. Then they hear of an increase in snow fall in a particularly cold place, and ignorantly equate this with colder weather. I'll give you a simple tip, if you want to know the temperature, look at the temperature, not the snowfall.

Monologuing again FD, you should stop and read what you're thinking and writing now and again.

Nothing short of dribble....LOL

Is there anything in there you disagree with Ajax?

Just how much warmer than say 10C? Seeing as it falls from height where it is cooler. ;)

Does AGW affect the temperature at which it snows?

;D

---

Have they got the figures for 2020-2021, yet? I wanna see how much colder things got  in that time period when much of the cars were off the road.

lee wrote on Mar 21^st, 2021 at 12:09pm:

Just how much warmer than say 10C? Seeing as it falls from height where it is cooler. ;) Does AGW affect the temperature at which it snows?

Hot and humid here in Qld. In the meantime, bitterly cold throughout February in the USA. Normally, hot conditions on one side of the planet would mean cold conditions on the polar opposite of the planet.

Quote:

Climate change predictions 17 years ago

Quote:

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could

This was the worst case scenario, They needed a plan in case it happened but the probability of worst case is always low.

This outcome was dependant on abrupt climate change which was always a possibility but not very likely. Many here are taking this completely out of context.

Have you noticed that we now have a 1,000 year flood every 5 years and a 100 year flood or fire every other season ?

I have never in my life seen the sort of rain we have had in the last 2 months, its a completely new one. Maybe one of those 100 year events ?

Dnarever wrote on Mar 16^th, 2022 at 8:51am:

Have you noticed that we now have a 1,000 year flood every 5 years and a 100 year flood or fire every other season ?

No which area. Surely not Brisbane.

http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/flood/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml

Notice there were more floods in the 1800's. This flood (2022) reached 3.8M less than the 1974 5.5m flood and  less than the 2011 4.5m flood.  1893 remains the top. So using floods as a metric they are declining with increasing CO2.

Brisbane rainfall 1893 February 1025mm
                           1974 January 871.8mm
                           2022 February 887mm

Using rainfall 1893  is still tops. 16 mm difference between 1974 and 2022. And there was a station change.


Dnarever wrote on Mar 16^th, 2022 at 8:51am:

Have you noticed that we now have a 1,000 year flood every 5 years and a 100 year flood or fire every other season ?

So you don't know anything about statistics. Who knew? One in 1,000 means it has one chance in 1,000 each year. The next year it stays at one in 1,000.

19 floods in 72 years and 16 floods in 112 year up to 2017, ;)

It is now getting on to 14 years since our out of control fires on the mountain range here. I dare say that we have control of our fires. Our flood mitigation is about as good as it can get. These one-in-one-hundred year events are just getting reported upon more often because of the greater access of the media.

lee wrote on Mar 16^th, 2022 at 3:26pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 16th, 2022 at 8:51am: Have you noticed that we now have a 1,000 year flood every 5 years and a 100 year flood or fire every other season ? No which area. Surely not Brisbane. http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/flood/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml Notice there were more floods in the 1800's. This flood (2022) reached 3.8M less than the 1974 5.5m flood and  less than the 2011 4.5m flood.  1893 remains the top. So using floods as a metric they are declining with increasing CO2. Brisbane rainfall 1893 February 1025mm                            1974 January 871.8mm                            2022 February 887mm Using rainfall 1893  is still tops. 16 mm difference between 1974 and 2022. And there was a station change. Dnarever wrote on Mar 16th, 2022 at 8:51am: Have you noticed that we now have a 1,000 year flood every 5 years and a 100 year flood or fire every other season ? So you don't know anything about statistics. Who knew? One in 1,000 means it has one chance in 1,000 each year. The next year it stays at one in 1,000. 19 floods in 72 years and 16 floods in 112 year up to 2017, ;)

Quote:

No which area. Surely not Brisbane.

You make the point against yourself again.

No not Brisbane. You know as unusual as it was but it flooded right down the east coat with record levels in many locations. Places that had never previously flooded found themselves under water.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 16^th, 2022 at 11:23pm:

You know as unusual as it was but it flooded right down the east coat with record levels in many locations. Places that had never previously flooded found themselves under water.

Which places? Lismore?

https://lismore.nsw.gov.au/files/Lismore_Flood_Events_1870-2017.pdf

Or perhaps you have somewhere else in mind but don't want to say.

Or perhaps it was Casion? There were claims it was the first time evah. But -

"There were three floods on the Richmond in 1861. Then, in 1863, Casino took the brunt of the flooding, with Lismore again being inundated in 1864. "

http://www.richhistory.org.au/lismore-history/district-history/floods/

Gordon wrote on Mar 9^th, 2021 at 8:52pm:

I 100% believe in agw and the need to decarbonise the economy, BUT....most of the modelling is total garbage. I also think the more pressing matter is to stop the plastification of the ocean.

Simple observation ..... the biggest recorded weather/rain event & subsequent flooding on the Australian east coast was in 1893.

No floods have surpassed it in 129 years.

There is more carbon dioxide in the oceans than the terrestrial biosphere.


Quote:

The ocean, with around 38,000 gigatons (Gt) of carbon (1 gigaton = 1 billion tons), contains 16 times as much carbon as the terrestrial biosphere, that is all plant and the underlying soils on our planet, and around 60 times as much as the pre-industrial atmosphere,

https://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/ocean-chemistry/co2-reservoir/#:~:text=The%20ocean%2C%20with%20around%2038%2C000,before%20people%20began%20to%20drastically

What is removed from the atmosphere is replaced by that in the oceans.

AGW isn't the problem.

I would agree that the biggest problem is the amount of plastics entering our oceans, especially from over populated 3rd world countries & China that use their rivers & oceans as refuse tips.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 16^th, 2022 at 8:51am:

Quote: Climate change predictions 17 years ago [quote]The document predicts that abrupt climate change could

This was the worst case scenario, They needed a plan in case it happened but the probability of worst case is always low.

This outcome was dependant on abrupt climate change which was always a possibility but not very likely. Many here are taking this completely out of context.

Have you noticed that we now have a 1,000 year flood every 5 years and a 100 year flood or fire every other season ?

I have never in my life seen the sort of rain we have had in the last 2 months, its a completely new one. Maybe one of those 100 year events ?[/quote]

No such animal as a 1,00 year flood.

Records have only been kept on this continent since the mid to late 1800's.

Dominic Perrotette & the Mayor of Ballina(500 year)  are morons for saying such.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 16^th, 2022 at 8:51am:

Quote: Climate change predictions 17 years ago [quote]The document predicts that abrupt climate change could

This was the worst case scenario, They needed a plan in case it happened but the probability of worst case is always low.

This outcome was dependant on abrupt climate change which was always a possibility but not very likely. Many here are taking this completely out of context.

Have you noticed that we now have a 1,000 year flood every 5 years and a 100 year flood or fire every other season ?

I have never in my life seen the sort of rain we have had in the last 2 months, its a completely new one. Maybe one of those 100 year events ?[/quote]

That's you - but records show that even what we have had this year hasn't topped the deluge in 1893.

In fact the 2 floods we had here in January & March did not exceed the levels on the 1974 flood.

The same in Brisbane.

Lismore should have been shifted to higher ground decades ago.

They've had 127 floods in 132 years.

With no floods having surpassed the 1893 floods perhaps we need to look at it.

According the the IPCC CO2 didn't start having an effect until after 1950. So the 1893 floods were a part of natural variation. So CO2 is inducing lesser floods - or not. ;)

When the observed results don't match the predicted results there is a serious problem with the science.


Quote:

30 Years Ago Officials Predicted The Maldives Would Be Swallowed By The Sea. It Didn’t Happen Environmental officials warned 30 years ago the Maldives could be completely covered by water due to global warming-induced sea level rise. That didn’t happen. The Indian Ocean did not swallow the Maldives island chain as predicted by government officials in the 1980s. In September 1988, the Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported a “gradual rise in average sea level is threatening to completely cover this Indian Ocean nation of 1196 small islands within the next 30 years,” based on predictions made by government officials. Then-Environmental Affairs Director Hussein Shihab told AFP “an estimated rise of 20 to 30 centimetres in the next 20 to 40 years could be ‘catastrophic’ for most of the islands, which were no more than a metre above sea level.” The article went on to suggest the Maldives, along with its 200,000 inhabitants, could “end” sooner than expected if drinking water supplies dry up by 1992 “as predicted.” Today, more than 417,000 people live in the Maldives. “Call Noah and have him build another Ark,” Daniel Turner, executive director of the pro-energy group Power the Future, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Bring out the Coast Guard. Send all the boogie boards and floaties you can find for the Maldives is going down,” Turner said sarcastically. https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/21/maldives-global-warming-sea-level/

As we saw with Indonesia earthquakes cause by plate tectonics have a larger influence on sea levels.

---

.

---

A kid who wagged high school......

---

I have been making casual note of the environmental issue since I was about 10 years old. Ever since the news about how unliveable the world would be 30 years later, I was scared into thinking that we had to act and find ways to live sustainably. However, with only a few changes taking place to reduce waste and pollution, and a world that is 3 billion more than when I was 10 years old, I figure that the only way that we need to act is to keep the country clean, cut pollution and power wastage. And we should make sure our biodiversity needs to be maintained.

Quote:

We Have Five Years To Save Ourselves From Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says Jan 15, 2018,12:03am EST This article is more than 5 years old. People have the misapprehension that we can recover from this state just by reducing carbon emissions, Anderson said in an appearance at the University of Chicago. Recovery is all but impossible, he argued, without a World War II-style transformation of industry—an acceleration of the effort to halt carbon pollution and remove it from the atmosphere, and a new effort to reflect sunlight away from the earth's poles. "The chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Arctic after 2022 is essentially zero," Anderson said, with 75 to 80 percent of permanent ice having melted already in the last 35 years. "People at this point haven't come to grips with the irreversibility of this sea-level rise problem," Anderson said, displaying a map that shows the site of Harvard's new $10 billion Allston campus inundated after 3 meters of sea-level rise. He followed that map with images of Manhattan shrunken by encroaching waters and Florida missing its southern tip. Anderson was awarded Chicago's 2016 Benton Medal for Distinguished Public Service More here- https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/01/15/carbon-pollution-has-shoved-the-climate-backward-at-least-12-million-years-harvard-scientist-says/?sh=26ead783963e&s=09

Softheads like Booby YouTubers like David DuByne predicted the sun would be in a GSM by now. Oops!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESsDal3LBlo&ab_channel=drkstrong

Edited by mod.

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 16^th, 2023 at 9:51am:

Quote: We Have Five Years To Save Ourselves From Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says Jan 15, 2018,12:03am EST This article is more than 5 years old. People have the misapprehension that we can recover from this state just by reducing carbon emissions, Anderson said in an appearance at the University of Chicago. Recovery is all but impossible, he argued, without a World War II-style transformation of industry—an acceleration of the effort to halt carbon pollution and remove it from the atmosphere, and a new effort to reflect sunlight away from the earth's poles. "The chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Arctic after 2022 is essentially zero," Anderson said, with 75 to 80 percent of permanent ice having melted already in the last 35 years. "People at this point haven't come to grips with the irreversibility of this sea-level rise problem," Anderson said, displaying a map that shows the site of Harvard's new $10 billion Allston campus inundated after 3 meters of sea-level rise. He followed that map with images of Manhattan shrunken by encroaching waters and Florida missing its southern tip. Anderson was awarded Chicago's 2016 Benton Medal for Distinguished Public Service More here- https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/01/15/carbon-pollution-has-shoved-the-climate-backward-at-least-12-million-years-harvard-scientist-says/?sh=26ead783963e&s=09

Listen to the expeyts.
Oh, yes.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 30^th, 2023 at 7:01am:

YouTubers like David DuByne predicted the sun would be in a GSM by now. Oops!

Whereas Strong Says the Sun DOESN"T influence weather or climate. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

.

---

lee wrote on Mar 30^th, 2023 at 11:49am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 30th, 2023 at 7:01am: YouTubers like David DuByne predicted the sun would be in a GSM by now. Oops! Whereas Strong Says the Sun DOESN"T influence weather or climate. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Minor influence, a GSM, even Maunder level, would not cause a mini ice age, will warm globally by 0.2°C. AGW is warming us by 0.231°C per decade.

CO2 drives climate.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 7^th, 2023 at 3:13pm:

AGW is warming us by 0.231°C per decade.

Proof?  ::)

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 7^th, 2023 at 3:13pm:

CO2 drives climate.

Ice cores show that is a fallacy. ::)

And Germany. Amazing stuff CO2 warms except where it doesn't. ::)

https://eike-klima-energie.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/mai_01-1024x572.png

lee wrote on Jun 7^th, 2023 at 5:38pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 7th, 2023 at 3:13pm: AGW is warming us by 0.231°C per decade. Proof?  ::) Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 7th, 2023 at 3:13pm: CO2 drives climate. Ice cores show that is a fallacy. ::) And Germany. Amazing stuff CO2 warms except where it doesn't. ::) https://eike-klima-energie.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/mai_01-1024x572.png

Just today: scientists say artic ice will disappear in summer by the 2030's.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/06/world/arctic-sea-ice-free-climate-change/index.html#:~:text=Ice%20in%20Svalbard%2C%20Norway%2C%20April,faster%20than%20the%20global%20average.

"A new study published Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications found Arctic sea ice could disappear completely during the month of September as early as the 2030s. Even if the world makes significant cuts to planet-heating pollution today, the Arctic could still see summers free of sea ice by the 2050s, scientists reported.

The researchers analyzed changes from 1979 to 2019, comparing different satellite data and climate models to assess how Arctic sea ice was changing.


They found that declining sea ice was largely the result of human-caused, planet-heating pollution, and previous models had underestimated Arctic sea ice melting trends."

Lies?

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 7^th, 2023 at 6:33pm:

Just today: scientists say artic ice will disappear in summer by the 2030's.

"11/12/2007 Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions"

https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/globalwarming/resources/articles_id=0018.html


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 7^th, 2023 at 6:33pm:

"A new study published Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications found Arctic sea ice could disappear completely during the month of September as early as the 2030s.

Poor dummy. Can't tell the difference between "could" and "will". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
But please tell us how it is proof of AGW, not merely warming coming out of the LIA?

So many predictions, so many failures. ;D ;D ;D ;D

https://www.cmu.edu/epp/news/2021/the-risks-of-communicating-extreme-climate-forecasts.html


This article may help resolve the discussion here:

February 18, 2021
The Risks of Communicating Extreme Climate Forecasts

By Staff Writer

For decades, climate change researchers and activists have used dramatic forecasts to attempt to influence public perception of the problem and as a call to action on climate change. These forecasts have frequently been for events that might be called “apocalyptic,” because they predict cataclysmic events resulting from climate change.

In a new paper published in the International Journal of Global Warming, Carnegie Mellon University’s David Rode and Paul Fischbeck argue that making such forecasts can be counterproductive. “Truly apocalyptic forecasts can only ever be observed in their failure—that is the world did not end as predicted,” says Rode, adjunct research faculty with the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center, “and observing a string of repeated apocalyptic forecast failures can undermine the public’s trust in the underlying science.”

Rode and Fischbeck, professor of Social & Decision Sciences and Engineering & Public Policy, collected 79 predictions of climate-caused apocalypse going back to the first Earth Day in 1970. With the passage of time, many of these forecasts have since expired; the dates have come and gone uneventfully. In fact, 48 (61%) of the predictions have already expired as of the end of 2020.

Fischbeck noted, “from a forecasting perspective, the ‘problem’ is not only that all of the expired forecasts were wrong, but also that so many of them never admitted to any uncertainty about the date. About 43% of the forecasts in our dataset made no mention of uncertainty.”

In some cases, the forecasters were both explicit and certain. For example, Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich and British environmental activist Prince Charles are serial failed forecasters, repeatedly expressing high degrees of certainty about apocalyptic climate events.

Rode commented “Ehrlich has made predictions of environmental collapse going back to 1970 that he has described as having ‘near certainty’. Prince Charles has similarly warned repeatedly of ‘irretrievable ecosystem collapse’ if actions were not taken, and when expired, repeated the prediction with a new definitive end date. Their predictions have repeatedly been apocalyptic and highly certain…and so far, they’ve also been wrong.”

The researchers noted that the average time horizon before a climate apocalypse for the 11 predictions made prior to 2000 was 22 years, while for the 68 predictions made after 2000, the average time horizon was 21 years. Despite the passage of time, little has changed—across a half a century of forecasts; the apocalypse is always about 20 years out.

lee wrote on Jun 7^th, 2023 at 6:40pm:

So many predictions, so many failures. ;D ;D ;D ;D

The IPCC has researched  the chance of AGW catastrophy. The chance is not zero.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 8^th, 2023 at 12:41pm:

The IPCC has researched  the chance of AGW catastrophy. The chance is not zero.

So what is it? One in a million?

You still haven't provided the scientific paper that says so.

It doesn't get a mention in The Physical Science Basis.

But the Synthesis reports glowingly on Climate Attribution Studies. These are done by using two models one with increasing CO2 and one not. However, as with all models, the assumptions underpinning them are what should be noted. The models have not been validated.

But of course you KNOW better. You just can't articulate it. Dummy. ::)

LOL

https://twitter.com/i/status/1361782698654711809

Dumbyne should be in there too, bum prophet.

lee wrote on Jun 8^th, 2023 at 1:33pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 8th, 2023 at 12:41pm: The IPCC has researched  the chance of AGW catastrophy. The chance is not zero. So what is it? One in a million? You still haven't provided the scientific paper that says so. It doesn't get a mention in The Physical Science Basis. But the Synthesis reports glowingly on Climate Attribution Studies. These are done by using two models one with increasing CO2 and one not. However, as with all models, the assumptions underpinning them are what should be noted. The models have not been validated. But of course you KNOW better. You just can't articulate it. Dummy. ::)

But why not abandon fossil fuels?

1. They are filthy.

2. They are expensive for consumers (while being tremendously rewarding for price gouging cartels and companies). 

Memo from Davos a few years back, re increasing global insurance losses due to extreme weather-related catastrophes:

"Central banks might have to buy the fossil industry...." (and close it down ASAP).

Obviously they accept the IPCC AGW warnings...  

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9^th, 2023 at 12:59pm:

But why not abandon fossil fuels?

Is that the best you can do? Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9^th, 2023 at 12:59pm:

1. They are filthy.

Only coal is filthy and they now have scrubbers to clean that. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9^th, 2023 at 12:59pm:

2. They are expensive for consumers (while being tremendously rewarding for price gouging cartels and companies).

Actually they are really cheap. It is the renewables that drive up prices. Just look at Germany. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9^th, 2023 at 12:59pm:

Memo from Davos a few years back, re increasing global insurance losses due to extreme weather-related catastrophes: "Central banks might have to buy the fossil industry...."

Ah yes WEF.  Again the weasel word "might". You expect insurance loss to fall in a world of increasing prices? Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9^th, 2023 at 12:59pm:

Obviously they accept the IPCC AGW warnings..

Insurers like to scare people so they can raise prices. Dummy. ::)

lee wrote on Jun 9^th, 2023 at 1:27pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9th, 2023 at 12:59pm: But why not abandon fossil fuels? Is that the best you can do? Dummy. ::)

 

In dealing with a blind, recalcitrant conservative?

Yes, actually.


Quote:

Only coal is filthy and they now have scrubbers to clean that. Dummy. ::)

Fracking pollutes ground water, didn't you know...and combustion of fossil gas poisons the atmosphere.


Quote:

Actually they are really cheap.

Not so; that's why expensive (hard to develop) Oz gas had to be sold overseas, to high-paying customers.


Quote:

It is the renewables that drive up prices. Just look at Germany. Dummy. ::)

Only when the fossil companies are in charge of revewables development; as Shell said recently: "we can't make money out of renewables".   


Quote:

Ah yes WEF.  Again the weasel word "might". You expect insurance loss to fall in a world of increasing prices? Dummy. ::)

Addressed above; renewables are free once the infrastructure is built.


Quote:

Insurers like to scare people so they can raise prices. Dummy. ::)

And yet weather catastrophes are real and increasingly expensive to insure against.   Scary.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9^th, 2023 at 1:46pm:

Yes, actually.

Ah well there goes the world. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9^th, 2023 at 1:46pm:

Fracking pollutes ground water, didn't you know.

It depends on the fracking material. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9^th, 2023 at 1:46pm:

and combustion of fossil gas poisons the atmosphere.

ANd yet you can't provide proof. CO2 is not pollution. Some scientists are now saying add aerosols to the atmosphere to cool the "burning" earth. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9^th, 2023 at 1:46pm:

Not so; that's why expensive (hard to develop) Oz gas had to be sold overseas, to high-paying customers.

It had to be sold? Or just a commercial decision. And states own their minerals. So that means that the east coast politicians have failed signally in not retaining supplies for their states. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9^th, 2023 at 1:46pm:

Only when the fossil companies are in charge of revewables development; as Shell said recently: "we can't make money out of renewables".

"Oil giant Shell says it needs oil to pay for green shift"

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59154930

“At this point in time, of the $30bn we invest each year, I cannot find a significant percentage to invest in [profitable] renewables projects, simply because they are not there.”

https://www.rechargenews.com/wind/shell-boss-no-one-makes-money-from-renewables/1-1-1188282

So you want Shell to invest in UNprofitable ventures? Dummy. ::)

And yet the major players like Siemens can't get it to pay either, without huge government subsidies. Dummy. ::)

"https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/siemens-energy-cuts-profit-outlook-siemens-gamesa-woes-continue-2023-01-19/"


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9^th, 2023 at 1:46pm:

; renewables are free once the infrastructure is built.

Nope. Infrastructure needs to be maintained. New panels, new wind turbines. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9^th, 2023 at 1:46pm:

And yet weather catastrophes are real and increasingly expensive to insure against.

Of course they are. The cost of replacement goods go up, therefore insurance goes up. But they go up less than the rise in GDP. And weather is not climate. Dummy. ::)

The only thing scary is inability to understand anything monetary wise. Dummy. ::)

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 8^th, 2023 at 3:47pm:

LOL https://twitter.com/i/status/1361782698654711809 Dumbyne should be in there too, bum prophet.

Apologise to David DuByne -
he has been proven correct many times.

LOL! Bit of cold weather here or there is no evidence of anything.

Oceans are at record heat—no mini ice age obviously and the GSM is only believed in now by a lunatic fringe.

---

What you should be preparing for is a record high El Nino with those very high ocean temperatures. Get aircond or have your ac serviced/overhauled. What if power is off for some days?

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 10^th, 2023 at 8:11am:

What you should be preparing for is a record high El Nino with those very high ocean temperatures.

You mean those "record high ocean temperatures" from last year? Nope. He means the "record high temperatures " from this year in the garudian.::) ::) ::) ::)

Australia is in winter - seems some warming would be nice. ::)

BTW SST is the top 1mm of ocean., and boils off causing cooling. ::)

But you can trust the garudian to go over the top. Redfearn. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

And don't forget Phil Jones CRU, said the normals for the Southern Hemisphere were mostly made up before 1990.

I didn’t mention SST. I mentioned ocean heat content.

Quote:

Abstract The Earth climate system is out of energy balance, and heat has accumulated continuously over the past decades, warming the ocean, the land, the cryosphere, and the atmosphere. According to the Sixth Assessment Report by Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, this planetary warming over multiple decades is human-driven and results in unprecedented and committed changes to the Earth system, with adverse impacts for ecosystems and human systems. The Earth heat inventory provides a measure of the Earth energy imbalance (EEI) and allows for quantifying how much heat has accumulated in the Earth system, as well as where the heat is stored. Here we show that the Earth system has continued to accumulate heat, with 381±61 ZJ accumulated from 1971 to 2020. This is equivalent to a heating rate (i.e., the EEI) of 0.48±0.1 W m−2. The majority, about 89 %, of this heat is stored in the ocean, followed by about 6 % on land, 1 % in the atmosphere, and about 4 % available for melting the cryosphere. Over the most recent period (2006–2020), the EEI amounts to 0.76±0.2 W m−2. The Earth energy imbalance is the most fundamental global climate indicator that the scientific community and the public can use as the measure of how well the world is doing in the task of bringing anthropogenic climate change under control. Moreover, this indicator is highly complementary to other established ones like global mean surface temperature as it represents a robust measure of the rate of climate change and its future commitment. We call for an implementation of the Earth energy imbalance into the Paris Agreement's Global Stocktake based on best available science. The Earth heat inventory in this study, updated from von Schuckmann et al. (2020), is underpinned by worldwide multidisciplinary collaboration and demonstrates the critical importance of concerted international efforts for climate change monitoring and community-based recommendations and we also call for urgently needed actions for enabling continuity, archiving, rescuing, and calibrating efforts to assure improved and long-term monitoring capacity of the global climate observing system. The data for the Earth heat inventory are publicly available, and more details are provided in Table 4.

https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/1675/2023/#section8

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 10^th, 2023 at 3:25pm:

The Earth climate system is out of energy balance,

Which of course means nothing. Without the energy system being out of balance, we wouldn't have previous ice ages or interstadials or even weather. ::)

Strangely enough it was Ben Santer who changed the IPCC report to first say they had found the "fingerprint", even though the agreed upon report said no such thing. And now it has become the mainstay of "climate seance".

"Wearing his other hat as IPCC author, Santer was also widely accused of being the man who added the key words "discernible human influence" to the body of the IPCC report, and of doing it very late in the day. [Ben Santer disputes this point and some others. See footnote] True enough. This was messy and does not reflect well on the IPCC. Those words were agreed at a main session of the IPCC in late 1995, attended by politicians. They wanted them included in the report's summary for policy-makers. But they went beyond what was said in the chapter from which the summary was supposedly drawn.

Yet IPCC procedure required that the chapters had to be made consistent with the summary, rather than vice versa. "


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/09/ipcc-report-author-data-openness

So it was the politicians wanted it and Santer agreed. So there you have it, it was politicians not science, and remains so to this day.

The IR emitted by the surface is absorbed by the GHGs. Most of the energy is transferred to Nitrogen molecules, warming the troposphere and so cooling the stratosphere, making it hard for the GHG molecules at the top of the stratosphere to emit IR, so energy is retained in surface, atmosphere and oceans.

A balanced system would have short and long wave radiation so that the temperature of the atmosphere-surface-ocean remains constant. That is not happening.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 10^th, 2023 at 3:17pm:

I didn’t mention SST. I mentioned ocean heat content.

Ah yes. OHC . From about 4,000 sources (ARGO etc), They look so comprehensive on paper. But the location plots of the buoys are really big. You wouldn't be able to see them if they matched pixel size.

Of course your recent paper comes from ERA5 model. ::)

Jovial Monk wrote on Jun 10^th, 2023 at 6:30pm:

Most of the energy is transferred to Nitrogen molecules, warming the troposphere and so cooling the stratosphere, making it hard for the GHG molecules at the top of the stratosphere to emit IR, so energy is retained in surface, atmosphere and oceans.

Still no troposphere hotspot, despite Santers many attempts. ::)

Cooling of the stratosphere has no link to AGW. ::)

The warming of the troposphere is much better than the cooling of the troposphere. ::)

BTW- It takes about 2600ZJ to raise the ocean temperature by 1C. So about 0.14 C since 1971. Wow. Talk about rapid transitions. ;D ;D ;D ;D

As per Hausfather et al 2019

https://sci-hub.wf/10.1126/science.aav7619

I wish we could get some of that global warming in Melbourne -
it's been so cold -
Winter came 1 month early in May - coldest on record - I think.

Poor Monk must be freezing along with his tropical dog in Hobart.
Even the mice have come inside his place to get out of the cold.  Brrrrrr.

lee wrote on Jun 9^th, 2023 at 2:13pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 9th, 2023 at 1:46pm: Yes, actually. Ah well there goes the world. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

 
Courtesy of your flat-earth greed-based economic idelogy.

Note: self-interest is a good servant of the economy, but a poor master...


Quote:

It depends on the fracking material. Dummy. ::)

depending on...greedy ff exploiters maximizing profits?


Quote:

ANd yet you can't provide proof. CO2 is not pollution.

I said poison. You could always try CO poisoning....


Quote:

Some scientists are now saying add aerosols to the atmosphere to cool the "burning" earth. Dummy. ::)

Yes, those in cahoots with the filthy ff industry, to avoid transitioning asap. 


Quote:

It had to be sold? Or just a commercial decision.

Same thing, profit-gougers like Chevron would sell their mothers for a profit, if the price was right.


Quote:

So that means that the east coast politicians have failed signally in not retaining supplies for their states.

Politicians chase jobs; the east coast polies just didn't think through the consequences of allowing private price-gougers to develop expensive (hard to extract) Oz gas.


Quote:

“At this point in time, of the $30bn we invest each year, I cannot find a significant percentage to invest in [profitable] renewables projects, simply because they are not there.” So you want Shell to invest in UNprofitable ventures? Dummy.

No I want Shell to be reduced to sub-contractors for government, or better yet, bought out by the public sector.


Quote:

And yet the major players like Siemens can't get it to pay either, without huge government subsidies.

 

Correct, and same as above: the private sector is mostly a hindrance in an ASAP transition to renewables.


Quote:

Nope. Infrastructure needs to be maintained. New panels, new wind turbines.

Dementia, refuted earlier; you will be thankful for a cleaning job, while more highly skilled maintenance workers will be highly paid, all funded by the currency-issuing governments which will be able to offer near zero cost energy to the world. 


Quote:

Of course they are. The cost of replacement goods go up, therefore insurance goes up. But they go up less than the rise in GDP. And weather is not climate. Dummy. ::)

The IPCC - and everyone else except you - is saying AGW and insurance costs are related.

So might as well transition, and then see if the insurance costs continue to climb.


Quote:

The only thing scary is inability to understand anything monetary wise. Dummy. ::)

Ironic, because you are guilty of not understanding either  economics or climate....

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 11^th, 2023 at 4:04pm:

Courtesy of your flat-earth greed-based economic idelogy.

Ah assumption assumptions. ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 11^th, 2023 at 4:04pm:

depending on...greedy ff exploiters maximizing profits?

Oh dear. So not renewables "visionaries" maximising profits?

"López Obrador has launched a crusade against private companies in the renewables sector, which he accuses of making millions in profits, in cahoots with previous governments, at the expense of the two main state companies in the sector, oil company Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex) and electricity company Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE)."

https://www.equaltimes.org/mexico-clings-on-to-fossil-fuels?lang=en


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 11^th, 2023 at 4:04pm:

I said poison. You could always try CO poisoning....

So now you prove once  again how you don't know things. CO2 is not a poison. It is needed to breathe.  But please tell us how much CO has increased in the atmosphere. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 11^th, 2023 at 4:04pm:

Yes, those in cahoots with the filthy ff industry, to avoid transitioning asap.

Nope. Climate acivists scientists. Dummy. ::)

"Solar geoengineering may be effective in alleviating impacts of global warming on crops"

https://phys.org/news/2021-05-solar-geoengineering-effective-alleviating-impacts.html


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 11^th, 2023 at 4:04pm:

Same thing, profit-gougers like Chevron would sell their mothers for a profit, if the price was right.

And not "visionaries" like C-B? Dummy. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 11^th, 2023 at 4:04pm:

Politicians chase jobs; the east coast polies just didn't think through the consequences of allowing private price-gougers to develop expensive (hard to extract) Oz gas.

So where is it "hard to extract" gas? Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 11^th, 2023 at 4:04pm:

No I want Shell to be reduced to sub-contractors for government, or better yet, bought out by the public sector.

You were saying how they couldn't do it profitably. And yet you expect others to do so, with the same economies of scale. You really are a dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 11^th, 2023 at 4:04pm:

Correct, and same as above: the private sector is mostly a hindrance in an ASAP transition to renewables.

But you are a champion of the private sector doing it in Australia. Such a dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 11^th, 2023 at 4:04pm:

Dementia, refuted earlier;

Nope. You need to acknowledge infrastructure is not free in the first instance and not free in the second. You can't understand basic accounting and can't possible do anything higher,  due to your lack of knowledge. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 11^th, 2023 at 4:04pm:

you will be thankful for a cleaning job, while more highly skilled maintenance workers will be highly paid, all funded by the currency-issuing governments which will be able to offer near zero cost energy to the world.

And nowhere has it succeeded, despite the EU attempting to do so. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 11^th, 2023 at 4:04pm:

The IPCC - and everyone else except you - is saying AGW and insurance costs are related.

Wow. You know the thoughts of "everyone else". And the IPCC- The Physical Science  Basis doesn't cover it. So it must be in the NOT the Physical Science Basis. Amazing - NOT. Dummy. ::)

But perhaps you can find this elusive statement. ::)
So many claims so many unsubstantiated. ::)

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 11^th, 2023 at 4:04pm:

Ironic, because you are guilty of not understanding either  economics or climate....

And yet you can't do basic accounting, and then proclaim that you know economics. And of course your lack of knowledge extends to climate as well. Dummy.

lee wrote on Jun 11^th, 2023 at 5:27pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 11th, 2023 at 4:04pm: Courtesy of your flat-earth greed-based economic idelogy. Ah assumption assumptions. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Fact; otherwise you would get out of the way of public- sector-managed transition.


Quote:

Oh dear. So not renewables "visionaries" maximising profits?

Visionaries of any stripes know the circular (zero waste, pollution)  economy is vital.


Quote:

"López Obrador has launched a crusade against private companies in the renewables sector, which he accuses of making millions in profits, in cahoots with previous governments, at the expense of the two main state companies in the sector, oil company Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex) and electricity company Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE)."

Yes- "PRIVATE comanies" ....therein lays the problem. Wheereas visionaries see the total picture, not just their own profits. 


Quote:

So now you prove once  again how you don't know things. CO2 is not a poison.

Er.... how many people DON'T know that?  Dummy...


Quote:

But please tell us how much CO has increased in the atmosphere. Dummy. ::)

The point is CO, and many other compounds from ff combustion, ARE poisons.


Quote:

Nope. Climate acivists scientists. Dummy. ::)

 

Who may well be correct.


Quote:

"Solar geoengineering may be effective in alleviating impacts of global warming on crops"

That's good.


Quote:

And not "visionaries" like C-B? Dummy. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

No, by defintion; C-B wants to build the largest PV array in the world, to save the planet.
Obviously he thinks he can make a quid as well, given  the current economic orthodoxy's fetish for privatized industry.


Quote:

So where is it "hard to extract" gas? Dummy. ::)

In the remaining gas fields in Oz; Russia and ME has much more easily extracted reserves.


Quote:

You were saying how they couldn't do it profitably.

No, that's what Shell said, dummy.


Quote:

And yet you expect others to do so, with the same economies of scale. You really are a dummy. ::)

Globalized transition would be the largest "economy of scale" ever.


Quote:

But you are a champion of the private sector doing it in Australia. Such a dummy. ::)

FITH, low IQ comprehension: just because C-B may be a private sector visionary doesn't mean I'm a "champion of the private sector".  


Quote:

Nope. You need to acknowledge infrastructure is not free in the first instance and not free in the second. You can't understand basic accounting and can't possible do anything higher,  due to your lack of knowledge. Dummy. ::)

No, you need to acknowledge central banks might have to buy and close down the ff industry ASAP, if there is an AGW emergency. Money isn't the problem, it's created out of thin air - didn't you know. Resources alone are the issue in an AGW emergerncy. 


Quote:

And nowhere has it succeeded, despite the EU attempting to do so. Dummy. ::)

Nonsense, I saw guys cleaning solar panels in a vast array, on TV recently.


Quote:

Wow. You know the thoughts of "everyone else". And the IPCC- The Physical Science  Basis doesn't cover it. So it must be in the NOT the Physical Science Basis. Amazing - NOT. Dummy. ::)

You just proved my point; only you and a few AGW deniers are saying "the  Physical Science  Basis doesn't cover it".


Quote:

And yet you can't do basic accounting, and then proclaim that you know economics. And of course your lack of knowledge extends to climate as well. Dummy.

Addresed above; you don't even know fiat money is created ex nihilo....and you reject an AGW emergency which most people apart from ff recalcitrants accept as real.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 2:14pm:

Fact; otherwise you would get out of the way of public- sector-managed transition.

Another assumption. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 2:14pm:

Visionaries of any stripes know the circular (zero waste, pollution)  economy is vital.

Which is not the same thing. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 2:14pm:

Yes- "PRIVATE comanies" ....therein lays the problem. Wheereas visionaries see the total picture, not just their own profits.

In actual fact "Private Companies" don't exist in Mexico. They are actually Limited Liability Companies, which must have less than 50 members. And the company structure means absolutely nothing. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 2:14pm:

Er.... how many people DON'T know that?  Dummy...

Quite a lot actually dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 2:14pm:

The point is CO, and many other compounds from ff combustion, ARE poisons.

In high concentrations yes. CO also occurs naturally. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 2:14pm:

Who may well be correct.

But you were saying they were "those in cahoots with the filthy ff industry". You keep changing your story when refuted. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 2:14pm:

That's good.

"Solar engineering" is putting those pesky aerosols in the atmosphere. The ones you whinge about. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 2:14pm:

No, by defintion; C-B wants to build the largest PV array in the world, to save the planet.

And yet you can't find a quote that says he is doing it to "save the planet". Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 2:14pm:

In the remaining gas fields in Oz; Russia and ME has much more easily extracted reserves.

And you can't find a quote for that either. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 2:14pm:

No, that's what Shell said, dummy.

But you quoted Shell. So you must have believed it. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 2:14pm:

Globalized transition would be the largest "economy of scale" ever.

And yet you can't show that the earth has the necessary resources. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 2:14pm:

FITH, low IQ comprehension: just because C-B may be a private sector visionary doesn't mean I'm a "champion of the private sector".

Intriguing. Now you say C-B MAY be a private sector visionary. Dummy. ::)

So you are only championing ONE private sector company. Attempting to pick winners. Dummy.  ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 2:14pm:

No, you need to acknowledge central banks might have to buy and close down the ff industry ASAP, if there is an AGW emergency.

So may assumptions again. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 2:14pm:

Nonsense, I saw guys cleaning solar panels in a vast array, on TV recently.

And that proved it works? was working? stopped working? Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 2:14pm:

You just proved my point; only you and a few AGW deniers are saying "the  Physical Science  Basis doesn't cover it".

Oh dear backsteppoing again. First it was only I and now it is other AGW deniers. And then you say you don't believe the Science as  it is "only AGW deniers". You really are a dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 2:14pm:

Addresed above;

Nope. You need more than basic accounting to do Economics. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 2:14pm:

.and you reject an AGW emergency which most people apart from ff recalcitrants accept as real.

Then why don't you quote the science that says there is an AGW emergency. Dummy. ::)

Temperature from Berkeley Earth -

https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/styles/extra_large/public/2022-03/Cowtan-F1.png

Wow. The earth has warmed by more than 2C. And still no climate refugees. ::)

lee wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 3:27pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12th, 2023 at 2:14pm: Fact; otherwise you would get out of the way of public- sector-managed transition. Another assumption. Dummy. ::)

So can I  'assume' you 'might' accept public sector management of the transition? (...pull the other one...)


Quote:

Which is not the same thing. Dummy. ::)

Fracking is polluting, whereas a circular (zero waste)  economy is not.  Again, your low IQ and dementia are showing.


Quote:

In actual fact "Private Companies" don't exist in Mexico. They are actually Limited Liability Companies, which must have less than 50 members. And the company structure means absolutely nothing. Dummy.

Semantics: next you'll be saying Mexico is communist; your statement means nothing.


Quote:

Quite a lot actually dummy. ::)

And you are here to educate people? Pull the other one.


Quote:

In high concentrations yes.

Like in high-congestion urban areas.


Quote:

But you were saying they were "those in cahoots with the filthy ff industry". You keep changing your story when refuted.

Dementia: I said  climate activists may be correct (re the AGW emergency), not "private companies in the renewables sector, which he accuses of making millions in profits" ...remember Shell said they can't make money in renewables.


Quote:

"Solar engineering" is putting those pesky aerosols in the atmosphere. The ones you whinge about. Dummy. ::)

You mean geo-engineering with poisonous aerosols? Good one.


Quote:

And yet you can't find a quote that says he is doing it to "save the planet". Dummy. ::)

Er ...that's why people build massive solar PV  arrays - to save the planet.  But as Shell noted, you can't make big profits out of free sunshine. 


Quote:

And you can't find a quote for that either. Dummy.

Common knowledge, except to a blind, ff-AGW denier like you.

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6887070/australia-is-about-to-get-ripped-off-by-the-gas-industry-and-its-not-the-first-time/

"The gas industry has sold most of our cheap gas overseas. Now, it is trying to convince the Australian public that mining expensive, harder-to-get unconventional coal seam gas will bring domestic gas prices down, which is rubbish.


Quote:

But you quoted Shell. So you must have believed it.

Already addressed above, profits form renewables aren't enticing, as Shell  acknowleged. In fact  a globalized (public) system powered by free sunshine will deliver very cheap energy with little space for profits. 


Quote:

And yet you can't show that the earth has the necessary resources. Dummy. ::)

Full marks for seeing the correct constraint (ie, resources, not finance); but fail for idiocy re availabilty of the necessary resources.


Quote:

Intriguing. Now you say C-B MAY be a private sector visionary. Dummy. ::) So you are only championing ONE private sector company. Attempting to pick winners. Dummy.  ::)

 

Haha - caught me out there - saying "may" instead of "is", nice to see you win now and again...

So is C-B a visionary? He does want to build the world's largest PV array, to save the planet...you decide.


Quote:

So may assumptions again. Dummy. ::)

That's because that quote is from the Davos crowd who are waverers...for my part, I WOULD require central banks to buy the filthy ff industry, not "might require", dummy.


Quote:

And that proved it works?

Indeed it was a working large solar plant.


Quote:

Oh dear backsteppoing again. First it was only I and now it is other AGW deniers.

Ok.... you AND the few other remaining AGW climate deniers. (geez, debating you is like herding cats.... ). 


Quote:

And then you say you don't believe the Science as  it is "only AGW deniers". You really are a dummy. ::)

Dementia or low IQ or both; I said "only AGW deniers like you reject the science". 


Quote:

Nope. You need more than basic accounting to do Economics. Dummy. ::)

Correct; indeed, buying the world's ff polluters is much more than basic accounting. 


Quote:

Then why don't you quote the science that says there is an AGW emergency. Dummy. ::)

I'll leave that to the IPCC consensus.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 10:29pm:

Fracking is polluting, whereas a circular (zero waste)  economy is not.

As I said depending on the fracking liquid. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 10:29pm:

Semantics: next you'll be saying Mexico is communist; your statement means nothing.

So an LLC with less than 50 members is driving the FF truck? Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 10:29pm:

And you are here to educate people?

Hey if they don't know CO2 is not poisonous someone needs to teach them. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 10:29pm:

Like in high-congestion urban areas.

Which ones? Remember those life expectancies? They don't show it. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 10:29pm:

I said  climate activists may be correct (re the AGW emergency), not "private companies in the renewables sector, which he accuses of making millions in profits" ...r

See changed the story again...


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 2:14pm:

Quote: Nope. Climate acivists scientists. Dummy. Roll Eyes Who may well be correct.

SO I didn't use "private companies in that context. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 10:29pm:

Er ...that's why people build massive solar PV  arrays - to save the planet.

Nope. They make money on the subsidies. Shell can't be profitable because it is, to them, a loss making provision. You need to look at the subsidy structure. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 10:29pm:

Common knowledge, except to a blind, ff-AGW denier like you.

So common knowledge is most uncommon, as you consistently show. Dummy ::)
thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 10:29pm:

"The gas industry has sold most of our cheap gas overseas. Now, it is trying to convince the Australian public that mining expensive, harder-to-get unconventional coal seam gas will bring domestic gas prices down, which is rubbish.

.

Oh dear. ONLY coal seam gas. And an Opinion piece by a Journo and ex-green media advisor. No scientific credentials.  Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 10:29pm:

Already addressed above, profits form renewables aren't enticing, as Shell  acknowleged. In fact  a globalized (public) system powered by free sunshine will deliver very cheap energy with little space for profits.

And no space for profits once infrastructure need replacing, without those huge subsidies. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 10:29pm:

Full marks for seeing the correct constraint (ie, resources, not finance); but fail for idiocy re availabilty of the necessary resources.

And yet you can't even guess on whether we have the resources. Just say, "we'll try for 50%". Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 10:29pm:

So is C-B a visionary? He does want to build the world's largest PV array, to save the planet...you decide.

It is only you saying he wants to "save the planet". Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 10:29pm:

That's because that quote is from the Davos crowd who are waverers...for my part, I WOULD require central banks to buy the filthy ff industry, not "might require", dummy.

Why not just let them go broke? It is what governments should do. PRIVATE companies and Public companies still have shareholders who have gotten dividends. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 10:29pm:

Indeed it was a working large solar plant.

So why the need for workers if it was at the time working? Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 10:29pm:

you AND the few other remaining AGW climate deniers. (geez, debating you is like herding cats.... ).

Now all you have to do is show where I denied there was AGW. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 10:29pm:

Dementia or low IQ or both; I said "only AGW deniers like you reject the science".

As above. Where have I denied AGW?


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 10:29pm:

Correct; indeed, buying the world's ff polluters is much more than basic accounting.

But you say you understand Economics and MMT when you don't have basic accounting. Talk about frauds. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 10:29pm:

I'll leave that to the IPCC consensus.

Consensus is not science, it is politics. Dummy. ::)

lee wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 2:29pm:

As I said depending on the fracking liquid. Dummy. ::)

And why are  fracking companies using polluting chemicals?


Quote:

So an LLC with less than 50 members is driving the FF truck? Dummy. ::)

Again meaningless.


Quote:

Hey if they don't know CO2 is not poisonous someone needs to teach them

And you think the people reading this thread don't know it?


Quote:

Which ones? Remember those life expectancies? They don't show it. Dummy. ::)

 

More denialism, the result of crippled brain conservative thinking. Everyone knows urban congestion with ff pollution is injurious to health. 


Quote:

See changed the story again...

Conservative crippled brain: renewables won't produce the massive profits of filthy ffs., the private sector should voluntarily exit the industry. 


Quote:

Climate acivists scientists.

...who are pushing an AGW emergency.


Quote:

SO I didn't use "private companies in that context. Dummy. ::)

Regardless, the private sector must exit the industry. 


Quote:

Nope. They make money on the subsidies. Shell can't be profitable because it is, to them, a loss making provision. You need to look at the subsidy structure. Dummy. ::)

Subsidization of the filthy ff industry is a crime against the public.


Quote:

So common knowledge is most uncommon, as you consistently show. Dummy ::)

Funny, coming from a conservative crippled brain.


Quote:

Oh dear. ONLY coal seam gas. And an Opinion piece by a Journo and ex-green media advisor. No scientific credentials.  Dummy. ::)

1. New gas is more expensive (fracking etc)
2. Science to a crippled conservative brain is moot.


Quote:

And no space for profits once infrastructure need replacing, without those huge subsidies. Dummy. ::)

Subsization of the transition to a reneawble economy is a public good. Private profits based on filthy ffs are NOT a public good.   


Quote:

And yet you can't even guess on whether we have the resources. Just say, "we'll try for 50%".

Crippled brain comprehension: we'll learn how much of the resource endowment is required to achieve 50%, and then proceed accordingly, adjusting various tecnologies as required.   


Quote:

It is only you saying he wants to "save the planet". Dummy. ::)

No. I'm asking you: is building the world's largest PV array "visionary"?


Quote:

Why not just let them go broke?

Because we can get rid of filthy fossil fuels, AND transtion to cheaper energy at the same time.


Quote:

It is what governments should do. PRIVATE companies and Public companies still have shareholders who have gotten dividends. Dummy. ::)

The only "shareholders" who count in a just, timely transition are all of us.


Quote:

So why the need for workers if it was at the time working?

 

Crippled brain? To keep the panels clean to maximize output.


Quote:

Now all you have to do is show where I denied there was AGW. Dummy. ::)

Did you leave out the word "emergency"... deliberately, ie, fraudulently?
Or dementia or low IQ - you can't remember we have discussed that point before?


Quote:

But you say you understand Economics and MMT when you don't have basic accounting. Talk about frauds. Dummy. ::)

Basic accounting is micro  economics  (book-keeping), that's why 'small government' conservatives don't undertand macroeconomics.


Quote:

Consensus is not science, it is politics. Dummy. ::)

And when the politics thinks it is science - game over. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 3:13pm:

And why are  fracking companies using polluting chemicals?

Can you show where they are currently doing that? Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 3:13pm:

Again meaningless.

Nope. You were the one said it was those bad private companies. Dummy. ::)

.
thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 3:13pm:

And you think the people reading this thread don't know it?

Well, I am not sure about you. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 3:13pm:

Everyone knows urban congestion with ff pollution is injurious to health.

Ah those dreaded statistical studies again. Statistics show correlation, not causation. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 3:13pm:

Conservative crippled brain: renewables won't produce the massive profits of filthy ffs., the private sector should voluntarily exit the industry.

C-B is part of the private sector. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 3:13pm:

..who are pushing an AGW emergency.

And not the private companies who you said I was talking about. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 3:13pm:

Regardless, the private sector must exit the industry.

As above. It includes C-B. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 3:13pm:

Subsidization of the filthy ff industry is a crime against the public.

And yet there have been no charges proven against this "crime", despite attempts to do so. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 3:13pm:

Funny, coming from a conservative crippled brain.

Oh look, he made a funny. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 3:13pm:

1. New gas is more expensive (fracking etc)

Prove it. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 3:13pm:

2. Science to a crippled conservative brain is moot.

You don't do science, so you wouldn't know. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 3:13pm:

Subsization of the transition to a reneawble economy is a public good.

But replacing infrastructure is not? Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 3:13pm:

Crippled brain comprehension: we'll learn how much of the resource endowment is required to achieve 50%, and then proceed accordingly, adjusting various tecnologies as required.

Sp according to you, make them first and when we run out stop. Except of course for those other things required that were not included. DUmmy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 3:13pm:

No. I'm asking you: is building the world's largest PV array "visionary"?

Non-sequitur. You were the one said he was saving the planet. Prove it. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 3:13pm:

Because we can get rid of filthy fossil fuels, AND transtion to cheaper energy at the same time.

If the central banks don't buy these FF then the transition can happen sooner. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 3:13pm:

The only "shareholders" who count in a just, timely transition are all of us.

So why should the central banks buy the ff's? Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 3:13pm:

Crippled brain? To keep the panels clean to maximize output.

Ah, so now you finally realise there are costs involved after installation, after transition. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 3:13pm:

Did you leave out the word "emergency"... deliberately, ie, fraudulently?

lee wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 2:29pm:

thegreatdivide wrote Yesterday at 8:29pm: you AND the few other remaining AGW climate deniers. (geez, debating you is like herding cats.... ).

Nothing there about emergency. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 3:13pm:

Or dementia or low IQ - you can't remember we have discussed that point before?

I responded to your last quote. Do try to keep up. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 3:13pm:

Basic accounting is micro  economics  (book-keeping), that's why 'small government' conservatives don't undertand macroeconomics.

And as I said you don't even have Basic Accounting. For Economics you need Advanced Accounting. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 3:13pm:

And when the politics thinks it is science - game over.

So you don't want science, you want politics. Dummy. ::)

lee wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 4:15pm:

Can you show where they are currently doing that? Dummy. ::)

quick google

"Is fracking environmentally friendly?
Used extensively in the U.S., fracking has led to heightened concerns about its impact on the environment and human health. The process creates vast amounts of wastewater, emits greenhouse gases such as methane, releases toxic air pollutants and generates noise.30 Mar 2022"

Can you tell us where it is NOT injurious to the environment and health?


Quote:

You were the one said it was those bad private companies

No, I say private companies should vacate energy production, rather than nations relying on people like C-B to manage the transition.


Quote:

Well, I am not sure about you. Dummy. ::)

 

Your dementia, we covered the point ages ago.


Quote:

Ah those dreaded statistical studies again. Statistics show correlation, not causation. Dummy. ::)

Evil crippled brain happy to injure peoples' health.


Quote:

C-B is part of the private sector.

Beat you to it, above; C-B is involved BECAUSE the private sector is still in the transition game, disastrously for the world. 


Quote:

And not the private companies who you said I was talking about. Dummy. ::)

Anything you have to say about private companies and the transition is distorted by your blind free-market ideology.  Listen carefully, the profit-seeking free market can't achieve a timely transition to renewables, by definition. 


Quote:

And yet there have been no charges proven against this "crime", despite attempts to do so. Dummy. ::)

Subsidization steals public money to prop up ff companies - it's a crime.


Quote:

Prove it. Dummy. ::)

 

Says the guy who rejects the IPCC consensus.


Quote:

You don't do science, so you wouldn't know. Dummy. ::)

 

The IPCC does science; pity you only do blind ideology.


Quote:

But replacing infrastructure is not? Dummy. ::)

You have to build the infrastructure first, before (some of) it needs replacing aka maintenance.


Quote:

Sp according to you, make them first and when we run out stop.

 

Again crippled brain. ... you are denying there are sufficient resouces even to achieve 50%,


Quote:

Non-sequitur. You were the one said he was saving the planet. Prove it. Dummy. ::)

 
Interesting, you don't want to answer the question.... very revealing.


Quote:

If the central banks don't buy these FF then the transition can happen sooner. Dummy. ::)

 

Crippled brain: Shell has already said otherwise, and wants to abandon renewables development. 


Quote:

So why should the central banks buy the ff's? Dummy. ::)

 

because we CAN ALL BE "shareholders" of central banks spending money created ex nihilo by the Treasury, on behalf of the public sector.   Specifically, to buy and close the filthy ff industry ASAP.


Quote:

Ah, so now you finally realise there are costs involved after installation, after transition. Dummy. ::)

Dementia, covered previously. A currency-issuing govt. isn't constrained by costs, and indeed can command the workers it needs if necessary, to take them from useless industries like tattoos and grog and junk advertising etc.    

Quote:

Nothing there about emergency. Dummy. ::) I responded to your last quote. Do try to keep up. Dummy. ::)

Your memory capacity is worse than I thought; Listen  carefully,  AGW means  AGW emergency in this debate, we  covered that point ages ago.

"You are an AGW denier" means "you are an AGW- emergency denier,".... which you are.


Quote:

And as I said you don't even have Basic Accounting. For Economics you need Advanced Accounting. Dummy. ::)

 

Basic accounting is not advanced accounting (like Keen used in his article; and neither describe real world macroeconmics with its vast complexity of individiual transactions.  [Keen merely showed that transactions between government and banks don't follow the orthodox "(govt.) surplus good- deficit bad" neoclassical delusion).] 


Quote:

So you don't want science, you want politics. Dummy. ::)

The IPCC are scientists, so the consensus is also science-based.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 5:20pm:

Used extensively in the U.S., fracking has led to heightened concerns about its impact on the environment and human health. The process creates vast amounts of wastewater, emits greenhouse gases such as methane, releases toxic air pollutants and generates noise.30 Mar 2022" Can you tell us where it is NOT injurious to the environment and health?

And where does it say it is currently in use? Why don't you post the link?  Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 5:20pm:

No, I say private companies should vacate energy production, rather than nations relying on people like C-B to manage the transition.

lee wrote on Jun 12^th, 2023 at 3:27pm:

thegreatdivide wrote Yesterday at 12:14pm: Yes- "PRIVATE comanies" ....therein lays the problem.

It was about private companies making millions in profits. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 5:20pm:

Your dementia, we covered the point ages ago.

And we still don't know whether you believe CO2 is a poison. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 5:20pm:

Evil crippled brain happy to injure peoples' health.

So says the one who doesn't do science. Just Believes. CO2 is a religion to you. Dummy.  ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 5:20pm:

Beat you to it, above; C-B is involved BECAUSE the private sector is still in the transition game, disastrously for the world.

And still nothing from you pointing to him doing it to "save the planet". Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 5:20pm:

Anything you have to say about private companies and the transition is distorted by your blind free-market ideology.  Listen carefully, the profit-seeking free market can't achieve a timely transition to renewables, by definition.

And yet you can't point to it happening outside that either. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 5:20pm:

Subsidization steals public money to prop up ff companies - it's a crime.

So cut the subsidies to renewables. Dummy. ::)

"Energy Minister Angus Taylor noted that the Commonwealth Budget added $1.3 billion to assist uneconomic renewable energy, bringing the total support to $22 billion by 2030. Added to direct budget support are the regulatory subsidies that force consumers to pay for otherwise unviable wind and solar energy as well as the networks that have to be built to bring their energy to market. "

https://www.spectator.com.au/2022/04/renewables-subsidies-22-billion-by-2030/


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 5:20pm:

Says the guy who rejects the IPCC consensus.

Consensus proves nothing. As I pointed out it is political, not scientific. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 5:20pm:

The IPCC does science; pity you only do blind ideology.

The IPCC does not do science. They rely on scientists. Dummy. ::)

"The IPCC does not conduct its own research."

https://www.ipcc.ch/about/



thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 5:20pm:

You have to build the infrastructure first, before (some of) it needs replacing aka maintenance.

All of it needs replacing. So you have to have the resources to replace it...many times. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 5:20pm:

Again crippled brain. ... you are denying there are sufficient resouces even to achieve 50%,

No. We don't know how much in the way of resources needed. You keep putting the cart before the horse. Only once we know the resources needed do we know if there are enough resources available. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 5:20pm:

Interesting, you don't want to answer the question.... very revealing.

You were the one claiming he was "saving the planet". Your postulation, your proof. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 5:20pm:

Crippled brain: Shell has already said otherwise, and wants to abandon renewables development.

Shell has said nothing about central banks buying FF interests. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 5:20pm:

because we CAN ALL BE "shareholders" of central banks spending money created ex nihilo by the Treasury, on behalf of the public sector.

And so what return do we get as "shareholders". Dummy.  ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 5:20pm:

Specifically, to buy and close the filthy ff industry ASAP.

So in a nutshell we fork out money and don't get a monetary return. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 5:20pm:

Dementia, covered previously. A currency-issuing govt. isn't constrained by costs, and indeed can command the workers it needs if necessary, to take them from useless industries like tattoos and grog and junk advertising etc.

So the government can tell workers at what jobs they can work. No free will. Just  communism. Dummy.  ::)

TBC

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 5:20pm:

our memory capacity is worse than I thought; Listen  carefully,  AGW means  AGW emergency in this debate, we  covered that point ages ago.

You can't redefine definitions. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 5:20pm:

"You are an AGW denier" means "you are an AGW- emergency denier,".... which you are.

Answered above. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 5:20pm:

Basic accounting is not advanced accounting (like Keen used in his article; and neither describe real world macroeconmics with its vast complexity of individiual transactions.  [/quote] Very good. However Advanced Accounting is a part of Economics. You can't have Advanced Accounting without Basic Accounting. Dummy.  ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13th, 2023 at 5:20pm: [Keen merely showed that transactions between government and banks don't follow the orthodox "(govt.) surplus good- deficit bad" neoclassical delusion).]  You previously said he used Minsky to PROVE MMT. It doesn't, he doesn't. As I said it all depends on the underlying assumptions. Dummy.  ::) [quote author=AusbetterWorld link=1615116918/104#104 date=1686640837]The IPCC are scientists, so the consensus is also science-based.

Answered above. The IPCC are not scientists. Read carefully what the initials stand for -

InterGOVERNMENTAL  Panel On Climate Change. Capiche? Dummy. ::)

The Summary for Policy Makers can overwrite the reports. It is what politicians believe. Dummy.  ::)

lee wrote on Jun 13^th, 2023 at 6:58pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13th, 2023 at 5:20pm: our memory capacity is worse than I thought; Listen  carefully,  AGW means  AGW emergency in this debate, we  covered that point ages ago. You can't redefine definitions. Dummy. ::) thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 13th, 2023 at 5:20pm: "You are an AGW denier" means "you are an AGW- emergency denier,".... which you are. Answered above. Dummy. ::)

No, you are merely proving yourself to be  a blind ideological recalcitrant who is forced into 'tunnel vision' literalism to defend an argument (typical of 'reading law to the letter' conservatives, also already pointed out): AGW denier means AGW- emergency denier in this debate, otherwise the IPCC and everyone else wouldn't be talking about renewables to avoid the climate emergency. 


Quote:

Very good. However Advanced Accounting is a part of Economics. You can't have Advanced Accounting without Basic Accounting. Dummy.  ::)

A part yes, but anyone with any understanding of money, including even apparently you, knows resources management, not money, are the constraint to a timely transition to renwables.

Btw see the latest article from Keen in the MMT thread. Brilliant.



Quote:

You previously said he used Minsky to PROVE MMT. It doesn't, he doesn't. As I said it all depends on the underlying assumptions. Dummy.  ::)

Like I said,  see the latest article from Keen: money is created out of nothing, and the legal currency-issuer doesn't NEED to borrow money to buy things. So MMT is proved by understanding the nature of money ie, it's a "social construct, an IOU accepted in society" (Keen)... and created in the (govt.) Treasury AND private banking sector, which Keen  duly illustrates with double entry accounting. It's handy that the 'social' and 'accounting' descriptions of money arrive  at the same conclusion.


Quote:

Answered above. The IPCC are not scientists. Read carefully what the initials stand for - InterGOVERNMENTAL  Panel On Climate Change. Capiche? Dummy. ::)

Just your Libertarian proclivities showing: whereas with the IPCC we see governments all following the scientific consensus. 


Quote:

The Summary for Policy Makers can overwrite the reports. It is what politicians believe. Dummy.  ::)

Addressed above.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 14^th, 2023 at 1:14pm:

AGW denier means AGW- emergency denier in this debate, otherwise the IPCC and everyone else wouldn't be talking about renewables to avoid the climate emergency.

They would be talking about CAGW. You know Catastrophic AGW. That is the accepted term by the afficiadoes. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 14^th, 2023 at 1:14pm:

A part yes, but anyone with any understanding of money, including even apparently you, knows resources management, not money, are the constraint to a timely transition to renwables.

So now you tell us you don't know squat. After so long. No economics at all, just a bloated blatherer with a crie d'couer. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 14^th, 2023 at 1:14pm:

Btw see the latest article from Keen in the MMT thread. Brilliant.

Why is it brilliant? Has he "proved" MMT? Dummy. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 14^th, 2023 at 1:14pm:

So MMT is proved by understanding the nature of money ie, it's a "social construct, an IOU accepted in society" (Keen)... and created in the (govt.) Treasury AND private banking sector, which Keen  duly illustrates with double entry accounting. It's handy that the 'social' and 'accounting' descriptions of money arrive  at the same conclusion.

Once again D-E accounting proves nothing. It relies on the underlying assumptions. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 14^th, 2023 at 1:14pm:

Just your Libertarian proclivities showing: whereas with the IPCC we see governments all following the scientific consensus.

But NOT scientists, which was your claim. And again consensus is politics not science. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 14^th, 2023 at 1:14pm:

Addressed above.

Nope. Just why should governments be allowed to overwrite the science? Dummy. ::)

Poor JM.

" Loss of land ice—Antarctica and Greenland"

And then he posts a graph of Antarctic SEA ice extent. ::)

Meanwhile we have observations.

Alice Springs heat waves

https://www.geoffstuff.com/hotalice.jpg

1878 -2022 - No trend.

But remember the science of burning Fossil Fuels said "increases in temperature could occur". So specific.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

2 trends on the chart.

1878-1946 falling trend

1946-2022 rising trend.

Lee is fact fornicator.

lee wrote on Jun 30^th, 2023 at 1:08pm:

Meanwhile we have observations. Alice Springs heat waves https://www.geoffstuff.com/hotalice.jpg 1878 -2022 - No trend. But remember the science of burning Fossil Fuels said "increases in temperature could occur". So specific.  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Interesting.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Jun 30^th, 2023 at 1:24pm:

2 trends on the chart.

There is no trend since at least 1958, better? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

And the fossil fuel thing was apparently "public discussion" since 1968, so not just fossil fuel companies. ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jun 14^th, 2023 at 2:33pm:

But NOT scientists, which was your claim. And again consensus is politics not science. Dummy. ::)

I said the world's politicians are following the IPCC consensus, which is a consensus of CC scientists. Your conservative crippled brain is showing again. .


Quote:

Once again D-E accounting proves nothing. It relies on the underlying assumptions. Dummy. Roll Eyes

Keen: "It is simply ridiculous how much of our current politics involves being ignorant about these basic facts about money creation."

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1645944963/545#545

#545.

Your blind ideology renders you incapable of examining Keen's Minsky D-E accounting, least of all learning how money is created.

Teaching you about money is the equivalent of teaching an ISIS  theologian about scriptural rectitude.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 1^st, 2023 at 4:00pm:

I said the world's politicians are following the IPCC consensus, which is a consensus of CC scientists.

Which consensus is that? The one where extreme weather events are not increasing? Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 1^st, 2023 at 4:00pm:

Keen: "It is simply ridiculous how much of our current politics involves being ignorant about these basic facts about money creation."

It is simply ridiculous someone without even Basic Accounting let alone Advanced Accounting, can pretend to understand Economics. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 1^st, 2023 at 4:00pm:

Your blind ideology renders you incapable of examining Keen's Minsky D-E accounting, least of all learning how money is created.

But D-E accounting, like all accounting, depends on the figures put into it. And as it is posited on a future, those figures are assumptions. Dummy. ::)

lee wrote on Jul 1^st, 2023 at 5:25pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 1st, 2023 at 4:00pm: I said the world's politicians are following the IPCC consensus, which is a consensus of CC scientists. Which consensus is that? The one where extreme weather events are not increasing? Dummy. ::)

Fraudulent debating. The IPCC scientific consensus. You are an outlier. 


Quote:

Keen: "It is simply ridiculous how much of our current politics involves being ignorant about these basic facts about money creation." It is simply ridiculous someone without even Basic Accounting let alone Advanced Accounting, can pretend to understand Economics. Dummy.

Fraudulent, low IQ debating. Keen is one of the most brilliant practitioners in the world.


Quote:

But D-E accounting, like all accounting, depends on the figures put into it. And as it is posited on a future, those figures are assumptions. Dummy. ::)

Keen's method is not "posited on a future"; it is posited on following the money trail - from its creation 'out of thin air' in national treasuries, and central and private banks - to non-bank private sector players.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 1^st, 2023 at 5:52pm:

Fraudulent debating. The IPCC scientific consensus. You are an outlier.

I quoted what the Physical Science Basis say.  But tou are just a dummy and don't want to know. I will reiterate what they say, with references. -

"Floods - In summary there is low confidence in the human influence on the changes in high river flows on the global scale. Confidence is in general low in attributing changes in the probability or magnitude of flood events to human influence because of a limited number of studies and differences in the results of these studies, and large modelling uncertainties.

IPCC  AR6 WG1 11.5.4 ( I will even translate tis for you) IPCC AR6 (the latest version) WG1 (The Physical Science Basis) Chapter 11.5.4


Droughts - There is medium confidence in the ability of ESMs to simulate trends and anomalies in precipitation deficits and AED, and also medium confidence in the ability of ESMs and hydrological models to simulate trends and anomalies in soil moisture and streamflow deficits, on global and regional scales

IPCC AR6 WG1 11.6.3.6 (similar to above but different parts of Chaper 11


Cyclones - The SREX (Chapter 3) concluded that there is low confidence in observed long-term (40 years or more) trends in TC intensity, frequency, and duration

IPCC AR6 WG1 11.7 Similar to above.

Dummy. ::)
thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 1^st, 2023 at 5:52pm:

Keen's method is not "posited on a future";

So he is using 2017 prices to prove his point? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

"At this time, Keen’s Minsky Model is able to model a simple “corn economy” of the GDP of an individual nation. "

https://www.boldbusiness.com/human-achievement/minsky-model-new-dynamic-revolutionary-economic-model/

You really are a joke. Dummy. ::)

In fact if you download the program, which I just did, one of the buttons is "Assumptions".  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jul 1^st, 2023 at 6:32pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 1st, 2023 at 5:52pm: Fraudulent debating. The IPCC scientific consensus. You are an outlier. I quoted what the Physical Science Basis say.

Ok, now you just have to get what they say to align with what the IPCC scientific consensus says.

Good luck....


Quote:

So he is using 2017 prices to prove his point? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

 

One can use ANY particular year's  figures to prove the point, namely, govt fiat deficits are a BENEFIT to the private sector


Quote:

"At this time, Keen’s Minsky Model is able to model a simple “corn economy” of the GDP of an individual nation. " https://www.boldbusiness.com/human-achievement/minsky-model-new-dynamic-revolutionary-economic-model/

Er....models of complex systems (like global climate and the macroeconomy) necesarily involve simplification to allow mathematical  analysis.

cf common sense analysis eg

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1645944963/new

#546

Tweet:

#MMT: MoralMoneyTime
@samvega

1. The only deficit that counts is government 'deficit' of its own fiat money that, by fiat, it creates inexhaustibly. 🤪

2. Deficits of air, water, work, opportunity, schools, healthcare, biodiversity... are to be ignored.

~ mainstream economists and neoliberal politicians.


Quote:

You really are a joke. Dummy. ::)

Says the blind 'sovereign individual'/ 'survival of the  fittest' ideologue.


Quote:

In fact if you download the program, which I just did, one of the buttons is "Assumptions".  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yes, as is necessary for simplication of data to allow mathematical analysis of almost infinitely complex systems. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2023 at 12:33pm:

Ok, now you just have to get what they say to align with what the IPCC scientific consensus says.

You are the one saying he listens to the IPCC experts. Dummy. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2023 at 12:33pm:

One can use ANY particular year's  figures to prove the point, namely, govt fiat deficits are a BENEFIT to the private sector

Nope. You need to factor in price rises in commodities. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2023 at 12:33pm:

Er....models of complex systems (like global climate and the macroeconomy) necesarily involve simplification to allow mathematical  analysis.

Simplification doesn't work on complex problems. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2023 at 12:33pm:

Says the blind 'sovereign individual'/ 'survival of the  fittest' ideologue.

So you really don't know what you are talking about. Thanks for that. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2023 at 12:33pm:

Yes, as is necessary for simplication of data to allow mathematical analysis of almost infinitely complex systems.

How many assumptions (also known as parameters)?

"With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk." John von Neumann

You are such a dummy. ::)

Simplification of a complex problem only gives a generic result, entireley dependent on the underlying assumptions. Dummy. ::)

lee wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2023 at 12:49pm:

You are the one saying he listens to the IPCC experts.

Fraudulent debating: the UN and the world's governments accept the IPCC scientific consensus.


Quote:

GD: govt fiat deficits are a BENEFIT to the private sector Nope. You need to factor in price rises in commodities. Dummy. ::)

Irrelevent; the above (in red text)  applies, regardless of private sector prices (which by the way in some cases (eg, essential services) should by controlled to prevent price-gouging by private  profit seekers).


Quote:

Simplification doesn't work on complex problems. Dummy. ::)

The entire flat-earth neoclassical economic orthodoxy relies on simplification of the real economy.

Whereas Keen set out to prove the government's deficit is the private sector's surplus (ie savings), ie, he is specifically dealing with the section of the 'invisible hand' neoclassical charade which was invented when money was regarded as a commodity, and its creation in banks was ignored, in supply and demand theory.   


Quote:

So you really don't know what you are talking about. Thanks for that. Dummy. ::)

You are blinded by your reptilian brain which serves survival of the individual impulses in a predatory world.  Those same instincts for personal survival have now created the nuclear arms race..... we have a problem.... aka MAD ( an exquisite acronym....)


Quote:

How many assumptions (also known as parameters)? "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk." John von Neumann You are such a dummy. ::)

Blind, crippled conservative brain: assumptions and parameters are different things.


Quote:

Simplification of a complex problem only gives a generic result, entireley dependent on the underlying assumptions. Dummy. ::)

Yes, but realizing fiat is inexhaustable (for the fiat-issuing government)  is simple....except to blind survival of the fittest 'invisible hand'  ideologues, apparently.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2023 at 1:36pm:

Fraudulent debating: the UN and the world's governments accept the IPCC scientific consensus.

The only fraud is you. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2023 at 1:36pm:

Irrelevent; the above (in red text)  applies, regardless of private sector prices (which by the way in some cases (eg, essential services) should by controlled to prevent price-gouging by private  profit seekers).

Poor petal. Doesn't understand Basic Accounting, doesn't understand Advanced Accounting; doesn't understand Economics. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2023 at 1:36pm:

The entire flat-earth neoclassical economic orthodoxy relies on simplification of the real economy.

So youy are saying Keen is a neoclassical economist. Oh dear. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2023 at 1:36pm:

Whereas Keen set out to prove the government's deficit is the private sector's surplus (ie savings), ie, he is specifically dealing with the section of the 'invisible hand' neoclassical charade which was invented when money was regarded as a commodity, and its creation in banks was ignored, in supply and demand theory.

And hasn't proved anything. As I said it relies on his underlying assumptions.  Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2023 at 1:36pm:

You are blinded by your reptilian brain which serves survival of the individual impulses in a predatory world.  Those same instincts for personal survival have now created the nuclear arms race..... we have a problem.... aka MAD ( an exquisite acronym....)

We only now have a nuclear arms race. Oh dear. You don't know history either. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2023 at 1:36pm:

Blind, crippled conservative brain: assumptions and parameters are different things.

"In statistics, parametric tests are tests that make assumptions about the underlying distribution of data."

https://www.statology.org/parametric-tests-assumptions/

So tell us how well the parameter proves the assumptions. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2023 at 1:36pm:

Yes, but realizing fiat is inexhaustable (for the fiat-issuing government)  is simple..

The "yes" would have been sufficient. Dummy. ::)

lee wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2023 at 2:38pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 2nd, 2023 at 1:36pm: Fraudulent debating: the UN and the world's governments accept the IPCC scientific consensus. The only fraud is you. Dummy. ::)

You forgot to say why. Fraud.


Quote:

doesn't understand Economics. Dummy. ::)

Says a low IQ lap-dog  of deluded flat earth neoclassical economics.


Quote:

So youy are saying Keen is a neoclassical economist. Oh dear. Dummy. ::)

No: Keen set out to prove the error of the neoclassical assertions re government debt


Quote:

And hasn't proved anything. As I said it relies on his underlying assumptions.  Dummy. ::)

He has proved the government's debt is the private sector's  savings.


Quote:

We only now have a nuclear arms race. Oh dear. You don't know history either. Dummy. ::)

Since 1945, when the UN was created to "save mankind from the scourge of war" ...(in the new age of MAD).

Yet the reptilian brain's survival impulses ensured the power of veto, for the members of the new UNSC....immediately rendering the UNSC powerless to 'save mankind from the scourge of war....'

You neanderthal...   


Quote:

"In statistics, parametric tests are tests that make assumptions about the underlying distribution of data."

Whereas Keen merely reduced the quantum of data he needed, to show the government's deficit is the private sector's surplus.


Quote:

The "yes" would have been sufficient. Dummy. ::)

 

No; you claimed reduction of the  (near infinity) quantum  of data negates Keen's method.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2023 at 3:11pm:

You forgot to say why.

Because it was YOU who said you defer to the IPCC. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2023 at 3:11pm:

Says a low IQ lap-dog  of deluded flat earth neoclassical economics.

Says the person who doesn't understand Any Accounting let alone economics. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2023 at 3:11pm:

No: Keen set out to prove the error of the neoclassical assertions re government debt

Using a simplified system. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2023 at 3:11pm:

He has proved the government's debt is the private sector's  savings.

He has proved nothing of the sort. Accounting programs don't "prove" anything. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2023 at 3:11pm:

Since 1945, when the UN was created to "save mankind from the scourge of war" ...(in the new age of MAD).

You were the one said "now". Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2023 at 3:11pm:

Whereas Keen merely reduced the quantum of data he needed, to show the government's deficit is the private sector's surplus.

And simplification proves nothing. Dummy. ::)


thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2023 at 3:11pm:

No; you claimed reduction of the  (near infinity) quantum  of data negates Keen's method.

Where did I say "reduction of the  (near infinity) quantum  of data negates Keen's method" Dummy.

Simplification for a simple audience. Dummy. ::)

Heard today on radio: earth has experiened (yesterday) its hottest day on record - 17.8 degree C.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 7^th, 2023 at 12:41pm:

Heard today on radio: earth has experiened (yesterday) its hottest day on record - 17.8 degree C.

Where was that? It didn't get to 12C here. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

A coolish 64F in the old. ;)

lee wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2023 at 3:33pm:

Because it was YOU who said you defer to the IPCC. Dummy. ::)

Me, AND the world's governments. Low IQ?


Quote:

Says the person who doesn't understand Any Accounting let alone economics. Dummy. ::)

Unlike you, Keen understands both, and I understand macro economics, as shown by my reply to you yesterday in another thread (exposing Lowe's denials he was funding the government during the Covid lock-down). 
Your comment "let alone economics" merely shows you conflate micro and macro economics, like all neoclassical economists, which is why they don't understand how the economy works, and, eg, think you have to increase unemployment to control inflation.   


Quote:

Using a simplified system. Dummy. ::)

Complex systems can be better understood by reducing the quantum of input data.


Quote:

He has proved nothing of the sort. Accounting programs don't "prove" anything. Dummy. ::)

A software program can illustrate the point, if valid inputs are used - unlike your GIGO posts.


Quote:

TGD: Since 1945, when the UN was created to "save mankind from the scourge of war" ...(in the new age of MAD). You were the one said "now". Dummy. ::)

You lying (or dementing?) turd; you were the one who said "We only now have a nuclear arms race".

Just to jog your memory, the Soviets joined the race straight away after 1945. 


Quote:

And simplification proves nothing. Dummy. ::)

Depends on the validity of the input data. Certainly the mainstream neoclassical DSGE models of the economy employ invalid, simplified assumptions not related to the real world.


Quote:

"Where did I say "reduction of the  (near infinity) quantum  of data negates Keen's method" Dummy.

Low IQ? See above: "simplification proves nothing"


Quote:

Simplification for a simple audience. Dummy. ::

Like gruesome DSGE neoclassical economists.