Tasmanian Times


Some Myths Presented by Climate Change Deniers

Rob Walls' pic of a protest last year by students against climate change on Parliament lawns. The students downed pens to protest ...

We all want to believe that Earth will remain a safe place to live. It has, in the main, provided a stable climate since man has inhabited Earth.

Yet, now, deniers do agree that the climate is changing, ten years ago that was not the case. They now pick reasons for the change in climate that scientists have already considered and found not to be the case. They deny the impact of greenhouse gases on climate. There has been talk of setting up a colony on Mars, could human exist there without any technological ways of creating an atmosphere in shelters? Clearly, the answer is a resounding no. We are able to survive on Earth as greenhouse gases allow for temperature to be moderated to allow for human, and flora and fauna survival. 

1. Greenhouse gases do not have an impact on climate.

Climate science began through Fourier in the 1820s. Later, Foote and Tyndall experimented with various gases and found that CO2 retains warmth.  Much more sophisticated experiments have upheld their findings since.  A 1912 short article in a New Zealand paper discussed what impact coal would have on climate.

Scientists working for ExxonMobil in the 1970s, found that fossil fuels do impact on climate, as have scientists contracted by the American Petroleum Institute prior to denial becoming a thriving Industry from the late 1980s. 

2. The Climate has always changed.

Here we have a statement that we all know is true. The fact is that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere change over time as a percentage of the atmosphere. CO2 takes a huge number of decades to break down. The “great dying” 252 million years ago is an example of greenhouse gases being created through coal seams being ignited. Unsurprisingly, artefacts are created through such a process. Dr Benjamin Burger acknowledges prior studies, and through breaking down samples shows  chemical and mineral artefacts consistent with coal burning and the creation of greenhouse gases. Dr Burger suggests that his study provides an analog for what is beginning to happen currently. 

3. Information provided by deniers is often distorted.

Dr James Hansen has been fraudulently misquoted in relation to paradigms  he set out in the 1980s where two of his paradigms were very close to the mark, and the other two are the ones deniers use. Deniers often do not understand nuances climate scientists state, they cherry pick statements from Reports they believe fit their pseudo science. For example, a study might clearly establish that anthropogenic climate change is happening, yet comments from deniers use the Reports anyway. Astro-Physics being an example where this has happened. 

4. Climate scientists distort temperature.

Deniers complain that temperature readings are homogenised, they would apparently prefer inaccurate records to be made. Weather stations are influenced by what is around them, if trees, asphalt, or buildings are placed; or taken away from the vicinity of a weather station, then readings change. Environments do change after more than one hundred years. The US has placed weather stations in areas where change is extremely unlikely to happen as datum points so menaces such as Anthony Watts from WUWT are silenced.

They have found their homogenisation of temperature readings have been accurate. No longer do deniers use 1997 as a datum point for their arguments, they would be laughed at if they did. Temperature has increased since the El Nino year of 1997, even in years since when El Nino was not a factor. 

5. Climate scientists make a fortune.

Climate scientists do seek funds to allow for research; as do other scientists in a myriad of other disciplines.  However, their salaries are what can be expected in any Professional position. The message is put out to shift the focus off the Fossil Fuel Corporations making huge profits at the expense of a liveable environment.  

Any commentary provided by deniers needs to be checked against what science says. I would hope that anybody reading these comments checks what I have written against science, not blogs. 

Comments such as … “Indeed, the AGW theory posing as ‘settled science’ in in fact the greatest science fraud in human history.”  It is just a meaningless comment that offers no evidence, and is quite infuriating. It is a form of comment often provided by anthropogenic climate change deniers.

Each point made has lots of further details, but I’m trying to be brief.

  1. Deniers argue climate science is just modelling.

Tell that to divers in Antarctica, or scientists tramping up and down glaciers, or scientists working in other inhospitable places gathering data. Modelling has been used in the past to provide an idea of what is happening. The grids used were quite large two hundred kilometres square, now they can be as small as ten square kilometers. A few years ago quite a number of Glaciologists were complaining about modelling not keeping up with the pace of decline in snow and ice regions.  Erosion of coastlines, river banks or valleys requires observation and measurement, nothing to do with modelling. Noting how fish species are moving North or South from their habits depending on which hemisphere they are in, requires observation.

Deniers like to promote problems with temperature measurement; but, when the artefacts of temperature are pointed out, they claim that is out of order. Examples of artefacts … thawing of permafrost; where greening of tundra areas is taking place, lakes and ponds forming, marshes are forming, infra-structure is breaking down, and glaciers disappearing.

  1. Anthropogenic climate change is not happening.

Often the response is just, it is not happening without any kind of evidence provided. It’s a case of knowing better than the millions of scientists over the years who have come to the conclusion that humans do have an effect on climate. Sometimes it is expressed as humans do have a little effect on climate, though not enough to do much damage. The point particularly came to mind after watching a BBC interview with Myron Ebell a strong Trump supporter. He had no better response than in his view climate scientists are wrong.

Science is not based on opinion, it is based on hypotheses being shown to be correct through observations and data collected.

  1. Satellite data shows that temperatures are not increasing to any large extent.

New data in relation to warming of Oceans almost makes temperature readings from land based weather stations and satellites superfluous. Oceans comprise 70% of the Earth’s surface, and they act as a sink for CO2 and temperature. Satellites do not actually measure temperature; they provide inferred data which then needs to go through a modelling process. Remember, denialists do not like modelling. There is controversy in relation to the accuracy of satellite inferred temperature relating to the process the data  needs to be processed by. There has been controversy for many years in relation to the processing of inferred temperature. The other factor is that as satellites age they move out of their orbits causing difficulty in accurately interpreting their inferred temperature.

  1. There is no consensus between climate scientists in relation to anthropogenic climate change.

The comment seems mainly directed at John Cook, he began the successful Skeptical Science web site years ago which provides a thorn in denier arguments. The consensus view was first spoken about by Naomi Orestes, it was an observation she made without any objective proof. The consensus view created much attention and several studies were completed to verify the opinion including one by Naomi Orestes. The studies varied from 91% to greater than 97%; the studies assessed were from recognised peer reviewed climate science journals. Consensus studies: Orestes 2004, 100%; Doran 2009, 97%; Andregg 2010, 97%; Cook 2013, 97%; Verheggan 2014, 91%; Stenhouse 2014, 93% and Carlton 2015, 97%. From Skeptical Science

  1. Water vapour is the main greenhouse gas.

As with the claim that the climate has always changed it is a true observation.

But, water vapour doesn’t just happen without a particular processes occurring. There is the normal water cycle operating with the add-on of warm marine waters and warm atmosphere. The warm atmosphere is created by extra greenhouse gas emissions which then allow for extra water vapour to be carried. Warming waters allow for more evaporation to take place. Water vapour once created is a powerful greenhouse gas, and a positive feedback system is developed. Wet micro bursts,  jargon for “rain bombs” in the past were quite rare, and occurred for a short time frame; now, they are very common and  can last for long periods; for example, Hurricane Harvey 2017.

Keith Antonysen has been researching climate science since the 1980s, at that time predictions were being promoted that would happen in the future. We are now beginning to witness the predictions forecaste in the past coming true.  Denier Agencies have been very successful in promoting pseudo science for many years; it is very clear that many decision makers are fooled by the pseudo science promoted; or, have been bought through large donations. Keith Antonysen believes we must fight against the greed shown by Fossil Fuel Corporations and self serving Politicians for the sake of up coming generations. 


Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]


  1. Keith Antonysen

    February 7, 2019 at 5:16 pm

    When deniers try to debunk climate science they often use quotes or graphs that have been tampered with, or they use very old references.

    Mann et al came up with a study that gained the name “the hockey stick.” It gained much attention from deniers on the basis of knocking their arguments to pieces.


    When challenged about what is happening at present, relating to temperature, the denier will not accept the challenge and will try to deflect comment to other matters.

    • davies

      February 9, 2019 at 7:51 pm

      So, to once again try to prove that Mann has been vindicated many times over, we get a link to an old article showing a graph of 11 reconstructions including Mann.

      The rationale is to prove Mann’s reconstruction has been replicated (eg no MWP and no Little Ice Age) by these others, but several clearly show a Little Ice Age so they are not vindicating Mann, and a couple are showing the MWP .. so no vindication there either.

      And if we dig a little deeper …

      We have Huang 2004, Hegerl 2007, Moberg 2005, Jones 1998, Oerlemans 2005, Crowley 2000, D’Arrigo 2006, Juckes 2006 and Briffa 2001.

      Jones as in Phil Jones? The central climategate guy along with Mann? That Jones? You might get more kudos if you said that Mann’s Mum vindicated his work.

      Hegerl and Moberg reconstructions clearly show a MWP and a Little Ice Age trough. That does not vindicate Mann, but rather the opposite.

      Esper has the MWP, Little Ice Age and no stick. He is on record being critical of Mann’s work, and suggested for the 4th Assessment Report that they ‘fess up to the heavy weighting Mann relies on with his tree-ring data (pre 1421 it is apparently one lone alpine pine tree!) rather than saying the record is based on a “range of proxy types”.

      D’Arrigo was one of the signatories (it also included Esper and Briffa and 20 others) who wrote to the editor of Nature Geoscience after Mann and two others had a paper published in 2012 ..

      “Several aspects of their tree-ring growth simulations are erroneous. They use an algorithm that has not been tested for its ability to reflect actual observations, even though established growth models, such as the Vaganov-Shashkin model, are available. They rely on a minimum growth temperature threshold of 10 degrees C that is incompatible with real-world observations .. etc etc”

      And just in case you thought Esper had succumbed to peer pressure to be a signatory to that letter she also tweeted:

      D’Arrigo: @MichaelMann paper is “highly questionable” Questions entire science of tree ring dating. Misleads public. Ouch!!

      Briffa is a signatory of the above. But seriously how could you even think Briffa would vindicate Mann’s work when it was his work they were so desperately trying to “hide the decline”. In the end they just cut his data off before 1960s because Briffa’s temperature curve (using tree rings) showed a sharp cooling trend after 1960.

      The problem is that if tree rings were not detecting the modern warming period then they may have missed comparable warming periods in the past – you can see the problem.

      I haven’t checked the other 4 but I think those 6 examples above should give a clear indication that Mann is not being vindicated by many others.

      Dump Mann. It will be very cathartic.

      • max

        February 9, 2019 at 9:50 pm

        Davies, what is your fixation on Mann .. the little ice age or the middle age warm period. They were not world wide, and were possibly caused by a shift in the global ocean conveyor belt. We have no real way of knowing.

        What we now know is that climate change is happening, and with a vengeance. The world temperature has gone up .. what you would call a minuscule 0.7 of a degree, and most if not all glaciers are shrinking.

        Permanent frost is melting, hurricanes and cyclone speeds are going off the chart. We have rain bombs and mudslides, hottest temperature are broken daily, longer duration of droughts unstable polar vortexes .. yet we have climate change deniers who refuse to accept climate change!

        Greenland is melting and the fresh water may disrupt the global ocean conveyor belt. If this happens, England and Europe may go into a cold period while the rest of the world keeps getting warmer.

        Instead of worrying about a couple of perceived glitches in Mann’s hockey stick, start focusing on what 1.5 (or god help us!) 2 degrees of warming will do.


        Max, vulgar expressions contravene TT’s Code of Conduct.


        — Moderator

      • Keith Antonysen

        February 9, 2019 at 10:30 pm

        Provide the actual references with a “doi” prefix.

        Although concentrating on Mann is just a diversion on your part, you appear to have an obsession in relation to him. Just splashing names around does not mean anything. A study of Baffin Island was quite cold while Greenland was warmer. In the past I have given a reference, but I will not provide the reference displaying the denier trick. From memory the study was completed about two years ago. Baffin Island is in quite close proximity to Greenland, but there was no loss of ice during the Medieval period.

        But I provided a Youtube clip at .. https://tasmaniantimes.com/2019/02/the-best-data-viz-and-infographics-on-climate-change-facts/

        It displays how a graph provided by Fredrik Ljungqvist was “adapted” .. that is, fraudulently modified to fit the denier commentary. The graph used by deniers is compared with that of Fredrik Ljungqvist’s published graph. This gets back to my point that splashing names around without proper references is meaningless. The Medieval period was warmer, but not as warm as the temperatures being experienced now.

        How are you getting on with my request for commenting on the contemporary matters of:

        Dry Lightning
        Permafrost thawing
        Drunken trees
        Warming Oceans

        Provide references with a “doi” prefix.

        It is very interesting that a Land Court in NSW has just disallowed an extension to a coal mine through concern about climate change.

        Whatever happened to the denier datum point of 1997?

      • Jon Sumby

        February 10, 2019 at 10:31 am

        Give it a break, Davies. In the 20 years since Mann published his research there have been multiple lines of independent research by scientists around the world that confirms the ‘hockey stick’ pattern of global heating. The science has moved on since 1999, and the hockey stick pattern has been validated and confirmed and found again and again in data from multiple locations. The PAGES 2k consortium has found many more. There are climate scientists graduating from university who were toddlers when Mann published the hockey stick graph. The only people who grind on about the hockey stick graph now are old school deniers still fighting an old war as if it is still a real thing. The odd bit is that they focus on Mann’s work, but ignore the contemporary and similar results from D’Arrigo and Jacoby’s research.

        The PAGES 2k research was pulled together by 98 scientists in 22 countries over a period of several years. The data and analysis are open source and freely available online so if you want, you can download it and run your own analysis to disprove this research. You will be famous as the non-climate scientist who disproves 20 years of concerted research by hundreds of scientists around the world.

        ‘As a scientist, you have to go where the evidence takes you. You can only be smacked in the face by evidence so many times and not see some kind of pattern. (You will never guess: a HOCKEY STICK!).

        It’s been nearly 20 years since the landmark hockey stick study. Few things about it were perfect, and I’ve had more than a few friendly disagreements with Mike Mann about it and other research questions.

        But what this latest PAGES 2k compilation shows, is that you get a hockey stick no matter what you do to the data.

        The hockey stick is alive and well. There is now so much data supporting this observation that it will take nothing short of a revolution of how we understand all paleoclimate proxies to overturn this pattern.’

        -Excerpt of blog post (11th June, 2017) written by Professor Julien Emile-Geay, head of the Climate Dynamics Lab at the University of Southern California.

        Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS) researcher Dr Steven Phipps, who co-authored the study published in the international journal Scientific Data as a member of the PAGES2k Consortium, said the database shows a long-term cooling trend until the 19th century, followed by a sharp warming trend.

        “This is the most comprehensive database of climate records spanning the past 2,000 years that has
        ever been generated,”
        Dr Phipps said.

        The Past Global Changes project’s (PAGES) new version of the database includes marine records from the Ocean2k project for the first time, and adds previously unpublished data records and extensive new metadata.

        Overall the database gathers 692 records from 648 locations, with data sources covering all continents and oceans. Australia contributes five records, all of which come from Tasmania: tree
        rings from Huon pine and celery-top pine trees in eastern and western Tasmania, as well as a sediment core from Duckhole Lake in southern Tasmania.’

        • Media release: 12th July, 2017, Communications and Media Office, University of Tasmania.
        • davies

          February 13, 2019 at 10:44 am

          “You will be famous as the non-climate scientist who disproves 20 years of concerted research by hundreds of scientists around the world.”

          CHALLENGE ACCEPTED…0.417 seconds later…damn others already beat me to it. You did know that didn’t you?

          Mind you when PAGES 2K was launched in 2013, the New York Times (April 22) did a feature with a lead author (Kaufman). In it, and the article is still there, you see quotes like:

          “temperatures in some regions were higher in the past than they were during the late 20th Century”

          “In Europe, slightly higher reconstructed temperatures were registered in AD 741-770, and the interval AD 21-80 was substantially warmer than 1971-2000”

          “Antarctica was probably warmer than 1971-2000 for a time period as recent as AD 1671-1700 and the entire period from 141-1250 was warmer than 1971-2000.”

          So the above doesn’t vindicate Mann. But then we get the famous non-climate scientists disproving even those milder claims!

          Steve McIntyre, yes the same guy that shot down Mann, spotted several errors. The PAGES 2K acknowledged that they had made errors in a Corrigendum over two years after the errors were pointed out to them!! Of course to no fanfare whatsoever…

          Apparently all the “errors” , coincidentally I am sure, cooled the past and warmed the present. You can see the final amended result for the Arctic in the McKay and Kaufman 2014 graph. That is NOT a hockey stick. But credit to PAGES 2K for at least making the changes, though not in an overly timely manner.

          I know it is important to minimise the MWP to just a region or two, rather than a global event, but there seems to be a number of studies out there suggesting it was global. Soon and Baliunas (2003) found that 92% of 112 studies showed physical evidence of the MWP, only two showed no evidence, and 21 of 22 studies in Southern Hemisphere showed evidence of MWP.

          And final word to McIntyre on Mann after he evaluated the data in the Mann paper and concluded that the curve was invalid “due to collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects.” Oh is that all!

          In short, I won’t shut up on Mann. According to 150 plus prominent scientists his work was seriously flawed. By your continued support of his work you weaken your whole argument. It also make it clear that it is the side that matters not the principles or indeed the science.

          • Keith Antonysen

            February 13, 2019 at 1:23 pm

            You really don’t get it do you Davies, take Professor Mann ought of commentary on climate change and anthropogenic climate change is happening anyway. You appear to have a fixation about Professor Mann.
            When asked you do not provide any references; but make comments. I visited one of the very few references you provided and found a Error 404 message.
            I displayed the trick deniers use in relation to Baffin Island, making mention of it, but not providing a reference. This is not the reference provided earlier, but watch a minute of the referenced film and the point I made is quite clear. My point had been while Greenland was warm, Baffin Island was not, showing those were characteristic during the Medieval Period.



            The film I provided in relation to the Medieval Period showed very clearly how graphs had been tampered with (“adapted”) by deniers; that is, fraudulently changed. Professor Fredrik Ljungqvist was the main example I mentioned (9 Feb at 10.30 above). Temperature for contemporary times were rubbed out (“adapted”) giving the fraudulent impression that the Medieval period was warmer than in our time.

            So unless you support fraud, it is best to leave it.

            Davies, you are not able to comment on contemporary matters are you, as asked a few times.

  2. max

    February 4, 2019 at 11:32 pm

    Climate change and global warming is here now and it is threatening the very existence of our civilisation. Nearly one in five Australians do not believe in climate change, making the country the worst in the world for climate sceptics, a study of almost 20,000 people has found.

    The research by the University of Tasmania found 17 per cent of Australians thought climate change was not real. In reply to this article we have one of the 17 per cent, Davies, defending his belief on climate change by condemning Mann’s hockey stick.

    Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can – and has – been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1,000 years than in the last part of the 20th century.

    In fact, independent evidence, from ice cores and sea sediments for instance, suggest the last time the planet approached this degree of warmth was during the inter-glacial period preceding the last ice age over 100,000 years ago. It might even be hotter than has been for at least a million years.

    I find it hard to understand how climate change sceptics can still hold their beliefs in the face of mounting evidence, both visual and scientifically.

    • Kim Peart

      February 5, 2019 at 6:04 am

      I would suggest Max, that this is a four part problem.

      First is a recoil from science, which successfully delivered nuclear weapons that can destroy all life on Earth, along with the whole modern age that just keeps racing forward, and even delivering Centrelink robots with faulty algorithms as cost-effective cruelty for the government. Like Alvin Toffler’s book ~ Future Shock ~ people are reacting to rapid change, by rejecting it, but not knowing what happens, or what to do.

      Secondly, science can speak to the truth, but rarely speaks the whole truth, and this is confusing, making science look like it gets it wrong, especially with something as serious as the carbon crisis. This is the child of scientific reticence, where the least worse is put on the table, while the full truth is revealed later. I respect the science, but you cannot build political action on reticence.

      We can observe Adam Smith on this matter, where he wrote a work on compassion, and then another on wealth, but destroyed all his notes on politics, when he came to realise that it was an undefinable art of the human spirit. Look at Winston Churchill, one man determining the direction of a whole planet, by deciding to fight Hitler.

      Third is political, where politicians keenly grab the least worse, and look for less risk. That is why there was nearly no war against Hitler.

      Forth comes fossil fuel mogul mischief, which takes full advantage of the fears, hesitations and wishes of the first three to drive a propaganda campaign, however secret, to secure a total focus on Earth alone for power and dreams.

      An alternative became possible with space development in the 1960s, which would have allowed energy transition out of fossil fuel, by building solar power stations in space, first proposed by Dr Peter Glaser in 1968, and included in the O’Neill space development plans in the 1970s.

      It helps to understand at this point, that in space everything changes. There is a whole new dynamic with economics, where beyond the primary investment to secure a sustainable industrial presence beyond Earth, there is no further cost, and all further development is essentially free. I call it the Liberty Line.

      I suggest that the fossil fuel moguls were fully aware of the potential of space, and did all they could to keep the popular and political focus on Earth alone.

      There has never been a proper explanation for the assassination of the Kennedy’s but what those two key deaths effectively did, was kill the front line of the political space vision. (When I last made that statement in TT, there was an immediate reaction on the Internet, as if it triggers a propaganda reaction to deflect any attention to the matter. There may be an AI watching.)

      Maybe there is another level of future shock involved with the global intelligentsia, where I have come across rejection of space options on the bases that it’s all an extension of the military. There is truth in this, but also rejection of the civil benefits of space. Many smart people reject space options entirely, which puts them on the same page as fossil fuel mogul propaganda, which aims to keep the human focus on Earth alone, because space would take away their power. I wonder how many of the smart arguments against space, are birthed in fossil fuel propaganda. After all fossil fuel essentially pays all wages. Try removing fossil fuel from the global economy.

      The challenge is, how do we break out of the fossil fuel propaganda mind-set, launch a popular movement for Earth and space, and secure a survival presence in space ASAP, so that we will survive, and will be able to win back a safe Earth.

      On Earth alone I fear that our survival is at total risk.

      The success of the propaganda has primed the nations, the intelligentsia, and the general public to accept the next product, of pumping sulphur into the air to cool the planet. This is because there is such a very high level of blindness to the space option of an adjustable sunshade in space, and how this can be delivered.

      The Asgardia project revealed that there is now a popular mood on Earth that could engage ten million and more space campaigners in a mission to save the Earth within a year, once launched. This will happen by individuals connecting with their personal power to make change via a shared vision. As few as ten individuals can trigger global change.

      So here we are, aware of the problems, but also aware of what is possible. The challenge is to see at lest ten empowered individuals connect in Washington in October, and launch a mission for Earth and space.

      After October, the window steadily closes, as the carbon crisis leads to political crackdowns and increased global conflict.

      I have written in TT of what I suggest the Chinese plan is, where power is focused at the top, and they may see the survival problem more clearly.

      If that suggested plan happens, Australia will be history, but there will a global space future, and if the plan fails, nuclear oblivion.

      Our national defence at this point, may simply hinge on driving a space vision that directs the attention of China off-Earth.

      As a nation, we could play a key role in securing a space future for human survival.

      Our future survival hinges on individuals awakening to the potential of space, and engaging.

    • Keith Antonysen

      February 5, 2019 at 10:27 am

      Max … Many times in the past Davies has made comments, and when challenged he disappears.

      At times he has referenced an old IPCC Report when newer IPCC Reports provide an up to dated view on the science. When deniers do provide a reference it is either to a denier blog or the science referenced is out of date and superseded. At times deniers provide quotes which have been slightly altered to provide a different meaning.

    • davies

      February 5, 2019 at 4:11 pm

      Where have I said climate change doesn’t exist? My argument has always been firstly about the amount of temperature rise as there are examples around the globe of past temperatures being reduced thereby accentuating the later rise. Secondly, what is the impact of human activity on this rise in temperature?

      More importantly, I dispute the ‘catastrophic’ scenarios thrown around like confetti which even the IPCC in its last assessment Report indicates are only possible under one of their scenarios of which meeting the criteria for that seemed highly unlikely.

      There is a final part to the debate, which is if the ‘doomsayers’ are correct is trying to reduce C02 emissions the most effective way to do this. Bjorn Lomborg does a lot of work in this area.

      Most researchers would not agree that the hockey stick is not far off the mark. Did you look at the background of the scientists I quoted? Did you see how many would be classified as warmists, yet still had serious issues with the hockey stick and with Mann?

      Perhaps a couple more quotes:

      Dr Sebastian Luning “It is difficult to fathom how the main players and proponents of the Hockey Sticks are still able to act as experts.”

      Dr Walter Starck “The charlatan Michael Mann and his infamous hockey stick.”

      Prof Marcel Leroux “A shoddy stick”

      Prof Istvan Marko “This lack of scientific rigor has totally discredited the curve”

      Prof Peter Stilbs “Claims based on the Mann hockey stick curve are by now totally discredited.”

      Dr Rob Wilson “A crock of sh*t.”

      Give Mann up. You will take a short term hit, but you will be better off in the long run.

      Just like the Patriots, I am still here!

      • Keith Antonysen

        February 5, 2019 at 6:05 pm

        Davies, in a previous comment you promoted Lindzen, but his Iris theory has been bypassed by further science. Bjorn Lomborg is not a climate scientist.

        Having watched a video earlier about how Monckton and other deniers have completely misrepresented, or even changed, the quotes from authentic scientists, you will need to provide more details about the quotes you have provided by providing the sources.

        I happen often to receive more references to science in a day than skeptical scientists provide in a year in, so I do not rely on Professor Mann alone.

        I’d be interested in any science you can produce in relation to:

        • Dry Lightning
        • Permafrost thawing
        • Drunken trees
        • Warming Oceans
      • Keith Antonysen

        February 5, 2019 at 7:58 pm

        Davies, it is very easy to be critical. People would welcome an article from you I’m sure, provided you can provide legitimate references. Obtaining legitimate references would be your major challenge.

        • davies

          February 7, 2019 at 10:10 am

          So if I provide references for these quotes from these prominent and long-standing scientists (with whom you appear to agree) then will you admit that your support for Mann and his hockey stick was in error?!

          Well, here are the first two:

          Dr Madhav Khandekar “Today, most scientists dismiss the hockey stick.”

          Dr Khandekar is a meteorologist and climatologist Research scientist with Environmental Canada for 25 years – former editor of Climate Research, member of the geophysical union, the Canadian Meteorological society; American Meteorological Society; former World Meteorological Organisation lecturer in meteorology. Plus more!

          The quote comes from a 2009 interview by Canada’s Frontier Centre for Public Policy, and when asked whether Michael Mann’s hockey stick was a “smoking gun that proves the alarmists right”, he replied: “The hockey stick was a graph constructed by some scientists about ten years ago. What it was meant to show was that the earth’s temperature from about 1080 till about 1850 remained essentially constant and then it started to shoot up. Lots of problems have been found out in the graph. The most glaring error in the hockey stick was that it did not show the Little Ice Age, which was significant. It did not show the MWP from the 8th to 12th Century, which was also significant. There were errors in the use of the tree-rings data and also other errors. So today, most scientists dismiss the hockey stick. They do not consider the hockey stick graph to be a correct representation of the global mean temperature.”

          Prof Hans von Storch: “Scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process.”

          Prof von Storch is of the University of Hamburg’s Meteorological Institute and Director of the Institute of Coastal Research Centre. And there is much more!

          Quote from November 2009 a few days after Climategate (http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/von-storch-cru-reaction/):

          “There are a number of problematic statements which will be discussed in the media and blogosphere. I found the style of communication revealing, speaking about other people and their ideas, joining forces to “kill” papers, exchanges of ‘improving’ presentations without explaining…that Michael Mann was successful to exclude me from a review-type meeting on historical reconstructions in Wengen (demonstrating once again his problematic but powerful role of acting as a gatekeeper.) A conclusion could be that the principle, according to which data must be made public, so that also adversaries may check the analysis, must be really enforced. Another conclusion could be that scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process or in assessment activities like IPCC.”

          Of course his more succinct quote to Der Spiegal was headlined “Die Kurve ist Quatsch” (translation – the Curve is Crap). The link is: http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-32362275.html)

          Remember Prof von Storch can be considered as one of the leading Warmists. His condemnation of Mann and his stick should resonate …

          • Keith Antonysen

            February 7, 2019 at 12:42 pm

            Davies, did you not see where I provided a reference in relation to the hockey stick that it had been proven umpteen times? In today’s references I’ve received one from the New York Times which stated 2018 was the fourth warmest year ever recorded.


            Davies, read this quote very carefully, and check it with the article:

            “The data means that the five warmest years in recorded history have been the last five, and that 18 of the 19 warmest years have occurred since 2001. The quickly rising temperatures over the past two decades cap a much longer warming trend documented by researchers and correspond with the scientific consensus that climate change is caused by human activity.”


            “We’re no longer talking about a situation where global warming is something in the future,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the NASA group that conducted the analysis. “It’s here. It’s now.”

            Oceans are recording the highest temperatures ever recorded for Australia:


            For all Oceans:



            “The “fingerprint” of human influence on the climate is much easier to detect in the oceans, as it is much less affected by year-to-year natural variability than more commonly used surface temperature records.”

            But check the quote.

          • davies

            February 7, 2019 at 1:48 pm

            And none of those links below even mention Mann, let alone suggest his hockey stick graph which eliminates both the MWP and the Little Ice Age as accurate.

            You conflating warming and Mann being right. They are two separate and distinct issues.

            His graph has been pilloried by well over 100 prominent scientists. As Prof von Storch says “Die Kurve ist Quatsch”.

            And to compound the error, you keep quoting Gavin Schmidt. He collaborated with Mann on a number of papers and jointly set up The Real Climate website. He is part of the ‘gang’.

            Now I am sure there is plenty of very fine work that has been done and is being done on climate change. Mann’s hockey stick does not fall into that category.

            To vindicate Mann’s work you need references to prominent scientists who have replicated his annulment of the MWP and Little Ice Age. In the meantime I have well over 100 prominent scientists stating it is crap …

  3. Keith Antonysen

    February 2, 2019 at 8:50 am

    Something deniers are not generally aware of is that some Petroleum Corporations employed their own scientists in years before anthropogenic climate change denial began.

    Stanford Research Institute provided a Report commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute in1968. Robinson stated regarding his 1968 Report “… observed that, among the pollutants reviewed, carbon dioxide ‘is the only air pollutant which has been proven to be global importance to man’s environment on the basis of a long period of scientific investigation.'”


    A series of articles by ‘Inside Climate News’ provides information about the science developed by scientists employed by ExxonMobil in the 1970s. Several Court cases have been pursued against ExxonMobil by Cities and individuals using the paper trail left by ExxonMobil’s findings by their scientists, and management funding denier groups such as Heartlands.


    Nathaniel Silk has drawn together a large number of interviews for New York Times Magazine displaying the politics in the USA which gave a platform for climate science denial to take hold. It was a very long article about the history from 1979 to 1989 showing what was known in science, and the manner in which it was swept under the carpet.


  4. kimpeart

    February 1, 2019 at 8:42 am

    The rattlesnake debate between climate change fact and climate change doubt is ever circular, with both totally focused on the Earth alone.

    This circle dance has been going on since the 1960s.

    Climate change fact is triumphant in its total failure to keep a safe Earth, and appears to rattle in denial at how bad the crisis is until forced to face the next set of even more dire facts.

    Climate change doubt is triumphant in a position ultimately connected to the fossil fuel industry, and has no need of any more argument beyond what works politically to keep the good oil flowing, and open the way to the use of sulphur in the air to cool the planet.

    Pumping sulphur will be testament to the political and commercial nature of the doubting position, but this will not matter at all as the good oil keeps flowing beneath the sulphur clouds of a white sky.

    Is climate change fact drifting to the position of accepting the pumping of sulphur into the air? This is what I keep hearing.

    This being so, then the climate change fact and doubt are in the same snake pit, both with a total focus on Earth alone.

    Yet when I suggest that there is another way, with the Solar System as a whole, an option that has been available since the 1970s, all I hear are cries of fantasy, and even expressed with a sad aggression by one writer.

    I am left wondering if the climate change fact rattlers are ultimately not that interested in facts, and do not like to consider more than Earth alone.

    The zeal of the Earth-centric position comes across as being quite religious, as if considering Solar System wide options is a blasphemy.

    So the rattlers of fact and doubt dance on, with fact denying there is a Solar System wide solution, and doubt reveling in this deeper level of denial.

    Is this reveling due to the detail that solar power harvested in space will be essentially free, once the process is self-sustaining?

    Beware the subtle propaganda of doubt that ultimately serves to keep the good oil flowing, on Earth alone.

    • Keith Antonysen

      February 1, 2019 at 12:25 pm

      Kim, how many million (billion?) people do you think can be sent into space in the next decade?

      • Jon Sumby

        February 1, 2019 at 7:16 pm

        Keith, I suggest you avoid going down that rabbit hole of ‘discussion’. There is no rational conversation along those lines.

        About four years ago Kim was chattering about his belief that the entire population of the planet could live in space habitats, leaving the Earth to be renewed as a wild, clean, fresh, Eden .. free from pollution and global heating.

        Of course he will then fixate on his usual lament that, ‘if only’, the people of Earth had built space habitats along the speculative designs of Gerard K. O’Neill (circa 1974), and then followed by his often repeated and monotonous (although he does cut and paste his standard monologue differently every now and then) series of statements that everyone on Earth must immediately start building space habitats to save the future of humanity or the Earth (he often gets a bit confused here, depending on which idea he is dreaming about) then the wishes become divers. The future of humanity beyond the ‘Starline’, unlimited energy from Sol for space colony living people, or sent by microwave to Earth (again confusing, and conflicting, vision stories), and I could go on.

        But if you encourage him he will likely start writing multi-page, repetitive, statements where everybody (but not their dog) lives in space and the future is wonderful and the Earth is purified and whole again.

        Hopefully the Moderator is on hand to curtail such off topic monomaniac long-winded commentary.


        Jon, thanks for your Comment.

        Off-topic meanderings are common in these columns, but as they often have value in their own right, and in the interests of free speech, many are permitted.

        An example of this flexibility is the latitude this Moderator extends to one whose oft repeated notions about space are deemed absurd fantasies. But Jon, if you offered a Neanderthal a high speed ride in a gigantic metal bird that can’t flap its wings, I’m sure he’d say the same.

        This Moderator reads and evaluates everything that comes in (a big job, for sure!) but he prefers to let readers discuss topics between themselves and resolve matters their own way rather than imposing his own views on their individual merits, or lack of them.

        Partial or total Comment deletion is a Moderator’s last resort, and on TT it’s rare.

        Jon, what you’ve said in your Comment is a perfect example of this method.

        — Moderator

        • Kim Peart

          February 2, 2019 at 2:08 am

          Hi Jon … Is it appropriate to talk about someone in the room, who is listening, as if they do not exist? How does one view that? How does one respond to that, because it was heard, as if spoken from a high ivory tower about some worthless and disposable peasant. Would you like to explain your motivation? Were you seeking a reaction from me? Is this an old-time challenge to a duel, affronting another’s honour?

          More pointedly, are you seeking to suppress discussion about options that may fix the carbon strife, as if having fossil fuel moguls run this planet, and drain it of life for profit, is more vital to you than winning back a safe Earth?

          Yet, like me, you have read that long article by David Wallace Wells, The Uninhabitable Earth: https://tasmaniantimes.com/2017/07/the-uninhabitable-earth-d1/

          Did you miss the reference to space? http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html?utm_campaign=nym&utm_medium=s1&utm_source=fb

          This was when David found the climate scientists were talking about the Great Filter theory in Fermi’s paradox. Is there no sign or sound of ET, because planet civilisations have a really bad habit of burning their fossil fuel supply too much and too long, bringing on a carbon crisis that takes them out, leaving that eerie silence. Is this where we are heading? If so, this will need to be in our very near future as we are now so close to securing a position of cosmic survival and stellar expansion.

          After reading Wallace-Well’s article, I found emeritus professor of environmental science, Guy McPherson, suggestion we could have no more than a decade before climate events on Earth overtake us. And that fits with the Great Filter theory, like a glove: https://www.flamboroughreview.com/news-story/7764848–end-of-days-is-just-around-the-corner-says-american-professor-guy-mcpherson/

          If there is ground for concern, and you expressed concern in your TT comment, what do we do? Wait to see what happens, or apply the precautionary principle and draft a plan of action for our cosmic survival, and for winning back a safe Earth?

          We have a warning from the stars which we can ignore at our peril. If we do not survive, and do not secure our future beyond Earth, we may have doomed the Earth, because the CO2 level is such that, as Hansen warned, at above 350 ppm the planet can go into a runaway greenhouse and ultimately end up a second Venus.

          I see the potential of losing the Earth by clinging to the planet.

          I see the way to secure our survival beyond Earth, and to be in position to win back a safe Earth.

          If there is no cosmic survival plan mobilised by October this year, then I see out survival options closing in as we keep on digging a hole into oblivion.

          If we mobilise for survival by October, a ten year plan of action could stand a chance of saving us, and of saving the Earth.

      • kimpeart

        February 1, 2019 at 8:17 pm

        Keith asks “how many million (billion?) people do you think can be sent into space in the next decade?”

        It helps to look at what humans can achieve when they have a mind to act, and a reason for action. We defeated two empires in WWII, the Manhattan Project delivered the nuclear age in a couple of years (employing half a million people) and the Apollo program to get a boot on the Moon was delivered within a decade (also employing half a million people). It is vital to note that technology that did not exist was delivered through those three events.

        My environmental focus was once with the Earth alone, though I also considered the potential of space. After writing a small paper in 1993 called Keys to Survival, the words of a Papuan made me look at evolution, and I began wondering about the whole process of life and why a clever tool-maker had emerged in Nature. I put these thoughts in a document in 2006 called ‘Creating a Solar Civilisation’ and wondered if a global campaign for space would need ten million campaigners, minimum, and began exploring how new technologies could be put to work to drive a global campaign.

        I also began investigating the carbon crisis to understand the science, and examined the problems, and being aware of what was possible with humans when motivated. Seeing what the actual problems were, I began to see that space development offered a way to fix all strife on Earth. Wally Broecker, who labelled global warming, put the matter thus: “We can no longer expect Mother Nature to take care of us – the planet is ours to run, and we can’t retreat from our responsibility to run it wisely.”

        Seeing the validity of Broecker’s view, I wondered how that could happen. That is in part how I conclude that we need a Solar System wide approach for our strife on Earth. We need a plan of action that will win back a safe Earth because we failed to act on keeping the Earth safe when we could have done so in the 1970s.

        What we face now is an emergency-level demand for action. And this is in part what drives the answer to your question.

        When Asgardia, the proposed space nation, was launched in October 2017, over half a million people expressed interest in a couple of weeks. And they had the technology in place to handle those numbers. The Asgardia launch revealed that a well designed campaign could expect to connect ten million and more campaigners to the mission within a year.

        Now the dynamic has been demonstrated with a global action, I look toward a mission that could deliver the first city in space by 2029. Those ten years are vital, as taking longer will dissipate the momentum of the campaign. We now have the technology for all campaigners to engage in the mission daily, and expect to make valuable contributions to its success with a project that is 20 times the size of Apollo.

        Careers will be built. Work will be created. Income will be generated. Pathways to future prosperity will be revealed.

        Much of the work will be done with machines in space using remote control systems from Earth and from safe stations in space. Humans will go into space, when space is normal and safe, with an Earth gravity environment in an orbital settlement generated by rotation, and with radiation protection.

        One key step is to be sustainable in space so there is no further cost to Earth. Get sustainable ASAP, and there is an infinite return on the investment, and no limit to the number of space settlements that can then be built and located across the Solar System.

        I suggest that the number of people in space, with this giant leap approach, could be between 100 and 1,000 in 2029, but then numbers will grow exponentially as more and more orbital habitats are built. A million or more space denizens could be reached by 2039, engaged in astronomy, research, industry, tourism, sport (zero gravity ping-pong anyone?) the arts, and spirituality in space.

        It is possible there could be a billion people living in space by 2049.

        Name any problem on Earth, and I can describe a fix for it with space action.

        The survival skills needed for space can also be used on Earth, should this planet go belly up.

        Those ten million and more space campaigners can be engaged in fighting to win back a safe Earth, and assuring human survival on Earth, as well as securing our cosmic survival in space.

        At worst, should heat take the planet, or should the ocean release toxic hydrogen sulphide gas, or should nuclear madness break out and leave a radiative cinder world and we are trapped on Earth, we could plant seeds of technology around the planet, oases for life, so we can start again on Earth, and look to another bash at space, maybe in a thousand years.

        I ask you, what room is there for climate change doubt or denial, when ten million and more Earth and space campaigners are beating the drum of survival?

        They will have a plan that engaged honesty, science and engineering for the needs of survival.

        This is the message that I take to Washington in October.

        • Jon Sumby

          February 1, 2019 at 9:09 pm

          There you go Keith .. my point is proven.

          As well, Kim is going to dump a few tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere as a contribution to killing the planet to gibber to passers-by about how we should all take up, right now, a 1970s idea and we all go into space to live a new life where energy is free and everything is possible and good.

          • Kim Peart

            February 2, 2019 at 11:29 am

            The point proven Jon, is that your reading ability is limited, and your comments are therefore mischievous.

            I have clearly stated that the first objective is to win back a safe Earth, now dying, where our survival is under threat if the Earth environment keeps tumbling in the current direction.

            Lovelock and McPherson have raised the prospect of a sudden rise in heat which will overwhelm us, and Hansen warns that above 350 ppm of atmospheric CO2 this can become a runaway greenhouse effect.

            Then there is the prospect of a Great Dying (252 million years ago) type event, where toxic hydrogen sulphide gas is released from the sea, killing life on land and damaging the ozone layer, letting in more solar and cosmic radiation to kill more life on land, thereby creating a future on Earth where we would be living as if in space, if we wish to survive.

            So we will need protected environments for life and for us, living on this planet as if we were living in space. We don’t know if the sulphur event will be triggered at 2C, or what.

            Have you ever considered how bad conditions on Earth can become, and how swiftly? As Lovelock pointed out, the sensitive Earth system has been dealing with a Sun getting steadily hotter, now 35% warmer than at its birth, presenting the potential for that sudden heat rise which would bring with it a whole range of catastrophes on Earth.

            Our time for space survival was the 1970s, but too many good people skipped down the garden path, believing our paradise planet would continue.

            Now we see the price of failing to initiate energy transition out of fossil fuel, by reaching to the Sun in space and shifting heavy industry off Earth.

            At what point do we decide that we are in a planetary emergency?

            Continuing to skip down the garden path means we may now end in a carbon swamp oblivion.

            For a solid list of reasons, including avoiding nuclear war, a survival presence in space is critical.

            Consider my TT article on kinetic weapons, and how the fear of them can lead to peace in space which would kick back to peace on Earth.

            But this dynamic will only happen when we are seriously active in space: https://tasmaniantimes.com/2019/01/implications-of-kinetic-missiles-in-space/

            On Earth alone, there are now glide missiles that cannot be stopped and that travel at Mach 27, or 33,000 km per hour, as recently developed by Russia, and affirmed by US military observers.

  5. max

    February 1, 2019 at 8:23 am

    Rob … controlled burns and wildfires are a part of the Australian scene, and they have been for at least 40,000 years.

    Australia’s landscape has been changed by this practice, but can we continue this practice in the new hotter and dryer climate we have made by burning fossil fuels?

    You can bet that fuel reduction burns will come out as a recommendation to lessen the impact of wildfires on wilderness, production forests and for rural communities. It is the cheapest way. But how much is enough? The present practice has seen the population inflicted with health destroying smoke, thousands of hectares burnt, and the biggest wild fires. If we burnt every blade of grass, every fire-prone shrub and every stick on the ground next year, problem solved, but only for a very short time. In other words the use of fire to stop fires is not the answer.
    What was once the norm is no longer the answer, the world is changing and if we refuse to change to suit the new world that we have created, then we will go the same way as the dodo.

  6. Keith Antonysen

    February 1, 2019 at 8:15 am

    This is an example of how science gets misrepresented by conservative sources.

    At the time the science was introduced, Breitbart, a very conservative “news” Agency, produced projections far exceeding what the science was saying. Breitbart certainly created doubt, but the doubt fell back onto Breitbart.

    The matter was very quickly dropped when conservatives realised that they had well and truly misunderstood the matter. This illustrates how anything that appears to underline a mindset is used is used by deniers.


  7. garrystannus@hotmail.com

    January 31, 2019 at 12:10 pm

    I have (during the Christmas-New Year hiatus) submitted the following comments to …

    (1) The Conversation (re Lindzen) and to
    (2) Jennifer Marohasy (re Tuvalu-sea level rise):

    (1) The title of the piece in Online Opinion was “An important essay by Richard Lindzen”. Don Aitkin in his introduction, gives a link to a speech made by Lindzen for the Global Warming Policy Foundation: https://www.thegwpf.org/richard-lindzen-global-warming-for-the-two-cultures/.

    On the face of it, Lindzen’s speech/lecture seemed designed to bolster his ‘Iris’ theory which I’ll try and summarise in my layman’s way:

    ‘The Greenhouse Effect (and thus Global Warming) will be offset (or is being offset) by the dissipation of upper level cirrus clouds. These clouds ordinarily stop – to some extent – the heat from our atmosphere reaching a point where it ‘escapes’ (radiates) beyond our atmosphere. However Lindzen uses the greenhouse effect to suggest that natural (convective?) processes are interacting with / can be expected to change the ‘cirrus cloud barrier’ to the effect that the cirrus part of our greenhouse blanket is being reduced and no longer contains the warmth within our warming atmosphere as it did before. That is, the warming of the atmosphere produced by our greenhouse gas emissions, will not result in global warming to the extent predicted by other scientists’.

    Lindzen’s speech also included reference to “Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene” /Steffen et al. PNAS 14Aug2018. [ Here at http://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252.full.pdf ] I’d hazard a short summary of Steffen et al. in the following way:

    ‘Our human release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere risks our reaching a ‘tipping point’ at which our planet becomes ‘Hothouse Earth’. […]’

    (2) [To Jennifer Marohasy] I would like to make a specific comment on your ‘Tuvalu’ post.

    “[ … ] In the 2nd paragraph of your email/newsletter, you wrote:
    Except a recent article at the ABC news website correctly explained that in the four decades to 2014, Tuvalu has actually grown by 73 hectares. 
    How can this be? The mainstream news media reporting something factual – even though it contradicts their catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) meme!” 

    I read this passage (and of course the whole of your post) and then opened the various links that you had included. I noted in the ABC Fact Check report [ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-19/fact-check-is-the-island-nation-tuvalu-growing/10627318 ] that …

    ‘Professor Kench’s study reported that the seas around Tuvalu rose by about 3.9mm per year between 1971 and 2014 — roughly twice the global average over the same period.
    The rate closely matches the IPCC’s most conservative scenario, the study reported, before adding that it was “unclear whether islands will continue to maintain their size” if the higher sea-level projections came to pass.’

    I feel that your statement that the ABC’s ‘factual’ reporting contradicted the mainstream media’s “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) meme” was potentially misleading – certainly I myself was confused by it and at first encounter I incorrectly thought that your email newsletter was suggesting a sea-level lowering (i.e. since land mass had increased by c. 74 hectares or so). So I read further.

    You properly referred to Kench (et al.)’s 2018 [ “Patterns of island change and persistence offer alternate adaptation pathways for atoll nations” ]:
    “…despite sea level rise, there have been “positive sediment generation balances for these islands” from wave deposition. In fact, to quote more from the article “environmental” rather than “anthropogenic processes” are causing an “expansion of the majority of the islands … masking any incremental effects of rising sea levels, making attribution of sea level effects elusive, as these [environmental] processes can promote high frequency and larger magnitude changes in islands that can persist on the geomorphic record”. ”

    I noted your:
    “Of course, compounded, this could add up to something catastrophic – one day. But, neither sea levels, nor temperatures, rise in a monotonic way – rather they cycle.”

    .. and I wondered what the basis was for that ‘monotonic v cyclical’ remark of yours. I wondered whether this was another variant of the ‘climate change believers are mistaking weather for climate’ criticism.

    I would like to have posted this email as a comment in your December article [ Season’s Greetings, Tuvalu and Thank You Mr Kelly ] but was not sure how to do that. My interest here is to query your “contradicts their catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) meme”.

    Last year’s paper by Kench, Ford and Owen [ Patterns of island change and persistence offer alternate adaptation pathways for atoll nations ] notes the 73 hectare increase in land area in the face of rising sea levels. Their paper seems to suggest that though surface area might increase, sea level at Tuvalu is projected to rise, and dependent on the rate of rise around these coral islands, future land area growth is uncertain.

    The paper discusses an alternative to intranational relocation of inhabitants: ‘internal relocation’.

    The issue of salt-water intrusion into groundwater, while mentioned in the paper’s introduction, does not appear to come into consideration within the body of this paper. Tidal forcing leading to aquifer salinisation is an issue which along with other factors is believed to contribute to habitability – Kench et al. do not (as far as I see) suggest that the increased land areas in Tuvalu are habitable. […]

  8. max

    January 30, 2019 at 11:09 pm

    The Facts:

    The Greens have not stopped controlled burns as they have no power to do so. Controlled burns in a drying climate are in fact a promoter of unstoppable fires because all burns replace fire retarding plants with highly inflammable fire loving plants. If you want to use ‘the facts’ for a name, at least get your facts right.

    Davies – A short retort:
    Global Warming vs. Climate Change
    Both of the terms in question are used frequently in the scientific literature because they refer to two different physical phenomena.  As the name suggests, ‘global warming’ refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature.
    ‘Climate change’, again as the name suggests, refers to the changes in the global climate which result from the increasing average global temperature. For example, changes in precipitation patterns, increased prevalence of droughts, heat waves, and other extreme weather, etc.  The projections of future global precipitation changes from the 2007 IPCC report are an example of climate change:
    Combining the data sets from NOAA and NASA finds that: The five warmest years in the global record have all come in the 2010s. The 10 warmest years on record have all come since 1998. The 20 warmest years on record have all come since 1995.

    • Jon Sumby

      January 31, 2019 at 7:25 pm

      I now use the term ‘global heating’ in my discussions.

    • Jon Sumby

      January 31, 2019 at 7:27 pm

    • Rob Halton

      February 1, 2019 at 12:18 am

      Max, controlled burns and wildfires are a part of the Australian scene. If anything more fuel reduction needs to be done more extensively and more regularly.

      You can bet that will come out as a recommendation to lessen the impact of wildfires on wilderness, productio forests and for rural communities .

      Its wildfires that occur during severe droughts that can have a lasting effect on native vegetation, next time when you decide to leave your comfortable independent media academy complex, take a drive down Carlton River road heading towards Dunalley, those magnificent blue gums once prolific on the hills with adjoining pastures are really struggling to maintain any headway to flourish again and appear as knarled relics struggling after a major catastrophic event.

      Both the stature and abundance of Blue gums has diminished and should raise concerns for nature conservation as I would regard the loss is significant loss of habitat due not only to wildfire which is an obvious lack of seasonal burning practices by landowners!

  9. davies

    January 30, 2019 at 4:48 pm

    A short retort …

    Your preamble: Was there an argument about climate changing 10 years ago? Ten years ago you were calling it global warming, not climate change, so the argument was around that term, not the climate changing.

    No 1: Who said they had no impact? The argument is around the amount of impact. Which GHG have a larger impact than others, and what impact is there from other sources?

    According to Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT until his retirement in 2013 and author of over 200 papers on meteorology and climatology, the Earth receives on average about 340 watts per square metre from the sun, but about 140 watts is simply reflected back to space by both the earth’s surface and clouds.

    So this leaves about 200 watts psm that the Earth would have to emit in order to establish balance. Doubling C02 concentration in the atmosphere is estimated to be equivalent to a forcing of about 3.7 watts psm, which is a little less than 2% of the net incoming 200 watts psm. According to this world-renowned climate expert (and you are more than welcome to put up your own candidate of such stature) many factors, including cloud area and height, snow cover, and ocean circulations, commonly cause changes of comparable magnitude.

    Do you agree with this summation by Richard Lindzen?

    No 3: Quite probably, but any ‘denier’ reach the scale of distortion and impact on policies of Mann’s hockey stick graph? Well, you know the answer. Mann is in a league of his own.

    No 4: Well yes, they do. There have been plenty of examples around the world, and all the ‘errors’ seem to be on the high side. In Australia, Jennifer Marohasy, amongst others, has countless examples. The general trend, here and abroad, appears to be a reduction of recorded temperatures from 50 to 100 years ago. This gives you a much more dramatic graph, apparently!

    No 9: It is irrelevant whether there is consensus or not, because science is not a popularity contest! And what are they largely agreeing on? That temperatures have risen and that man has played a part or major part? Surely the more critical question to survey ‘Is this going to be catastrophic?’. Because if it isn’t, then why the hell are we spending trillions on trying to cut C02?

    No 10: Water vapour is the main GHG followed apparently by …. then followed by cloud cover. Even the IPCC agrees on that, with its 1992 Report stating water vapor accounts for 55% of total GHG effect and clouds account for a further 17%. Interestingly, water vapor severely limits the ability of methane and nitrous oxide to absorb outgoing radiation thereby substantially limiting their GHG potential.

    Anyway, we only have 12 years to wait before the world ends .. according to the latest media darling.

    • Create

      January 30, 2019 at 8:21 pm

      Davies … Your last point first. We do not have 12 years to wait till the Earth ends. That’s a miscomprehension on your part, Davies.

      Earth is not going to end, but many humans are trying to make sure that ultimately the biosphere is stuffed. We have 12 years to take incredibly strong action to stop very strong tipping points which, once created, are out of human control. The oceans, permafrost thawing, and loss of ice from Antarctica and the Arctic present tipping points.

      Richard Lindzen:

      There are plenty more references, so no, I do not take on board Richard Lindzen’s opinions.

      Davies, you have mentioned Dr Mann’s hockey stick in the past. There are now a number of studies supporting Dr Mann’s work. Dr Mann has been quoted as saying that far more sophisticated studies have upheld his hockey stick projection.

      Dr Marohasy is a biologist, not an astro-physicist or meteorologist. I have seen many graphs displaying 100 year graphs. What do you think about the temperature of 1997 having been well and truly superseded in the 21st Century, even in years when El Nino hasn’t been a feature?

      In relation to the consensus .. it is not a popularity contest, but the vast majority of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change.

      Davies, study further how water vapour is a major greenhouse gas, and one that is reliant on warm water environments and atmosphere to increase.

      Hurricane Harvey is a prime example. Learn about it.

    • Jon Sumby

      January 30, 2019 at 10:57 pm

      The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong in Davies.

      • Keith Antonysen

        January 31, 2019 at 7:30 am

        Jon, despite being shown to be wrong by scientists in the past, he still persists with the same arguments.

        A good summation.

    • Keith Antonysen

      January 31, 2019 at 7:27 am

      Davies …

      Arguments get very thin when they are about terminology as it is nothing more than nit picking. Global warming is happening, so are extreme events with the current Polar Vortex being an example of extreme conditions. Climate change incorporates both situations, though despite extreme cold conditions experienced in past years, temperatures have still been increasing world wide.

      In relation to temperature .. Anthony Watts complained in the US about how temperature was not being properly measured. Watts runs a blog which is viewed by numerous subscribers, so an Official review did take place. The relevant US Department investigated sites identified by Watts and found that Watts was wrong. To ensure further criticism could not take place, further weather stations were placed in remote areas to act as datum points where there was little likelihood of interference from new buildings, roads or vegetation hindering accurate measurements.

      Marohasy is a member of the odious IPA.

    • davies

      January 31, 2019 at 10:16 am

      So where is Lindzen wrong?

      Does the Earth get 340 watts per square metre of which 140 watts psm is reflected back? Is this true?

      Does doubling of C02 equate to 3.7 watts psm? Is this true? If false, what is the number?

      Does cloud coverage and height, snow cover etc, have the same perturbation effect as doubling of C02? If false, what are the numbers?

      At the same time, rather than just attacking the man, how about you put up a climate scientist with a similar record of publishing and profile that proves the above is wrong.

      You smugly talk about Dunning Kruger syndrome, yet you all think you are way smarter than Richard Lindzen! I don’t think so.

      Oh no! Marohasy is a member of the IPA! Immediately attack her character and dismiss her research. You misogynists!

      You cannot hope to persuade people of the dangers of climate change if you continue to support the research of Michael Mann. There are well over 100 hundred prominent scientists, many from the warmist side, who consider his research no better than junk.

      • Keith Antonysen

        January 31, 2019 at 2:13 pm

        Davies …

        References were provided above showing the science of Richard Lindzen has been bypassed.
        There have not been personal attacks against Lindzen or Marohasy. My comment was about the rotten Agency she is a member of. The IPA is an extreme Agency which has the kind of opinions that are tearing the Federal Liberal Party apart. For example, 3 PMs since 2013.

        The comment about the Dunning-Kruger effect was not about Richard Lindzen.

        Note that comments below do not attack Lindzen’s character or intelligence .. they critique his science.

        Trenberth, an honoured climate scientist has stated: “The flaws in Lindzen-Choi paper “have all the appearance of the authors having contrived to get the answer they got.”

        Also from the same source “Consistently being wrong and consistently producing one-sided analyses that are quickly debunked in the literature should lead scientific journals and the entire scientific community (and possibly the media) to start ignoring your work.”

        The author of the article is Joe Romm, a Physicist.


        Comment from climate scientist Gavin Schmidt in relation to Lindzen .. “Richard Lindzen is a very special character in the climate debate – very smart, high profile, and with a solid background in atmospheric dynamics. He has, in times past, raised interesting critiques of the mainstream science. None of them, however, have stood the test of time – but exploring the issues was useful. More recently though, and especially in his more public outings, he spends most of his time misrepresenting the science and is a master at leading people to believe things that are not true without him ever saying them explicitly.”


        Water vapour “Increased water vapor content in the atmosphere is referred to as a feedback process. Warmer air is able to hold more moisture. As the climate warms, air temperatures rise, more evaporation from water sources and land occurs, thus increasing the atmospheric moisture content.”


        Professor Mann’s hockey stick has been vindicated, and the reference provides a number of hyperlinks. More references can be provided if you wish. What do you think the headline means .. ‘Hockey stick’ climate scientist quietly vindicated for the umpteenth time.


        • davies

          February 4, 2019 at 5:28 pm

          It is irrelevant that other studies have found warming because that is profoundly different to replicating Mann’s flawed work, and without a doubt his hockey stick graph is seriously flawed. And as for using Gavin Schmidt to attack the credentials of Lindzen .. you must know Schmidt has worked closely with Mann for 15 years producing joint papers and jointly setting up the Real Climate blog.

          Anyway back to the crux of the matter. If you cannot admit that Mann’s work is junk science, then you cannot be taken seriously.

          Serious doubts on the hockey stick graph started surfacing in early 2003, yet the IPCC used it as its ‘poster child’ in their 2006 Third Assessment. By the way, they had many other long-term temperature reconstructions, but they all included the medieval warming period and the little ice age, so they went with Mann’s hockey stick graph as the most dramatic!

          The guy who first coined the term ‘hockey stick’ was a big supporter of Mann. Yet by 2006 he was saying it was a colossal mistake for the IPCC to highlight the graph. That guy was Dr Jerry Mahlman. (You can look up his impressive climate credentials.)

          Other scientists, many of whom are warmists …

          Dr Madhav Khandekar “Today, most scientists dismiss the hockey stick.”

          Prof William Happer “The whole hockey-stick episode reminds me of the motto of Orwell’s Ministry of Information”

          Dr Eugene Gordon “I don’t think they are scientifically inadequate or stupid. I think they are dishonest.”

          Dr Lubos Motl “I am not forced to assume good faith of criminals and the people who don’t follow the rules of scientific integrity.”

          Prof Simon Tett “Did Mann et al get it wrong? Yes, Mann et al got it wrong.”

          Dr Peter Chylek “There was a perceived need to ‘prove’ that the current global average temperature is higher than it was ay any other time…it became more important than scientific integrity.”

          Prof Zbigniew Jaworowski “These researchers are guilty of brazen fraud.”

          Prof James Lovelock “That’s no way to do science.”

          Prof Hans von Storch “Scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process.”

          Prof Harold Lewis “It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”

          I have another hundred or so equally damning quotes on Mann and his hockey stick, all from prominent long-standing scientists.

          On his so-called exoneration from at least eight different bodies .. most didn’t actually investigate him. We will ignore the two from Penn State as they couldn’t actually find anything on their multi-decade pedophile, let alone try to find anything on their ‘top’ scientist. And the person leading the investigation of both, Graham Spanier, was put under his own criminal indictment for obstructing justice and child endangerment .. the Sandusky matter. Great endorsement there!

          Those who did investigate …

          National Research Council was prepared to stand by the hockey stick, but only post 1600. So they repealed his repeal of the MWP, which is pretty damning. The NC was also not very happy with his withholding of data.

          Mann claims he was exonerated by Lord Oxburgh’s committee, but in his own book he states that his work “did not fall within the remit of the Committee.”

          By not dumping Mann you contaminate your whole argument.

  10. the facts

    January 30, 2019 at 1:23 pm

    There’s no denying one thing.

    The Greens, in stopping the controlled burn offs, have a lot to answer for.

    • Jon Sumby

      January 31, 2019 at 7:22 pm

      Your comment is false.

      In the last six months of 2018 for example, DPIPWE conducted 17 planned burns:


      If you go to the LISTmap you will find dozens of planned burns mapped that were done over the last five years.

  11. Keith Antonysen

    January 30, 2019 at 10:59 am

    A further myth that deniers put out is that climate change science is a hoax.

    Trump has made such a suggestion; the irony is that he has gained permission for a sea wall to be built around one of his golf courses in Ireland due to sea level rise! But the myth takes the form of a conspiracy theory. Hard to put, when people realise that the science began generations ago.

    Vaccination is another area where conspiracy dwells. When I began school more than 60 years ago there were young people and adults inflicted with polio. New cases of polio are not seen in 2019 with vaccination having made the difference,yet the anti-vacs brigade still clamour against vaccinations. Being shown to be wrong is not something those harbouring conspiracy theories readily accept.

    Katharine Hayhoe et al have reviewed 38 studies produced by skeptical scientists,and comments from the Abstract are illuminating:

    ” … An analytical tool has been developed to replicate and test the results and methods used in these studies; our replication reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases. Thus, real-life scientific disputes in some cases can be resolved, and we can learn from mistakes. A common denominator seems to be missing contextual information or ignoring information that does not fit the conclusions …”



  12. Keith Antonysen

    January 30, 2019 at 10:13 am

    In my article I wrote about the consensus of climate scientists in relation to anthropogenic climate change. I gave examples of studies showing where the matter had been studied, though I have come across other studies since.

    The question arises – is it ignorance, or fraud, when a scientist makes comments on an issue through outlining criticism of a matter without investigating other research? In the case of Michaels and McIntyre it has been suggested they committed fraud when they provided false information in relation to Professor Hansen.

    Plimer, a Geologist and Mining Director, has argued that two studies are wrong in relation to consensus, and almost predictably Cook’s research is critiqued. John Cook began the very successful Skeptical Science blog. It undermines the kind of arguments deniers use. Since then, John Cook has been involved in creating the online short course Denial X on anthropogenic climate change denial.


  13. Rob Halton

    January 29, 2019 at 4:22 pm

    Folks we need to get up to speed as Vic’s Hazlewood PS provided about 25% of Victoria’s electricity closed in 2017 . Yallourn is aging and is subject to mtce. shutdowns. Liddell in NSW is due to in 2022 which in reality is only a blink of the eyelid away in terms of a responsible but enforceable plan for investment in a worlds best coal fired power station that may have to utilise the better quality black coal to gain better results from emissions reductions as a part of any Paris agreement.

    The Morrison government is in a position now to speak up to create a fast track a coal fired PS as a national priority to guarantee the lights will stay on thus avoiding unannounced load shedding and electricity black outs during inclement weather coinciding with consumer over use and false expectations of reliable electricity being available 365/24/7.

    I cannot see any logic in exporting high quality coal and not being able to use it ourselves for electricity generation, after all the same coal either exported to China and India or used here in Australia releases similar emissions into the same atmosphere. So what is the issue.

    • Russell

      January 30, 2019 at 10:26 am

      Robin, you need to get up to speed in the 21st Century.

      All your dinosaurs cost more money to maintain and run than they make. They are obsolete and the owners know it, that’s why they’re being scrapped – as they should be. They cost us more at the meter, and also much more in mega-subsidies which also come out of our pockets.

      Come out of the cave and see the light.

  14. Keith Antonysen

    January 28, 2019 at 11:41 am

    It is possible to suggest that particular groups will be disadvantaged through taking mitigating actions against anthropogenic climate change. That is an accurate proposition put by MjF.

    The knowledge of anthropogenic climate change has been in existence for a century and a half through pioneering experimentation by Foote and Tyndall. Fourier alluded to it in the 1820s.

    Already, at the beginning of the 20th century, Svante Arrhenius was making projections in relation to an increase in atmospheric temperatures. By the 1980s the science was far more settled .. but then political and denier agencies began to undermine science through creating doubt.

    Earlier this century Lord Stern warned of the costs being created by not taking action. They would increase with time, he observed.

    Munich Re has informed us about mounting costs already created. Over quite some time, I have submitted very many references when commenting on Tasmanian Times. Very few references are provided by deniers.

    Abbott made a huge blunder by killing the carbon tax. Nobody received the $500 odd dollar reduction in costs. The costs of energy will continue upward should coal fired power stations be built.

    By doing little or nothing, the lives of countless people are at huge risk.

    We have been told, and now the chickens are coming home to roost. Young people are very aware of the danger we have placed them in.

    • Jon Sumby

      January 28, 2019 at 2:10 pm

      There were papers discussing global warming in the mid-1950s, and also at an international conference held in 1974 at Monash Uni on the topic.

      The projections presented in papers at that conference are very close to the projected changes used today, even though they were using computers less powerful than the average mobile phone!

    • Geoff Holloway

      January 28, 2019 at 2:36 pm

      Well said, Keith!

    • MJF

      January 28, 2019 at 6:24 pm

      Why are SA customers, with that state’s bias towards renewable energy generation, paying substantially more per kwh than any other state or territory, Keith.

      We are regularly informed just how affordable renewable energy is. I see no evidence of that. Why can I also sign on to a power plan with a guaranteed 10, 50 or 100% (my choice) renewable sourced energy supplied, but only if I pay an added increasing premium to base rates?

      It seems to me that renewable energy, as it’s currently marketed, is anything but affordable.

      • Keith Antonysen

        January 28, 2019 at 8:52 pm

        MjF …

        The issue is about anthropogenic climate change, not about energy as conservative forces would like it to be subverted to.

        • MJF

          January 28, 2019 at 9:53 pm

          That may be so Keith, but bury your head in the sand when the issue of renewable energy costs turns out to be not as promoted, if you will. It’s a direct and relevant aspect affecting the very people you’re trying to inform.

      • Russell

        January 30, 2019 at 10:38 am

        Do you take into account the cost of the subsidies every Australian is paying to keep these dinosaurs alive? That’s a silly question to pose to someone who works in an industry which only exists because of subsidies.

        I think if you did your research properly, or paid attention to what others have already found, you’ll have to agree that renewables are cheaper .. and getting even cheaper.

        Most of us on renewables aren’t paying the ridiculous prices you choose to. It’s a matter of choice, and of using a little bit of nous instead of burying one’s head in the sand.

    • MJF

      January 29, 2019 at 10:50 am

      “Nobody received the $500 odd dollar reduction in costs. The costs of energy will continue upward should coal fired power stations be built.”

      I thought your article was all about anthropogenic climate change Keith, but not associated energy and costs. Fair enough, if that was true. For an author who claims to be not discussing energy costs, at least with this article, you seem unable to ignore it.

      Which brings me back to my SA query and why that state has the dearest power in the land. This remains unanswered by the renewables promoters hereabouts.

      • Keith Antonysen

        January 29, 2019 at 3:22 pm

        Yes MJF, remember the LNP is talking about possibly subsidising HELE type coal fired stations, a very costly consideration.

        The costs of externalities will also go up with the ultimate price being a dystopian world. I bet you did not watch the Dr Suzuki interview.

        You have not answered the question in relation to air conditioners.

        • MJF

          January 30, 2019 at 12:36 pm

          No, I couldn’t endure that. After the twangy American promo got to the “environmental activist” bit, I gave him the boot.

          My guess re air conditioner use is that more people like to be cooled down quicker in warm conditions, and that the actual units have never been more energy-efficient, powerful, reversible, cheaper, quieter, durable, effective or more readily available.

  15. Rob Halton

    January 27, 2019 at 12:15 pm

    All very well Max, unfortunately modern society are becoming excessively conditioned to all of this modern electricity machines that proliferates the average household. Yes there needs to be measure in place as load shedding is becoming more common on days of extreme heat!

    Victoria is now going through a sensational power blaming game since about 200,000 homes and businesses here left without power on Friday amid extreme heat.
    Power bosses have branded Friday’s electricity meltdown a ‘ one in 10 year event amid the political stoush! The State government pointed the finger at former Jeff Kennett’s privatisation of electricity providers.

    Really we have to face the current circumstances at hand and these are not promising as old brown coal fired power stations are kept going at the same time subject to increasing maintenance as was the case was with Energy Australia who owns the Yallourn power station which had one of its four units offline another went off line on Thursday.

    Despite all of the promises by the Andrews govt to ramp up the installation of wind turbines scattered throughout Victoria and solar panel rebates little is happening since the decommissioning of Heazlewood three years ago.

    With the Andrews govt wanting to increase the population of Melbourne no doubt will require reliable power infrastructure to support electricity seduced modern society ! The Victorian govt cant have it both ways

    My approach would be to progressively do both construct a state of the art coal fired power station in coal rich Victoria close to Melbournr and actually get ahead with those Wind farms being talked about, consider an even better deal for solar panel installation as many cannot afford to invest satisfactorily on the meager
    solar panel subsidy being offered.

    Without modern base load power units the Victorian electricity grid will continue to a point of no return, load shedding will become a more regular event creating an ever hostile population.
    Get on with it and construct a modern coal fired power station “to take up the slack” before we end up with more diesel fired generators, emergency battery banks and attempt to bring on more crisis management arrangements that cost more money but fails to solve the problem of dealing with Renewables which have no hope of providing all of the electricity for customers.

    Unfortunately gas is becoming to expensive so that leaves coal as a reliable and affordable source for electricity, along with a gradual uptake of “affordable, if possible” but obviously less reliable Renewables.

    Regardless it will be an arduous road ahead as there are far too many “privateers” in the electricity grid ownership mix, how the Andrews govt handles that one heavens knows! \

    Any bright ideas from Federal intervention!

    • max

      January 27, 2019 at 1:02 pm

      Good one, Robin. Your reply to me puts you in the top list of deniers.

      Did you read the subject of your letter? Because if you did you fail number one.

      • Rob Halton

        January 27, 2019 at 11:31 pm

        Max, I am not a denier but realistically the uptake of alternative electricity supply since the closure of Heazlewood plus the unreliability factors affecting the aging Yallourn plant as the politics around energy both at State and Federal levelsis continuing to fail the community with continued indecision, disagreement and worst of all confusion about the way foward !

        I could ask why has there not been a major investment in gas fired generators for base load, I reckon the resultant electricity too expensive to pass onto customers, where is Turnbull’s Snowy II, as I suspect little gain in MW against construction costs!

        I would agree that better use and understanding of the current limitations of the supply grid need to be accepted by the community who should take it more seriously during periods of heat waves and actually cut back on use to avoid load shedding.
        Better education may help but modern society is continued to be weakened by too many power sucking non essential electrical appliances.
        If Victoria’s Premier Danial Andrews is keen to continue with overpopulating Melbourne then Melbournians and Victorians generally will pay the price each summer for not being up to speed with reliable and cost effective electricity infrastructure !

        Renewables require enormous government subsidies to create investment, Chinese investors have walked away and I wonder why.!

        Its too late for Renewables solely to rescue the electricity grid by replacing the current series of aging coal fired generators, that is fact, hence my reasoning for a state of the art coal powered generator to keep up with demand!

    • Wining Pom

      January 27, 2019 at 5:50 pm

      ‘Construct a state of the art coal fired power station in coal rich Victoria’ Really, Rob?

      That’s a bit like giving a diabetic extra sugar.

    • Keith Antonysen

      January 27, 2019 at 9:25 pm

      Rob, you really must be joking in relation to “state of the art coal fired power stations”.

      They eliminate some emissions, but most emissions are still voided into the atmosphere. The other factor is that they are horrendously expensive to build, and so energy clients can expect larger bills.

      • MjF

        January 28, 2019 at 10:08 am

        Tell that to SA customers, Keith. They’ll be heartened to hear you preach that the rest of the country can expect power cost increases if new coal is built. Currently SA has the most expensive power in the land. Why is that, when their state has a clear bias towards built renewables, and we’re told green energy is cost effective ?

        Why is SA paying substantially more per kW.hr than any other state or territory resident ?

        • Wining Pom

          January 28, 2019 at 6:07 pm

          ‘Why is SA paying substantially more per kWh than any other state or territory resident ?’

          You can have a look here and see ..


          It’s not purely the percentage of renewables.

          • MJF

            January 29, 2019 at 11:00 am

            I think it’s best summarised here by the quoted ACCC, Pom …

            “The transition from large-scale synchronous generation to variable and intermittent renewable energy resources has had a more pronounced effect on retail prices and number of offers in South Australia than any other state in the NEM.”

            All parts of the county have aging and expensive-to-maintain transmission infrastructures.

            Thanks for the link.

        • Jon Sumby

          January 28, 2019 at 6:36 pm

          ‘Liberal party donor and coal plant owner Trevor St Baker is proposing with the help of his mates in government to build two new coal power stations in Australia at the expense of taxpayers.

          However, the big four banks and the big three energy companies are not having a bar of it. Indeed the majority of Australia’s energy companies are working towards a very different future for the country’s energy system, a future powered by clean, renewable energy.

          There are now at least nine studies conducted during the decade that have analysed how Australia can move from an electricity system based on polluting coal and gas to one powered by the sun, wind and waves.

          The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) – the body tasked with making sure we have energy when we need it – found there were “no fundamental limits to 100% renewables”, and that the current standards of the system’s security and reliability would be maintained.’


    • MJF

      January 27, 2019 at 11:17 pm

      Forget it, Mr Halton. Leave it to leading Western and Asian countries to currently double their investment in low emission, high output coal power stations.

      Countries such as Japan, China, India, South Korea, the Philippines, South Africa and Turkey have decided to have a balance of renewables and cost effective thermal generated power.

      Unsurprisingly Trump has promised to “bring back coal” .. however that manifests itself.

      Australia doesn’t need more coal power and certainly none based on brown coal consumption. We can establish solar and wind across any amount of land available and firstly achieve, then exceed, our Paris agreement.

      Build storage batteries for surplus generation. Whatever it costs, the collective conscience will eventually be clear. The conservative right may have to give in.

      Google “power plans across Australia” and it’s no surprise hat the most expensive domestic electricity comes from retailers in SA. This is because of that state’s preference and fixation on renewables and batteries. The developers there have made a motza, as are the retailers in the present environment, and all at the residents’ expense.

      Australia can continue to cash in by selling high quality thermal coal to any amount of countries which are literally tripping over themselves to grab the Aussie product. Failing that, customers will buy low energy, high ash thermal coal from Indonesia which is readily available now.

      The choice is ours to make – reduce our share of global emissions as a country yet provide irreplaceable export income to fund this country’s economy and continue as one of the preferred destination for millions worldwide .. or continue this present position of waxing and waning.

      • Rob Halton

        January 29, 2019 at 9:18 am

        Martin, now you can do better than this, why not Australia develop its own coal fired power stations to supplement the slow uptake of expensive and less reliable Renewables.

        If emissions from brown coal fired generation in Victoria are less favorable climatically, then it is obvious to use the black coal, the same stuff that we have in over abundance within NSW for export instead use our share here at home for our own benefit which should be for electricity generation and smelting .

        For goodness’ sake on a global emissions basis what is the issue as to whether we burn our share of our own coal with superior thermal quality or India and China takes it for electricity generation or smelting, the emissions end up in the same atmosphere!

        Time to settle down and I would expect that some of our political leaders would put a decent energy plan forward which must include attracting investment for a modern coal fired generator to be developed sooner than later perhaps close to the nations better quality coal reserves to supplement the Southern states dwindling electricity generation currently coming from from older and less reliable power stations, some of which could be closed down at short notice! With private ownership of the electricity generators the unexpected at any time, The NEG cannot guarantee reliable operations by suppliers who are in the game for running a profitable business subject to foreign takeover which can falter at any time.

        In all probability the privation of the electricity sector is slowly bat surely failing community expectations!

        Reliable energy generation action is required leading up to the Federal election.

        The PM should present a realistic plan which should be a reasonable one whereas Labor will offer something that is less clear in an attempt to partly charm those marginal, confused and fuzzy climate change believers.

        The Greens will provide a plan that is solely based on climate change scare campaigns, which would provide no hope for the nation to move forward.

        The is a golden opportunity for One Nation to leap forward and support a nation building Liberal / Coalition government as at this point in time I cannot see Labor especially under Shorten displaying any clear direction on future energy generation.

    • Keith Antonysen

      January 28, 2019 at 7:08 am


      In the scheme of things, I have only provided a few myths of many. Decision making by government needs to be based on objective information, rather than opinion.

      The creation of HELE/ Carbon Collection and Storage type coal power stations has not gone well in the US. Poor outcomes had been anticipated in Britain.



    • Ted Mead

      January 28, 2019 at 9:52 am

      Robin, coal coal coal? That’s going to be your deathbed mantra. In fact I’m convinced your brain only possesses one synapse, and that is one that is obviously joined at both ends because the message inside your cerebrum seems to go around and around like a worn-out scratched old vinyl record, ad nauseam!

      A new coal-fired power station that would produce enough energy to replace Hazelwood would take at least 8 years to construct, and it would cost far more than renewables, and it would continue to contribute to the greenhouse calamity.

      Even your hero ScoMo knows this, as Turnbull did.

      Blackouts will be common unless we increase our energy supply to meet demands, and only a rapid expansion in renewables is the quick fix answer.

      It has been estimated that the world will produce another 4 billion air conditioners by 2050. The more we produce and operate these, the more we will cook ourselves on this planet if we rely on coal energy to drive them.

      Conservative Liberal thinking is why we are digging our own graves.

  16. kimpeart

    January 26, 2019 at 10:06 pm

    Moderator states “Tasmanian Times is not ‘a fantasy level forum’ as you have just alleged, but many readers would describe your earnest space utilisation notions as wholly impractical fantasies.”

    Space is raised in this article, and then dismissed, without any proof or consideration of all space options now possible, and which have been possible since the 1970s.

    That described as “your earnest space utilisation notions” is a dismissal of the work of many thousands of scientists and engineers who have worked out what is possible in space from the 1960s onwards (there were half a million workers engaged in the Apollo program to get a boot onto the Moon). That statement reveals a fantasy level appreciation of the space reality. Falling into that fantasy serves to empower the fossil fuel moguls.

    Being aware of all that is possible with space on the basis of science and engineering, which I have been engaged with since 1976, I am simply stating fact, and I am left wondering why there is such a dogmatic rejection of space options.

    The simple legacy we have now, is a total failure by conservationists to keep a safe Earth. This failure could have been entirely avoided if conservationists had joined forces with the space options that were available in the 1970s. The combined efforts of Earth and space people could have been enough to overcome the political blockade to space options put in place by fossil fuel moguls who could see the threat to their power on Earth presented by essentially free power from solar power stations in space.

    To state essentially free is simply knowing that once there is a sustainable industrial presence in space there will be no further real cost to space development, and all subsequent power harvested in space from the Sun will be essentially free. False costs will be imposed if we allow the moguls to do that. This is why people-power is now needed with space, more than ever, to ensure that space serves the needs of Earth and human survival. This is the message of hope that will bulldoze aside global heating denial, and offer hope to the young people in the photo at the head of this article.

    I am deeply concerned at the warnings, now growing, for the rapid escalation of global heating and related strife which may simply close any window of opportunity with space as governments lock down on Earth, and then pump sulphur into the air to cool the planet with unknown and unpredictable consequences.

    The article states that “they cherry pick statements” but then the author cherry picks from space options to fit a rejection of all space options.

    • Russell

      January 27, 2019 at 7:23 am


      For the last time .. the idea that we can move to some other planet in outer space is PURE fantasy as the CLOSEST other planet that scientists THINK might be REMOTELY like our planet would take THOUSANDS of years to get to if traveling at the speed of LIGHT, WHICH we don’t have the technology to do !

      Just STOP!

      • kimpeart

        January 27, 2019 at 11:08 am

        Thanks, Russell.

        Your comment is an excellent example of the deeper level of denial that so concerns me.

        • Russell

          January 30, 2019 at 10:46 am

          They are inarguable FACTS, Kim. The only denier is you who chooses to believe in some unachievable utopian anime rather than actually doing something to help mitigate and reverse Climate Change by putting solar panels on your roof – technology which is proven and which is cheaply available right now.

          Good luck with your next election tilt. You’re gonna need it.

          A move back to Queensland, a state renowned for electing nutters, might see more success for you.

          • kimpeart

            January 30, 2019 at 10:26 pm

            When will you, Russell, be announcing your run in the next Federal election, and putting your communication skills to the acid test of winning hearts and votes?

            You have an interesting strategy, telling people what to do and where to go.

            Is this the Basil Faulty technique?

            PS: Why does TT allow personal and targeted attacks?


            Kim, anyone too offended may say so within a Comment. Use the word CONFIDENTIAL if privacy is required.

            Contributors going too far may in breech of TT’s Code of Conduct which prohibits abuse, but “abuse” in a TT Comment is not defined.

            There’s more here: https://tasmaniantimes.com/the-legal-bits/

            Here’s a few rules of thumb to consider before you submit a comment:

            1. Tone matters: A constructive, engaging and respectful tone helps facilitate better understanding on the points of disagreement and agreement between contributors. It also ensures that readers of the articles continue on to read comments.
            2. Civility promotes debate: We ask that people ‘play the ball, not the person’.
            • If you want your comments to be read by as many others as possible, sticking to the issues helps keep the discussion interesting. Avoid aggressive language, taunts, swearing and sexist comments.

            • Comments that could be interpreted as bullying will be deleted.

            — Moderator

  17. phill Parsons

    January 26, 2019 at 9:36 pm

    The physical and chemical changes in the atmosphere and the ocean can be denied day and night, high and low, but they are no less real and measurable.

    Even people with a limited understanding of the science know something is going on. They may get it, and force change. That change may be in time to retain a semblance of the natural and social order. This is why I, and I assume many others, act.

    Then again it may be too late, but as we don’t know this we must continue to press for change.

  18. kimpeart

    January 26, 2019 at 9:22 pm

    Kim, please calm down.

    Of your 52 word Comment, now deleted, 48 were capitalised.

    Here’s a partial quote from https://tasmaniantimes.com/the-legal-bits/

    Some simple style points that would ease Tasmanian Times’ editing workload

    1. Lower case letters are quieter and softer on the eyes; upper case words are the equivalent of shouting.

    Tasmanian Times simply doesn’t have time to retype comments or parts of comments which include capitals. Sorry, but comments which include sentences in capitals will be deleted.

    — Moderator

    • kimpeart

      January 27, 2019 at 10:33 am

      Being in capitals, it was a message for the Moderator, with expectation of automatic deletion.



      Confidential messages must be delineated as such.

      — Moderator

  19. kimpeart

    January 26, 2019 at 8:01 pm

    Dig into the climate science, and you’ll find that the potential for a rapid rise in heat is spoken of, with the prospect of sulphur bugs from the deep ocean blooming on the surface to release toxic hydrogen sulphide gas which kills life on land and rises in the air to damage the ozone layer, which then lets in higher doses of solar and cosmic radiation killing more life on land. This was the killer punch of the Great Dying of 252 million years ago.

    It has only just been found that 93% of the heat from the air has gone into the oceans, and the consequences of this are only now being considered. The ocean waters around New Zealand are heating up at present. What will we think if there is another large bleaching event of the Great Barrier Reef this year? There are simply too many canaries falling dead in our planet coal mine.



    Tasmanian Times is not ‘a fantasy level forum’ as you have just alleged, but many readers would describe your earnest space utilisation notions as wholly impractical fantasies.

    The topic here is “Some myths Presented by Climate Change Deniers” and so your detailed off topic paragraphs have again been deleted.

    — Moderator

  20. Kim Peart

    January 26, 2019 at 7:11 pm

    The problem here is the myths perpetuated by a deeper level of denial.

    Blocking the examination of this critical fact is giving a win to the fossil fuel moguls on two levels, and becoming part of the problem by not getting at the real problem. This is the green light that fossil industry propaganda has successfully secured for over half a century. This is the root cause of how we are collectively killing this Earth.

    Climate change denial continues, while the counter arguments end up becoming a fantasy because they cannot offer any hope, and that has been the case since the Earthrise photo was taken.

  21. Keith Antonysen

    January 26, 2019 at 2:35 pm

    I have asked people to check my article as there is a small mistake in point 3, although not in fact. It makes no difference to the fraudulent comments made against Dr Hansen by McIntrye and Michaels.

    The article had been written without use of references, or Mr Google.

    I read about the matter 7 months ago. Dr Hansen provided three projections, not four. One, with hindsight, was exceptionally close to being right.

  22. Christopher Eastman-Nagle

    January 26, 2019 at 2:26 pm

    The myth messages being put around by fossil fuel tobacco lobby lookalikes are far less important than the power of the media packaging that they use. This started life in the US during the 1920s with the work of men like Edward Bernays, ie the capacity to influence/manipulate the consciousness of mass constituencies.

    People who cannot see that, futilely rail against the message, while the medium invisibly wraps them in a fog of obfuscation and white noise.

    As Marshall McLuhan declaimed in the 1960s, as Indulgence Capitalism was being rolled out .. ‘The medium is the massage’.

    Since the 1920s, public relations has become a science in its own right, with a large body of detailed research-based knowledge about how to run campaigns that will alter the way people perceive, feel and think, on behalf of any social or economic actor with the resources to run one.

    If the German ‘Public Enlightenment’ Reichsminister, Joseph Goebbels, could come back today and try to get a job in the industry, he would need to go back to propaganda school (university) to get up to speed for an entry level position in the now deregulated and privatised (but all the more completely totalitarian) propaganda apparatus of Indulgence Capitalism.

    It is possible to run campaigns that make no rational sense by using words that make no sense of each other, but which can be rationalised into a rational whole, like ‘Climate Equality For All’. And the killer is that this app gets more effective the more often it is used as the shop troops and contractor drones of consumerland become ever better trained .. and their children know nothing else.

    And best of all, language, discourse and thought itself is reduced to marketspeak, ie cliches, slogans, keywords, euphemisms, dysphemisms and oracular declamations by figures of authority who declare what’s in and what is out, who is cool and who is nout.

    It is as close to religion as secular people get, and full of beliefs at least as unlikely as those that came before in an earlier age …

    But it is the modern mechanism that is far more powerful than its predecessors. No need for an Inquisition, Gestapo or the instruments of torture to get conformity in this firmament.

    Here, the punters self inflict non-conformist remorse as much as they administer ‘the torture’ of social and ideological exclusion for those who refuse to step up to the mark, unless of course non conformity as been reconstructed as the new conformity.

    The system can’t lose. If one wants to beat the climate change deniers one has to beat them at their own game. Rational debate is for klutzes who haven’t woken up to the new realities.

    ‘Getup’ has got the idea as much as the Minerals Council, the IPA and the various sex/gender lobbies.

    It used to be called propaganda …

    • kimpeart

      January 26, 2019 at 10:24 pm

      I suggest that there is a resounding truth that can be drummed, where a working solution to Earth strife is defined in the context of the Solar System as a whole.

      When the turf war is for position on Earth alone, then the protagonists will reflect each other, and in politics, apply similar campaigning.

      The sad consequence is the strife not being dealt with, the strife that grows, from homelessness, to poverty, to being unsustainable, to global heating.

      There is a position of truth, defined by science, where honesty works best, when planning a future in the Solar System as a whole.

      This is because in space the dynamic for survival changes, and it is this new dynamic that will kick back to Earth.

      We know how to lose the Earth, and kill life, because this is what we are doing, with aplomb.

      We must now learn something entirely different, if we wish to save the Earth.

  23. Kim Peart

    January 26, 2019 at 12:56 pm

    Dig into the climate science and you’ll find that the potential for a rapid rise in heat is spoken of, and the prospect of sulphur bugs from the deep ocean blooming on the surface to release toxic hydrogen sulphide gas which kills life on land and rises in the air to damage the ozone layer which then lets in higher doses of solar and cosmic radiation, killing more life on land (the killer punch of the Great Dying of 252 million years ago).



    The topic here is “Some Myths Presented by Climate Change Deniers.”

    The habitually over-length, extremely repetitive and way off topic remainder expounding your favourite obsession has been deleted.

    Brevity is often a virtue, especially here.

    — Moderator

    • kimpeart

      January 27, 2019 at 8:37 pm

      The CO2 driven Earth crisis is quite serious, and left to run its course it will deliver a dead Earth.

      Countering climate change deniers is a small part of the battle.

      Identifying a battle plan that will allow us to win back a safe Earth is the main game. This will not happen with the status quo that has brought us here. New thinking will be needed to open new ways to save this Earth. Considered debate that delves into every option is needed now. “Brevity” will not save the Earth. We are in a state of war with Nature, and as David Wallace-Wells put the matter in ‘The Uninhabitable Earth’ . .“And however sanguine you might be about the proposition that we have already ravaged the natural world, which we surely have, it is another thing entirely to consider the possibility that we have only provoked it, engineering first in ignorance, and then in denial, a climate system that will now go to war with us for many centuries, perhaps until it destroys us. That is what Wallace Smith Broecker, the avuncular oceanographer who coined the term “global warming,” means when he calls the planet an “angry beast.” You could also go with “war machine.” Each day we arm it more.”


      If we do not have a plan of action in place this year we may simply lose this war, kiss goodbye to survival, and leave what kind of legacy for our time in the Universe?

  24. max

    January 26, 2019 at 10:20 am

    There are climate change deniers who refuse to acknowledge the evidence, but they are in the minority.

    Those who worry me are they who accept the facts but wring their hands and say ‘there is no way we can change.’

    How can we live without fossil fuels? I need my car, electricity, my air conditioner, fertilisers and all the trappings of our modern society. These fuels are the ones which keep governments in power, and governments will stay in power by being deniers even when they are in possession of facts that tell them the truth.

    There is something in the makeup the human mind that will not accept the possibility of its own extinction, otherwise why would intelligent people go to war, jump out of a trench, run straight at machine guns .. and certain death?

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Receive Our Weekly Tas Roundup

Copyright © Tasmanian Times. Site by Pixel Key

To Top