Thousands of unpaid scientists are fed up with name-calling bullies and rent-seekers. A perfectly good civilization is going to waste
Jo won prizes as a science grad and international awards as a blogger. She’s author of The Skeptics Handbook which has been translated into 15 languages. Each day around 12,000 people read joannenova.com.au. In 2018 Jo toured Europe speaking about How to Destroy an Electricity Grid. Before blogging she hosted a children’s TV series on Channel Nine, was a regular keynote speaker, and managed the Shell Questacon Science Circus. She was an associate lecturer in Science Communication at ANU. At one time she helped fundraise for The Australian Greens. Then she grew up.
Andrew Bolt described her writing as “outstanding”, and called one piece “a magnificant polemic.” She’s been quoted by her heroes James Delingpole, Christopher Booker, and Mark Steyn. She’s been blamed for the collapse of the ETS and named in the Australian Parliament.
The Oxfam report on ClimateGate news improbably listed her blog influence as being equal to NASA in the Climategate email saga. The Wheeler Centre in Melbourne listed Jo Nova as the balancing counterpoint to the combined scientific weight of The UN and government departments. Such praise!
Her blog won Best Topical Blog of 2015, The LifeTime Achievement Award in the 2014 Bloggies and Best Australian and New Zealand Blog in 2012. Jo won the Dauntless Purveyor of Climate Truth in 2023, an award won by Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham. About 1.5 million people visit the site each year. Jo has at times been a regular guest on Outsiders on SkyNews with Rowan Dean.
Her articles in The Australian and The Spectator include:
- The silent undercurrent of skepticism | The Spectator “Jo Nova opens her diary” April 24th 2010
- A journalist who confuses journalism with propaganda | The Australian, Dec 18th, 2010
- On climate change, the wrong choice kills people either way | The Australian, May 7th, 2011
- We need a free market in climate science | The Australian, July 30th, 2011
- Jo Nova in The Australian: Manne is anti-science on climate | The Australian, August 25th, 2012
- Jo Nova in The Australian: Carbon credits market is neither free nor worth anything | The Australian, July 31st, 2013
- Three cheers for Senate Micro’s | The Australian, Sept 13th, 2013
She has presented speeches across Australia, in New York, Washington, Munich, Oslo and London.
A prize-winning science graduate in molecular biology. She has given keynotes about the medical revolution, gene technology and aging at conferences. She hosted a children’s TV series on Channel Nine, and has done over 200 radio interviews, many on the Australian ABC. She was formerly an associate lecturer in Science Communication at the ANU.
She is married to Dr David Evans, the Stanford PhD in fourier analysis, former leading carbon modeler for the Australian Greenhouse Office. They support their own research and writing. At the moment they are living largely off donations from readers (Thank you!) and are based in Perth, Western Australia.
Why the blog?
In 2008 Jo was dismayed that the good brand-name of science was being exploited and wrote The Skeptics Handbook pro bono. Some 220,000 copies of the Handbook were published worldwide and were distributed to the Australian Parliament and US congressmen. It was so popular that volunteers translated it into French, German (twice), Swedish, Norwegian, Finnish, Turkish, Japanese, Danish, Czech, Portuguese, Italian, Balkan, Spanish, Lao and Thai. Her paper Climate Money was the first to document the unprecedented rise of volunteer auditors and independent scientists and the massive one-sided way government funding worked to distort science: supporters of the man-made climate catastrophe had been paid 3,500 times as much as skeptics. She was among the first to spotlight the influential role of banks and financial houses who had a major stake in carbon trading. Banks want to save the world. Who knew?
The Blog
Jo Nova was one of the four heretics mentioned by Matt Ridley in his summation of the global effort to separate science from pseudoscience.
“The remarkable thing about the heretics I have mentioned is that every single one is doing this in his or her spare time. They work for themselves, they earn a pittance from this work. There is no great fossil-fuel slush fund for sceptics”.
She has got a mention by The Australian [World wide web of doubt Hot and bothered , Let’s have a debate, Aunty] , Forbes, The Spectator, Mark Steyn, Andrew Bolt [here and here], ABC (the Drum1, Drum2), The Science and Public Policy Institute, The Hawaii Reporter, James Delingpole of The Telegraph (and here and here too), Christopher Booker, and The Examiner, The West Australian. Jo did a five part debate with Dr Andrew Glikson, through Quadrant Online, then at her own blog. The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald tried to disparage her with an ad hominem. So did Clive Hamilton. Of course, Joanne has her own DeSmog Blog page (no skeptic should be without one.)
Jo has been interviewed on The John Batchelor Show (NY) [1] [2], the Corbett Report and with Michael Smith on 4BC and on Global Cooling Radio.
A varied career
Jo Nova is the stage name of Joanne Codling. She took up the name in 1998 for privacy reasons when she started work with Channel Nine as the host of the children’s TV series Y?. Her first full time job at age 22 was as manager of the half million dollar exhibition called the Shell Questacon Science Circus with a team of twelve. She spent five years touring Australia with hands-on science. As an associate lecturer at ANU Joanne helped to develop the Graduate Diploma in Science Communication in its earliest years. She put her favourite hands-on science experiments in the book Serious Science Party Tricks.
Joanne has also managed programs bringing hands-on science to street kids in Melbourne and remote Aboriginal communities as well as earning money as a cartoonist, graphic designer and illustrator. She is into liberty, medical research, money, history, and climate science, as well as anthropology, Austrian economics, and the trajectory of great civilizations.
Joanne Nova lives in Perth, Australia. She welcomes comments (not spam) email: joanne AT joannenova.com.au (replace the ‘AT’ with’@’ to foil nasty agents.) She received no funding for the first Skeptics Handbook or to create this site. Donations help to cover costs, and made the second Handbook possible in late 2009. She and her husband are self employed.
Her phone number is unlisted, she does not live in Bateman or Palmyra. (Please don’t phone them!).
More details about her speaking, TV, radio work and qualifications here.
[…] “Professional Speaker” turned climate expert Nova rehashes two of the more common skeptic talking points, that: the world is no longer warming and the Vostok ice core record proves that rising CO2 emissions are not… […]
2820
[…] written not by a practicing researcher of course, but by a woman named Jo Nova whose past vocations included hosting of children’s program in Australia and touring Australia with a “science […]
3036
[…] Joanne Nova writes – […]
92
[…] Joanne Nova writes – […]
117
[…] berömde henne för att vara en grävande journalist som lever upp till sitt ethos som journalist. Joanne Nova kallar sig för ”vetenskapskommunikatör”, vilket kanske är ett något vidare begrepp än […]
133
Global warming is not due to greenhouse gases, its due tothe earth’s orbit around the sun destabilizing, you have been lied too. Please read my blog at: orbital-decay1.blogspot.com..
4612
Dear JoNova,
The Australian Government/DFAT government are looking to sell us out to the overseas corporations once and for all by signing up with this Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement – Free Trade.
Are you able to contact all your other contacts/links because there is a deadline for Submissions mid July 2012.
Big Business mainly overseas entities operating in Australia have put in submissions approving this agreement but its all to the detriment of Australian Sovereignty and its people. Basically it surrenders powers to large corporations and gives them more power over our land including resources etc. Please look into it because they are having a meeting in August in Sydney however there is a deadline this month for submissions. Because its so secret most people are not aware of it and my submission will have no weight.
What can we do to contest this?
http://www.dfat.gov.au/fta/tpp/index.html#news
http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/leaks-indicate-tpp-may-diminish-australian-sovereignty/
http://www.dfat.gov.au/fta/tpp/index.html#news
Regards,
Maggie
130
Hi, enjoy your site which I am just getting to know better (I’m a regular at BH and CA and WUWT).
I know you have bigger fish to fry with the carbon tax etc. but if you know of any journalists or bloggers who might be interested, I think there seem to be some bizarre statements and behaviors associated with David Karoly, the Australian Book Review, and also of course the larger context of the dubious Gergis et al (2012) paper. For just the most recent examples:
David Karoly still smearing Steve McIntyre
—
Thanks for the tip 🙂 Jo
101
[…] I’m an “Australian journalist” but if he’d done ten seconds of research and read the “About” page on my site, he’d have seen that I’m not and have never been a journalist. It’s […]
92
Hi, your statement that you would not like to see a good civilization go to waste rings true for me also. I have spent the good part of seven years researching to find out why we are in the mess we are in. Even though conditions are improving in the human world we are still in grave danger of going down the same path of many civlizations before us. I tried to find the source of our madness and ending up putting it into a book form. The Trinity Matrix 2012 (at http://www.scribd.com)is an attempt to identify ‘the brain of the beast’, i feel that if enough people see the pattern mentioned in the book then human awareness of self and our universe will be able to improve and sustain our civilization. Please have a read, it is free of cost.
110
Great blog Jo, and your work on debunking climate pseudo-science is amongst the best.
Here’s one for you to explore then, I’m calling it “minushalfgate” 🙂
This must yet be the simplest and easiest debunk of the greenhouse gas / back-radiation effect hypothesis there is…
I use arbitrary units and scales for illustrative purposes.
The greenhouse gas / back radiation effect, which is at the core of the global warming scam, says that upwelling heat energy from the surface is absorbed and some re-radiated back to the surface, further warming it.
This hypothesis is the greatest and simplest maths error the world has ever known.
This is it…
– When 1 unit of energy is lost from the surface, its temperature drops by 1 unit.
– CO2 absorbs and retransmits a portion back to the surface, the ‘back radiation’.
– As the re-radiated energy is in random, i.e. all directions, a maximum of 0.5 units can be downward, i.e. back radiated. Let’s call that 0.x.
– The hypothesis sums these two, 1 + 0.x = 1.x, i.e. >1 and therefore warming.
This is completely WRONG!
The calculation should be -1 + 0.x =
<1, i.e. cooling. The lost unit MUST be counted as -1 (minus 1) and not +1 (plus 1).This corrected calculation also does not make any assumption about the atmospheric composition, and doesn’t need to. Even if the atmosphere were 100% CO2, the back radiation could not be
>0.5, so even 100% CO2 could not heat the surface!The maths error is to assume the surface still has that unit of energy, where it has lost it. The maths error creates this unit of energy out of nothing, which is impossible.
This means that the hypothesis debunks itself, so other correct hypothesis needed.
This is why I called it:- minushalfgate
[Did you forget where that original 1 unit comes from and continues to come from during daylight hours? mod oggi]
87
[Apologies: penultimate paragraph should read “This means that the hypothesis debunks itself, so NO other correct hypothesis is needed”]
83
Could you indicate the exact link of Prof Parncutts statement (death penalty for deniers)
Kind regards
erner
90
Did Oz change its brush cutting policy? I didn’t know you guys were having fires again.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-04/wildfires-hit-australia-amid-worst-heatwave-in-decade.html
92
I read in ACIM that to totaly understand something you must understand the totality.
Many influences affect the earths surface temperature and much of the disagreement on the subject is because there are so many influences and it is all too easy to overlook one or more of them.
I have a question for a scientist who can answer me this; If the weight of the atmosphere increased by 0.15% how much would the avg temp at the surface increase? I haven’t heard this discussed but if man is increasing the weight of the atmosphere then AGW is real even if the green house effect is totally illusionary.
steve bunn, perth WA 26/1/2013
91
[…] JoNova runs the hugely popular award winning Skeptical Science blog JoNova in Australia, with a World wide readership. She is the author of The Skeptics Handbook, now translated into 16 languages. […]
118
I have been skeptical about the proposition that there is dangerous anthropogenic global warming pretty much since it was first raised in the 80s. I have always been a “weather nerd” and I soon realised that many of the statements made about dangerous warming were either not true or being made by people unqualified to comment. However, I am a person of the moderate political left. I vote for the Australian Labor Party. It is kind of disturbing that the global warming debate has become a highly charged rhetorical debate between the left and the right – it should be a scientific debate. When politicians bring in emissions trading schemes and carbon taxes they are doing it on the advice of their senior scientists. What they are doing might be pointless, but it is in a way quite honorable. I guess the polarisation between left and right over this issue is inevitable, but it doesn’t produce a well-reasoned debate. The green movement has a lot to offer in helping to protect the natural environment but i fear it will be held up to ridicule if the promised dangerous global warming fails to materialise. Any way I just thought I’d offer an alternative perspective from a sceptic on the left.
87
David you are most welcome here.
Part of the reason things are so horribly politicized is that left leaning journalists have failed us badly. By not reporting both sides of the story, and doing their best to supress skeptical voices they have let down the left-leaning politicians they think they are helping. Politicians of the left and right have funded unskeptical scientists to advise them of unskeptical things. Politicans could have avoided the mess by being skeptical of the media and seeking out opposing views themselves (“know thine enemy” is always good advice). But they didn’t.
Hence an error cascade of horrible proportions means vested interests creamed money while well intentioned but lazy politicians and journalists assumed someone else had done the rigorous honest questioning. Many people mistook “denier” for a scientific term, and scandalous amounts of money have been wasted trying to change the weather.
If you have questions about the science, we’re only to happy to answer them. Sadly, due to anonymous trolls who toss names and refuse honest answers, many commenters here may assume you don’t have good intentions, but I will do my best to keep discussions polite and friendly. They are the most valuable discussions of all. Indeed, I’d host a special thread if you are keen, and ask everyone to tone down the language.
165
I see a lot of similarities between the complicated science of climate and the complicated science of weight loss. After hundreds of millions of dollars being spent studying hundreds of thousands of people over the last 100 yrs we still have an obesity epidemic that has only got worse since the 1980s when scientific consensus told us that low fat diets are good for us. Since then smoking has decreased but heart disease has increased. When a subject is as complicated as climate or weight loss it is all too easy to study a small part of the puzzle and come to any conclusion you want to. From what I have read a low CO2 diet is not going to improve the health of the planet. It’s so frustrating hearing politicians like Oblama spout lines like “We haven’t got time to discuss the science with the flat-earthers.” Frustrating because too many will believe him. steve bunn, perth
1311
Jo,
Were there any allegations of academic misconduct lodged with UWA re Lewandowsky? I live near Bristol where he has pitched up and am trying (but failing) to point out to them that they have employed a charlatan.
149
What I’d like to see from Jo is an engagement with climate scientists. What I see on this site is lots of commentary, speculation, opinion, and attempts to influence opinion …most of it in disagreement with the science being published. What I don’t see here is any meaningful attempt to engage with the science. In its place is cherry-picking and misinterpretation. There is a huge question mark about the credibility of this site.
2410
1. Read my link The Evidence. I’m not in disagreement with most published papers. I’m in disagreement with a government committee that reviews the ones it wants and ignores the ones it doesn’t.
2. Engagement with climate scientists? I’ve done a 5 part debate with Dr Glickson, who is welcome to send part 6, but hasn’t. I’ve emailed Prof Andy Pitman, before I even started blogging, but when I asked, he refused to let me publish the emails. The people running scared from a debate are not the skeptics.
238
@Jo
Look, I don’t know what to say. I followed the link to The Evidence – thanks.
I politely suggest you check your refs. I realise you’re not submitting to peer review, but it would be good to understand why some of the papers you cite next to a claim say nothing in support, or contradict the claim.
“…reviews the ones [papers] it wants and ignores the ones it doesn’t” is cognitive dissonance.
Similar dissonance when giving an example of engaging with climate scientists in a debate where you make a call-to-action, “It’s time for universities to be called to order, and shamed for their pathetic standards of logic and reason.”
184
Did you know this alarming and important documentary film?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5igyXyJKL_0
I like your brave and well done blog!
Best regards,
Gentle Tramp
[Thank you for the reference. I think Jo already knows about this movie, but I will check] -Fly
[Thanks. No I didn’t know of this. Interesting. Always best if you post a long video to give us a short description about it. More people will watch and it’s easier for mods to release it. It is a good documentary. Cheers! – Jo]
80
“Climate Crime” Is An Incredible Eye-Opener!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5igyXyJKL_0
I agree with Jo that when promoting this video, a short commentary would be helpful as it is long, but so useful to see. Better yet, the producers of that video should include a blurb under the screen. What I can’t believe, however, is that only 688 people have viewed it since it’s been up 8 months.
In JoNova’s main site, Dec 17 post, “Two high school students take on teacher over climate and win standing ovation”, there are now over 260 comments. Mine was #55 about indoctrination rules that should apply when showing the Gore film. I have now posted these rules onto my own blog
http://www.parentsteachingparents.net/2013/12/anti-indoctrination-laws-for-schools/
100
Bonjour from France,
The best websites about climate are yours (English) and http://www.pensee-unique.fr (French).
Thanks Mrs Joanne Nova for your pertinent information on IPCC theories.
Yves Barois (Dordogne, France)
136
Just wondering if the BOM ever released the method for calculating the hottest ever data?
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/mystery-black-box-method-used-to-make-all-new-australian-hottest-ever-records/
Cheers
Murray
110
Not as far as I’ve heard, and I have been asking….
120
BBC run a piece blaming flooding in Somerset, UK on Global Warming. Only intended as a poop n scoot limited visibility propaganda item (disappears after 24hrs on BBC iPlayer) – ripped and YouTubed for posterity 18m30s in is the “good bit” here :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrwLj5BV6zA&feature=youtu.be
100
Hi Jo,
Global Warming to cause more rapes.
Just wait until Tim Flannery hears about this prediction. This will be his new scare!
http://conservativebyte.com/2014/02/global-warming-cause-rapes/
100
As there presumably are thousands of scientists who are 97% agreed that AGW is an issue, would it be a worthwhile project to gather the names and qualifications in relevant fields of your respondents. I have been an ardent follower of your blog for some years. I have noticed that most of your commenters appear to have a good grasp of the issues raised and appear to be scientists in a variety of fields.
To have such a list would further enhance the status and authority of your blog.
Just a thought!
122
Hi Jo! Did you hear that Jennifer got a good rap from Senator MacDonald (?) in the Senate today?
70
Mal, better to discuss that on a Jen thread. Do you have a link? – Jo
70
Hi Jo,
Go girl! I only just chanced your blog page this evening. I’ve been a long standing in principle supporter of David Evans and now find that he’s your hubby. How wonderful!
Keep on giving it to the deceivers of the left who don’t value the truth, only the fulfilment of their pre-supposed ideas on how life should be and their struggle (jihad) to twist and turn the facts to their own ends. Don’t let them off hook.
Unfortunately, there’s very few honest people in the public domain, and so when I see you, Andrew Bolt, Miranda Devine, Piers Ackerman, Mike Smith and others of like mind, then I’m always interested in what you have to say, and to support as much as I am able.
To bring this country around we have to make sure that our children are not brainwashed with the politically correct garbage that is disseminated by the left in school curricula-especially in the history/humanities. Too many young minds are being deceived and corrupted by the agendas that are being set in place by the socialist left. It’s wicked. Parents who take the time and make the effort to understand what is happening to our world must remain the primary educators of their children.
123
Thank you Tony. Good to have you on the same team. Yes, yes yes to education — there is so much to do.
81
Dear Mrs Joanne Nova,
you have been writing about Mr. Murry Salby recently. Do you know, where he lives now or how I can contact him ? I listened to his speech in Hamburg april 2013. As I read on his problems after the journey to Europe I would like to find out, whether he is fine again.
best regards Petra Vooth Germany
[I have forwarded your comment to Murry, and hope to get news myself soon. – Jo]
70
As an ex BOM Observer of over three decades, l agree, these climate fools have trashed the BOM’s reputation. It makes me cry to see the observations that have been performed by competent, well trained dedicated career weather observers over many decades have been altered by the desk bound climate despots who have never worked at a weather station all their lives and who cant even recognise cloud types or even perform a weather observation.
[Please resubmit this to the current thread, where it would be more appropriate.] Fly
We are keen to hear from weather observers. And it’s fine if you need to be anonymous. I understand. We would very much like to hear more from you, and so will other commenters on the newer threads. The comment will disappear in this thread, which would be a shame. – Jo
110
“She’s been quoted by James Delingpole”
Say no more! Quoted by someone with a Bachelor’s in English lit! Because people who haven’t published on climate science are the best possible resources for information on climate science. Click through for a whole day’s worth of howlers.
http://www.desmogblog.com/james-delingpole
[Daniel, read the guide to commenting at this site. This comment is an ad hominem, that is, a personal attack. (How unscientific). If you care what qualifications high profile commentators on climate science have, you should at least start with the Chairman of the IPCC, or Al Gore, or Tim Flannery, or Clive Hamilton. – Mod]
151
[…] globally by a recent study, along with with Watt’s Up With That and Climate Audit. On her About page she says “A long time ago she was a Green, and still wants to save the world, but with the […]
61
Just another denialist pretending to be a critical thinker. Yawn. Next…
[Just another University of GA (USA) student failing to provide an example of what is denied. Your accusation is in fact a classic projection. Yawn indeed. Next. ]ED
72
To the mod who responded to my comment:
Pointing out the absence of relevant qualifications within a discipline that demands expertise is not ad hominem. You have appealed to James Delingpole of all people, and we have a right to point out how misguided that is. He has no formal qualifications in climate science and it is self-evident in his writings. One could go seriatim and debunk each of his claims, but I suspect you would just call this ad hominem as well…
Best,
Daniel
————–
Daniel, if I’m barking mad and all wrong, it’ll be easy to explain why. That would be a scientific debate. Do join us and give it your best shot. But if you can’t, perhaps you don’t know what you are talking about? (Like with rhetoric eh? Attacking quals is absolutely the pure ad hominem argument). Any time you want to talk science, you’re welcome. – Jo
144
“Daniel, if I’m barking mad and all wrong, it’ll be easy to explain why…Any time you want to talk science, you’re welcome.”
That’s interesting, because in my first comment here I dropped a link to my post on this topic and it was clipped out of the comment. I will try once more:
http://www.waivingentropy.com/2012/03/24/a-climate-of-change/
The fact that you moderate your comments and clip out those which you deem inconvenient to your cherished narrative says it all really. The only other places on the internet you find such draconian comment moderation (or no commenting system at all) are creationist websites.
Daniel, I’ve been away from the desk a lot in Jan. I don’t recall ever seeing or snipping your entropy link, though I’m the one who approved your last comment even though the mods were correct that it was ad hom and in the wrong place. I note that we’re so scared of waivingentropy that we’ve published your site link in your signature twice, and let through the link to desmog as well. The mods are trying to get you to comment on a thread where others will see it and respond (isn’t that what you want?). You’ve ignored them, and persistently misunderstand ad hominem (which you keep making). All that breaches site rules, yet still we published you. If you’d responded as the mdos requested they would have approved it – Jo.
You also continue to miss my point about qualifications. No, they are not all that matters. But if you have no formal quals *AND* what you put out there is so egregiously mistaken in said science for which you have no quals, then we should steer a wide course around those people. They are not reliable sources. Enter James Delingpole. His background is in literature, as far from the regime of relevance to climate science as you could possibly get. Moreover, this is borne out repeatedly in his posts, which lob elementary error after elementary error and which distort the details in obvious ways.
As usual you have an empty hand when it comes to evidence of “elementary errors”. This is all logical fallacy, bluster and no fact. You are not making a scientific case. – Jo
So the fact that you thump Delingpole in support of your view tells us everything we need to know about your reliability. This is not ad hominem to point this out. We would make the same conclusion about an evolution-denier who cited Kent Hovind.
Best,
– Daniel
1. Presume “thump” in your lingo means “like”.
2. It is ad hom, and you do it via argument from authority and then also by association. A triple fallacy. If man A has no “authority” and makes alleged but undescribed mistakes, then man B may never refer to Man A for any argument (you say) because all things Man A ever said are now “proved” wrong. If Man B supports Man A on any point, then Man B is then also “proved” wrong. By this method only people approved by the government and licensed as “experts” may discuss ideas in public.
3. I’m sorry this took a couple of days to approve, but on a 6 year old inactive thread, that hardly matters. Given that you break site rules in at least two ways, I guess you’ll be grateful. 😉 – Jo
105
Here is the mod comment for Daniel, which the mod took the time to add inside his held comment so he could read it. I’m posting it to show how much effort the mods took to try to help him. – Jo
[Hi Daniel – this comment wont be posted for two reasons. Firstly, the ‘About’ section of Jo Nova’s blog is meant to be ‘About Jo Nova’, there is ample opportunity to discuss specific issues about climate science either as the topics come up, or when we have an ‘Open Thread’ weekend. Secondly, we prefer posters who add a link to describe what is at the link and how it is relevant to the argument. Not to just give our readers a referral to some off sight reading. What you have done is basically linked to your manifesto. This isn’t appropriate, though if in a particular topic you want to quote something relevant from your web site you are free to do so, and then add the link for anyone who wants to pursue the source. I hope that clarifies matter for you.
On a couple of other matters:
1. Moderators are voluntary and are simply here to keep the blog respectable and on topic. We use a little discretion for new users, and regular commentators, but if you haven’t read the rules about posting you should. We certainly do not snip any views which meet the posting guidelines, we prefer to allow readers to have debates. I doubt you would find a more open blog site in climate science anywhere with the ‘alarmist’ cites commonly blocking and snipping inconvenient material. You are welcome to post you comments in support of the so called consensus when appropriate matters come up for discussion.
2. If you attack a persons qualifications rather than their argument, then that most certainly is an ad hominem – an attack on the man. Coincidentally James Delingpole in the chapter titled ‘Experts as Ideologues’. He writes that whenever someone wants to prove he has nothing useful to add to the climate science debate, they ask what qualifications he has. He happily admits he achieved a ‘B’ in Physics ‘O’ Level and has an MA in English Language and Literature from Oxford. He writes that in his experience you are right to be concerned because there is a terrifying correlation between English Literature Degrees and off-the-scale-ignorance about the environment.
For example he points out BBC environmental commentator and gatekeeper against any skeptical viewpoints getting through to the BBC read English Literature at Cambridge. Caroline Lucas, Britain’s first Greens MP, “who once claimed in all seriousness that flying on a holiday is as bad as knifing someone in the street….” Guess what qualification she has? Tasmin Omond “the Westminster educated Baronets grand-daughter turned hardcore activist once dumped a truckload of horse poo on Jeremy Clarckson’s doorstep in protest at his environmental correctness also has English Lit qualifications. So too does Baroness Worthington from Friends of the Earth and architect of the 2008 British Climate Change Act also excelled in English and English Lit. Our own Tim Flannery has an undergraduate degree in English Literature before doing his doctorate in small animal palaeontology and he was our Climate Commissioner. In fact the climate activist side of the debate is full of non climate science qualified people from the IPCC Chairman to the Nobel Prize winning Al Gore, so I am sure James Delingpole would be happy to shut up on the subject if only those on the other side would. But he points out that he doesn’t have to have a science degree to work out that what the peer reviewed reports say and what the synthesised IPCC reports and press releases say are two different things. He doesn’t have to have a science degree to work out when a climate alarmist is avoiding or obfuscating a hard question. And his English skills probably better qualify him to pick up contradictory information coming from the so called climate experts.
3. When you find a way to equate a skeptic with an evolution denier in a twisted analogy, that too would be considered an ad hominem.
Cheers
Mod]
143
“this comment wont be posted for two reasons.”
Everything after that is bullshit. You don’t get to tout your own horn as one of the more “open blogs” on the internet and in the next breath delete my comment while snipping out the links in my previous comments. This is unfettered hypocrisy.
Nope, if the shoe fits, wear it. The only other place I have seen these tactics is on creationist websites. I will be sharing my experiences here with colleagues and with anyone who ever references “JoNova” going forward.
Best,
– Daniel
[would you please also share with your colleagues that you are too thick to realize that you are posting in the wrong place and that is why it isn’t going to be published? jeezzzsh! Rant and wail all you want but do it in a CURRENT THREAD! dumb dumb dumb dumb] ED
98
Daniel, we note you failed to provide a single scientific argument as requested and went for the “threat” instead. (Good luck with that 😉 ).
We were trying to help you make sensible arguments and post your links in places where they would be seen and discussed. The mods didn’t think your uninformed rants were worth posting, but I thank you. You help show how aggressive and unscientific this debate is.
127
Ice age now 2015. Do you know why solar Irradiance drops? Send me your email addy!
61
FYI – David Appell is attacking you…
# David Appell 2015-04-10 21:21
It’s not my fault Joanne Nova can’t read a figure correctly. (The hotter regions are dark red, not red or light red.)
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/scientists-debunk-climate-models.html#comment-48928
I appreciate you, and your work, and hate to see a cowardly attack from such a piece of work.
62
And again…
# David Appell 2015-04-10 21:52
It’s not Sherwood’s fault if you and Nova can’t read the scale on a graph.
61
Hello Jo,
You have quite likely already read this article in today’s ‘West’: https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/28771426/mini-ice-age-due-in-15-years-scientists/ but if not, here ’tis.
As a long time follower of the very one sided debate on ‘climate change’, my worry is that there is a very real possibility that the earth will in fact substantially cool due to diminished solar activity. Then, rather than removing Co2, we will in fact need every little molecule of the gas to help fend of this event.
God willing that both the author’s of the quoted report and me are wrong!
Cheers,
John
73
Thought you might like this. Or not.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/kiribati/11752694/Pacific-islander-loses-bid-to-be-worlds-first-climate-change-refugee.html
Thanks Richard, not many people will see it here. Better to post on a new thread if possible? PS Also, I note he is the 17th to try this and fail. – Jo
90
Global Warming fraud will continue until real scientist, lawyers and media address ENERGY STAR, and “government energy efficiency” scam which is funneling tens of billions to the EPA’s Billionaires Club.
Where was the outrage when EPA removed the 4th Building Block (energy efficiency) from the Clean Power Plan, replacing it with the Clean Energy Incentive Program, a Pay-To-Play scheme that has been operating for years as Save Energy Now?
This $100 billion Ponzi scheme has 24 federal universities providing “free” audits of industrial facilities, and claiming to have saved billions for large corporations willing to partner with EPA. All conducted without the benefit of a National Standard for measuring & verifying energy savings in technologies.What is electrical energy efficiency? How would you measure it? Or does this multi-billion dollar question really matter?
When will you speak about the scientific research & technical reports conducted by the Poised For Profits Partnership, the 12 bureaucracies that turned ENERGY STAR into a multi-billion dollar industry? Who will stand up for math & science?
http://www.n4mation.org/news/cpp-why-did-epa-disappear-the-4th-building-block
62
Hullo from distant Sweden. I am active in the free and open Swedish network http://www.klimatsans.com for balanced, factual climate information. I have also published two books on the history, processes and driving forces of Earth’s climate: “Solen driver vårt klimat” in Dec. 2013, and “Tänk om det blir kallare?” this October. Further, I was co-organizer of a climate conference in Sweden on Oct 8, initiated by Fred Goldberg and the Norwegian association Klimarealistene. Sadly, Fred passed away on Nov. 6, but we carry on his efforts.
I should much appreciate a direct e-mail contact with you and David for further exchange of views and facts. Thanks in advance, Tege
71
Hi Jo,
I’ve just started an information only website http://www.use-due-diligence-on-climate.org/ as an adjunct to sites like this.
It’s for quickly finding up to date information on Global Warming / Climate Change, hopefully presented in a clear way that’s accessible to all.
From simple to complicated via –
• Bullet Points:
• A superficial explanation:
• More in-depth explanation:
• Full scientific explanation:
Hope you find it useful in getting the message out.
Will add more as time goes on, happy to have constructive criticism / more info via the contact page.
I’d be honored if you think its good enough to be included in your links list.
Regards John.
(Kept it here for Jo to see) CTS
Thanks John, I’m frightfully busy, but I will have a look as soon as I can. Cheers and good on you. — Jo
60
Hi
I’d like to donate, but can’t seem to do so via your PayPal link.
May I have your email address so that I can send something?
Enjoyed your site for years, so promise I won’t bother you!
Best
Karl
[Karl, thank you so much! I’m sorry you are having trouble with the donation link. I’m going to leave your message here in moderation so that Joanne will see it and get back to you. You are not a bother!] ED
Thanks Karl, email on the way… – Jo
51
I love that her bio still mentions ClimateGate. Whether you agree or disagree with the politics of Global Warming, we should expect to get the best facts. Investigations into the hacked emails revealed that there was no wrongdoing done on part of the science or scientists. It also clarified exactly what the scientists were talking about when highlighting certain numbers or not. The scientists however, did not fabricate any of the data. Both her and Sean Hannity owe an apology for making such a big deal about it, but then not correcting themselves when no wrong doing was found. Additionally the findings from the investigation did not change the scientific consensus on a carbon link to climate change. Politifact has a very good breakdown on the email non-scandal.
Another detail left out about carbon is that even if carbon is not causing an increase in global temperatures, it is largely responsible for many other devastating problems. Carbon dioxide is responsible for ocean acidification, currently decimating our coral reefs and any species with a calcium based shell. Lobsters, crabs, krill and other shelled animals at the bottom of the food chain are being born with softer and softer shells. Animals with shells are essentially being dissolved by the carbon diffusing into the ocean. Aside from people that enjoy shellfish, it affects the entire food chain based on their survival. There are many good articles available on this topic as well.
Even if you disagree that carbon is an issue with climate you should be against carbon emissions as a part of overall health of the planet in these other regards. While I don’t find all of the information on this blog to be incorrect, I feel it irresponsibly makes carbon and fossil fuel emissions seem like “no big deal”, and I feel that is dishonest as it is well documented this is not the case.
[Joe, people who use “tricks” to hide declines are not acting scientifically, no matter how many whitewash committees approve. The ocean isn’t acid, and isn’t going to be. Corals survived thousands of hotter summers than this one. You won’t get much discussion on this thread, so why not pop on to other threads and enlighten us whenever you see something that’s wrong? It would be irresponsible of you not too, wouldn’t it? — Jo
102
Hi Jo.
I would appreciate your comments. I am trying to fact check the views of a friend who is adamant about the reality of man-made global warming, based on the views of Brian Dunning.
My friend says: “We can directly measure the source of heat in our atmosphere through spectroscopy. The Greenhouse window that lets the planet’s heat out has been slowly and consistently closing without fluctuation over the last 200 years in a very specific part of the spectrum related to the Carbon 12 which is 99% manmade.”
“Temperatures go up and down in different parts of the globe because the weather stirs the troposphere in complex ways, but if less and less heat can escape the world because of manmade gasses, then the world can only be getting hotter due to mankind. Conclusion, there is direct indisputable evidence that the temperature has been rising in the past 200 years due to the amount Carbon 12 that human activity releases in the atmosphere. As this evidence is independent and indisputable, any other reports, models or predictions are irrelevant. Simple maths, and simple logic. No statistics or models.”
I don’t know what to think about this. It sounds too simple to me, but I’m not sure what is wrong with his argument or what is missing. He also insists that the issue of climate feedback is not relevant. I’m curious how you would respond. Is his reasoning correct or not?
50
Jason, it’s a very simplistic view. Yes CO2 absorbs bands of infra red, and that could cause the Earth to warm only if there were no other way for the energy to escape to space.
But there are four main “pipes to space” and if we block one, the energy can reroute out the others.
Their models do very complicated sums to try to figure out what the overall effect of partly blocking one pipe, but they make a stupid assumption, get the architecture wrong, and completely miss that most of the extra energy trapped by CO2 will quickly get to space through water vapor, the most common and dominant greenhouse gas.
28 million radiosondes show that this is what is happening. The fact that the warming paused when every model said it wouldn’t fits with this other more advanced view.
Read David Evans work if you want to understand where the flaws are in their models and how they were right about the greenhouse effect of CO2, but wrong about their feedbacks.
92
Thanks Fly. I’m still confused however. Would be interested in some information about the ‘Greenhouse window’ myself. Brian Dunning calls it the ‘infrared window’ in the podcast my friend recommended: The Simple Proof of Man-Made Global Warming
I have an update from my friend who accuses me of “debating other people’s model based postulates”. He asks me 3 leading questions:
1. Greenhouse Effect: Do you agree that if the greenhouse gasses of Carbon 12 is increasing while other greenhouse gasses remain constant, then less heat can escape our planet?
2. Global Warming: Do you agree that if less heat can escape our planet than is entering our atmosphere, then regardless of what the weather models show, there must logically be a continuous net gain of heat?
3. Manmade Cause: Do you agree that if 99% of the increase in Carbon 12 is due to humans burning fossil fuels, and only 1% of the rest is natural, then humans are the main cause?
50
Other greenhouse gases are not staying constant. The big climate models assume that the water vapor level at 10km up will thicken. (That’s the hot spot that all models predicted would be there but 28 million weather balloons definitively showed did not occur).
All energy flows to space eventually like a river flowing down hill. When we put a rock in front of a stream it will only slow the stream if there is no easy route around the rock. But the energy has other ways to escape to space so it finds them. The net total effect of CO2 is a small warming of about 0.25C per doubling. Hence totally safe, probably beneficial and not worth spending any dollars to prevent.
82
“1. Greenhouse Effect: Do you agree that if the greenhouse gasses of Carbon 12 is increasing while other greenhouse gasses remain constant, then less heat can escape our planet?
NO. there is no mechanism for CO2 to cause warming in a convective atmosphere.
2. is therefore irrelevant
3. extra atmospheric CO2 enhanced plant growth. A big plus in feed ing a growing world population.
64
Thanks Jo, you are very kind! I will read the links with great interest. Until then may I try to recap your response? Briefly, the notion that an ‘infrared window’ is narrowed by an increase in CO2 is correct but simplistic and misleading, since other routes exist for energy transfer. And though there is a slight temperature increase linked to increasing CO2, it is very small (0.25C per doubling). Is this a fair representation?
Also, you describe Dunning’s view as simplistic. But does this nevertheless mean his basic factual claims are correct as far as they go, but incomplete? viz: (1) “We can carbon date the CO2 in the atmosphere, and tell exactly how much of it comes from humans burning fossil fuels“, which he says adds about 29 billion tonnes of Carbon 12 per year, and (2) Through spectroscopy we know “which wavelengths of heat energy are being trapped by gases in the atmosphere, and which wavelengths are escaping” and that satellites show “within that infrared window defined by water vapor, there is one big spike. It is the 15 µm range of CO2.”
One more question please? Since Dunning claims we can measure energy loss so accurately, I wonder why the ‘rerouted’ energy loss you explain is not accounted for in his summary of satellite evidence? After all, he claims that measurements of the infrared spectrum from space allow us to “see exactly where in the spectrum any change has occurred“. I have no idea, but is he making exaggerated claims here? Is it in fact possible to measure net global energy loss?
Again many thanks.
[Jason, I don’t buy the faux naivete. Fess up.] ED
50
1. Fair representation. Thanks.
2. I didn’t say anything about the claims of how much humans contribute to atmospheric CO2. That’s a totally different question, and scientifically has nothing to do with your first most important point. Be aware it’s not easy – fossil fuel = dead plants — There isn’t a lot of difference (just 2.6%) in the ratios of C13 to C12 in plants versus fossil fuels.
3. Spectroscopy is real, and shows that there is probably extra CO2 in the atmosphere. We know that already. David analyzed the whole range of frequencies. Read his work for more on that.
4. We can’t measure global energy loss that accurately. It’s quite hard, the satellites degrade over time, and the instruments we used in past decades are different. Even if we could do it now (which is a very worthy aim), we don’t have long term records. I wish we had good data. If you look closely at the water vapor band (figure 2) you will see there is monster noise (zig zaggy lines). It is not a “neat chunk” but a series of overlapping spikes. Very hard to calculate area of accurately. To really get an idea of how futile it is look for the word bellamy in davids post and follow that link to see the last graph on that page!
71
That’s out of place. There is nothing fake about my questions.
[Jason, please don’t take offense, the mods have to deal with people who pretend to be interested. There are a lot of fakes out there. — Jo]
[I did not accuse you of fake questions. I accuse you of pretending. Pretending to be naive, using a shill (I have a friend) to cover your own contempt. I might be wrong and I encourage you to prove that.] ED
70
It has taken me two years to understand your editor’s puerile comment. Yes, it was a real friend. I hope you have a new editor.
50
Ms. Nova, Would like to mail you a copy of my book “A New Science”, please send (snail) mailing address via email.
Regards.
[Email on the way — jo]
50
A lot of food for thought. Thanks again.
50
Hello from Florida. Have the theories of Dr. David Evans been peer reviewed? I have been away from this subject for a while and cannot find an email address for you or your husband. I am a supporter of his work. Thanks.
Steve, it has been. Published in an elsevier collection. It came out in the US election campaign. I will be announcing it and getting back to that work soon. – Jo
50
Just found your website today while looking for better information on the history of global temperatures, specifically the past 1000 years. As a retried Mechanical Engineer I have need a skeptical about the “so called” global warming that, now retired, and where I have more time to study the various viewpoints I found your website. I found it easy to read and understand. Thanks.i have been considering starting a blog of my own and one part of that blog would statements on global warming. I hope to read more of your articles i the future and I may be able to restate some of your writing with my own viewpoint but will gladly reference your work. Again thanks
80
Nice to hear from you Don. Best of luck blogging, and stay in touch! Always room for another engineer in this debate. :- )
70
In April, 2014, you published a great letter called “How to Convert Me to Your New Religion of Global Warming in 14 Easy Steps”. I don’t know who the original author was. I would like to use this letter as a basis for rebuttal of some of my “progressive” friends who are fanatical advocates of Global Warming (aka Climate Change, aka Climate Disruption and now Eco-Justice or whatever the latest catch-phrase is). Specifically I would like to update it, add more examples and science and use phrases that are more appropriate to the America Left.
Any problems or restrictions with this idea?
Thanks
David Horwath
San Antonio Texas
Thanks David, send us an email (I’ll send you one). That was this post http://joannenova.com.au/2014/04/how-to-convert-me-to-your-new-religion-of-global-warming-in-14-easy-steps/
Cheers
Jo
60
Today Dr. Judith Curry just posted the sixth paper in a series by a paleogeologist, I think, publishing anonymously (for the usual reasons) as “Javier” on the climatic influence of the ~2,400 year Bray I(or Hallstadt) cycle. He has been developing a pretty extensive foundation for global temperature variations related to or dependent on Solar Grand Minima.
In the back of my mind I have intended to watch for the conclusions David Evans may have reached in his research. I wondered if you or he have been following Javier’s papers at Climate, etc.?
Thanks for keeping up the website. Best of good fortune.
Tom Anderson
Eureka, CA
70
As we go into a maunder type solar minimum with very low solar activity, cosmic rays will be increasing, causing more precipitation. If you haven’t seen it, he is a good video about the theory of cosmic rays, which is now more widely being accepted.
https://youtu.be/ANMTPF1blpQ
Thanks,
Len
60
Sorry, redoing the above post.
Why are weather forecasters not telling us what is causing all the flooding in BC, Canada. To me it is obvious. They can only tell us weather events caused by CO2 and global warming.
As we go into a maunder type solar minimum with very low solar activity, cosmic rays will be increasing, causing more precipitation. If you haven’t seen it, he is a good video about the theory of cosmic rays, which is now more widely being accepted.
https://youtu.be/ANMTPF1blpQ
Thanks,
Len
60
I am having lots of conversations with my daughter [Linda] & son in law (Derek) re climate change.They are both well educated & I have some difficulty with my arguments when things get technical . I hope that if I subscribe to your newsletter & book I might hone my arguments to a higher degree.
Please advise of conditions & cost so that I can enjoy your work
Neville Holz
60
Neville, the blog is freely available thanks to people who chip in and help me cover the costs. I’m grateful if you can contribute anything. You are free to ask questions in comments. You are not the only one with the same question. The Skeptics Handbooks are on the top left of the site, free PDFs you can download. Let us know how you get on, there are many here who want to help (and who want answers too).
Sadly, sometimes even if you understand the arguments and evidence it still isn’t enough. Try reading the Handbooks… sometimes you need to talk about namecalling and the masses of money just to get in the door.
70
The GreenHouse Effect Anti-Theory
By reflecting away 30% of the incoming solar energy the atmosphere/albedo makes the earth cooler than it would be without the atmosphere much like that reflective panel behind a car’s windshield.
Greenhouse theory has it wrong.
The non-radiative processes of a contiguous participating media, i.e. atmospheric molecules, render ideal black body LWIR from the surface impossible. The 396 W/m^2 upwelling from the surface is a “what if” theoretical calculation without physical reality. (refer to: TFK_bams09)
Greenhouse theory has it wrong.
Without the 396 W/m^2 upwelling there is no 333 W/m^2 GHG energy up/down/”back” loop to “warm” the earth. (refer to: TFK_bams09)
Greenhouse theory has it wrong.
Man caused climate change is negated by these three points. Hysterical speculations over sea levels, ice caps, glaciers, extreme weather, etc. are irrelevant noise.
Zero greenhouse effect, Zero CO2 global warming and Zero man caused climate change.
Geoengineering
One popular geoengineering strategy proposed for countering imaginary global warming/climate change is through reducing net solar heating by increasing the earth’s albedo.
This increase is accomplished by various physical methods, e.g. injecting reflective aerosols into the atmosphere, spraying water vapor into the air to enhance marine cloud brightening, spreading shiny glass spheres around the poles with the goal of more reflection thereby reducing the net amount of solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere and surface and cooling the earth.
More albedo and the earth cools.
Less albedo and the earth warms.
No atmosphere means no water vapor or clouds, ice, snow, vegetation, oceans and near zero albedo and much like the moon the earth bakes in that 394 K, 121 C, 250 F solar wind.
These geoengineering plans rely on the atmosphere cooling the earth thereby exposing the error of greenhouse theory which says the atmosphere warms the earth and with no atmosphere the earth becomes a -430 F frozen ball of ice.
Zero greenhouse effect, Zero CO2 global warming and Zero man caused climate change.
Space – the Hotter Frontier
One of the heated issues underlying greenhouse theory is whether space is hot or cold.
Greenhouse theory says that without an atmosphere the earth would be exposed to a near zero outer space and become a frozen ice ball at -430 F, 17 K.
Geoengineering techniques that increase the albedo, the ISS’s ammonia refrigerant air conditioners, an air conditioner in the manned maneuvering unit, space suits including thermal underwear with chilled water tubing, UCLA Diviner lunar data and Kramm’s models (Univ of AK) all provide substantial evidence that outer space is relatively hot.
But outer space is neither hot nor cold.
By definition and application temperature is a relative measurement of the molecular kinetic energy in a substance, i.e. solid, liquid, gas. No molecules (vacuum), no temperature. No kinetic energy (absolute zero), no temperature. In the void & vacuum of outer space the terms temperature, hot, cold are meaningless, like dividing by zero, undefined. Same reason there is no sound in space – no molecules.
However, any substance capable of molecular kinetic energy (ISS, space walker, satellite, moon, earth) placed in the path of the spherical expanding solar photon gas at the earth’s average orbital distance will be heated per the S-B equation to an equilibrium temperature of: 1,368 W/m^2 = 394 K, 121 C, 250 F.
Like a blanket held up between a camper and campfire the atmosphere reduces the amount of solar energy heating the terrestrial system and cools the earth compared to no atmosphere.
This intuitively obvious as well as calculated and measured scientific reality refutes the greenhouse theory.
Zero greenhouse effect, Zero CO2 global warming and Zero man caused climate change.
Conclusion
Since the earth is actually hotter without an atmosphere, radiative greenhouse effect goes straight into the historical trash bin of failed theories and all the handwavium, pseudo-science, thermodynamic nonsense pretending to explain it follows close behind.
If my anti-theorem is incorrect why so and how so, bring science.
If my anti-theorem is correct contemplate the consequences.
Nick Schroeder, BSME CU ’78, CO PE
70
Thanks.
2 Outer space is hot, at earth’s orbital distance 394 K, 121 C, 250 F.
+
2 Per UCLA Diviner mission the moon is blistering hot on the lit side, bitter cold on the dark because it does not have an atmosphere like the one that cools and moderates the earth’s temperatures.
=
4 Without an atmosphere and reflective albedo the earth would be much like the moon, a barren, dry rock, blistering hot on the lit side, bitter cold on the dark.
RGHE theory postulates the exact opposite, that the atmosphere warms the earth and becomes a frozen ice ball without that atmosphere.
Confronted with solid physical evidence to the contrary, RGHE theory implodes.
51
Many believe that global warming will decrease rainfall and therefore encourage drought. I do not believe that this is correct.
While variation is weather is common (currently hot in many parts of Australia while the Northern Hemisphere is experiencing a much colder-than-normal Autumn), when weather is truly global some general rules apply.
The first is that if the temperature rises globally, rainfall increases. A warmer global climate will mean warmer oceans and therefore more rain. This is caused because warmer oceans mean more evaporation, which causes more precipitation. The monsoon rains are a local example of this effect.
The second is that if the temperature falls globally, rainfall decreases. Colder oceans means less evaporation and therefore less precipitation.
This tends to be skewed somewhat because of the difference in the size of the oceans in the Southern Hemisphere compared to the Northern. As an example, during the last major Ice Age there were massive glaciers across most of the Northern Hemisphere, but Australia only had one glacier (in southern Tasmania) and that was a small one.
As we have all experienced, the closer you live to the coast the more even the temperature, while the further inland the temperature fluctuates more dramatically (compare Sydney to Canberra, or Melbourne to Bendigo). If the oceans themselves start to warm, global weather will be affected. Until then, variations are usually small (specially as the current temperature rise of 1.1 degree C is less than the official 1.2 degrees C natural variation in global temperatures).
If we really are moving into an era of global warming (actually, it has been steadily cooling for the last 10,000 years!) we should experience more rainfall across the planet, not less (so much for Tim Flannery’s claim that our dams are drying up).
70
With the imminent introduction in the UK of phasing out petrol and diesel vehicles in 2035, does any one have any clue as to the increased amount of electricity requirements compared to what is presently generated in the UK, and how this will be generated. Will every recharge station require a generating facility as the amperage required to recharge batteries in an reasonable time is significantly high.
Some expert thought on these matters would be enlightening.
90
Hello Jo,
The URLs for 2 great Kiwi websites on your Climate list at right have changed. Climate Conversation group is now http://www.climateconversation.org.nz NZ Climate Science is now http://www.climatescience.org.nz
You are doing a great job with your covid coverage. Many thanks Nick
70