What could possibly go wrong?


From Jo Nova

“SA Government has just agreed to run itself for 20 years off a plant that is a copy of Crescent Dunes in the US. It’s paying twice the price of wholesale coal power, the US plant took 5 years to build and worked for 1 year and 1 month before breaking down for 8 months.

Crescent Dunes only works at a 16% capacity factor which means a 150MW version would average only 24MW. Winter generation is a mere one third of summer (though there is only one year of data to go on!) SA may well be better off if Parliament has to shut down for winter, but how do you run hospitals and schools on one-third of the power?

What could possibly go wrong?”

When scientists expose the obvious


Below is a resignation letter written by a scientist who pretty much proved what I’ve often thought of the climate alarmists. It is a money game. Look no further than the hypocrites like Al Gore warning of disaster yet using more 21x more electricity than the average home or Leo DiCaprio flying in private jets all around the globe. No doubt there will be replies to this post that seek to discredit Hal Lewis as often the case when climate alarmists want to shut down a debate. One of the best books I read on the climate change hoax was ‘The Delinquent Teenager’ written by Donna Laframboise which exposes just how shameful the climate game is, exposing that internal studies conducted by the UNIPCC proved how it is all about politics, not science. Yet here we have a scientist who had a conscience and made his feelings thought

From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).

Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence – it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club.

China data leaves warmists in the cold


As far as curioisity on any subject goes if 19 out of 20 agreed and one dissented wouldn’t you wish to work out why the lone body thought that way? Is he or she mad? On what grounds? Do we simply suck up the consensus and accept it? That’s worked well over time. Well the Chinese Meteorogical Administration has dropped a bombshell on the warmists confirming there has been no statistically significant warming since 1998. The CMA put forward the following analysis,

“In preparing the new database…the CMA say they addressed a number of problems with other surface temperature databases, in particular the relatively poor coverage of stations across Antarctica, Africa, South America, and Asia. They note that the IPCC AR5 report concluded that the warming trends in these regions are associated with a lower confidence level. They also improved the absence of early period stations, especially before 1940….The researchers find very clear evidence for the recent warming hiatus. Their results show linear trends of 0.104 °C per decade, 0.247 °C per decade and 0.098 °C per decade for the three periods, respectively. The trends were statistically significant except for the period 1998–2014, the period that is also known as the ‘‘warming hiatus”.

I would imagine Premier Xi will listen to his internal CMA over others when setting climate abatement policy. Maybe 2030 becomes 2040 or later…so why are so many governments engaged in group think where they clearly fail to heed reality? Perhaps they are so knee deep in their own poor policy decision making that they don’t want to admit they’ve acted in haste. South Australia and Tesla anyone?

Group think alive and kicking


It is hard not to laugh at the headlines in media these days. Group think pervades. The headline that 19/20 nations agree by definition must mean the 1/20 (no guessing who) is dead wrong. Sort of like one kid answering the question incorrectly to a teacher and being ridiculed by the rest of the class). This is sadly the kind of mentality which carries far more risk. Consensus is bunk. Consensus is basically the euphemism for complacency. No matter how many scandals break about homogenized temp data (even from government bodies (i.e. IPCC & NOAA to name two), deliberate concocting of data which serve a purpose or confirmation that 98% of the models using this bogus data have overestimated ‘warming’. The point is that so deeply entrenched are 19 nations in group think that they are basically falling into cognitive dissonance. That is to say they only look for the confirmation bias rather than truly seek alternative theories which might hold merit.

If one objectively reads the Paris Climate Accord the US is spot on to refuse chipping in $3bn to a pot where the three other largest polluters have openly confessed they are doing   next to nothing to combat climate change. Sure rosy press releases push the idea that they’re fully on the climate crusade bus but reality is China has no plans to actively reduce CO2 emissions til at least 2030. Do people honestly believe Premier Xi will guarantee he’ll sacrifice Chinese economic prosperity for climate abatement? President Putin? PM Modi? Will they risk putting a bullet in the brain of the economy to save the planet? Not a chance.

The French plans to ban the sale of petrol/diesel cars after 2040 is also laughable. If you want to bury relatively technology starved French automakers like PSA Peugeot-Citroen. 23 years isn’t much of a lead time in the auto industry if one is decades behind to catch up. Will the grid be able to handle the 2mn new cars France sells annually? Will anyone do the math on the toxic gunk that goes into a Li-ion battery? Will special provisions be given to emergency services which require combustion engines to power the heat exchangers that help life saving equipment function?

No. But think of it the other way. How smart is Trump to make the rest of the world do all the hard yards  at no penalty to the US? That is the art of the deal.

It only takes one to prove me wrong


“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” – Einstein

Einstein meant that all the consensus in the world won’t mean he’s correct. It only takes one person to prove him wrong. It wasn’t surprising to see social media share Stephen Hawking’s prognosis on Trump leaving the Paris Climate Accord. More tellingly most overlooked the zany assumptions made in Hawking’s comments (250 degrees C temps and climate like Venus) and focused on who he was attacking. Seriously do you honestly believe that the earth’s temperatures will reach that if you relied on your own logic on this planet?As the coldest temperature in 110 years was recorded in rural NSW Australia overnight no one said boo. Had it been the hottest temperature in 110 years the media would be spewing global warming stories all week.

Last week we had former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres warn that the next three years will be crucial to stopping the worst effects of global warming. Let’s not forget that climate change is so critical to Figueres that she thinks gender inequality should be tackled at the same time and she openly discussed discrimination against males when it came to hiring in her department. Still talking of the climate alarmist letter she co-signed warning of catastrophe why don’t they analyze the “ground breaking” Paris Climate Accord they all laud when those responsible for 75% of the world’s CO2 emissions aren’t taking urgent action? China won’t peak out on CO2 until 2030, India has dozens of coal fired power on the drawing board over coming decades and Russia’s 4-page commitment is worthless. “Ah yes but they are signatories!” I heard many chant in response to the Paris Climate Accord. They might as well have signed a whiteboard in a non marking pen for what it is truly worth.

The Paris Climate Accord is essentially a system which makes as much sense as you quitting smoking on my behalf. How do I benefit exactly? Paying for air I can’t breathe. The Paris Climate Accord is nothing but a mechanism for wealth distribution controlled by a bloated UN which wishes to add more to its ridiculous budget and offices despite claims it is slimming down!

“The latest U.N. regular budget, while superficially smaller than the previous budget, made no fundamental programmatic or structural adjustments—e.g., reducing permanent staff, freezing or reducing salaries and other benefits, and permanently eliminating a significant number of mandates, programs, or other activities—that would lower the baseline for future U.N. budget negotiations.[10] Despite the Secretary-General’s proposal to eliminate 44 permanent posts, the 2012–2013 budget actually increased the number of permanent posts by more than a score compared with the previous budget. The failure to arrest growth in U.N. employment, salaries, and benefits is especially problematic because personnel costs account for 74 percent of U.N. spending according to the U.N.’s Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ).[11] Without a significant reduction in the number of permanent U.N. posts or a significant reduction in staff compensation and related costs, real and lasting reductions in the U.N. regular budget will remain out of reach.”

However what did Hawking say that makes his words credible? That is like saying Fed Chair Janet Yellen should be believed for saying we won’t see another financial crisis in our lifetimes. Let’s just accept it because many don’t know better. I haven’t seen the most rabid climate alarmists make a 250 degree claim. 98% of climate models to date have drastically over-predicted the extent of warming. The UNIPCC has been embroiled in so many scandals, climb downs and corrections that it can’t be relied on as a credible body. Many of the lead authors in the UN Climate bible have little experience in their fields and an investigation showed that  gender and minority status were given priority over ability in the investigative teams on each chapter. This is openly admitted by the UNIPCC as Donna La Framboise’s Delinquent Teenager’ highlighted,


So if an internal survey that has been written up by the IPCC itself criticizing the process how can anyone put any validity in the argument?

Ahh but NOAA has told us that warming is getting worse. How could NASA lie? Oh the same NOAA that was subpoenaed after refusing to turn over emails related to an internal whistleblower who claimed the data had been homogenized (aka manipulated).

As argued many times before, human consumption patterns do not reflect the fear. SUV sales continue to grow as a % of sales, air travel is predicted to double by 2030 and sales of Tesla’s in HK or Norway fall off a cliff if generous tax incentives aren’t given to the wealthy to subsidize their virtue signaling.  This isn’t to doubt Hawking’s intelligence but Yellen, Greenspan, Bernanke, Kuroda and Draghi aren’t dummies either but it doesn’t preclude them from making mistakes and being wrong.

Oh, and for those that believe Hawking’s claims of rising sea levels the price of beachfront properties in a Sydney is preposterously high and even in Mauritius homes prices are still buoyant. Actions not words. Then we can always believe the immortal words of Australia’s former Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery who warned us that the waves would lap the 8th story of apartment blocks on the coast. He lives in a waterfront property himself. Actions not words.


America IN or OUT makes no difference to a dud Paris Climate Accord where 75% aren’t onboard anyway


Across social media there are dozens of posts from Americans apologising to the world for abandoning the Paris Climate Accord. “There are millions more like me.” Yes you are probably right but there are millions like him too. What people should question is the ‘real’ commitment to the accord. If we were to replay the video tapes of the Paris COP summit we were hearing wails and gnashing of teeth that there was no agreement pending. Then in the final throes we were led to believe that an agreement was reached. The joy! The triumph! We did it! Here is the catch! It was agreed by ‘politicians’ not ‘scientists’. Politicians are renowned over the millennia to making compromise and commitments way beyond the scope of their likely hold on power.

Climate commitments are the ultimate level of virtue signaling and tokenism. Politicians can say in their legacies that they tried to save the planet for their great grandchildren even if nothing is achieved. Remember how the long held 2 degree upper limit target was  heralded as a no quid pro quo line. At Paris it became 1.5. In order to accelerate alarmism the upper band had to be cut to get countries to redouble their efforts. All of a sudden, decades of climates science that told us that 2 was acceptable (bearable) became 1.5 degrees with the stroke of a pen.

As I wrote yesterday, the garage of your neighbour was more telling of individual climate commitment. In Australia one energy company offers a service which gives you the opportunity to pay a premium over fossil fuel based power to source your energy in green form. Take up rate? Less than 5%. Who elects to tick the carbon offset box when they fly commercial? I don’t think many airlines even bother with this such is the low take up. Not to mention carbon calculators are so inaccurate. A passenger has no idea what the load factor, headwinds/tailwinds, holding patterns and conditions en route are that the figure you pay would be more accurate if spewed out of a bingo wheel.

Let’s check reality of the climate game. 75% of the evil gas that helps plants grow are caused by 4 countries – America, China, India and Russia. Let’s tackle them one by one.

America. Well the commitment to the Accord was so flimsy to begin with, It was laced with out clauses such as being exempt from being sued for any environmental damage caused in the past or future. Obama decided to tick the box himself after lawyers breathed on the fine print – remember the US was the last to commit.

China. China, China, China. The commitment is so robust they don’t have any intention to  get serious until 2030 (likely peak emissions). China has explicitly said it will raise the coal share of power to 15% by 2020 from 12% and this will keep climbing. China’s pollution problems have stuff all to do with global warming but public health however it can virtue signal under the banner of climate change mitigation and win brownie points.

India. The construction of 65 gigawatts worth of coal-burning generation is under way with an additional 178 gigawatts in the planning stages in India will mean they’ll not achieve Paris targets.

Russia’s commitment at Paris would have been more serious if drafted on a hotel napkin such was its lack of substance. 4 pages of nothing.

The accord is worthless. It was rushed at the end by bureaucrats not scientists. If it is really such a binding pact there will be no need to have 50,000 climate pilgrims kneel at the altar of the next religious cult meeting. They should thank America for its action because it will guarantee the hypocrites get to keep the junkets in exotic tourist locations going.

To double up on the stupidity, hearing virtue signaling politicians blather about remaining committed to a target that is now so fundamentally broken shows how untenable it is. Think about it. If America (at c20% of the supposed problem) quits then the remainder of countries have to fill in the gap not stick to existing commitments, Sure Merkel said she’d up Germany’s targets to offset the evil Trump which is pretty unachievable given the already high level of renewables.  China said they’d chip in but don’t think those comments are any more than empty platitudes trying to puff up the image of commitment when economic resuscitation is priority #1.

The irony is that Trump said he’d consider another deal. Another deal is what is needed. Because as it stands, the Paris Accord has all of the hallmarks of political manifestos across the globe – uncosted  broad based promises made against flimsy but overwhelmingly positive/negative assumptions.

So before I read more garbage about Americans having an imperative to take power back, perhaps they should examine the realities rather than the figment of imagination floating around inside their heads. Millions more like you is actually the problem why the message never gets sold properly.

Climate hypocrisy – go check your neighbour’s garage to gauge the fear


When a politician fulfills a promise shouldn’t we be happy? Do we want them lie so we can live in a perpetual state of disgust? Trump walked away from the Paris Climate Accord as he said he would in the election campaign. Yet articles I read were titled “Trump to planet: Drop dead” (CNN). However if people and journalists truly examined how flimsy that the US commitment signed by the High Priest of virtue (President Obama) was with regards to Paris they would have to accept that it contained more out clauses than a pre-nuptial contract. Like an alcohol free beer it was a pretend signature. One part of it guaranteed that the US wouldn’t be held liable for any ‘damage’ to the environment claimed by other countries.

The best way to think about climate change is to start by looking in your neighbour’s driveway. I’m in Sydney at the moment and the amount of SUVs is astonishing. The five segments that have added the most volume in 2017 YTD vs 2016 are: medium SUVs, 4×4 utes, small SUVs, large SUVs and 4×2 utes, in that order. Where are the save the planet sipping hybrids and compacts? Yet Aussie governments at the state and federal level want to commit to huge renewable targets thinking its a vote winner when consumption patterns don’t reflect it.


It seems that Americans don’t give a hoot about saving the planet either. SUVs (light trucks) are the preferred vehicle of choice. So maybe it is more Americans don’t give a stuff about climate alarmis or Paris, even during Obama’s reign. So why don’t journalists turn from moaning about Trump fulfilling election promises and examine consumption patterns of all of us.

Sure journalists could take the current line of climate alarmism and push all of the stats from the UNIPCC and NOAA again about how doomed we all are but after decades the argument of this settled science isn’t won. Yes gasoline and diesel engines maybe getting more efficient but the fact sales of larger sizes vehicles are growing overall (trend been rising over the long term) show us human nature puts self interest first. Should a sailing enthusiast be forced to ditch his passion because the V8 Land Rover required to haul his yacht is blasphemous to the environment? Should a family with four kids be forced to use public transport because a 7-seater minivan is just so unethical?

Parhaps the 50,000 climate pilgrims that fly each year to kneel at the UNIPCC altar to warn us of the pending doom if we don’t take drastic action might talk to the International Air Transport Association (IATA). “IATA expects 7.2 billion passengers to travel in 2035, a near doubling of the 3.8 billion air travelers in 2016. The prediction is based on a 3.7% annual Compound Average Growth Rate (CAGR) noted in the release of the latest update to the association’s 20-Year Air Passenger Forecast.”

So when I read CNN and other media outlets attempt to tell Trump he’s told the world to get stuffed, maybe they’d realize by past, current and future consumption patterns that the world has already told alarmists to get stuffed.

Perhaps the hypocrisy, double standards and scandals of those that preach the faith is the problem. The delivery over decades has failed to win hearts and minds. Had sensible debate, fairly reported scientific facts void of embellishment and sensible policy been put forward to address the climate then maybe humans would have taken more serious steps? As it stands Trump is in the majority not the minority. 190 countries don’t speak for 7 billion people. And if you want proof in the pudding of the sustainability of green jobs, the first chart highlights the trend of renewable jobs by state in Australia.