The Great Global Warming Debate


I could have pointed out that the oxidisers that the eejit discovered were all nitrates. The cation didn’t actually make a whole lot of difference. So even if “chemtrails” (which don’t exist) contained barium it wouldn’t have meant the country was being sprayed with “sparkler dust”. However, there is absolutely no point in tackling this sort of bullshit with actual facts. Conspiracy theorists are impervious to facts and logic because their involvement is fundamentally emotional.

I sprayed a few facts in the comments on a couple of vids on that channel, and the response was invariably “open your mind”, “don’t be a sheep” etc. This is the completely standard conspiracy theorist defence mechanism – anyone who doesn’t uncritically swallow the same nonsense as themselves is deluded. I suppose that saves an awful lot of dealing with inconvenient facts, which is handy because none of these eejits sound very well educated.

Happy Conspiracymas.


An old video from the EU, that appears to show that the EU Parliament has failed to produce any results as we are no nearer to dealing with the high speed transition of raw materials into landfill that is the consumerist society that we live in.


Minister Bruton is making noises about reducing VAT on reuse and repair enterprises. All virtue signalling ahead of an election, after which it will no doubt be buried along with the plan to ban sales of ICE cars from 2030.


Lets enforce electric cars ASAP… lets ignore extremely high environmental cost of manufacturing of batteries and lets not even dare to speak about their end of life…


As opposed to ignoring all the locally generated pollution while they idle in towns and cities all over the country, plus all the pollution caused by the oil extraction & refining industries.

The EOL of batteries will be initially managed by extensive reuse in static storage systems like the Tesla powerwall, then the failed cells will be recycled with most of the materials recovered to make new batteries.

In future, if the current research proves successful, the active materials in the batteries will be all carbon thus very cheap and plentiful and easy to recycle.


Politicians and their advisers want you to believe we can tackle this existential crisis through small, painless personal behavioural nudges, while knowing this is patent nonsense.

The changes required will be wrenching, both at an individual and at a system level. Radical decarbonisation will mean rationing and restrictions only ever seen in wartime. The public may come accept this once it truly grasps that the alternative is collapse and ruin.

Welcome to the radical new politics of the 2020s


Uh, those alternatives don’t sound very alternative to me. I think I’d prefer business as usual, with a bit of megaflooding on the side.

On a serious note, I think the public has grasped the situation far better than the author. Rationing and restrictions in wartime were enforced by statist central planning and were followed in peacetime by rapidly increasing prosperity using new industrial technologies. What the author is talking about is permanent. It will deal a crushing blow to any economy that adopts it, and prevent the industrial innovation needed to find solutions. If you want to talk about unpopular alternatives among the currently feasible options, there is one and only one staring us in the face – truly massive buildout of conventional nuclear power in the next decade.


A smaller and slower economy is in reality, the only solution to excessive consumption.
This is where there needs to be a rethink on the creation of money, we need to change from a debt based stystem where money is “lent into esistence” and the debt repaid with interest, thus forcing infinite growth and no way to stabalize the economy.

What we need is a “spent into existence” system where there is no initial debt to be repaid with infinite growth. This will allow for a stable economy that does not need excessive consumerism and all its wasteful processes. To resolve the impending unemployment issues that will result from such a situation we would need a comprehensive Universal Basic Income system that allows for fewer working hours to support a healthy economy.

Spend money into the system at the bottom and tax it out at the top to circulate it back in at the bottom. It won’t happen of course as the 0.1% will never allow it as it will eliminate their infinite supply of money.


From 2004:

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters…

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.


Sounds like they didn’t believe it was realistic so didn’t publish, rather than “suppressed” it.
Far too many alarmist reports out there that have proven time and time again that the most extreme scenarios are usually the least likely to occur. These alarmist reports really diminish the fear of the real and probable scenarios that can have an adverse affect on our lives in the future.


Climate predictions are like the latest “science” on diet, economics, and battery technologies – they are usually totally, laughably wrong and nobody ever thinks to go back and ask why.

Tony Heller has been digging up old newspaper articles about climate predictions and compiling them into youtube videos. Check out his channel and his website He’s a clever guy and a well-credentialled engineer but I haven’t linked him here before because there are some debunking videos that dispute some of his claims, and I can’t decide what to make of him overall. You can’t doubt his sincerity though: he’s been trawling through newpapers and climate reports full time for no pay for the last while.


FG Government have shown on interest in the environment apart from promoting polluting industries -and providing spin. Burton is about as effective as Ross. Easy to promote measure that are not within the timeline fo the government. Virtue signalling and that is about it


The Aussie bushfires are being touted as caused by climate change. For perspective in 1851 5 million hectares burned in a day. We are weeks into a bad fire season with just under 6 million burned.

Both large areas but not unprecedented so I’ve no idea how it can be attributed.

The federation drought is also worth reading about. In particular how such conditions would play out today with the increased population and agriculture.


I was looking at some weather reporting about the proximate cause of the fires. It’s very much to do with ocean currents. The Indian Ocean Dipole, also called the Indian Niño, is similar to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation which is its counterpart in the Pacific. Indeed, the two are coupled and can produce Super El Niños.

The Indian Ocean part has the biggest influence on Australia, even in the east of the country. In a strong positive phase (where it is at the moment) warm water is pooled on the western side of the Indian Ocean, causing evaporation and bringing floods to India and eastern Africa. Meanwhile, cold water is piled up against western Australia and in the Timor Sea, preventing any rain.

Apparently this year’s event is exacerbated by a shift in the sub-tropical front. This is the boundary between the temperate latitudes and the South Westerly Wind system which blows around the Southern Ocean. The front has moved northward, allowing strong westerlies to blow along the south coast of Australia, adding to the hot wind blowing down from the north west and fanning the fire fronts. If it’s any consolation, a long term northward shift is associated with cooling in Antarctica.

Is this climate change? I don’t know. The ocean dipole produced the Black Thursday fires and the Federation drought too. There’s evidence that back to back events have increased the severity of drought in the 2000s and brought the Queensland and Victoria floods of 2010-11. None of it is unprecedented but as usual we are left wondering if climate change is affecting the frequency and intensity.


About that Antarctic warming/cooling – I also saw reported on the news yesterday that Emperor Penguin populations could fall 86% by the year 2100. It seems to be from this report. Is it just me that finds it hilarious that someone thinks they can predict a population decline to the nearest percent over an eighty year period? When I was studying science you’d be rapped on the knuckles for reporting a result with such an implied accuracy… unless it was real, obviously, which this one can’t be. The problem with models is that they churn out specific numbers which shouldn’t be accepted uncritically. Also, have they not learned from the polar bear catastrophe predictions, which were also about sea ice breakup? Those turned out to be stupidly wrong.


Was watching newspaper reviews on BBC after 10pm news. Australian bushfires were the top item, as usual. They also covered – with much handwringing about balanced reporting – the New Year floods in Jakarta which have killed 30 people, more than the Australian fires. One of the reviewers (a self-confessed nerd) was the comments editor from The Times. She had the temerity to suggest that we don’t spend enough time comparing the severity of events before deciding if they are out of the ordinary. The BBC anchor quickly pointed out that they had been covering this and that she had read that Jakarta would be under water in 30 years, implying that it was the fault of climate change.

She mustn’t be very acquainted with their own reporting. The Indonesian president himself “blamed delays in flood control infrastructure projects for the severity of the damage”. Jakarta floods every year at this time. And the reason – as mentioned on here before – is that Jakarta is sinking due to groundwater extraction. Since 1970 the land level has sunk by four times the IPCC’s most pessimistic predictions for sea level rise by 2100. That’s why they’re planning to move Indonesia’s capital city.

I remember asking someone once why the sea and the land are so close in level where they meet. They looked at me as if I had two heads. But I think it’s a reasonable question. The continents rise out of the ocean floor quite sharply. And there are places in the world where the sea meets 600 ft. cliffs. But it’s usually places where discontinuities allow harder rock to be left behind by weathering. It’s more common that, over geologic time, sea and wind erosion cause the land to slump into scree slopes and talus piles. The alluvium builds up in nearshore sand bars and banks. Meanwhile, the reduced hydraulic gradient causes rivers to meander and create deltas which then silt up into large flatlands.

The end result is that there are many flat coastlines, with features that make them particularly attractive for human settlement. But they are fragile places that can easily be damaged by human activity, most particularly groundwater extraction, damming, culverting and dredging. And in the longer term natural sea-level changes inevitably alter the land-sea boundary. Subsidence is common to most of the world’s biggest and most populous deltas – the Nile, Ganges-Brahmaputra, Yellow River, and Mississippi, along with two thirds of the worlds 30 biggest mega deltas.


Did you ever find yourself in those days after New Years wondering what would Sid James do if Greta Thunberg was his daughter rabbiting on about mass extinction in the back garden of his suburban castle circa 1972.

Well 2’40 to 3’50 of Bless this House: The Movie can satisfy that curiosity.
(It didn’t trouble the Godfather at the Oscars that particular year)


Audio doesn’t seem to work, for me anywy


Air pollution was a big issue back then, almost everything was coal powered and it was only a decade or so after the end of coal powered rail, but power stations were throwing far more smoke that the steam trains.

It is also the same year that “Limits to Growth” was published.


image :smiley: