Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > The end of the Great Delusion is at hand

Donald Trump will be the President of the USA. Yet again the MSM and the polls, always strongly biassed towards the liberal end of the spectrum, got it wrong. The clear antipathy of the USA electorate to Hillary Clinton and the huge enthusiasm of Donald Tump's supporters should have given the polls a clue that they were off beam.

I felt that a Trump win was more likely than not (60:40?) because of the democratic voters who, not able to stomach Hillary, would stay at home, and the huge number of enthusiastic Trump supporters who had never previously voted and who were clearly under the radar of the polls.

Donald Trump has made it clear that he thinks the climate change scam is a scam. He has apparently read some of the emails (Climategate, not Hillary's). It's probably significant that 'Climate Change' did not seem to be mentioned at all in the run up to the presidential election.

As soon as its lavish funding by the US government ends, how long will the Great Delusion persist, other than as a minority preoccupation?

Nov 9, 2016 at 10:48 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Martin A
I'm in a state of hope rather than anticipation on that front, I think that it might take two terms to clean that particular stables. If he encourages the US to produce more energy by unconventional means then perhaps the whole world will benefit and renewables will become so uneconomic that no nation can afford the subsidies and whither away.

As far as I can see Obama came in on a wave of hope and really did very little and certainly didn't do much for America's position as leader of the free world. Trump on the other hand is regarded as a disaster and if he doesn't lose interest may do a lot better than some people fear.

I too thought he had a decent chance of winning but with the American system it's even more difficult to predict.

Nov 9, 2016 at 11:17 AM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Th first brick in the road towards sanity

Up until now The LeftMob media has curated the public view of reality.

GROOMING them like a paedophile grooms a child ..Harrabin does that.

Nov 9, 2016 at 11:54 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Green pants are now stained brown and yellow. Trump is vowing to "drain the swamp". People are going to be concerned about the smell of fear in Washington, but it is going to spread to the UK and EU very quickly.

Nov 9, 2016 at 11:55 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Sorry but my usual pessimism kicks in. I think, given an option, Trump might also tackle the climate swamp, but he will have much more pressing issues to tackle to try to keep his electorate happy - especially creating new manufacturing jobs. Apart from repudiating the Paris agreements, I doubt he can do much more. Green opposition from all sides will make any movement to dismantle the Green Blob exceedingly difficult. Will Trump be able to expend so much political capital to achieve anything meaningful? I think he will have much bigger fish to fry, unless the greenies attempt to curtail some of his economic ambitions. I suspect he will be advised to tackle problems he might have a chance to make progress upon AND which his electorate are concerned about. All indications are that climate change is low on the list of concerns the U.S. public are worried about. This lack of concern works both ways.

Could be proven wrong but...

Nov 9, 2016 at 12:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterACK

http://www.bna.com/trump-says-plan-n57982082131/

Nov. 1 — Donald Trump says he would save $100 billion over eight years by cutting all federal climate change spending—a sum his campaign says would be achieved by eliminating domestic and international climate programs.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-picks-top-climate-skeptic-to-lead-epa-transition/
Trump Picks Top Climate Skeptic to Lead EPA Transition
Choosing Myron Ebell means Trump plans to drastically reshape climate policies

....
In a biography submitted when he testified before Congress, he listed among his recognitions that he had been featured in a Greenpeace “Field Guide to Climate Criminals,” dubbed a “misleader” on global warming by Rolling Stone and was the subject of a motion to censure in the British House of Commons after Ebell criticized the United Kingdom’s chief scientific adviser for his views on global warming.

More recently, Ebell has called the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan for greenhouse gases illegal and said that Obama joining the Paris climate treaty “is clearly an unconstitutional usurpation of the Senate’s authority.”

Nov 9, 2016 at 12:19 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Martin A

As soon as its lavish funding by the US government ends, how long will the Great Delusion persist, other than as a minority preoccupation?

For as long as the CO2 increases, the temperature rises, the ice melts and the sea level rises. Denying the problem does not make it magically go away.

Nov 9, 2016 at 12:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

"For as long as the CO2 increases, the temperature rises, the ice melts and the sea level rises. Denying the problem does not make it magically go away.

Nov 9, 2016 at 12:47 PM | Entropic man"

CO2 continues to rise. Sea levels continue to rise as they have for centuries.

Sea Ice seems fine. Temperatures seem very acceptable. Life on Earth is flourishing.

Nov 9, 2016 at 1:15 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

golf charlie
Didn't I read somewhere that the increase in atmospheric CO2 was leveling off due to plants enjoying the friendlier environment?

Nov 9, 2016 at 2:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS

Sandy S. CO2 changes:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/08/study-earths-vegetation-is-causing-a-global-pause-in-co2-growth/

Nov 9, 2016 at 2:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterACK

ACK, does anyone know what atmospheric CO2 concentration was, before Life on Earth began? It has always struck me as a dumb move for basic life to evolve relying on a trace gas, rather than a more abundant and reactive gas like oxygen. I know some plants are described as "vigourous", but they are not exactly energetic.

Nov 9, 2016 at 3:40 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

"The End of the Great Delusion is at Hand"

But will any of the "Great and Good Delusionists" end up the wrong side of a Big Circular Walled Enclosure? I am not sure what the strict English Law definition of "Demanding Money with Menaces" is, but confiscation of assets obtained through criminal enterprise, does have legal precedents on both sides of the Atlantic.

The US FBI have come in for a bit of criticism from US Democrats recently, but the US FBI stopped FIFA fixing football, even though they didn't understand the rules of the game. The international Hockey Team must be wondering what the FBI know about Hockey, and how it is played with sticks of different shapes.

Nov 9, 2016 at 3:58 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

"The End of the Great Delusion is at Hand"

Martin A, there is plenty of time later for lots of rational sober analysis.

It's time to get on with the gloating.

Nov 9, 2016 at 4:10 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

Organisms using photosynthesis first evolved on the Earth when it had an atmosphere with CO2 greater than several percent, but no oxygen. Over time these, and other photosynthetic organisms progressively lowered atmospheric CO2 till it reached trace amounts, and allowed free oxygen to accumulate. The last mentioned killed off most other microorganisms which could not tolerate free oxygen, but allowed animals to evolve which ate some of the photosynthizers but which returned the organic matter, as CO2 to the atmosphere. Photosynthesizers became so successful that they reduced atmospheric CO2 to a trace gas, causing them to further evolve to live in such perilous conditions. Some further evolved to be symbiotes within all animal cells or with entire multicelled animals like zooxanthellae in corals.
The recent paper about atmospheric oxygen levels preserved in ancient salt crystals (reported in WUWT) suggests that CO2 depletion and oxygen enhancement occurred much earlier than previously believed.

Nov 9, 2016 at 4:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterACK

ACK excellent news! We need more CO2 depleters to boost Oyxgen, but I still find excessive consumption of some Green material causes an excess of unpleasant Green House Gases. Greens have become socially unacceptable, and politically, they are also unwanted.

97% of Climate scientists are looking for alternative employment, because NONE of them have ever bothered to correct their collective Consensus failures.

I did offer a few suggestions and hints but they knew best! Next time you meet a Climate Scientist trying to extract more money, he/she will ask "Do you want to go large?"

Nov 9, 2016 at 6:52 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Sandy S at 2pm:

Even the BBC website has something about this, so it must be right!

"Rise in atmospheric CO2 slowed by green vegetation
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37909361

Nov 9, 2016 at 7:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterMark Hodgson

We always knew Climate Science was Unsustainable, but will it make good compost with it's high bullshite content? By taking the piss out of so many taxpayers, it should be rich in nitrates.

Nov 9, 2016 at 10:16 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

The slowing of CO2 by greening does raise an interesting question as to how quickly any change in CO2 is filtered. When we see changes of 8 to 10 ppm in the recent past before the Industrial Revolution (it's in one of the ice cores and I talked about it in relation to Ferdinand Engelbeen) was the variation even bigger but was just filtered over decades? As the ice core data is typically rendered in 25 years and 50 years gradations, the actual implied natural temperature change may have been larger.

Just something to think about I guess.

Nov 11, 2016 at 10:03 AM | Registered CommenterMicky H Corbett

The accepted history of the planet has it that not much after Earth's creation, CO2 constituted 80% of our atmosphere. The loss of CO2 after that was very slow until the last 500 million years which was when vegetation and animal life developed.
Prior to this period there was little or no free Oxygen in our atmosphere.
At around 1 Billion years ago blue green algae began the process of photo synthesis which split molecules of H2O and CO2 and produced free Oxygen .

Nov 13, 2016 at 9:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterDung

Dung, did the blue green algae get taxed for ruining the atmosphere's balance in such an unprecedented manner?

Nov 13, 2016 at 11:33 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Entropic Man,
So is your list all inclusive- if any parts are missing the whole climate apocalypse thingy is off?

Nov 14, 2016 at 3:47 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

EM (Nov 9, 2016 at 12:47 PM): you have it very wrong. The Great Delusion is not rising CO2, temperatures or sea levels; it is not even melting ice – they are all events we can and have witnessed, and are part of the cycles which we have yet to fully identify. The Great Delusion is that all this is a problem, that it is caused by human activity, and that we can do anything to affect it.

Nov 14, 2016 at 9:46 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical rodent

part of the cycles which we have yet to fully identify

Evidence for these hypothetical cycles, please?

Nov 14, 2016 at 1:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Hunter

This is a more extensive list, though still not complete.

Ice

Arctic sea ice extent decreasing
Arctic sea ice volume decreasing
Greenland ice sheet losing mass
Antarctica ice sheet
Arctic snow cover decreasing
Antarctic sea ice extent increasing.
Antarctic sea salinity decreasing
Glaciers retreating

Ocean

Sea surface temperatures increasing
Shallow ( above 700m) ocean heat content increasing
Deep ocean heat content increasing
Sea level rising
PH dropping

Land

Surface temperatures increasing
Droughts increasing
Extreme weather increasing
Permafrost melting

Atmosphere


O2 concentration decreasing
Troposphere temperatures increasing
Stratosphere temperatures decreasing
Water vapour increasing
Jetstreams less stable
High cloud increasing
Low cloud increasing

Energy flows

Imbalance between insolation and OLR
Surface infrared radiation increasing
Downwelling infra-red radiation increasing
15micrometre CO2 band spreading

Biology

Treelines moving to higher altitudes and latitudes
Biome and species ranges spreading to higher latitudes
Longer growing seasons
Vegetation cover increasing


CO2

CO2 content increasing
Carbon 13 decreasing

Methane

Outgassing from Arctic Ocean clathrates
Release from tundra

Nov 14, 2016 at 1:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Entropic man: you are joking, aren’t you? What part of “we have yet to fully identify” do you not understand? We have identified many factors that appear to have some influence, but have we identified all of them? There is so much going on that we have no real idea what is influencing any or all of it – for example, why, if CO2 is the prime driver of climate, does climate not follow its increase as rigidly as logic indicates it should? If it is the prime driver, surely it has to supersede all other drivers?

As for your extended list, most are contentious, and many are more of a benefit than a problem – of which point, NONE have proven to be a problem, anyway. The Great Delusion is on very shaky ground.

Nov 14, 2016 at 1:15 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent