Ironyhaven warns as climate kills coal

From Ironyhaven today:

Coal > climate change > drought > no coal.

David Llewellyn-Smith
Latest posts by David Llewellyn-Smith (see all)


  1. HadronCollisionMEMBER

    Where are our resident anti-data/fake-news/post-fact homies?

    I really do need a laugh.

      • I really wish you wouldn’t post that fake news. Fires are quite clearly started by global warming – it’s fcken obvious, innit.

        … and maybe the odd scallywag lighting matches near bone-dry undergrowth.

        (Can I just say, before some hysterical loon piles on, that I’m not a holoc – pardon me, climate change – denier, I’m an open-minded observer of what is a very entertaining battle between the two camps. And, for goodness sake, forgive me for sticking my oar in for a bit of fun from time-to-time!) 😉

        As you were ..

    • Yeah HC, take that…. and this….” He was on the research committee of the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian free-market think tank promoting climate change denial,[3] and connected with its subsidiary think-tanks.[4] In April 2006, he argued against climate change being “man-made” by asserting that the global average temperature “had stopped” for the eight years since 1998, while the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased.[21] Chris Mooney refers to this article as an early example of statistically misleading use of the short period from the exceptionally strong El Niño year of 1998 which had set a temperature record.[22] ”

      You certainly like to reference those who are free minded, don’t you Fitz….lolololol.

      • He is a scientist dennis, not an employee of the Guardian, or a 16 year old girl or an actor, that is the point.
        Here is another one.
        Doing what he has been doing for 40 years
        Enjoy. Keep an open mind.

        Ps Disregard the politics from Wikipedia, look at the science.

        • Kinda strange when the evidence shows that industries that might have a income drama with AGW all funded PR to negate any transition away from enterprise because it screws with bonus culture and investor expectations … but as always the market is rational ….

          • Dr Christy gives evidence for free and his co scientist Dr Spencer has never taken any funding, so your observation does not apply to them.
            Keep an open mind and watch.

            I note Chris Mooney cited above is a journo and Professor Carter got his PhD from Cambridge and according to the intro has published 100 scientific papers. I don’t automatically think that everyone who speaks against catastrophic AGW has been bribed to lie

          • Look at the video by Christie and criticise that. Tell me of the scientific errors. “About Skeptical Science
            Skeptical Science is a non-profit science education organisation, run by a global team of volunteers.” I’ll go with the peer reviewed paper.
            Professor Plimer doesn’t like creationists. by your logic you must like him

            Enjoy – Tell me what you think

          • glamb- I should say that should you see the video from Dr. Chistie that I posted, it is based on a peer reviewed paper I think in 2018

          • “glamb- I should say that should you see the video from Dr. Chistie that I posted, it is based on a peer reviewed paper I think in 2018”

            Nope, not wasting my time. 2 reasons:
            – Point me to some peer reviewed paper – or a site that has citations to peer reviewed science (like
            – It is firehosing rubbish. It does not argue against the statement “the world is warming and humans are the cause of almost all of it.” It is just noise to spread doubt like the tobacco industry before it.

            claimed to be peer reviewed here

            perhaps you should read them he claims that all he has received as of earlier this year is nothing from the ipcc nothing in response to a peer reviewed paper
            I don’t think he is lying,,,, do you???? it is a strange lie to tell

            I understand the ipcc have “adjusted” the data, As predicted by one of the authors and tony heller
            showing the fraud


          • You don’t get it.

            Again, you
            – linked web page full of rubbish with not a single citation to ‘science’.
            – linked to a single (unviewable) paper that points out errors in a SINGLE metric. There are hundreds of thousands of different, independent metrics that point to a warming earth.
            – point out adjustments in data that points out errors in a SINGLE metric. There are hundreds of thousands of different, independent metrics that point to a warming earth. AND adjustments are valid methods in science – all the assumptions and data are recorded in the paper (people re-did the findings with the original un-modified data and it showed MORE warming). AND errors and mistakes (honest and dis-honest) are found out! Do you know why? Because proper science is transparent – it allows other to recreate and check the work. Science works!

            BUT, your technique is the same, you (and other flat earthers, tobacco industry, fossil fuel industry, anti-vaxers) chip away at minor points and introduce doubt into the public domain where people do not understand ‘science’.

            You don’t challenge the main theory – “that (1)the earth is warming and (2)humans are the cause of almost all of it”. Stop firehosing doubt until you can find an argument against either of those 2 points

          • I never said there was no warming. I do say that it is not mostly caused by humans. How do you explain the increase in temperature from 1700 to now? I posted Dr. Balls chart for you to ignore, the one that succeeded in the courtroom and you believe Michael Mann’s BS when he didn’t even have the guts to produce his data.
            I do not think the warming is catastrophic.

            You try and win debates by ad hominem generalised irrelevancies. I posted the paper, the assertion that it was peer reviewed by the author, and you disregard it.

            I posted tony heller’s vid on why the satellite adjustments were fraudulent, not even remotely scientific, a matter that yo do not seem to comprehend. In fact so clumsy that the authors anticipated the scam. You didn’t see Prof Carter doing the same with the land based readings.

            You continue to be spoon fed any ideological drivel that a 16 yo serves up.

            You are truly one of Anthony Salz’s useful idiots. Read how clever you are in the Guardian.

        • That’s what most people keep telling you Fitz, but you go on ignoring them! Yes he’s A scientist, but just one of a few compared to the many who keep pointing to the science that you keep ignoring.

          • dennis I accepted what I was spoon fed up to a month ago and now I don’t. I am scientifically trained. If you watched the vid you will see claims of fraud made against Jones by others , not Carter. Mann has since lost a case in Canada over his “hockey stick” where he sued a ‘denier”( he prefers “realist” ) called Dr. Tim Ball
            here is the judgment
            here is Dr. Ball
            That is who Wkipedia is citing

          • HadronCollisionMEMBER

            Think we can agree it’s pointless

            For whatever insane reason people want to latch onto non science when the weight of evidence and assessment points oppositely, it’s pointless reasoning with them as they are not reasonable

            Again -at what point will they be convinced

            “And in other news tomorrow in Melbourne will be the 10th 50 deg day in a row “

            “Wait it’s snowing in Canada ! But but but weather!”

            Oxygen thieves all. I only have sympathy for their stupidity now

          • I disagree, I quote peer review papers, you quote nothing,

            Activists are said to be authoritative. but in fact quote junk science from East Anglia. I quote PhDs from Cambridge.

            As for insanity

            I doubt that you have looked at the science at all’

            consensus is BS

            so says your favorite emeritus professor

            I object to the fraud.

            unfortunately it is the poor who suffer so that some can become rich,

          • Ummmm…..scientifically trained? Some time ago you claimed to be a lawyer who had represented refugees in the HC (at the time you were slagging them, and this claim was to show you were a good person).

            So, you’re a lawyer of sufficient standing to appear before the HC and you have scientific training. Maybe this is my fault because the average person is likely to think I’m intellectually challenged and I’m not going to argue about that as it’s partly true, but I’m not a complete idiot, only half a one. Can you tell me what your scientific training is in, what additional degrees have you done besides a BA LLB? What is the area of science you have completed research in? I mean, Malcolm Roberts has MS in Engineering and has claimed he’s a scientist, but I fail to see how that equates to arguing the science of CC.

            So can you lay out your CV here for us, because I’m a little dubious not just about your standing in this area, but your claims.

            As to “peer reviewed”, well we know that depends on the organisation that is doing the review as to it’s validity. If your scientifically trained you’ll know that there’s not just several levels of “peer review”, but also “bs peer review”.

        • So you call Science Law being scientifically trained? If so that’s massively misleading and is an indicator of delusion, you may know the workings of the law in science but it doesn’t make you a scientist or anything remotely near that.

          • Doesn’t make me a lawyer either. It makes me pretty good at scientific crooks. Read the climate gate emails dennis. Cheers
   No substitute for reading the originals. They are there together with a commentary. They are said to be stolen but I suspect they are leaked. You are right about peer review in Climate Science. You will see lots of these names in sceptical science. LOL

            Make up your own mind, don’t take it from me or anyone else.

            Edit. I should say that not all the scientists here are bad, some are very good, a read of the emails will show you who are who. The introduction is good as well, with lots about peer review.

        • Fitz,

          How can you come out with that rival with a straight face? Nothing but scientific knowledge will enable you to assess a scientific paper. The peer reviewed work is the work of those involved with the Likes of CSIRO, BoM, NASA, NOAA, US Academy of Science, UK equiv etc, etc. Your “peer reviewed” work is work funded by the IPA, Hearthland Institute etcfunded by RW fossil fuel money.

          I can only guess you’re trolling, glamb and skip have you about right.

          Edit: You are a lawyer, are you not? You keep avoiding answering what your degrees are? You claimed to have represented refugees in the HC, are now denying that? Answer please.

          • You didn’t read it did you?
            it is in fact bs.Because they faked the data those guys from the IPPC are NASA etc tony heller will show you how he knows

          • This goes both ways dennis.I never said refugees in the High Court you did, it was court of appeal
            Why should I bother with you if you couldn’t be bothered reading the documents I post which are factual. You have a choice of becoming in or wallowing in ignorance, As for the brilliant observation of similar results from different institutions
            cop this:

        • Dr. Christy is listed as a “Roundtable Speaker” for the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and public policy. He is also listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian American public policy think tank

          • The EPA you mean the one that hates science if it is a drag on profits … chortle ….

            I know people that worked for it decades ago and watched it change into a mouth organ for political and ideological agendas.

          • You are correct in a way, Skip, money drives this, but it goes the other way. What did you think of the video?

          • What is more likely.

            1) a cabal of hundreds of thousands of scientist of low financial means orchestrating a global conspiracy to extract small amounts of research funding as a means to give themselves something to work on. These scientists manage to orchestrate all of this in almost complete secrecy, communicating in secret and after all this time only lost a small number of true followers to the cause.
            2) a cabal of a relatively small number of members of an industry with massive resources spreading disinformation in order to maintain the status quo to line their own pockets. It Happened with tobacco, it happens all the time with drugs and many other things.

          • 1. These impoverished scientists are on the other side. They are suing retired scientists over 80 to shut them up. I have linked Dr. Tim Ball above and you can listen to what he said after demolishing Michael Mann. Fortunately the IPCC lost twice This cabal at Penn State and East Anglia are funded massively. As for thousands of scientists I go to Prof Plimer
            As to impoverished I go to tony heller again.

            You cant beat the climate gate emails to see what you are dealing with. Read them and make up your own mind.

            For the truth go straight to the data.

  2. “For the truth go straight to the data.” You’ve been told that numerous times!

    AS to the High Court, no, you said you’d represented refugees there, this was a statement you made after slagging refugees and you used it as a defence.

    See ya.