"Like the Roman Empire, our current 19-21 Century Globalised Western Civilisation will most likely eventually decline".

It's already in decline. And the decline is not down to terrorism or climate change; it is due to appallingly inept and cowardly Western politicians who refuse to stand up to baddies on the extreme left, plus apathetic heads-up-bums voters who keep them in powder.

My goodness the author really does have the typical projection issues of the right doesn't he.

He goes from this:

“political activists' gained the ability to promote their environmental holocaust views in the blossoming globalisation movement”

To this:

“smear opponents with "sceptical/denialist" labels”

Without even the slightest blink.

Irony has always been lost on the right and this is a very neat illustration of it.

Thank you Charles Essery for this excellent article. There is so much I could add. Here are a few key points:

1. empirical data is the key to understanding past climates and the impacts of warm and cold periods. It is essential be honestly calibrated to the empirical data of temperatures and biosphere productivity.

2. Empirical data indicates that global warming is beneficial and global cooling is harmful for ecosystems and the global economy – see sections 4.7 and 4.8 here: https://doi.org/10.3390/en10122169

3. To understand the range of temperatures that existed over the past 542 Ma and how the current temperatures compare with past temperatures look at the charts on page 12 here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324017003_Phanerozoic_Temperatures_Tropical_Mean_Annual_Temperature_TMAT_Polar_Mean_Annual_Temperature_PMAT_and_Global_Mean_Annual_Temperature_GMAT_for_the_last_540_million_years

The Quaternary (last 2.6 Ma) is the second coldest multi-million year period in the past 542 Ma. The coldest was 280–260 Ma ago; GMST dropped to about 4 °C colder than present.

The warmest period was about 250 Ma ago following late Permian mass extinction event. GMST peaked at about 21 °C higher than present. Other hot periods were:
• 540–460 Ma, GMST 11–13.5 °C higher than present
• 440 Ma, GMST 13 °C higher than present
• 420 Ma, GMST 14.5 °C higher than present
• 385–360 Ma, GMST 15–17.5 °C higher than present
• 255–40 Ma, GMST 3–17.5 °C higher than present; for about half this period GMST was more than 7 °C higher then present

Next look at the charts on page 20. Notice how the equator to polar region gradients flatten as the planet warms. They show that most of the warming is extra-tropical with little change in the tropics.

4. “Age of Unreason: How fear and ignorance drives the green doomsday cult” – see this short video: https://youtu.be/UTgNtvTuYRU

Well well, another scientist who says it as it is.
IT IS THE SUN STUPID !

The big problem is the 10s of thousands of brain washed new voters
appearing at the polls every year.
They all believe the co2 theory of global warming is settled.
WE may have to go to all the expense of finding that wind and solar
are so expensive that we have to accept load shedding as the natural
way of the world, ala Zimbabwe etc.
If you want a job in the coming era teams will be needed to change
10,000 approx solar panels every day.

Good article, and good to hear from Peter Lang.

Are renewables our only option to deal with climate change? Well yes, but only where vested interest is holding the reins! Given there's cleaner, safer, more enduring, cheaper, carbon-free options. Options that somebody else will pay for, if we're half as smart as we claim!?

And here I refer to MSR thorium also tasked in concert, with using nuclear waste (90-95% unspent fuel) to provide clean, safe, carbon-free energy to power industry, for literally thousands of years and the affordable air conditioning that will be increasingly essential if we're to survive!

And also cheap enough that any can afford and enable us to compete as a manufacturing base the free world will want to relocate to.

And energy cheap enough, IN OUR HANDS, to make space desalination and pumping, cheap enough to put potable water anywhere, day and night to also make broad-scale irrigation cost-effective with desalinated, potable water! And none of the above doable if we're chained to renewables by troglobites and or, powerful vested interest!

Moreover, an almost free byproduct of electricity at less than 2 cents PKWH, MSR thorium is, the alpha particle, bismuth 213. Bismuth 213 will enable vast medical tourism for cancer patients sent home to die with death sentence cancer. And from all demographics!

All treatable in day clinics that could be strategically located outback for obvious economic reasons. All of the above could stand alone on a compelling best-case economic outcome, let alone be the most efficacious way we could address climate change/decarbonise the economy!

As for other claims, given the fact we have been in a solar waning phase since the mid-seventies, we are not coming out of a mini-ice age, but should be heading into one, and therefore most of what is claimed by the author as science, is rather, unmitigated, I believe, BS!
Alan B.

AGW / climate deniers want people to believe that the scientific community is dishonest and untrustworthy about anthropogenic global warming and its impact on the environment.

Very similar to way Holocaust deniers want people to believe that historians and sociologists are dishonest and untrustworthy about their research on the atrocities committed by Germany during WW2.

Holocaust deniers are absolutely disgusting and AGW / climate deniers are a cancer to humanity and life on our planet.

I wouldn't do either the honour of pissing on them if they were on fire.

Geological and palaeontological evidence suggests the optimum GMST for ecosystems is that which existed around the Early Eocene Climate Optimum and during the ‘Cambrian Explosion’, i.e. ~25–28°C (i.e. ~10–13°C warmer than present).

Mass extinction events:

1. Most major extinction events have been due to bolide impacts, volcanism and ice ages, not global warming

2. The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) was due to warming but it was less severe than most mass extinctions. “The most dramatic example of sustained warming is the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, which was associated with one of the smaller mass extinctions.”. The PETM occurred when GMST was above optimum for life on Earth.

3. The Permian-Triassic Boundary mass extinction event has recently been reported to have been caused by extensive volcanism that caused acidification and an ice age, not global warming (Baresel et al., 2017)]

4. There appear to have been no major extinction events that were due to global warming when GMST was below the optimum (approximately ~7–13°C above present)

Rapid warming:

5. Even very rapid warming is beneficial for ecosystems. Coxon and McCarron (2009) Figure 15:21 shows temperatures in Ireland, Greenland and Iceland warmed from near LGM temperatures to near current temperatures in 7 years 14,500 years BP and in 9 years 11,500 year BP. Life thrived during these events.

6. Biosphere productivity is increasing during the current warming – the planet has greened by about 14% during 35 years of satellite observations (Donohue et al., 2013), Zhu et al. (2016), Greening of the Earth and it drivers). GMST increased by about 0.4°C during the period analysed (1982–2010)

Biosphere productivity is higher in warmer climates:

7. Biosphere productivity is higher at low latitudes (warmer) than at high latitudes (colder). Gillman et al. (2015) ‘Latitude, productivity and species richness’ – “Contrary to the recent claims, we found strong support for a negative relationship between latitude and annual NPP of forests with all datasets, and NPP was significantly greater in tropical forests than in temperate forests. Vascular plant richness was positively correlated with NPP.”

8. Biomass density (tC/ha) ~10 times higher in tropical rainforests than extratropical: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.4155/cmt.13.77

A rough calculation of biosphere and soil organic carbon density from charts A and B shows that carbon density decreases from tropics to high latitudes, as follows (tC/ha versus latitude):
Soil Organic Carbon: y = -0.125x + 105
Biomass: y = 110.31e-0.026x
Total: y = -1.975x + 241

9. The mass of carbon in the terrestrial biosphere has increased substantially during the warming from the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). Jeltsch-Thömmes et al. 2019, find that the mass of carbon in the terrestrial biosphere increased by about 40% (850 GtC) from LGM to preindustrial times. This compares with 10%-50% (300-1000 GtC) increase from LGM to the pre-industrial inventory of about 3,000 GtC stated in IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 6. This also indicates that warming is beneficial for ecosystems.

These points suggest that global warming is net beneficial for ecosystems when GMST is below the optimum (which may be around 7–13°C above present GMST).

Peter Lang,

Are you a scientist?

Sorry Peter, could not find definition of GMST. Found GMAT ok.

In the time scale we are arguing about, say 2000 BC to 2100 ad there
are a number of scientific groups with non-co2 AGW beliefs.
Some say the majority must be right.
If they say other than that they may well lose their jobs.
Ask Peter Ridd about that.
Certainly new academic would have to tread warily.
You may be aware that coaches are advising their clients to be careful
how they answer tests from their teachers.

On another matter, does anyone know how much subsidy each wind turbine
attracts to the owner ?
I have heard figures up to the $100K for each turbine annually ?

Look, the real way to achieve lower hydrocarbon/greenhouse gas usage is through WORLD ECONOMIC SLOWDOWN.

This means less hydocarbon (coal, oil, flammable gas) use for electicity production

and less use in cars, trucks, ships, trains and planes.

BTW forget about electrically or nuclear powered planes. Heavier aircraft can't fly.

You will know there's less hydrocarbon use/demand if the price of oil goes down.

Wait! Less hydrocarbon use, price going down, has actually happened with the worldwide Coronavirus LOCKDOWN.

Probably lower population increases have also happened with the LOCKDOWN as well.

CONCLUSION

The world has actually experienced the impact of reduced hyrocarbon use, lower population growth

leading to WORLD ECONOMIC SLOWDOWN through the Corona LOCKDOWN.

But the WORLD ECONOMIC SLOWDOWN through LOCKDOWN would need to be PERMANENT.

Real expert climate scientists tell us if we PERMANENTLY SLOWDOWN now the 2 degree C drop in international temperatures will see the first discernable results in ONLY 200 years.

We should all wait for this benefit of 200 years of WORLD ECONOMIC LOCKDOWN via LOCKDOWN, if climate scientists are to be believed...

But, but, but the argument is not about how to slow down hydrocarbon
use but whether we need to do that anyway !
Stock up on nice warm clothing for 250 to 350 years time, just 600
years after the last freeze up, the Maunder Minimum.
We have already reached our highest temperature in this cycle and in
a hundred years there will be a noticeable drop in temperature;
at least thats what a number of scientists say.

Steele

You've never heard a leftist squark "denialist!" for their argument?

And then, as if on cue, Mr Opinion's post appears in the same thread, pffffffft.

Just like all the other ones you have both just been brain-farting in.

Cumberland,

Keep in mind you are representing the AGW / climate deniers who want people to believe that the scientific community is dishonest and untrustworthy about anthropogenic global warming and its impact on the environment.

As one scientist pointed out: How can the deniers discuss the science when they are not even scientists?

So, those great scientific thinkers, the warmists, have stumbled on the solution: increase the spread of Covid 19, thereby throttling the economy and reducing demand for fossil-fuel-driven energy.

How bizarre!

Was out mind the chucks today and came home to see this master piece from Prof Essery... Love the reaction of the usual CCC'ers..

No response but to slur, throw muck and slander the author... Never new there that many American elitist Democrats here in OZ!

Whether or not climate change is real or not could be deemed potentially irrelevant. The earth naturally goes through heating and cooling cycles, species either adapt and survive or they don’t. Having said that I see a great need to explore alternative and preferably clean energy sources if only to get off the teat of questionable countries that control / produce the worlds oil supply.
A greater threat to humans imho is social inequality and the endless succession of political plonkers who lack any real vision or determination to leave things better than how they found them.

ViolentEntropy,

What would you say are the causes of social inequality?

Mr Opinion
The answer to your question deserves an entire article to itself.
Modern democratic societies seem to be hell bent on killing the middle class.
Back in say, maybe the 1950’s, the post war boom empowered the middle class through large scale infrastructure and home building strategies. Education was supported and our healthcare was viewed as a right not a privilege.
There were clear delineations across these classes.
The have nots
The have enoughs
The have mores
The have more than enough

Look to now
The have nots still exist, always have always will
The have enoughs need to work so much harder to stay in this rung, dual incomes required or multiple jobs per income earner.
The have mores are able to extend beyond the have enoughs due to the disposable income that can be put into investments, shares property etc.
The have more than enough are able to leapfrog all and have created a new class of have more than they know what to do with.

If one looks at corporate remuneration the captains of industry are earning wages way above what was an earlier % above what the workers in the company were receiving.

So, the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. And the middle struggle.

It is a dangerous trajectory. The French Revolution attests to this.

Apologies for the clumsy response here. The problem is complex, the solutions are not simple, the consequence of inaction Is dire.
The income divide will be our nemesis well before climate change kicks in to allegedly create chaos. Climate change will create chaos, however out of every crisis comes opportunity, no prize for guessing which class will be able to seize this opportunity And make a motza.

Leading minds? Based on what criteria? IQ, critical thinking ability? Able to collect and collate all the available data? Or like the Author, cherry-pick whatever confirms a confirmation bias?

It's the sun some say, and as far as that goes, correct. It's cyclical others correctly say.

The sun has a pulse, that pumps as it were, around every 200 years. It waxes, [heats up a little, the ice retreats and sea levels rise.]

It wanes, [the joint cools, the ice advances and sea levels decline/go down.]

What cannot happen is the former ice melt/retreat phenomena during a waning phase! Which is where we've been in since the mid-seventies. (NASA)

And highlighted by record temperatures, unprecedented heatwaves, droughts so severe as to defy living memory! And where the second hottest year, 2017 occurring during a La Nina event! Followed by unparalleled firestorms and loss of native species of around a billion and our bone dry topsoil blown across the ditch to NZ. And a smoke plume that circled the globe!

All indicators that the climate is out of whack! It matters not what occurred previously according to naturally occurring cyclical climate change that changed with the routine regular solar pulse and consequent waxing and waning phases.

Simply presenting historical data changes nothing, proves naught but there was a normal cyclical change that has absolutely no bearing on what is happening now!

What counts is how we address what we can with what we have and I've already presented some of the more compelling options available, Ad Infinium.

Adroitly ignored by those with conflicting interests/incomes generated by coal/fossil fuel?
Alan B.

Moron people are renewables too !

It is not climate change that is affecting any minds, but how much money they can make by climbing on the climate change gravy train, makes many lose their minds.

Bazz, in answer to your question on subsidies to windfarms. The only one that I have knowledge of with any certainty is the Coopers Gap one in SE Queensland. Over130 turbines. The State Government subsidy for the 20 years of the complex is $200,000 to the complex owners per year per turbine. The property owners on who's land the turbine sits receive ~$20,000/per turbine per year for the life of the facility.
At that point, the landowner has the responsibility of decommissioning, deconstructing and remediating the site to original condition. Estimated cost for this is ~$100,000.
This subsidy is regardless of whether the turbine produces 100% of plated output, or draws from the grid to keep the blades turning.

Has been, I was brought up in the UK ( now have lived in Oz more years than I spent there) and we all talked about the Gravy Boat factor. Since arrival in Oz, I have progressively adjusted my few on it...

First the gravy boat (1990)
Second the Gravy Train ( 2000)
Third the Gravy tanker (2010)
Fourth the Gravy Cruise liner (2016)
Now its the Gravy swamp ( 2020)

Who knows how big it will get.. BUT, the bigger it gets, the sicker and weaker Western Civilisation becomes and WILL go the way of previous dynasties such as Inca, Rome, Greece, Octomom, Brit Empire...

Re Jay Cee Ess

Check out the second scandalous subsidy scheme promoted by BOJO, in of all places N, Ireland. The first led to the suspension of their Gov Assembly for 3 years and this may do the same. Effectively a single wind farm gets 375,000 GBP for delivering 51,000GBP electricity to the grid. Wish I could get that return from my Superfund!

The Gravy Train is the ballot box for the Progressives !

Thanks JCE, on that example it is worse than I imagined.
I notice the land holder is responsible for the removal.
I think $100K would barely be enough.
Then after it is collected together who receives the rubbish ?
I did read somewhere that they bury the blades, hmmm.
That suggests they are fibreglass, not aluminium or other metal.
Another thread is worrying about waste it can now start worrying about
end of life wind turbines.
I wonder if the cleanup includes removing the concrete base.
That will cost big money on its own.
It might be that the economics of it all means the land will have
zero value and will be a burden on the descendants of the farmer

Bazz, you are stepping into the zone that no-one wants to face. There are no standards set for the remediation of the base. As you're probably aware, it is a great lump of steel reinforced concrete going down three or four metres the size of a suburban house. One suggested strategy is to simply trim off the top level and bury it under about a metre of dirt.
I'm not 100% sure on these blades, but one standard is actually balsa wood sheathed in resin reinforced glass fibre. No hope of recovery and reuse. Depending upon location, it is unlikely that many blades will last the 20 years thanks to leading edge erosion and UV degradation of the resins. (Australia isn't Europe for UV levels.) These blades had a transport quoted weight of 22 tonnes each.
Several farmers in this project have ten (or more) turbines on their properties. There is no incentive to continue to farm and pro-actively manage their land with that income stream. Trying to sell in 15 years time means that the future responsibility for the turbines will destroy many prospective buyers interest.
I'll save a killer comment on this project for later.

Which raises a real problem;
Due to the almost total belief that wind and solar are the only way
to go for future electricity then expansion of windfarm numbers is
a given and in twenty years time after it has become obvious that
the "renewables" are not economic or renewable we will have lost a
lot of farming land for nothing.
It really is time for a ban on windfarms.

Sorry to break the bad nes to you guys, but its all too late, Solar Power, wind power, vegetarianism, woke ness etc are now engrained into the education system at over the last 30 years, we have allowed 2 generations to be indoctrinated by lefty school curriculum boards and the activists with Depts of Education. Hitler had only a decade of similar indoctrination with the Hitler Youth Movement. so with 30 year on climate change cultism... we are fecked!

Too many global industrialists and environmental gurus's (eg Al"the geography teacher" Gore) have so much invested ( and profiteering for this industry, they will not allow anyone to discuss let alone disturb their rationale.

Its too late!

Here is a BBC article on this problem. Puts it to scale.

http://tinyurl.com/szddkw2

yes, Bazz, and wait till you see the mountains of Solar panels that were supposed to last 25 years, yet power delivery has now declined to nye on useless with 10 years. By the way, the British Gov is sueing Siemens for their off-shore wind farms that are literally being eaten away after 5 years! its a multi-billion euro case.

Bet Grimacing Great and BoJo don't talk or care much about that, as the poor suckers whose power bills rise to allow rich people to have subsidized solar panels, will pay for the case and the new windmills when the case fails in the EU courts!

Yes Bazz, aircraft modelers are complaining that balsa for modeling is almost impossible to find, & the supply of kits of precut components has dried up, as the Chinese are buying all the balsa.

The blades are formed in balsa, then sheathed in carbon fiber laminate of various thickness dependent on the level of stress in various areas of the blade. The whole process means that none of the blade can be recycled.

They must be getting some of the strength, or even a large part of it, from the balsa being saturated with resin which in carbon fiber resin is very hard. If not Polyurethane foam would be much cheaper & easier to shape, & is used in sandwich boat construction.

Once impregnated the balsa is useless for any subsequent application. It is an international disgrace that such an important activity as model aircraft flying should be interfered with by the manufacture of these monstrosities.

Thanks for that link Bazz. There are a lot of problems with windfarms that the renewable lobby do not accept.
SKF and Timken (major leaders in world bearing technology) have faced the problem that especially in the off shore giant turbines they have been have unexpected levels of failures in the main axle bearings. Up to 30% in some units failing within 5 years. Very expensive and difficult to repair or replace. If ball and roller bearings remain stationary for periods of time, the surfaces within are subject to fretting (or in engineering terms "brinelling") and become noisy and subject to accelerated total surface failure. This, plus the next problem are why turbines must be kept turning at all times. If one is stationary, it is probably being worked on with technicians within the pod. To keep turning they must draw power from the Grid.
The next area of concern is that of blade droop when not turning. New blades can be fitted. But only if the special cranes needed are available.
As it is, it is accepted that wind turbines deliver around 30% of their name plate capacity into the Grid over extended periods.
The Coopers Gap Wind Farm so far has been unable to deliver into the Grid as they have been unable to achieve and maintain full (essential) synchronization to it.

Hasbeen, thank you for that note. I had wondered why the balsa cores could not be redirected to recovery for the hobbyist market. Too expensive to recover and then too contaminated.
Alison Jane, from the mid 1950's to the fall of the USSR, Moscow was subsidising the anti-nuclear protests around the globe to ensure that the promise of super cheap and safe electricity from nuclear would never be available to the Western economies. (While they powered on with theirs.)
It was the left sides of politics that have ensured that the nuclear power industry has been saddled with excessive and un-needed bureaucracy to nobble any attempts to provide safe high quality and affordable reliable power.
Over two generations of "nuclear is bad" indoctrination is not something that can be undone in a decade by even the most skillful education campaign.

Jay Cee Ees,

Good points. Have you read: 'Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone' https://doi.org/10.3390/en10122169 ?

Abstract:

"This paper presents evidence of the disruption of a transition from fossil fuels to nuclear power, and finds the benefits forgone as a consequence are substantial. Learning rates are presented for nuclear power in seven countries, comprising 58% of all power reactors ever built globally. Learning rates and deployment rates changed in the late-1960s and 1970s from rapidly falling costs and accelerating deployment to rapidly rising costs and stalled deployment. Historical nuclear global capacity, electricity generation and overnight construction costs are compared with the counterfactual that pre-disruption learning and deployment rates had continued to 2015. Had the early rates continued, nuclear power could now be around 10% of its current cost. The additional nuclear power could have substituted for 69,000–186,000 TWh of coal and gas generation, thereby avoiding up to 9.5 million deaths and 174 Gt CO2 emissions. In 2015 alone, nuclear power could have replaced up to 100% of coal-generated and 76% of gas-generated electricity, thereby avoiding up to 540,000 deaths and 11 Gt CO2. Rapid progress was achieved in the past and could be again, with appropriate policies. Research is needed to identify impediments to progress, and policy is needed to remove them."

I see other posters have failed to properly address Charles Essery's main points:

> In simple terms, if a warming climate aided the rise of the Roman Empire,
> why should it harm our far more advanced and 'intelligent' world today?
Two very important reasons:
Firstly, the warming climate as the Roman Empire rose was not global warming; it affected the area around Europe, but the rest of the world was not as hot as it now is. And this time round the direct effects on Europe (with its temperate climate) are unlikely to be very bad and could be beneficial. The effects in much of the rest of the world, including Australia, will be far worse.

Secondly, there's a lot more warming happening this time. The large thermal mass of the ocean has buffered the temperature rise, but the temperature is continuing to rise and so are sea levels.

> This second scandal is the result of a UK PM Boris Johnson initiative.
FALSE! It has nothing to do with Boris Johnson's initiative. It's the result of a subsidy from the Brown era (or possibly the early Cameron era) which got extended far too long in Northern Ireland. But it was gone before Johnson came to power.

And finding one out of touch anthropology professor's rant is hardly newsworthy. It's clear to almost everyone that we must have more reliable power, though engineers will tell you that increasing the reliability of supply may not be the most cost effective way to improve overall reliability when most of the problems are due to distribution faults.

See/type in, Thorium in four minutes, to see why there's so much resistance to economic commonsense And just on plain old fashioned conflict of economic interest, without climate change issues entering the fray/discussion.

If we want logical rational change to our energy policy? We need to remove the idiots that stand in the way/prevent it with half-truths and endless obfuscation?

If we would become an energy super-power? We need boundless and seriously inexpensive energy! Rather than the currently proposed models put by those with their skin in that game/proposal?
Alan B.

As Aiden's ability to read for more than 30 seconds at a time means he missed Essery's second point on NI. Yes the first was not Bojos fault, but bthe second ludicrous schemes was Bojo delivered ( pays 350GBP per tower, with only 50 GBP return in electricity.

And as for the Roman empire being during a warming period only in Italy, Aiden your lazy, look at the evidence. Just saying something contrary to an author, doesn't make it valid. Do your own research you lazy thing.

And if you could read the whole article ( 6minute read for an average 100 IQ I would say) then you would see that he reckons, the warming period did not stop growth to half way round the world ( it aided it), but that its fall was not cooling, but corruption, sex and debauchery (see Nero and Caligula)

"Sea ice extent for October 2020 was 5.28 million square kilometers (2.04 million square miles), placing it lowest in the satellite record for the month. This was 3.07 million square kilometers (1.19 million square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 October average and 450,000 square kilometers (173,700 square miles) below the record low mark for October set in 2019. October 2020 is the largest departure from average conditions seen in any month thus far in the satellite record, falling 3.69 standard deviations below the 1981 to 2010 mean. Ice extent is far below average in all of sectors of the Eurasian side of the Arctic Ocean and in Baffin Bay."
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Apparently nothing to see here folks.

Aiden said;
Firstly, the warming climate as the Roman Empire rose was not global
warming; it affected the area around Europe,

I have hidden somewhere on my computer a reference to a study that
found the previous belief that the Roman & Medieval warmings were
only local was not correct. From hazy memory a different measuring
technique made the difference. I will try harder to find it as it is
important as Aiden's comment implies.

I see Alison Jane has resumed trolling.

For the benefit of anyone who might be inclined to take her seriously, I suggest you follow the link yourself. If you go to http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2020/10/10/windfarm-farce-blew-1-4billion-of-taxpayers-money/ you'll notice:
• The ultimate source is the Daily Mail; as newspapers go, that's quite a low quality source, so you shouldn't blindly assume the figures to be correct (nor assume them to be wrong).
• Although the linked article namedrops Boris Johnson, it does not claim him to be responsible.
• If you look at the timing, it is as I say.
• The first of these scandals in Northern Ireland was to do with heating. Though it was mentioned in the article, no details of it were given; the details all related to the second one.

Nor did I claim that the Roman Warm Period was just in Italy; just that it was not global. Mediterranean sediment cores indicate it was warmer than today; cores from other seas don't show the same result.

I merely answered Charles's question, and I'm not going to waste my time proving it. I didn't even mention the fall of the Roman Empire, but since the troll did I'll mention the list of 210 (often contradictory) reasons, which is now at http://courses.washington.edu/rome250/gallery/ROME%20250/210%20Reasons.htm

Trolling, I wouldn't know how. I thought it was a form of stalking and slagging people off with untruths.

Can you "yung-uns" inform this 60+ "senile old fart" (a polite version of the various slurs offered by the lefties who write/post comments).

I thought Trolls were Scandinavians version of Leprechauns', is that correct?

Alison Jane,

Keep in mind that Aidan is an AGW / climate denier.

He wants everyone to believe that the scientific community is dishonest and untrustworthy re AGW / climate.

A bit like the way the Holocaust deniers have tried to make people believe that historians and sociologists are not telling the truth re the Holocaust having taken place during WW2.

"Keep in mind that Aidan is an AGW / climate denier"

An AGW denier? That's surprising. When was he converted?

This morning. It's in all the newspapers.

What really irks me is that mongrels like Aiden, Steel-Rednuts etc (always avatars if you recall) never can accept the science is not the arbitrator, its a source of information and evidence that we the community who pay them to think must adjudicate on!

ps and I am a 40 year plus experienced scientist, so I should know the truth in criticising my on kind!