For any who actually want to understand the cyclical warming & cooling of the planet, there is a very good thread at

Tallbloke's Talkshop | Cutting edge science you can dice with
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2022/05/02/ned-nikolov-karl-zeller-exact-calculations-of-climate-sensitivities-reveal-the-true-cause-of-recent-warming/

You'll need a bit of math, but it is very well explained, even for the math illiterate. Perhaps not for the true warmist nuts, as it will, if understood, destroy your illusions. However for any seeking the truth, this will set you down the right road.

Yawn.

Dear Hasbeen,

How's it going old cock? Good?

Do you really think rolling these two shysters out again is going to achieve anything?

Well at least they are using their real nmaes this time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/09/19/scientists-published-climate-research-under-fake-names-then-they-were-caught/

SR obviously you would be a prime candidate to,

1/ Not have the math to understand any of the facts or equations.

2/ Have to avoid such science as it would destroy your ability to talk total bull.

Hassy, I thought you might be wheeling out that Old Fart from up the road again, the one who has been taking the temperature in his chook house for the past 70 years. He's proven it definitely colder in July rhan January, thus no such thing as global warming, its all a scam!

I've gotta agree with SR here when he wrote "Well at least they are using their real nmaes this time."

Yes its certainly a heavy indictment of the climate change 'science' community that people with a radical new (ie unapproved) way of analysing the data feel the need to hide their identity in order to get it published.

We've know ever since ClimateGate that the climate community actively seeks to suppress unapproved data and analysis, but I, like SR, are disturbed at the lengths some must go to to navigate around this.

Of course, we are constantly told that the science is settled. Therefore this new analysis doesn't exist and is a figment of our imagination. Along with the 300 hundred or so other papers published each year that dispute the 'settled science'

Dear mhaze,

You whine: "Yes its certainly a heavy indictment of the climate change 'science' community that people with a radical new (ie unapproved) way of analysing the data feel the need to hide their identity in order to get it published."

It wasn't that at all, these two have been serving up easily refutable nonsense for quite a while now and they were rightly concerned a journal wouldn't go through the time and expense to have yet another peer reviewed.

Professor Steve Sherwood, the director of the Climate Change Research Center at the University of New South Wales in Australia, reviewed the paper and said:

“The paper is laughable. It is so riddled with unsupported, fantastic and … or … unintelligible claims, arranged in a disorderly fashion and sprinkled liberally with innuendo.”

Is there any reason to dispute it?

You don't need maths, any more websites or opinions, to know by now that, whatever the weather is doing, it has little to do with carbon dioxide or humans, apart from the fact that there might - just might - be too many of us whose lives are so poor, they should stop breeding.

Rubbish like Zero Emissions is dead: not going to happen.

In Germany, gas and nuclear have officially been declared "green" energy so that woke, tightarsed banks have to lend money for their development. The UK is talking about going back to coal. In the US, Biden, whose regime has been based, among other woke left rubbish, on climate and renewables, is now urging people to get mining, drilling and fracking.

The scam is running out of puff. Just like the gradual easing off of Covid totalitarianism - nothing much about the the wog has changed, but arrogant politicians won't admit that they were wrong - so will it be with the climate/renewables scam.

Australian iron ore billionaire Andrew Forrest
has struck a potential $50 billion green hydrogen
agreement with German energy giant E.ON to produce
up to 5 million tonnes of green hydrogen by 2030.

The landmark agreement could deliver one third of
Forrest's hugely ambitious plans to produce 15 million
tonnes of green hydrogen by 2030, a target the head of
his own green energy company Fortescue Future Industries,
Julie Shuttleworth thought was "very, very stretch," but
now says it is quite achievable.

"We cannot keep gambling our energy security and the
planet's future on fossil fuels," Shuttleworth said.

"Green hydrogen is the practical implementable solution
to decarbonise and lower emissions."

Forrest signed a Memorandum of Unerstanding (MoU) with
E.ON and German government leaders in Berlin and indicated
it would include exports of renewable hydrogen from Australia.

The five million tonne green hydrogen target would likely
require in the order of 60-70GW of wind and solar capacity.
Forrest said it would represent an investment of around
$50 billion, one of the largest ever energy investments of
any kind. Fortescue is seizing on the opportunities
presented by the decision by German and other European countries
to stop their dependence on Russian gas as quick as they can.

There's more at the following link:

http://reneweconomy.com.au/forrest-strikes-huge-green-hydrogen-plan-with-german-energy-giant-e-on/#

With the greatest supply of sustainable energy resources
on the planet Australia should really be a green energy
superpower. That it isn't has been of great frustration for
Australia's two richest men, mining magnate Andrew "Twiggy"
Forrest and tech-whiz - Cannon-Brooks.

But now the multi-billionaires are determined to do something
about it. They say a new age of turning green into gold is here
and there are realistic and reasonable solutions to climate
change that can be adopted now.

Better still what they propose is not driven by philanthropy,
but sound economics that guarantee profits for the various
industries that embrace it.

"We can be the largest exporter of energy, the renewable
energy superpower," Cannon-Brookes said.

In an interview with 60 Minutes Cannon Brookes and Andrew
Forrest explained their plans to make Australia potentially
the top consumer and exporter of cheap renewables by harnessing
wind and solar on a scale that's never been seen before.

http://9now.nine.com.au/60-minutes/australia-renewable-energy-export-turning-green-to-gold-how-saving-the-planet-could-make-a-fortune/

The only way to assist charging electric cars is to have solar panels installed on the roof and bonnet and leave them parked in the sun during the day.

Albo is ignorant of the facts. He has just stated if you own an electric car, you will not have to buy fossil fuel at the bowser. Fact: you will have to buy electricity at one of the 150 charge stations to give the same energy as fossil fuel and take ten times longer to fill up.

Foxy Forrest is just in a new type of mining with the Hydrogen scheme, subsidiary mining.

Hi Hassie,

I watched 60 Minutes and Forrest and Brookes explanations
on what they're planning to do. I found it very exciting.
We need to give new innovations a chance if there is even
a possibility to make things better for everyone.

I saw my first EV charger over the weekend in the grounds of a football club/community centre where I was attending a flower show. I avoided the parking bay 'reserved' for cars being charged; but when I came out, there was a glum looking bloke in an EV parked behind a petrol driven car parked where he should have been. Fortunately, the cable was long enough to stretch past the errant vehicle to his plug.

There have already been altercations over these chargers, with cars being disconnected from cars left at them by people who didn't want to wait. Not to mention vandalism.

I predict that there will 'todos' over EV chargers that will make the Gunfight at OK Corral look like a Presbyterian picnic.

Charging at home will take for ever, if you don't blackout the whole suburb first, or your battery doesn't catch fire and burn everyone out.

In the media recently: a medical doctor living in an apartment block had to sell his EV because he was forbidden from using a power point in the communal garage. I would have thought that a man in his profession would have found that out before bought vehicle. The greenie bit of him won, and he must have felt a real dill.

Mass use of electric vehicles is as impractical as Zero Emissions by 2050, and people thinking that they can change their sex because of a feeling.

Hasbeen: https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2022/05/02/ned-nikolov-karl-zeller-exact-calculations-of-climate-sensitivities-reveal-the-true-cause-of-recent-warming/

See, I told you that Global Warming is all BS. Ay.

To solve the problem perhaps we should look at
cars in the future being the" wind-up" variety?

ttbn, Don't you have sex because of a "feeling?"

I don't mean to be flippant - but the previous
reference by ttbn to feelings surprised me. after all
it's feelings that help us to develop and navigate
our way through relationships, and make important
life choices and identify our responses to events and
understand others. feelings allow us to experience an
endless array of emotions - they are what gives us
the ability to experience the joys and sorrows of life
and all of its ups and downs.

Feelings help us to take action to survive, strike
and avoid danger, and make decisions as well as try to
understand others.

Again I find myself in full agreement with SR. When you have a peer reviewed paper that says things that you don't want to be true, the correct response is to find someone, anyone, who'll tell you that it's wrong and then assert that proves it's wrong. That's the way science has always been done, isn't it?

Dear mhaze,

Oh come on mate, even you are better than that.

You have said in the past:

“Its not a case of thinking CO2 is unimportant or thinking the "greenhouse effect is a myth" (no one thinks that anyway).”

Well these blokes think it's a myth. Ned Nikolov even asserts it on the page of the original link Hasbeen provided. I quote:

“What Roy Spencer wrote in 2010 about the role of clouds is conceptually correct. However, he seems to have abandoned this line of thought recently. Roy has increasingly been pushing the false “greenhouse” theory...”

And peer reviewed? Well they do claim it has been subjected to an “open peer review” whatever they think that means. Who did the reviewing, which scientific journal was it published in, and why is there no reference list at the end of their paper?

Also the cheeky buggers even quote themselves:

“However, as demonstrated by Nikolov & Zeller (2017), the real climate system has no measurable sensitivity to ambient CO2 due to a minute contribution of this trace gas to the total pressure of Earth’s atmosphere.”

Not a pretty look is it.

And finally Steve Sherwood in not anyone is he? Rather he is a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW Sydney and not some part timer with an obscure Phd in forestry like these blokes.

SR.

You'll note I haven't expressed an opinion about the papers merely the process whereby data and views are rejected, not because they're wrong but because don't sit well with pre-judged biases.

I've read the paper. It looks interesting but I'm open-minded about it. We'll see over the next few years if it stands scrutiny and additional research. That's how science used to work.

PS...I'm pleased to see that you are scrolling back through my earlier posts. The more you read them, the better you'll understand the issue.

CO2 increases probably do influence temperature, but imagining that you can accurately make predictions about 20 years hence is bonkers.

What narks me is the ideological solutions proposed. No nuclear, because it's bad. No geoengineering, because it's bad too. I believe that both of these things can deliver economic and environmental benefit whether or not global warming is a problem. The favoured solutions, renewable energy and green hydrogen, would be economically harmful and unlikely to have much impact in reducing CO2 emissions.

My interest is in fertilising oceans to increase marine production and possibly increase Australia's rainfall. Developing an understanding of the subject through research could provide insight into what might be achieved, yet research into ocean fertilisation is banned, and vilified by greenie nutters about as much as nuclear power.

Of interest, the bushfires of 2020 caused a huge algal bloom in the Southern Ocean.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-09-16/black-summer-bushfires-smoke-iron-algae-bloom-phytoplankton/100460218

What effect might this event have had on Australia's rainfall? Sadly, a dogmatic ideology prevents us from finding out.

In the UK, headlines about the rising cost of electricity are overwhelming the usual headlines about climate change. UK politics has shifted its focus from climate change to energy security. This is a turning point for the UK, as the real cost of modelling and ideology "crash on the reality of families having to provide food and warmth".

Australians are going to have to realise that we are going the same way; and our politicians have to be made to act.

("Net Zero: the puritan Trojan horse", Ben Beatie, 3/5/22).

Hasbeen, I suggest you install Tinyurl, it makes it easy to copy
long urls off web pages.

ttbn; in one state, Victoria I think it is an offense to park an ic
car in an EV charging location. It is known as being Iced !
What no one outside the ev field does not realise the vast majority
of evs are charged at home during the night time off peak times.
As the ratio of ev in personal use and business use changes so that
the majority as now will be parked at home each night the night time
load will increase and perhaps "off peak" will disappear.
Also new laws for strata type buildings are now being required to
install 15 amp GPOs in each car position in car parks.
This will enable 3.5Kw chargers to be installed for each car.

The electricity system cannot be supplied from the current renewables
and that is slowly sinking in. The talk I mention below showed quite
clearly that the lifetime of solar & turbines is so short and use so
much material that we will go broke and live in caves amongst the
debris of our society.

All that aside I heard a talk yesterday on hydrogen, green, blue,
yellow and black varieties.
It seems that all of them have significant disadvantages.
The most important use of hydrogen is fertilizer manufacture.
The rest of the uses are wasteful in energy and materials compared to
nuclear energy. The most wasteful use of materials is to use solar
and wind with electrolysis to make "green hydrogen".
Re the use of cobalt in batteries, that may well end soon if these
new type of cells work out

Who here would be prepared, [silly enough], to live in a highrise with 5 amp GPOs in each car position in car parks & 3.5Kw chargers installed for each car, charging cars over night?

Hasbeen: Who here would be prepared, [silly enough], to live in a high rise with 5 amp GPOs in each car position in car parks & 3.5Kw chargers installed for each car, charging cars over night?

First things first. "Who would be silly enough to live in a high Rise? Well definitely not me. I could not think of anything more restrictive if I tried. Of course, if you just wanted to stare at the Telly all day. I suppose.

I'd be lost without my Shed. I've got Electronics Projects going in one corner. Woodwork in another corner, Welding in another, Lathe & Milling in another. Then there's my vast Library of Tech. Manuals. My store with all the Nuts, Bolts, Screws, Electronic Parts, etc. Then there's the Storage of Metal & Timber, & more. Not to mention Saws, Routers, Drills, Planes & more.

It's an 9X8m Shed & it's too small, so I have two other smaller Garden Sheds. I haven't put the Awning on the Shed yet. That will be 3X4m. Coming to a shed near me soon.

The Computer is inside, of course along with the 3D Printer & Laser Printer. I like to keep busy. Idle hands are the Devils Playground as they say. Ay.

Yes Jyab, I have often wondered what you do with yourself if living in a city high rise. However it is the thought of living on my funeral pyre, without knowing just when it will be lit that would worry me.

Hasbeen: However it is the thought of living on my funeral pyre, without knowing just when it will be lit that would worry me.

Zachary.

I wonder how many climate denialists bother to "slip, slop and slap" when going out into the sun?

Apparently over a century of dumping carbon into the atmosphere has no effect but 40 years of spray cans have punched a hole in the ozone layer. Go figure. The science is very similar.

CO2 isn't the problem. The problem is "too much CO2". That's what "too much" means.

I've also noticed that many of the rusted-on denialists have stopped insisting that the planet is really cooling and have shifted to suggesting alternate reasons for it heating.

Perhaps "Population Denialism" is a bigger problem than Climate Denialism.

http://blog.csiro.au/rising-carbon-dioxide-greening-earth-not-good-news/

Human activities have driven the Earth to become greener - perhaps the strongest evidence yet of how people have become a major force in the Earth’s functioning.

Dried lake beds, failed crops, flattened trees: when we think of global warming we often think of the impacts of droughts and extreme weather. While there is truth in this image, a rather different picture is emerging.

In a paper published in Nature Climate Change, we show that the Earth has been getting greener over the past 30 years. As much as half of all vegetated land is greener today, and remarkably, only 4% of land has become browner.

Our research shows this change has been driven by human activities, particularly the rising concentration of carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the atmosphere. This is perhaps the strongest evidence yet of how people have become a major force in the Earth’s functioning.

Please explain

There is a school of thought by some on the extreme that the planet is overpopulated by inferior races, blacks, Asians, non-whites etc. According to these extremists if this over breeding, over consuming group are allowed to go on unchecked then the superior White Anglo-Saxon would be in danger of extermination at the hands of these massive numbers of inferior races. The extremists then go on to propose some kind of population control measures of the inferior races as being vital if the superior race is to survive.

It's all very simple to people like CM.

From the beginning of this global warming story I have been skeptical.
It seemed a bit too much affect for a small amount of co2.
I am now 3/4 of the way through Ian Climer's book Green Murder.
He tackles each of the symptoms of global warming in turn;
Widespread Disaster theories throughout history
Bushfires, the history and nonsense of "Unprecedented"
The Wet and the Dry the Wide Brown Land
Weather trends and history
Coral Reefs etc etc
The Global Warming cycles that have left their mark through history.

He shows how all these phenomena have occurred through history and
the traces left over thousands of years.
Each of the various panics that are brought up when something that
gets blamed on global warming.
He is of course attacked because amoung other sins he owns shares in
mining companies. He is also a professor of Geology and well known interntionally.
Of course that is a horrible crime for wich he must be cancelled.

Now on top of all that the findings of Jiki Kauppenin Malo ex IPCC
committee member and others at Turku Uni in Finland & Kobe Uni in Japan
and other similar findings by Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller and Henrik Svenmark.
and now a finding from UNSW that we cannot build renewable energy as
fast as it is needed. The target is receeding faster than we can build.
Surely it is now time to reexamine the whole concept before we charge
headlong into $trillions of spending on what many think is nonsense.

If it is nonsense imagine the political repercussions the court cases
the demands for damages, the bruised egos etc etc etc.
This is why it will never be accepted until the economy totally collapses.

Paul I don't think most White Anglo-Saxon give a damn how many Africans or Asians there are in the world. It was always famine, usually caused by climate that kept these populations down. Perhaps some White Anglo-Saxon ratbag elites fit your description, but very few.

If you think about it you must realise that it is those White Anglo-Saxon folk who have done most to reduce the cause & the effect of famines when they happen. In fact it is those same White Anglo-Saxon who have done most to reduce the effect of the other major cause that is warfare. This warfare has been conducted by locals on locals.

Perhaps your ideology is clouding your understanding of the world.

Armchair, yes the earth is greening or so NASA has reported.
Very interesting, this is just what happened when the last cycle had
peaked around 900 to 1100 ad and triggered a growth in agriculture
and development of towns in Europe and a population burst.
It even triggered a movement towards serfdom rather than the Roman
slavery and other tied holdings.
There does seem to be an improvement in conditions every global warming peak.
In the UK the Normans invaded and initiated a burst of development.
We are near the current warming peak so we can expect the same but
our populations are now so much bigger that there may not be room for
a population burst and contraceptives will modify populations.
Still agriculture is reporting record harvests. Hmm bears thinking about !

Hassy,

What can I say, the Bengal famine of 1943 was instigated by the British government of Winston Churchill. The British continued to export grain from India, as a war measure, despite knowing it was causing mass starvation. Between 3 and 6 million Indians died as a result.

Paul1405 Comment1- "There is a school of thought by some on the extreme that the planet is overpopulated by inferior races, blacks, Asians, non-whites etc."

Answer1-

I guess Paul1405 is just another "Population Denier".

Personally I don't think it's generally constructive or useful to say that a "race is inferior" but if Paul1405 wants to use that term- lets look at the evidence. (Not that I trust anything that Paul1405 says.)

If certain cultures, ideologies and ethnicities can't manage themselves doesn't this imply that they are in a sense inferior or deficit- at least at this point in time- the exact reason for the fault might require some investigation.

From memory-
Between 1950 and 2000 India's population increased by 100 Million people every ten years- now stands at about 1.38 Billion people.
China implemented their one child policy in order to curtail massive population increase and now stands at 1.4 Billion people.
Nigeria appears to be growing at an alarming rate with an average of 5 children per woman- Africa apparently has the same population density as the USA but a much lower standard of infrastructure. Population stands about 1.3 Billion.
http://www.macrotrends.net/countries/NGA/nigeria/fertility-rate
There also appear to be issues with population growth in South America.
The worlds population seems to be correlated with Al Gore's- Inconvenient Truth CO2 graph- doesn't necessarily imply causation but it seems likely.

Certain nations that have stabilized their populations are being inundated by immigration pressures- often in the west. Countries such as Japan appear to have stabilized their populations but don't have immigration pressure.

The world population will hit 8 Billion by March 2023.

Paul1405 might try to imply that these discussions are racist- but I suppose that not having these discussions is also racist- Paul1405 seems to have a vendetta against British people- I guess that's racist too. Anyway everyone is probably racist. It demonstrates the uselessness of the label racist. Adam Smith and I are generally happy with people acting in their own self interest.

http://www.news.com.au/national/federal-election/former-prime-minister-john-howard-warns-isolating-pauline-hanson-and-her-supporters-will-get-them-nowhere/news-story/3b92eae510b35bd89cc774e77fda7805

Problems are not going to be solved if lefties keep labelling anyone that disagrees with them as racist- you can hardly believe that communists are loving people that only want everything to be fair and equal- they killed 100 Million people in the name of ideology- and while they may not be racist by the definition of the word- that isn't a consolation to the dead- and it doesn't stop them being hateful and bigotted in their own way at a world champion level. I believe that the communists are some of the most hateful and bigotted on the planet- they will hunt down everyone in the world who disagrees with them until they are "stains in the village square".

We are never going to solve the worlds problems by listening to communists.

I guess Paul1405 is just another "Population Denier".

It's strange that the Greens movement doesn't appear to admit to the danger of massive human populations on the environment or take steps to address it. In finance this is known as a mismatch between a financial stock instrument and the underlying commodity.

I see massive increases in population as an attempt for certain ethnicities and ideologies to dominate resources and land in a multidimensional geo-political landscape.

Paul1405 said- "It's all very simple to people like CM."

Answer- In a sense it is very simple- there are those that admit to the population problem and those that don't.

I've always thought that its just as much about money as anything.
Insurance is bankings little brother.

In the old days these weather events would be covered by insurance, but now they find excuses under 'Climate Change risk) to withhold coverage.

And the other thing is carbon pricing will end up being a global tax on breathing, if its not so already.

Armchair Critic said- If you think about it you must realise that it is those White Anglo-Saxon folk who have done most to reduce the cause & the effect of famines when they happen.

Answer- Thanks for your comments.

Sorry that was meant to be "thanks to Hasbeen" in this case.

Very big of you CM to say it's not constructive to label certain races as "inferior", did I do that, no. Then you went on to give your examples of how "infetior" peoples were failing to manage their population. Then you go on to label me a "population deniest" whatever that is, no I agree the world definatly has a population, can't deny that. What as you see it, is the final solution to this serious problem?

BTW, nothing to say about India 1943. It seemed to be something the Nazi's would be proud of.

An interesting article in 'Nature' magazine....
http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01192-2

Essentially what its saying is that there are too many climate "hot models" being used by the climate community and that this misrepresents the real world situation. "Hot models" are models of future warming that yield results that are significantly hotter than the norm. These models, when checked against the recent past, generally show warming a higher levels than actually occurred. For example, if you ask these models to start in 1970 they will show the world warming faster than it actually did ie they are wrong.

Yet they are still used by climate scientists who try to offset the error by averaging all the models. But if you average a set of models, some of which are "hot", then the resulting average is "hot" also.

The Nature article is trying to get climate scientists to better represent the future and tone down the 'sky is falling' rhetoric.

We all know Paul's historic knowledge is sh!thouse. Thus he asserts.." the Bengal famine of 1943 was instigated by the British government of Winston Churchill. "

That there was a famine is true. That it was instigated by Churchill is rubbish.

Paul probably doesn't realise it, but there was a war going on in 1943....it was in all the papers! Because of the war, there were millions of refugees fleeing the tender mercies of the Japanese army and ending up in India. Many more mouths to feed at a time when all efforts were directed at trying to avoid a Japanese invasion of India. Additionally, the Japanese were torpedoing shipping in the Bay of Bengal and bombing Calcutta.

Add to that, a natural disaster hit India at that same time. An outbreak of rice fungal disease was followed by a cyclone, and three storm surges that killed thousands and spread the fungal disease and malaria.

To be sure, if the British weren't pre-occupied fighting the Japanese they might have been able to handle all this with minimal lost lives. But, did I mention it, there was a war on.

Paul laughingly suggests that the British were shipping food out of India. That's rubbish and is just a case of Paul's inner Marxist speaking. They might not have been importing food in the quantities required (did I mention there was a war on) but they definitely weren't exporting food.

Strangely, Paul seems anxious to talk about this famine. But whenever I mention the proven communist caused famine in Ukraine in 1930, Paul suddenly realises he has an urgent appointment elsewhere and exits the thread.

Thanks mhaze I couldn't be bothered.

mhaze,

It would be interesting to discuss empire, colonialism
and famine from a comparative historical perspective
in regards to the Bengal, Ukrainian, and Irish famines.

http://bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53405121

It appears that the policies of Sir Winston Churchill and
his Cabinet did contribute to the Bengal famine.

nhaze, you certainly are a tosser, I said "war measure" as it has been shown before your comprehension is sh!those. A Pommy Apologist. The Bengsl Famine was all down to the British.

Hassy, still calling for atomic bombs to be dropped on Pakistan, a small bomb dropped on YOU would go well.

Mhaze- I remember someone wrote an article about Mathematicians tend to believe the Maths of the model whereas other researchers include a feedback loop to check for reasonableness. As always "the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness".

http://www.cantorsparadise.com/richard-feynman-on-the-differences-between-mathematics-and-physics-c0847e8a3d75

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/models-science/

As Foxy's article says "A cyclone and flooding in Bengal in 1942 triggered the famine.". It was exacerbated by the influx of millions from Burma seeking refuge from the Japanese.

Could the British government have done more to help? Possibly, its always theoretically possible to do more. But, and I'm not sure if I mentioned this or if you're aware of it, there was a war on.

Nice try mhaze, trying to add your "millions from Burma" nonsense to the facts.

mhaze,

You only quoted a small part of what the link I cited
earlier stated. Yes a cyclone and flooding in Bengal
in 1942 triggered the famine but it was the policies of
Winston Churchill and his Cabinet that are blamed for
making the situation worse. The entire link is worth
a read to grasp and understand the situation - including
Churchill's role in it.

Blamed by who Foxy. Any one blamed by the likes of Paul are likely to be as innocent as the new fallen snow.

I'm no fan of Churchill, I reckon he caused the deaths of as many empire troops as Hitler, but he should only be blamed for what he did, not what ratbag reds & other anti Brits want to blame him for.

Canem Malum: As always "the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness".

That's not what a scientist would say. A claim only requires cleanly collected evidence. There's no sense of evidence having some quality of "extraordinarity" associated with it. And there is no sense of any claim, provided that it can potentially be scientifically falsified, being "strange".
If an experiment produces new clean evidence that is in accordance with a new theory and but contradicts the current theories then it just means current theories are either wrong or insufficient in their descriptions of the real world- but it doesn't mean the new theory is strange or odd.

Eg: if tomorrow a scientist could show with cleanly gathered statistically relevant evidence that some people have telepathic ability then that would settle the claim about whether it exists or not. No scientist would find such a discovery exotic/other worldly strange; if something is capable of being observed then it is a natural phenomena (more or less by definition).
The thing is, that to date, no scientist has yet ever produced such evidence for such a claim. So until someone does then we have no good reason to assign any truth to the claim.

The evidence is over 3 million Indians starved to death in the streets, and a fat drunken Churchill sitting in London. THAT'S THE EVIDENCE!

Hi Hassie,

You ask "blamed by who>"

By reputable historians,
and many Indian people, including British soldiers
and members of the British armed forces.
Read the link I cited earlier. There's many
other links on the web. Google them.

Dear mhaze,

You claim with such surety “Paul laughingly suggests that the British were shipping food out of India. That's rubbish and is just a case of Paul's inner Marxist speaking. They might not have been importing food in the quantities required (did I mention there was a war on) but they definitely weren't exporting food.”

The facts are that in the first 7 months of 1943 70,000 tons of rice were exported from India along with 23,000 tons of wheat.

Homework young chap, homework.

As to our Bill and Ben of climate change deniers both think the greenhouse effect is a myth which allows them to trot off on flights of fantasy about other potential causes.

Just for the record, do you currently and without reservation think the greenhouse effect is real or not?

As to me going through your past posts it only really takes 30 seconds. Do a quick view all and a control f and there we are, your past deeds flagged in all their glory.

Foxy writes: " The entire link is worth
a read to grasp and understand the situation - including
Churchill's role in it."

Yes, but I'm wondering if Foxy actually read the entire link. Here's another section she somehow missed..."he [Churchill] did try to help and delays were a result of conditions during the war."

Interesting? Did I mention there was a war going on at the time? You know, things like millions of refugees fleeing the Japanese army and entering India. Merchant ships being torpedoed. Indian cities being bombed, with the population scattering thus making getting food to them that much more difficult. Oh and Britain's very existence still up for grabs.

Oh and the weather. Cyclones, storm surges. Resulting in a failed Bengal harvest.

Oh and did I mention there was a war going on?

The non-historian will look at an issue and see one aspect of it, generally completely out of context. (eg SR thinks he's found something when he says 23000 tonees of wheat was exported from India, while failing to note or even know that close on 1 million tons were imported from Australia). But true historic research means understanding all the issues of the time and understanding the perspective of the people in that day. Its all very well to say more could have been done. Its entirely different to say how more could have been done under the circumstances.

But lack of perspective gives many people comfort. They think they understand the issue while in fact understanding a minor aspect of it

SR again misses the point.
CO2 does cause warming and the human co2 since the start of the
industrial revolution has caused a 0.1 deg C rise to date.
This all came about due to assuming the rise was all due to the human
burning of fossil fuels. History shows that CO2 has many times been
very mush higher than it is now.
The error has long been shown to be present by Kauppenin and others.
The sensitivity of earth temperature to co2 was set at too high a figure.
Do your Homework quote sr.
The IPCC, governments etc etc Greens etc cannot acknowledge this
problem, just imagine the upheaval, law suites, demonstartions, even
suicides, and all the commitments to global warming laws and money
spent so far if it was all in vain !

IT IS THE SUN STUPID !

mhaze,

You're again looking for an argument.
I made it quite clear that the entire link
needs to be read to understand the situation and Churchill's
role in it. You don't have to try to justify anything.
It's there in the link as well as heaps of others on the web.

SR emotes: "As to our Bill and Ben of climate change deniers both think the greenhouse effect is a myth...."

Yes, I get it SR. They say things you don't want to be true and therefore they must be wrong. You don't know how they're wrong so just assert they are wrong based on what others have told you.

They might be wrong and time will tell. There are hundreds of papers each year that offer critiques of the climate change hysteria and they can't all be right.

SR asks: "Just for the record, do you currently and without reservation think the greenhouse effect is real or not?"

You've never understood the issue, have you? Yes the greenhouse effect is real. Its been real for millions of years. Without the greenhouse effect the earth's average temperature would be minus 20c instead of plus 14c. The natural greenhouse effect is primarily due to water vapour with a little help from CO2, methane etc.

The issue however is whether CO2 alone causes an ENHANCED greenhouse effect. On that I'm more equivocal. The current thinking is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 560ppm will cause an increase in temperature of 1.3c (whereas the paper that has your knickers in a knot says, effectively, 0c). I'm prepared to accept that figure (1.3c) at the moment while noting that it's a guess at best and the guesses have been constantly falling as we better understand the climate, such that it's likely to fall even further with time.

Noting that we are unlikely to even get to a doubling of CO2, 1.3c increases are entirely manageable and not even close to catastrophic.

So I'll answer you question thusly:

Global warming from the greenhouse effect - yes it exists and has done for many millions of years.

Anthropological enhanced GW from CO2 - yes it exists but is minor and nothing to worry about.

Catastrophic anthropological enhanced GW from CO2 - Nup, not going to happen. It's hype as the article I mentioned above points out.

Dear mhaze,

So your categorical statement that:

“they definitely weren't exporting food”.

Has now been reduced to people need: “understanding all the issues of the time and understanding the perspective of the people in that day”.

So no admission you got it abjectly wrong, or misspoke.

Well that really is typical.

And then you have gone and turned yourself in circles.

On Bill and Ben stating the greenhouse effect is a myth they: “say things you don't want to be true and therefore they must be wrong. You don't know how they're wrong so just assert they are wrong based on what others have told you.” ... “They might be wrong and time will tell.”

Then in the next paragraph you basically call them out yourself: “Yes the greenhouse effect is real. Its been real for millions of years.”

Finally you opine: “The issue however is whether CO2 alone causes an ENHANCED greenhouse effect.”

But it isn't for Bill and Ben is it. They are most adamant that it is a myth. Why then are you giving them any credibility when they can't get past even this basic bit of acknowledged science?

Dear Bazz,

You claim: “CO2 does cause warming and the human co2 since the start of the industrial revolution has caused a 0.1 deg C rise to date.”

Do you just make these things up as you go? No, it has risen about 10 times that.

This is direct from the IPCC report:

“Human-induced warming reached approximately 1°C (likely between 0.8°C and 1.2°C) above pre-industrial levels in 2017, increasing at 0.2°C (likely between 0.1°C and 0.3°C) per decade (high confidence).”
http://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-1/

Please stop writing nonsense.

Standard SR. Parsing ever word to try and find some ambiguity to exploit.

So let me clarify. The small exports of food from India was dwarfed by the imports. There was no net export of food. There was massive net import of food.

As to the climate issue where you continue to demonstrate a lack of understanding...yes I think there is a small contribution by CO2 to the small increases in temperatures seen in the past 150 years and the paper that so vexes you argues that there is no contribution. But unlike you I'm open to being convinced that my views are wrong and that indeed increases in CO2 make no contribution to temperatures . So we'll see how their thesis stands up to scrutiny and experimentation over the next few years.

That's how science works. The idea that increased CO2 levels are a major contribution to global warming is a theory that is being tested. People like SR think its settled science or more like a religion and that any deviation from that belief is heresy to be shouted down.

That might just make some sense if the SR's of the world actually understood the science. But alas....

In the years around the Bengali Famine, Australia exported some 4million tons of wheat but only sent 1 million to India.

So obviously Curtin is personally responsible for every one of the deaths in India.

What's that you say? There was a war on. Well I don't really think that makes any difference. Curtin should have just pretended there was no war and sent all the food India needed.

</sarc>

From the IPCC report, indeed.
Well maybe they are right, but some scientists are saying they got it wrong.
No one that is pushing AGW wants to even consider it.
The big worry is that this is the eighth known warming cycle and
the present one is right on time +- a couple 100 years.
Still in 50 years time it will be obvious who is right but I won't be
here to say I told you so !

Mhaze said:Noting that we are unlikely to even get to a doubling of CO2, 1.3c increases are entirely manageable and not even close to catastrophic.

That is another point I don't get, 1.3 is not much at all.
Not even a hot day !
Climer says historically it would be great news !
I suspect, must look for this, the normal cycle range would be more
than 1.3 deg. Certainly looks like that range from Maunder Minimum
to today.

mhaze, stop lying, no Australian wheat was exported to Bengal as you claim. YOU MADE IT UP to suit your far right racists agenda.

Paul tells me Curtin was even more responsible for the Bengali deaths than I thought. As people died, Curtin didn't lift a finger, according to Paul, by sending any wheat their way. Why are Labor leaders such bastards! :)

In fact, as usual, Paul is wrong. In 1943-44 Australia exported about 4million tons of wheat, of which 900,000 tons went to India.

mhaze, nice bit of Goebbelism on your part, "repeat the BIG lie often enough, and people will believe it", you do it all the time. Reading about the Bengal Famine of 1943, there is a specific statement that Australian wheat WAS NOT exported to Bengal. The deaths of a few million non-white Indian would not concern you, any more than it concerned the racists Churhill at the time.

SR, yes I said co2 caused the rise of 0.1c and you said IPCC said
it was 10 times that.
It is the 9 parts that is what the dispute is about.
It does seem that it is due to cloud variation caused by the Sun and
solar discharges by sunspots varying the entry of cosmic rays which
cause the 1000 year approx variable length cycle which has been known for centuries.
Face it, the settled science is changing.
The IPCC has no choice but to ignore it.
How could they possibly come out now and say;

"Errr we got it completely wrong !"

Think of the repercussions !

Dear Bazz,

When the guru of climate deniers Roy Spencer says they are talking out their arses then these two clowns with their Phds in Forestry really shouldn't be occupying your time. Leave that to hasbeens like Hasbeen.

"Needless to say, Nikolov and Zeller’s work has been heavily criticized by climate change alarmists and skeptics alike. Skeptical climate scientist Roy Spencer, who has a PhD in meteorology, argues that compression of the atmosphere can’t explain greenhouse heating, because Earth’s average surface temperature is determined not by air pressure, but by the rates at which energy is gained or lost by the surface.

Spencer argues that, if atmospheric pressure causes the lower troposphere (the lowest layer of the atmosphere) to be warmer than the upper troposphere, then the same should be true of the stratosphere, where the pressure at the bottom of the stratosphere is about 100 times larger than that at the top. Yet the bottom of the stratosphere is cooler than the top.

In a reply, Nikolov and Zeller fail to address Spencer’s stratosphere argument, but attempt to defend their work by claiming incorrectly that Spencer ignores the role of adiabatic processes and focuses instead on diabatic radiative processes. Adiabatic processes alter the temperature of a gaseous system without any exchange of heat energy with its surroundings."

http://www.scienceunderattack.com/blog/https/wwwscienceunderattackcom/blog/2020/8/10/challenges-to-the-co2-global-warming-hypothesis-3-the-greenhouse-effect-doesnt-exist-58

Of course there will be arguments along the line you express.
However you cannot ignore the historical record of previous
warmings. This one is right on schedule.
The earths greening and agricultural well being are repeating the
Roman and Medieval cycles.
If the temperature stops rising in the next ten years it will be time
to look for a fall in temperature.
I won't be here to say I told you so unfortunately.

Thinkabit- In answer to your comments on the quote "the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness". The quote was from 1700's Polymath Laplace and paraphrased by Physicist Carl Sagan. There are philosophies of science including those by Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend that try to explain how science is or should be conducted. Popper talked about falsifiability. Sometimes in science there are apparent contradictions- like Newtons first law- prior scientists believed that force was required for motion. Kuhn talked about scientific agreement. Statistics is an interesting case in science- there are many cases of fraud. One of the principles of empirical science is that the experiment is repeatable. The quote I believe is meant to serve as a warning to those that would attempt to introduce a new theory that is inconsistent with the massive corpus surrounding. Your comments appear to relate to empirical as opposed to theoretical science- I'm not sure I'm really qualified to talk about the relationship between the two- but it seems to be between "the what" and "the why". Science in a sense isn't about finding "the truth"- but in finding a "better truth". Schoepenhauer talked about the four fold root of reason and the nature and danger of cross domain knowledge. Science can easily cross into scientism. Complex phenomena are less predictable than simpler- the three body problem is considered unsolvable. Population models track changes with growth rate, periodicity and chaos.

http://webserv.jcu.edu/math/Vignettes/population.htm

http://youtu.be/TcmKy6wzbZo

Fish fossils found in Sahara
The planet follows cycles, due to the earths tilt.

Dear Bazz,

Mate I have taken a little stroll though some of your posts on this matter.

In 2007 you were saying “To be worrying about global warming is pointless.
The real problem is the peaking of oil production.” which you said would happen within the next 10 years severely cutting emissions.

Later that year you were claiming: “It appears the IPCC study and projections assumed that there would be unrestricted access to oil, gas and coal and also assumed growth continuing at the present rate. However these assumptions are incorrect and there will not be anywhere near enough CO2 generated to match the IPCCs model projections.” Didn't happen.

By 2009 you were claiming: “Whats wrong with the ETS ? It is redundant, that is what is wrong. Global warming is over, it is a none event now.” Didn't happen.


In mid 2010 it was: “Global warming will not be the problem many expect due to contraction in the economy.” Didn't happen or at least was only temporary.

Then: “The projections of the IPCC for fossil fuel use in coming years has been shown to be inaccurate and too high.” No they weren't.

Right though your message has been: “More time wasting argument. It does not matter whether global warming is true or not !” (2016)

In 2020 you said: “Global warming arrived on schedule with a peak around 2000 and will be with us for a 100 years or so. Then will slowly fall till the Londoners are again skating on the Thames in about 250 years time.”

But it didn't peak did it.

Now you are saying: “If the temperature stops rising in the next ten years it will be time to look for a fall in temperature.”

So we have been getting these long series of failed predictions. Why is your current stance any different?

Paul tells me he's been reading (wow!) and Australia didn't send wheat to India, despite being asked to. What he's been reading is a mystery.

But essentially what Paul is saying is that Australia, under the Curtin Labor government, despite having millions of tons of surplus wheat for export, refused to send any to India and are therefore responsible for the famine.

Paul must really hate the Curtin government.

Steel said;

In 2007 you were saying “To be worrying about global warming is pointless.
The real problem is the peaking of oil production.” which you said would happen within the next 10 years severely cutting emissions.

>>> Well, I got that right didn't I; Peak Crude Oil ocurred in 2005.
Why do you think the oil companies are planning their exit from the oil industry ?

Later that year you were claiming: “It appears the IPCC study and projections assumed that there would be unrestricted access to oil, gas and coal and also assumed growth continuing at the present rate. However these assumptions are incorrect and there will not be anywhere near enough CO2 generated to match the IPCCs model projections.” Didn't happen.

>>> What do you think is going on in the energy industry now ?

By 2009 you were claiming: “Whats wrong with the ETS ? It is redundant, that is what is wrong. Global warming is over, it is a none event now.” Didn't happen.

>>> Don't remember what the ets is, but looking more and more likely
that global warming might be over as it seems that the warming might have peaked either in the late 1990s or early 2000s.
The peak might be 100 years wide.

To be continued

Continued
In mid 2010 it was: “Global warming will not be the problem many expect due to contraction in the economy.” Didn't happen or at least was only temporary.

>>> Well that was before covirus and I said "many expect" but the economy did hang on.

Then: “The projections of the IPCC for fossil fuel use in coming years has been shown to be inaccurate and too high.” No they weren't.

>>> Thats right they were not too high but coal use is increasing
but oil consumption is restricted, hence the rush to electric cars.

Right though your message has been: “More time wasting argument. It does not matter whether global warming is true or not !” (2016)

>>> Yes that is still a true statement.

In 2020 you said: “Global warming arrived on schedule with a peak around 2000 and will be with us for a 100 years or so. Then will slowly fall till the Londoners are again skating on the Thames in about 250 years time.”
But it didn't peak did it.

>>> Certainly looks like it did, but will not know for certain
for another 50 years.

Now you are saying: “If the temperature stops rising in the next ten years it will be time to look for a fall in temperature.”

>>> Yes, that is still right. It took the Vikings a hundred years
or so before they finally decided to leave Greenland in the 1400s.

So we have been getting these long series of failed predictions. Why is your current stance any different?

>>> Basically it isn't any different. keep watching !
I still think that the basic theory that these cycles of global
warming are due to the various effects of the sun and that we are
near the peak temperature is correct. It is just conceit that makes
man think he can control the universe.

ITS THE SUN STUPID !

Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 10 May 2022 10:25:04 AM

mhaze, you would do well to read, instead you make things up to suit your narrative, well done Mr Goebbels. You make claims but provide no evidence of wheat exports from Australia to Bengal in 1943.

Dear Bazz,

You claim: “Well, I got that right didn't I; Peak Crude Oil ocurred in 2005”

Well no it didn't. In 2005 global oil production was 81,895,000 barrels per day.

From there it climbed every year from then except for 2010 during the GFC and 2020 due to the pandemic. In 2019 it was 94,961,000 so well over 10% from your so called peak.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/265203/global-oil-production-since-in-barrels-per-day/#:~:text=Global%20oil%20production%20in%20barrels%201998%2D2020&text=The%20level%20of%20oil%20production,at%20around%2095%20million%20barrels.

Read what I said again and think of fracking.
Study what that means and think again.

Pretty funny Paul. You demand evidence while refusing to provide any yourself. I think we all know why.

Still, to show you how its done....
http://www.countercurrents.org/polya290911.htm

Like Paul, the article is very critical of the Curtin government and thinks it was extremely racist. But even then it admits that "a maximum of 0.9 million tonnes of Australian wheat made it to starving India in the key famine years of 1943-1944."

Dear Bazz,

Let's not get diverted.

You claimed Peak Crude Oil was reached in 2005.

"Peak oil is the moment at which extraction of petroleum reaches a rate greater than that at any time in the past and starts to permanently decrease." Wikipedia

It hasn't permanently decreased from 2005 has it. Rather it has increased in a constant manner.

Are you prepared to concede this point or not?

SR/Bazz

Just to help your conversation move along....

Bazz is talking about Peak CRUDE oil as opposed to Peak Oil. By this he means that the extraction of conventional oil peaked even while unconventional oil (ie fracked oil) took up the slack.

I've never bothered to look into the accuracy of that claim. Could be true. Could be false. Almost certainly irrelevant.

mhaze, if it was false, you would make it true, just as you did about Australian wheat for the starving millions in Bengal 1943. IT NEVER HAPPENED! See you offered no evidence.

Paul whines "See you offered no evidence.[ that Australia exported wheat to India in 1943]".

Of course, just yesterday I provided a small part of the wealth of evidence for it. But somehow Paul decided to not see it. For Paul the truth is what you want it to be, irrespective of the actual truth. Sad.

mhaze, from your link;

"In 1944 Churchill revealed his complicity in the mass murder of 7 million Indians in a secret letter to Roosevelt (the only document I have been able to find in which Churchill actually refers to the Bengal Famine):"

"By cutting down military shipments and other means, I (Churhill) have been able to arrange for 350,000 tons of wheat to be shipped to India from Australia during the first nine months of 1944.".."Churchill vetoed the offer of 10,000 tons of wheat from Canada"

None of that wheat made its way into Bengal.

mhaze,

You need to read your own link that you gave us -
in its entirety. Dr Gideon Polya makes it quite
clear that:

"India contributed an army of 2.4 million men
to assist the British war effort in WWII.
However India was rewarded by a British imposed
Bengal Famine (Bengali Holocaust, Indian Holocaust)
that killed 6-7 million Indians in Bengal, Assam,
Bihar, and Orissa in the period 1942-1945."

"Australia was a major supplier of wheat but DELIBERATELY
BY-PASSED STARVING INDIA, this boasting British food
stocks and wheat was evidently a starvation-based military
strategy to protect Japanese advance into Bengal."

There's more at:

http://countercurrents.org/polya290911.htm

If you want to talk about India starving, then maybe we should look at the current global crisis, India has been trying to ramp up wheat production by 220%, they are the worlds second largest wheat producer, and the 10 largest importers of Indian wheat are Bangladesh, Nepal, UAE, Sri Lanka, Yemen, Afghanistan, Qatar, Indonesia, Oman and Malaysia.
Some of these countries are talking about having food shortages shortly, and because of the war in Ukraine as well as heatwaves and fires which have destroyed crops India is now considering restricting wheat exports and keeping it for their own domestic use.

http://english.alarabiya.net/business/economy/2022/05/04/India-considers-restricting-wheat-exports-as-severe-heat-destroys-crops

If you think the people of Ukraine are suffering, all because the US wanted to overthrow the country, and join NATO to 'GET RUSSIA', a situation that Russia openly stated was a Red-Line, then maybe you should think of the millions of people who will soon be starving and be in famine in these other countries.

Millions are going to die, including kids who will grow up sick and malnourished, if they're lucky.
So all you people who support the 'GET PUTIN' agenda, sending millions of our taxpayers dollars to continue a stupid war of the Wests design, think about the millions of people who will soon starve.

http://youtu.be/z_wv9xZpPhA

Some people here are idiots who beat the drums of war against Putin, but cannot see the bigger picture of what they're supporting.
I wonder how many of the people with the 'GET PUTIN' mindset will send aid money to these countries so they can eat?

Mhaze, yes exactly. If you look into the oil fracking business you find
plenty of bankruptcies. Fracking wells seldom last longer than three
years and barely repay their loans.
It is an old technique that was woken up after 2008 when the price
reached $US114.
There was in fact a short crude oil peak after 2005, from memory about
2012.
Nevertheless the upshot is the industry is now winding down, using up
its existing assets and planning for the next 20 years.
There will always be some oil production because it is need for
medical plastics, plastics generally and possibly some lubricants.
The switch to electric cars will impose almost impossible loads on
a renewable system. There are today 20,000 electric cars on the road
in Australia. A large majority will charge about four nights a week
on off peak power. As the number increase perhaps the off peak time
will be removed to be shoulder or peak rates.
Anyway it goes there are big changes ahead.

Foxy,

Its never a good idea to walk in half way through a discussion and assume you know what it is about.

I'm aware of what the article I linked says.

BUT the issue is that Paul was declare up-hill and down that no Aussie wheat got to India in the period, whereas the article has figures which clearly shows that Paul's claims are, like all of Paul's claims, rubbish.

So rather than admonishing me to read my link, can I suggest you read the earlier posts.

What these figures also show is that Australia could have given more but elected not to and/or determined that it couldn't do it for logistic reasons. Because, (and I'm not sure if I mentioned this previously) there was war on.

The curious part is that Paul et al want to heap blame on Churchill for failing to ignore the war during the famine, but wouldn't for a second apply the same standards to Curtin. Truly it is said that if they didn't have double standards they'd have no standards at all.

mhaze,

I was not admonishing you but merely suggesting
that you read your entire link again and perhaps
try to understand the situation from more than one
side of the coin. Dr Gideon Polya in your link does hold
the British leader responsible for Bengal's state in 1943
and also tells us that Australia was a major supplier
of wheat but that it deliberately by-passed
starving India - which was evidently a starvation based
military strategy to prevent Japanese advance into Bengal.

Shashi Tharoor in his book "Inglorious Empire," claims
that as the famine ravaged through Bengal, Churchill
diverted food rations to Greece and other countries.
He blames Churchill for the deaths in Bengal.

Journalist Madhushree Mukherjee in her book, "Churchill's
Secret War" was sending food to war-stricken Britain and
other countries and denying access to Bengal.

And so it goes.

Each country has their own heroes and villains - To the
British - Churchill was a hero - to the Indian people -
apparently not - depending on which version you
read and how deeply you study the events that happened
and the reasons behind them. Yes there was a war on -
India contributed an army of 2.4 million men to assist
the British war effort in WWII. However India was rewarded
by a British imposed Bengal famine that killed 6-7 million
Indians in the period of 1942-1945 - and that needs to
not be wiped from the history books nor brushed aside -
with the excuse that "there was a war on."

Trying to understand why this happened would help.

Yes Foxy, I'm well aware that there are lots of people who blame Churchill for the famine. And there are lots of people who don't. And there are an even greater number who realise (and stop me if I've mentioned this before) who realise that there was a war on.

But that wasn't the point at issue. The point being disputed was whether Aussie wheat went to India in 1943. I'm happy to discuss other issues with you but if you read the earlier part of this thread you might see that those issues were indeed canvassed and I don't know what more I could say to assist your understanding.

In the meantime, would you mind just pointing out to poor ol' Paul that the numbers do indeed show that some Aussie wheat went to India.

Scomo destroyed our coal industry when it picked a fight with China during the pandemic.
Remember he placed tariffs on China in regards to the origins of COVID, and China cancelled buying coal from Australia?

But Albanese is even worse.
This is how out of touch he is.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/feb/29/anthony-albanese-denounces-lazy-cynicism-of-nationals-in-appeal-to-nsw-coal-country

In an address to the country Labor conference in Singleton on Saturday, the Labor leader will blast the Nationals for engaging in “lazy cynicism” and for selling out regional communities by opposing action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Labor want's to destroy coal.

Federal Nationals have been out since Labor announced it would adopt the mid-century net zero target, claiming that shift would spell the death of agriculture. But a former deputy leader of the NSW Nationals, Niall Blair, said this week the target Labor adopted would provide a great opportunity for the agricultural sector in Australia to diversify and thrive.

'diversify and thrive'

newspeak for - 'You're all stuffed'.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/may/04/in-hunter-where-coal-is-king-a-labor-heartland-seat-faces-a-strong-coalition-challenge

>>On a three-day trip to Hunter in March, Guardian Australia finds a region fretting about its future. Questions about coal’s future or the closure of mines elicits anxiety from some (“We won’t have a population,” warns Dave) and excitement from others; talk of climate change leads to concern about kids’ futures from some, concern about job prospects from others.
“You can throw climate change out the window,” says Lincoln, sipping a schooner of Toohey’s New in the sun outside Singleton’s Imperial Hotel. “This is a mining town. The boys and ladies here, they dig coal. That’s what we do.”<<

https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/bleak-outlook-for-australian-coal-exports-to-china

>>Lead author of the study and energy economist Dr Jorrit Gosens said the modelling shows major coal exporters like Australia would feel the biggest losses from the changes.
"Our findings are clear: Beijing's plans for rapid decarbonisation and energy security signal the end for Australia's current coal export boon," Dr Gosens said.<<

All these incompetent morons do is destroy the country, each side taking turns in a race to the bottom.

Thanks Foxy, fair and balanced as usual. thumbs up.

mhaze, you refer to India, and are careful not to mention "Wheat to Bengal", btw, Bengal was what is present-day Bangladesh, you probably don't know that, so a bit of geography for you. Yes a small amount of Australian wheat was delivered to India, about 2% of their requirements, none of which reached the State of Bengal, which was in famine. SHOW EVIDENCE OF AUSTRALIAN WHEAT BEING EXPORTED TO BENGAL. There was a deliberate policy of the British government to withhold grain supplies to Bengal. Yes, the British reasoning was related to the war, but I hasten to add, would the British have been so callous had it involved the starvation of millions of Anglo-Saxon's, me thinks not.

Thank You Paul.

I think you've covered the topic rather well.

Have you read any of the books - "Inglorious
Empire" or "Churchill's Secret War?

Hi Foxy,

I've read 'Inglorious Empire' and a couple of books on Churchill. One of the most fascinating characters of the 20th century, without a doubt was old Winston. They just don't turn out people like that these days, maybe that's a good thing, history will be the judge of today's lot.

Armchair; China had blackouts because the power stations ran out of
coal so they had to dock and unload some of those ships anchored off.
Coal is a global market, so China bought coal elsewhere and elswhere's
customers bought coal from Australia and or somewhere else.
What I would like to know is how many cargoes were sold while the
ship was at sea ? It would be interesting to track some of these ships.
There seems to be a realisation that the whole wind and solar is a very
expensive way to generate electricity especially if you want it to be
available 100% of the time.
Looks like the British are going to abandon the whole idea.
A country as small as Britain had no hope of making it work especially
with their weather reputation.
Australia might just make it work as the country is big enough to
find enough wind systems at any one instant. However the duplication
required to take advantage of that is the financial killer.
Then to use it you need the CSIRO's $Trillion grid all over Australia.
Then there is the waste problem of disposing of 100,000s of dud solar panels,
Then there is the waste problem of disposing of failed turbine blades.
Hopeless really.

PAul wrote:"Yes a small amount of Australian wheat was delivered to India"

Mhaze sighs...."Finally".

Good job mhaze. Not that my opinion matters - they should have rationed Calcutta.

mhaze, you fell into a hole with your claim that Australian wheat was delivered to India. Political considerations by the British government prevented famine relief from being delivered to Bengal, when it could have been. The result of British government action was the deaths of millions. Have I mentioned Bengal was what is now present day Bangladesh, you probably don't know that, they're all Indians to you.

To give you some understanding, imagine a famine in Tasmania, a small amount of Canadian fish, about 2% of the entire nations requirements, is delivered into the port of Gladstone, btw Gladstone is in Qld, a long way from Tasmania. The Argentinean government which controls Australia, including the state of Tasmania, prevents that fish, and any other imported fish from reaching Tasmania, where the famine is, because they fear an invasion of Tasmania by the penguins from Antarctica. The Argentinian government through their action of denying Tasmanian's fish consign million to a death by starvation. No fish ever crosses Bass Strait.

Your "wheat to India", may as well have been, "wheat to Bongostan", it was irreverent.

Paul wrote: "you fell into a hole with your claim that Australian wheat was delivered to India. "

But yesterday you admitted that Aussie wheat did indeed go to India. What a berk!

mhaze, this might come as a complete surprise to you but the BENGAL FAMINE was in BENGAL, no Australian wheat was exported to BENGAL, haven't I told you BENGAL was where present day Bangladesh is. Maybe you can claim Australian wheat was exported to Uzbekistan in 1943, just as relevant. What a pillock!

Half of the food we eat grows only because of fossil fuels. Natural gas is used to convert carbon dioxide, hydrogen and nitrogen to urea. Wheat yields have tripled over the last 60 years because of it.

Gas, coal and oil are necessary to feed people. We can't go back to manure to produce food efficiently and abundantly.

Sri Lanka has given it a go. Their President wanted 100% organic farming. Within 6 months rice production fell by 20%, and shops had to ration Sri Lanka's staple diet.

The government backed down; the President resigned in disgrace, and chemical fertilisers are back. But, in the short time without them, the decline in food and cash crops has led to a "full blown crisis" in Sri Lanka. Being forced to switch to organic farming "all of a sudden" has left farmers "with no money", and "made survival very difficult".

National Party politician, Matt Canavan, warns that we will be in the same boat as Sri Lanka if we continue down the "naive net zero" path written by people who have no idea how food is grown". ('Net Zero nightmare', Matt Canavan, 14/5/22)

ttbn,
If thats what Matt Canavan really believes, it just goes to show he's an idiot unfit for his job! Urea isn't the only nitrogen fertiliser, but that's moot because UREA CAN BE PRODUCED INDUSTRIALLY WITHOUT USING FOSSIL FUELS.

Aidan,

Yes, urea can be produced from renewable energy, but for a higher price. If you make it expensive then people will starve. The disaster that Sri Lanka went through happened because the PM banned chemical fertilisers without consultation, then ignored the protests about the decision. You can be as organic as you like, but if the nutrients aren't there the plants wont grow.

I feel that Australia is making a big mistake with its renewable energy push, and critics are being dismissed as climate catastrophe denialists. Europe is facing problems implementing renewable energy, and the UK is abandoning renewables developing nuclear power, as is France. I am concerned that Australia may suffer considerable economic harm because of predictions of what things might be like in fifty years.

Oh, and here is an example of a fertilizer plant using green hydrogen. What a joke:

https://reneweconomy.com.au/why-strike-energys-fast-tracked-urea-plant-is-latest-example-of-hydrogen-greenwashing/

The use of nuclear power for ammonia generation does make sense as the power supply is reliable and continuous, with a plant life easily exceeding 60 years, compared with about 25 years for wind and solar. Why are the greenies so dismissive of this form of low carbon energy generation when the world is supposedly on the brink of catastrophe?

Thanks, Fester

"Overwhelmingly, the urea plant will be supplied by fossil gas ....".

Of course, it's a waste of time arguing with people constantly nagging others to believe the science, when they rely on ideology themselves. That's why I routinely ignore them. They have the right to freedom of thought and opinion, but encouraging them by responding to them only makes them rattier.