JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Poll shows Australians are more skeptical of extreme drought, flood and fire voodoo

The message that CO2 causes fires, floods, storms, reef damage and refugees is wearing off

What a problem for the vested interests — it’s their main propaganda message.

It’s witchcraft:

When the witchdoctors ran out of long term trends and supporting evidence they started blaming every storm on CO2. It was a sign of desperation. In more respectable days they would say these were “weather” not climate trends. Storms, floods, droughts and fires are caused by many variables, none of which the climate modelers can predict even ten days in advance. Furthermore, huge 1 in 100 year events need a thousand years of data (at least) before we could pretend to have even a hint of statistical significance that they are not just natural events which have always happened and always will.

About 10% more Australians have woken up

New polling shows that about 1 in ten Australians that used to find this witchcraft convincing are smelling a rat and don’t believe it anymore. Back in 2015 when IPSOS asked the exact same climate change question 62% of Australians thought that climate change was already causing more droughts. Now after a vast drought, it’s only 52%.  In 2015, 61% of Australians thought CO2 made bushfires worse, now it’s only 48%. Then, 57% thought climate change impacted on sea level rise, now it’s only 44%. Where 62% thought climate change made storms worse, now it’s only 48%. These are big changes in just 4 years.

It was a loaded question anyway:

In how many years, if at all, do you think climate change will cause the following?

In 2019, most Australians don’t think climate change is already causing more extreme fires, storms, floods, reef damage, sea level rise, extinction or more heat deaths. On pretty much every factor below, except droughts, less than half of respondents believe climate change is already causing it.

So Australians are increasingly over it, weary of ridiculous claims

Climate Change, graph, IPSOS poll, Australia, drought, fire, flood, opinion 2019.

Question: In how many years, if at all, do you think climate change will cause the following in Australia?

Belief is a fragile thing

Remember, every night on the ABC and every day in the SMH and The Age Australians are told that floods, fires, fish, crocodiles and everything else can be attributed to climate change. Imagine if they heard an alternate view — how fast would the faith crash? These numbers would plummet.

Belief in 2015:

Notice that IPSOS published more information back then. Now they don’t say how many people think it “won’t cause” or “don’t know”.  Hiding something?  IPSOS are supposed to be impartial, instead it looks like they will sell their reputation to the highest bidder.

IPSOS poll

Revive that forgotten history!

The message for skeptics here is that pointing to past storms, floods, fires and droughts is working. Dig out those stories of extreme weather from Trove and historic archives. Keep reminding people that in Australia, 50 degree super hot days happened many times in the 1800s, the worst fires were in 1851, the worst heatwave was in 1896, terrible storms happened in 1967, 1945 and 1925 and 1974.  The worst superstorms have happened every 200 years for last 5000. The worst storm in all history was probably in the UK in 1703. Storms trends are not worse. The worst droughts were 1000 years ago.

Can people from other countries compile a short list with links of your worst floods, fires, droughts, storms and heatwaves? That’s a resource every nation or region needs. I want to set up a reference list.

I’m also interested in quotes from scientists in the 1990s and 2000s who said sensible things about extreme weather and how much we understood the causes.

 


VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (71 votes cast)
Poll shows Australians are more skeptical of extreme drought, flood and fire voodoo, 9.6 out of 10 based on 71 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/y6rsf3mc

152 comments to Poll shows Australians are more skeptical of extreme drought, flood and fire voodoo

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    “Do not pay attention to the man behind the curtain!”

    Wizard of Oz
    “Wizard of Oz”

    211

    • #
    • #
      Geoff

      I thought it was ALL caused by Donald Trump. Now we are expected to believe its CO2? Its Trump. Always has been. He is at least 200 years old and has fathered most of the Republican party, even while being a paid up member of the Democrats. This is an agreed fact supported by 97% of all scientists. Trump has 100 million children. All vote for him as he pays them all to do so. How could a minute gas affect the vote? That would be stupid. The only way of fixing this is a reset. Reduce the atmospheric CO2 to below 150 ppm and ALL Trunp’s children will asphyxiate. Then the elite, educated inners can rule forever!

      260

  • #
    el gordo

    I pulled this from one of Jo’s links.

    ‘By their reckoning the 12th Century in Australia was a shocker with 80% of it spent in drought conditions. Things weren’t so bad from 1260 – 1860, at least, as far as they can tell.’

    It was the Medieval Warm Period and by 1250 AD global cooling had begun. This would indicate more La Nina during the Little Ice Age.

    150

  • #

    So one starts with a slack, pre-charged, almost undefinable term like “climate change” and then one makes a string of suggestions, all emotive, guaranteed to be affected by season or latest event.

    Hmmm. Let me try a survey…

    True or false: Push polls are a) cr@tinous b) imbe$ilic c) the outgrowth of a totally dud education system d) kind of evil e) definitely evil f) mental botox

    I thought I’d leave out all the boxes for ticking so I could just write the result I wanted anyway.

    250

  • #
    PeterFitzroy

    What happened to the 2017 survey?

    39

    • #
      el gordo

      Is this true, not true, don’t know?

      ‘After decades of uncertainty, it now seems clear that global warming will enhance both the amplitude and the frequency of climate phenomena known as eastern Pacific El Niño events, with widespread climatic consequences.’

      Nature

      61

      • #
        AndyG55

        WRONG, they have it bas-ackwards again…

        the amplitude and frequency of El Ninos from solar energy entering the oceans and circulating is what has caused the TINY AMOUNT of warming seen in the only viable untampered data over the last 40 years.

        There is NO EVIDENCE that human released atmospheric CO2 causes any warming of the planet..

        141

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        BOM also say the same thing. In fact if you look at the last 3 el Nino’s that trend is very pronounces. However, if you include the monster 1997/8 event, the picture is less clear.

        211

        • #
          el gordo

          So you accept the proposition that El Nino frequency and amplitude will increase going forward? This assumes a lot and I honestly don’t believe an increase in CO2 can impact ENSO behaviour.

          This is similar to the debate on the Walker Circulation, in the end they decided it was an independent natural variable unaffected by AGW.

          120

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            I certainly do el gordo, what I’ve never been able to find is an explanation as to why the 1997/8 event was so big.
            I would love to find a cause, which explained the 1997/8 event as well as the following ones, which are all smaller, but have a growing trend

            37

            • #
              AndyG55

              “I’ve never been able to find is an explanation as to why the 1997/8 event was so big.”

              Then you should look at the strong series of solar cycles leading up to the 1979 and 1998 El Ninos.

              Maybe then you will have a CLUE..

              until then, yes, I expect you will remain CLUELESS.

              131

              • #
                R2Dtoo

                I haven’t seen an explanation for the 1970s “step-change” in Pacific temps, the persistent “hot spot” off the coast of BC/NW USA, or the “ridiculously persistent ridge” associated with the hot spot. If CO2 triggered such things, and if it is increasing linearly, and if it is “well-mixed”, how can it cause step changes rather than gradual change? Also, how can these things change back once established. Just an old man musing.

                140

            • #
              skeptikal

              El Nino is not a single component event. There are several components and when they all trigger simultaneously you get a big event.

              80

            • #
              el gordo

              The 1997-98 El Nino was the strongest in a century and the science isn’t settled on what triggers it.

              http://www.plateclimatology.com/further-proof-el-nios-are-fueled-by-deepsea-geological-heat-flow

              60

              • #
                AndyG55

                One thing can be absolutely certain, and that is the energy released DID NOT come from human released atmospheric CO2.

                131

              • #
                el gordo

                Yeah, but Fitz is making the point that the El Nino during the hiatus have been amplified.

                Do we have any evidence to dispute this theory?

                10

            • #
              RicDre

              “I’ve never been able to find is an explanation as to why the 1997/8 event was so big.”

              Part of of the problem may be that if you live in the imaginary world of linear “forcings” it will be really hard to explain things that happen in the real world of non-linear, chaotic change.

              110

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                So it was just random?

                30

              • #
                AndyG55

                yep, TOTALLY natural.

                40

              • #
                el gordo

                Ian Wilson’s lunar hypothesis is still holding up, this from Tallbloke’s Talkshop in 2014.

                ‘This study is still a work in progress but already we can make some interesting predictions, which if fulfilled would reinforce the claim that El Nino events are triggered by the Moon.

                ‘The first prediction is that because we are currently in a 31 year Full Moon Epoch for El Nino events. Hence, there should be heightened probability of experiencing a strong El Nino in the following years:

                2015-2016
                2019-2020 and
                2024

                ‘as these are the years where the lunar line-of-apse aligns with the Sun at the times of the Equinoxes.’

                10

              • #
                ricdre

                “So it was just random?”

                No, not random, but rather the result of a non-linear, chaotic system. A non-liner chaotic system is 100% deterministic and predictable provided you know the initial conditions to the last decimal point and your model is a 100% accurate. If not, things will happen in the system that your model will be unable to predict.

                10

            • #
              el gordo

              ‘I would love to find a cause, which explained the 1997/8 event …’

              If you look back to the 1870s there maybe a clue, similarities in the mechanism.

              ‘….to investigate the underlying mechanisms driving its multiyear persistence. Severe or record-setting droughts occurred on continents in both hemispheres and in multiple seasons, with the “Monsoon Asia” region being the hardest hit, experiencing the single most intense and the second most expansive drought in the last 800 years.

              ‘The extreme severity, duration, and extent of this global event is associated with an extraordinary combination of preceding cool tropical Pacific conditions (1870–76), a record-breaking El Niño (1877–78), a record strong Indian Ocean dipole (1877), and record warm North Atlantic Ocean (1878) conditions.’

              Singh 2018

              30

        • #
          AndyG55

          Yep, and not one of those El Ninos has one single little bit of human causation.

          They are TOTALLY NATURAL.

          Nothing to do with atmospheric CO2 whatsoever.

          I suspect you are well aware of that by now, pfutz.

          141

        • #
          Travis T. Jones

          Climate experts at the BoM have very good data on the dominant influence of ENSO on Australia’s climate.

          It causes droughts and floods and changes ocean temperatures.

          Why anyone believes the carbon dioxide scam is beyond me …

          http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/images/El-Nino-in-Australia.pdf

          h/t andy oz@twitter

          60

    • #
      AndyG55

      People are waking up and starting to realise the whole anti-CO2 agenda is a FARCE and a SCAM.

      In many cases, FACTS and the TRUTH are causing people to realise they have been CONNED.

      Looks like the brain-washing is losing its effectiveness, and people are slowly waking up to reality.

      After being here for a while, even YOU must have learnt enough to have realised that this mythical “climate change” (as in warming by human CO2) is a total and absolute LOAD OF BOLLOCKS

      … and the correct answer to ALL those questions is NOT A SAUSAGE !!!!. !!!

      141

  • #
    Serp

    When Climate Justice is at stake then any method is valid irrespective of legality, morality, practicability and relevance to the cherished mutable goal in place at the time.

    90

  • #
    Hanrahan

    WOW 25% believe that CO2 is causing increased refugees. They must be the true believers.

    150

  • #
    Kinky Keith

    Sadly, the only reality that is divined by polls is Political.

    Wouldn’t it be a great thing if elected governments did what they were elected to do, namely, move society’s basic needs back into the hands of qualified experts.

    Currently all of our basic infrastructure has been privatised to allow a skim of profit for the managers. Accountability is zero and is hidden behind a wall of political camouflage.
    Profits are substantial.
    Service and reliability and cost seem poor, poor and excessive respectively.

    Progress of basic infrastructure, essential to our way of life is just taken for granted with stretched and outdated and overpriced services in;

    Water supply for cities.
    Water supply for farmers.
    Sewage collection and treatment.
    Household electricity.
    Commercial and industrial electricity.
    Roads and highways.
    Rail for commuters and freight.
    LNG.
    Fuel for motor vehicles.

    The result is a poorer society not moving forward, or even keeping pace with a reasonable level of progress.

    Witchcraft and sorcery don’t work and it’s past time that politicians got on to the job they should be doing.

    KK

    122

    • #

      I’m just putting together another of my stories about the proposal by the Greens, Labor, as well as the NRMA, to ban all ICE vehicles by 2030. The unintended consequences of banning all ICE engines by 2030 will make our move to unreliables look more like an inconvenience.

      90

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      move society’s basic needs back into the hands of qualified experts.

      You can live in that post-socialist technocracy if you wish KK.

      Me? I prefer the innovative energy of the the free-market and Capitalist entrepreneurs, democracy and the rule of law.

      30

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        Hi Sam, generally the world needs a free market to explore and grow.

        The basics of education, health, water, sewers and electricity are So Basic that they should be run by government when there
        Is no interference from unions or “big” business.

        Present governments don’t have their minds on the job, they are just there to supervise the skimming.

        KK

        41

        • #
          RicDre

          “The basics of education, health, water, sewers and electricity are So Basic that they should be run by government when there Is no interference from unions or “big” business.”

          That may be true in principle, but in practice here in the US, government has completely botched running education and health. Government is doing a reasonable job with water and sewers, mostly because it is being done by local governments. Electricity is mostly being handled by “big” business with mostly good results.

          60

      • #
        DonK31

        The biggest problem with giving power to “qualified experts” is that most qualified experts are self selected.

        The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. H. L. Mencken

        Far too many times, “qualified experts’” main objective is to rule over humanity; not save it.

        60

        • #
          Kinky Keith

          Hi Sam, Ric and Don,

          Yes, it’s not running at optimal.
          I did say “wouldn’t it be great ,,,” which is to acknowledge that there are faults in the delivery of basic, very basic services that should be done much better and cheaper.

          If governments either can’t or won’t deliver these properly because of greed, incompetence or indifference then we haven’t got much hope that they can handle the more complex stuff. Look to the Brexit shambles in the U.K. and social conflict between social justice warrior factions and the rest of the population in the USA.

          Social media isn’t reality and shouldn’t be able to control the manner in which important decisions are made about our lives.

          Something? needs changing in the way things work.

          KK

          31

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            I think there is a deeper problem – society has been and is being re-engineered by the Godless Left, into its own corrupt and dis-functional,aggressive, backbiting and God-hating image.

            Instead of true tolerance of alternate views, we have brutal suppression of dissent.

            Instead of freedom of religion , we have the new pagan green religion being forced down peoples throats.

            Instead of freedom of speech, we have Marxist PC governing what we can and cant say.

            Instead of wholesome and up-building values, we have endorsement of everything that is rotten, corrosive and destructive ( insert leftist “values” here ), promotion of perversion, and legislative endorsement of bad behaviour. California is the model they seem to be aiming for, which seems to be blueprint for creating a modern Sodom and Gamorrah & ancient Nineveh & Babylon, all rolled into one, a place only destined for destruction.

            People wonder why stuff is bad – its because we have abandoned solid morals, and allowed the Left to lull us into a false sense of security while undermining our societies, our families and our values.

            The Left appear to be a bunch of self serving human jackals, who from my Christian perspective, appear to openly and enthusiastically serve their Father, the Devil.

            Saul Alynski openly dedicated his book “Rules for Radicals” to Lucifer ( The Devil ).

            70

            • #
              Alfred (Cairns)

              It is a religion. There is no doubt about it. The fact that the number of believers is dropping is an important indicator.

              20

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              The Godless Left?

              I don’t think that they have a monopoly on ugly behaviour. The Right? just works through different pathway to cement control and drain public monies for their own ends.

              It’s unregulated, unsupervised, unaccountable government that has allowed the elites on both sides to enrich themselves.

              Nothing short of “trees on us” behaviour.

              The French Revolution had a reason.

              Perhaps we need a more moderate version of that with incarceration featuring instead of M. Guillotine.

              Unpunished corruption is a blight on modern civilisation. Lets start with an AusUNexit!

              Or would it be better to start at the other end, Local Government and clean up the rubbish there first.

              KK

              20

  • #

    I was just commenting to my wife this afternoon that while the BOM is once again claiming that this summer was the hottest on record (somewhere in Australia as she noted), it was the mildest summers in Victoria for several years.

    The previous summer and the one prior to that had long periods of constant hot weather where our house would heat up and it would take many days to cool down. This year we had only a few days and throughout the summer our house stayed quite comfortable (without aircon).

    In fact I wrote this story in 2017 about Gang Gang Cockatoos in our backyard and the hot weather: https://australianimage.com.au/gang-gang-gajang//

    121

  • #
    el gordo

    Rowan Dean is responsible for the 10% swing.

    ‘A growing number of scientists now believe solar activity is the real culprit behind so-called climate change.’

    170

  • #
    • #
      el gordo

      The questions are so biased, heavily weighted towards the accepted paradigm.

      130

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        As are all surveys, I’m not sure that there ever has been a neutral survey.

        79

        • #
          AndyG55

          This one doesn’t even attempt to be neutral.

          Its push surveying from the first question.

          IFF you have learnt anything in your time trolling here, you would have to admit that the real answer to all questions is that “climate change” (as in human caused) has had no discernible affect on the climate or any part of it whatsoever.

          There is certainly no real scientific evidence to back up any assumption that it has.

          In fact, most of the “impacts” JUST AREN’T HAPPENING either.

          121

        • #
          RicDre

          “As are all surveys, I’m not sure that there ever has been a neutral survey.”

          One of the first assignments we had in our college Psychology class was to do a survey. What we learned is that the type of survey created (neutral or biased) almost always comes down to your your motive in taking the survey; are you trying to learn something or are you trying to prove something.

          160

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            Same experience here, made me glad I was majoring in Biology

            31

          • #
            ricdre

            “…made me glad I was majoring in Biology”

            One of the early studies of non-linear, chaotic systems was of the Logistics Equation which Biologists use to predict the population growth patterns of species. The equation will become chaotic pretty quickly. If you are unfamiliar with chaos but have a background in Biology, you will probably find the subject of chaos and the Logistics Equation interesting.

            10

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    Sadly, a mass delusion occurs and spreads quickly. Sanity, returns slowly, one mind at a time. That is the hard truth we are left with and must accommodate or “else”. The answer? 1. stop feeding them; 2. tell the truth in all things.

    140

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      If we were to set up a true market, where renewables had to compete on price/quality (ie deliverable) it would be a better world for sure. What we have, as has been pointed out on this blog, is a fake market, controlled by both a regulator and a operator who seem to be asleep at the switch, allowing gouging, gold plating and refusing to put downward pressure on prices.

      143

      • #
        AndyG55

        ” it would be a better world for sure”

        Yep, wind and solar wouldn’t exist.

        Pricewise , they cannot exist without subsidies and mandates,

        Quality wise, that are basically USELESS.

        The regulator and the operators are both FORCED by government policies like the RET to take unreliable energy before reliable energy, that has lead to the grid becoming unstable, which has lead to the cost becoming more expensive.

        Yes, the operators will try to make the most of a ridiculous situation, but the situation is TOTALLY the making of the anti-CO2 leftist green agenda, which forced unreliables into a market and onto a grid that were both built to cope with solid dependable synchronous supplies.

        161

      • #
        AndyG55

        “operator who seem to be asleep at the switch”

        Now that is a total LIE. Not at all unexpected from pfutz.

        The “operator” is working its butt off to try and control a grid that is becoming increasingly unstable due to the force imposition of erratic unreliable sources onto a grid that was not built for them.

        111

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          The operator let the market rip off wholesale consumers in WA

          44

          • #
            AndyG55

            WRONG AGAIN.. the operator can’t control what the wholesalers do.

            The operator are being forced into accepting the vagaries of a system corrupted by mandated unreliables.

            The TOTAL BLAME goes onto the people who have forced those unreliables into the electrical supply system.

            131

            • #
              • #
                AndyG55

                Oops.. pfutz falls flat on his face again.

                “Energy Minister Bill Johnston dismissed the ERA’s conclusions, saying they were recommendations based on what he thought was a flawed interpretation of the rules.”

                82

              • #
                Sceptical Sam

                Did you not read this the other day when I pointed it out to you?

                Mr Johnston said the final say would go to the Electricity Review Board,…

                It’s not a final verdict. It’s up for review. And the Minister disagrees with the ERA’s recommendations.

                Come back on this when the final decision has been made.

                If Synergy bought spot at a cheaper price than the market sale price and then charged the market sale price to the wholesalers, then it would in my opinion have a case to answer.

                As it is we don’t know whether that is what it did.

                Solution? Wait for the final decision before dropping the trap-door.

                80

              • #
                OriginalSteve

                Patricia, I suggested in the past you need to learn some engineering before commenting, this still seems to be the case.

                An operator responds to the downstream, load, it doesn’t set the output to suit itself.

                Its a bit like saying you blame the bank for limiting your money in your account.
                All you do is draw out whats there, you cant go beyond that.
                You the consumer control the rate of expenditure/power usage, not the bank.

                2/10 – must try harder.

                40

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                Original Steve I’m talking about AEMO – this is the market operator, they set the rules, and then operate the market in compliance with those rules. Its board is made up of a mixture of industry and government members (although a lot of those are vacant atm). It has been reported in the business press that AEMO operates to the benefit of those industrial board members. I do wish you would do a modest amount of research before commenting.
                This is not the first time Synergy has been caught either.

                12

              • #
                AndyG55

                “they set the rules,”

                NO, they don’t.

                Their rules are forced by Government policy.

                It is the Government policy of FORCING unreliables onto the grid that has caused all the problems and the gaps and loopholes than enable companies to game the system.

                30

              • #
                OriginalSteve

                Patricua, my comment still stands.

                10

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              Politicians??

              41

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            Its not a market, its a comletely manipulated entity. The sole driver is manipulating each side of the “struggle” in true Helegian Dialectic, to make a lie seem true, to crash the free market and leave a frankenstien zombie “market” in its place….Socialism in action…

            80

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        If we were to set up a true market, where renewables had to compete on price/quality (ie deliverable) it would be a better world for sure.

        Fitz,

        On that assessment I think you are nearly correct. However, you need to include “without subsidies”.

        90

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          That would be the definition I am using. A very libertarian model for example would be what I am proposing.

          65

          • #
            AndyG55

            So, No subsidies, No mandated usage, No RET, No Carbon Trading or taxes.

            (if there is carbon dioxide trading, those providing the CO2 should be paid a reasonable price for this plant food)

            Suppliers must supply to the grid at a synchronised and reliable rate, (erratic, intermittent supply not permitted, drives up prices)

            Bidding 2 hours ahead for supply, with solid fines for not meeting that supply.

            Those seem like sensible rules, wouldn’t you agree pfutz…

            122

            • #
              Sceptical Sam

              Bidding 2 hours ahead for supply, with solid fines for not meeting that supply.

              I think that is implicit in what Fitz is saying.

              A contract to supply is a contract to be enforced. No Force majeure. No excuses.

              Fines? No. Penalties? Yes. Contract law.

              90

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              Synergy has form in this area, in 2105 it was fined for uncompetitive market practices, basically trying to force other suppliers out of the market by lowering prices. If you live in WA – a big part of your bill is based on market manipulations, just like in the east.

              11

              • #
                Dave

                Synergy is owned by the Government of Western Australia, represented by the Minister for Energy.
                The ERA will now launch proceedings against Synergy before the Electricity Review Board
                The ERA is a WA Government body
                The Electricity Review Board is a WA Government Body

                This is a case where:
                A Government body rips off Taxpayers
                Another Government body finds it Guilty
                And takes it to another Government Body?

                There is only one loser in this mess, and that’s the electricity customers
                There is only one GUILTY party in this mess, and that is the WA Government!

                30

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              under a libertarian model, if you dump pollutants into my air, water etc, you have to pay me (and everyone else) for the privilege. Bjørn Lomborg feels that this is the best way to protect the environment.

              22

              • #
                AndyG55

                No-one is dumping pollutants, coal power from HELE is very clean

                CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

                It is a gas that is absolutely beneficial to the environment, a positive side-benefit of cheap reliable electricity supply

                The real pollutants are the white avian crucifixes littering the landscape.

                61

              • #
                AndyG55

                Pity solar panels and wind turbines aren’t made to PAY for the mess their production causes in China!

                51

              • #
                AndyG55

                And if the producer supplies a by-product that is absolutely essential to the environment, don’t you think they should be paid for that ?

                41

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                CO2 is being dumped into the atmosphere, pollutant or not, it would attract a cost – that is fundamental to the free market model.

                23

              • #
                AndyG55

                On the contrary, It is being RELEASED to the atmosphere, It is USED by all life on Earth.

                It is a premium asset, being given away for free.

                And as you are well aware, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING detrimental about increased atmospheric CO2. If fact, it is highly necessary.

                It certainly should NOT attract a cost, any more than water does when released for environmental purposes from a dam. Or are you saying that the water DUMPED from the dam for keeping fish alive should attract a cost to the dam operator.?

                BIZARRE regressive thinking on your behalf.. or NO thinking at all, pfutz.

                71

              • #
                AndyG55

                What SHOULD be costed is the energy that wind turbines TAKE from the atmosphere, and energy that solar cells TAKE from the Sun.

                Neither of these gives anything worthwhile back to the environment.

                They are, in fact, purely and absolutely SUBTRACTIVE as far as the environment is concerned.

                They should be costed as such.

                Coal on the other hand GIVES to all life on this glorious CARBON BASED planet of ours.. FOR FREE.

                41

              • #
                Bill in Oz

                Let’s logically analyse the facts :
                1 : CO is a benefit to the entire vegetable plant kingdom
                2: We are totally dependent on the plant kingdom for food, oxygen and numerous environmental services
                3 Thus the fossil fuel plants making CO2 available to the plant kingdom MUST be compensated for providing that essential service by those nations which do not contribute to CO2 in the atmosphere.

                :-)

                41

              • #
                AndyG55

                Thanks Bill, for the LOGICAL and RATIONAL answer.

                Except CO isn’t very nice stuff for anything..

                I’m assuming you meant CO2. :-)

                30

  • #
    Ruairi

    Witches with evil intent,
    Through witchcraft, were believed to foment,
    By bewitching the air,
    Like the CO2 scare,
    And cook any extreme weather event.

    130

  • #
    Bill in Oz

    The last time a civilisation was told & accepted and believed such a big lie,
    Was in the 1930′s with the Nazis BiIG LIE about the Jews.
    And that lead to 5-6 millions jewish people being executed
    Simply because they were Jews.
    With the agreement of almost all the German people.

    That is the nature of the Greenist LIE we have been told for the past 40 years.
    And accepting this BIG LIE will have just as awful consequences for our own nation.
    Wholesale Impoverishment.

    I am pleased that this poll shows that gradually
    More & more Australians are waking up to this BIG LIE
    Gradually this BIG LIE is being exposed as a charade

    So there is hope !
    And there is reason to keep trying
    To help our fellow Australians see this BIG LIE for what it is.

    That is why is recent days I have been looking
    In our poetry and literature
    And finding there the constant story
    Of droughts, heatwaves & fires,
    Of floods and ‘coldwaves’,
    And of blissful green green growing times
    When our country was beautiful and fruitful.

    101

  • #
  • #
    Serge Wright

    Aside from asking people to provide an answer based on belief, what we DO know from looking at local data are the following facts:

    - Greening of inland areas
    - Higher average rainfall across the country
    - Fewer excess winter deaths
    - Fewer cyclones
    - No change to the rate of sea level rise from tide gauge data
    - Higher crop yields
    - Record life expectancy

    And on a global level
    - Record population and increasing
    - Record low poverty and still improving
    - Record life expectancy and still improving

    All of which raises the question, why in a world that shows constantly improving conditions do we see a striking increase in people with a severe mental health condition that effects mainly a subset of western society, causing an almost complete shutdown of logical brain and neuralogical function ?. Sufferers of this condition become completely irrational and highly emotional, usually adopting a doomsday mentality, with many claiming the world will end in only 10 years. Sufferers also tend to congregate in large groups with others suffering the same condition, with many refusing to work and violently demanding free money. There is also a strange rejection of eating meat, along with a host of other compulsive and obsessive behaviours such as a fear of livestock, other white people, men, hetrosexual people, christians and even some minerals such coal and petrolium which can create a severe anxiety attack or even generate a violent response. One of the more unusual symptoms is a strange desire to cover the world with enormous metal towers fitted with a spinnng turbine, demonstrating a strange quasi-religious worship need.

    With the increasing spread of this mental disease, we urgently need to find a cure.
    Perhaps electric shock therapy using the spinning turbines might be a start ;)

    130

  • #
    pat

    unbelievable:

    2 Apr: IPSOS: The 2018 Ipsos Climate Change Report
    DOWNLOAD 21-page report

    beginning P13:
    Renewable energy continues as #1 environmental issue Australians would take action on
    For the ninth consecutive year, renewable energy is the top environmental issue Australians would act on if they were in charge of decision-making. Well over half (57%) identify renewable energy as an issue they would choose to address. A majority of Australians have identified renewable energy as an issue for action every year since surveying began in 2007 and the 2018 study saw the highest proportion of respondents report renewable energy as a top issue since 2010…
    Almost two thirds of Australians (64%) think that increasing the amount of power generated from renewable energy sources should be an essential or high priority…
    Only a third of Australians think that a shift towards renewables would negatively impact energy affordability…

    Question: How do you think reducing the number of coal-fired power stations and increasing the amount of power generated from renewable energy sources such as solar and wind is likely to impact the following?

    The affordability of your household energy bills
    38% Positive Impact 34% negative Impact

    Managing energy supply shortages and ensuring supply of energy is not interrupted by blackouts
    66% say it’s a High/Essential priority; 21% Medium Priority, 6% Low/No Priority

    Less than a third of Australians think that the reliability of energy supply would be negatively impacted by a shift towards renewables
    https://www.ipsos.com/en/2018-ipsos-climate-change-report

    30

    • #
      Bill in Oz

      Propaganda has an impact = the BIG LIE

      52

    • #
      RickWill

      Linking solar and wind generators in the question with “renewable” is a misuse of the English language.

      A renewable resource is a natural resource which will replenish to replace the portion depleted by usage and consumption. If mankind dedicated its entire purpose to creation of energy from wind and solar generators we would still not be able to renew the wind and solar collectors required to harness those resources. They are only “renewable” in the sense that they are built from fossil, nuclear or hydro energy sources. They could never be renewed from the energy they produce over their lifetime.

      An accurate question would replace “renewable” with “ambient” or “intermittent”.

      50

  • #
    pat

    unbelievable #2 – just think of the outrage over Shorten’s EV announcement:

    30 Jan: The Australia Institute: Poll: Overwhelming Support for Electric Vehicle Incentives
    Most Australians want the State and Federal Governments to implement policies that would encourage more electric vehicles on Australian roads, according to new research from The Australia Institute Climate & Energy Program.
    Key findings:
    •An overwhelming majority of Australians (79%) support the Government building a network of charging stations across the country for electric vehicles.
    •The majority of Australians support for governments to procure electric vehicle fleets (76%) and providing loans for electric vehicle uptake (55%).
    •Almost three out of four Australians (74%) support rebates to promote installation of charging stations for electric vehicles and for new apartment blocks to be required to host charging stations (73%).
    •Two out of three Australians (66%) want the Luxury Car Tax removed from imported electric vehicles

    “Our research makes it clear that Australians are keen for the Government to encourage electric vehicle uptake through a range of policy measures,” said Richie Merzian, Climate & Energy Program Director at The Australia Institute…
    “If we look at Norway as an example, where electric and hybrid cars now make up half of all new car registrations – compared to Australia where EVs don’t come close to even 1% of new sales…

    “For the Senate Inquiry into Electric Vehicles to recommend the most popular of these policy initiatives is a step in the right direction.
    “It is clear that helping Australia transition to electric vehicles is good for the economy, good for jobs and good for the environment, but our research shows it would also be good at the ballot box come election time.”
    DOWNLOAD PUBLICATION
    http://www.tai.org.au/content/poll-overwhelming-support-electric-vehicle-incentives

    30 Jan: TheDriveN: Bridie Schmidt: Poll: Australians overwhelmingly support transition to electric vehicles
    The poll also showed that almost 4 out of 5 Australians also support stricter fuel efficiency standards (even if it means spending a bit more on a car), while at the same time two-thirds oppose banning sale of ICE cars after 2030…

    The survey also asked respondents what their voting intention was, with the results predictably showing that Green voters were most likely to offer widespread support to all policies.
    On the other end of the spectrum, One Nation voters were least likely to do so…
    Today also marks the deadline for the release of the Senate Inquiry into Electric Vehicles report by Senator Tim Storer…
    “It is clear that helping Australia transition to electric vehicles is good for the economy, good for jobs and good for the environment, but our research shows it would also be good at the ballot box come election time,” says Merzian.

    from comments:
    Neil Findlay: You and I both know that polls are like statistics; you can prove absolutely anything from them.
    Tell me about this poll:
    Who conducted it?
    How many people were polled?
    Where and when were they polled and what was the criteria for selecting those polled?
    https://thedriven.io/2019/01/30/poll-australians-overwhelmingly-support-transition-to-electric-vehicles/

    42

  • #
    pat

    unbelievable #3:

    20 Mar: TheDriveN: Bridie Schmidt: Survey confirms car purchases on hold as consumer interest turns electric
    A new report from market research firm Roy Morgan has indicated that less Australians intend buying new vehicles in the 12 months, with interest in petrol cars declining, and interest growing in hybrid and electric cars.
    While there’s also a mild increase in interest in buying diesel vehicles (perhaps tied to increasing sales in the SUV market segment), the figures appear to support the theory that the impending arrival of more electric and hybrid models are putting sales of ICE (internal combustion engine) cars on hold.

    This follows a sharp plunge in vehicle sales in the first few months of 2019, including a 21 per cent slump in passenger vehicles. The data from Roy Morgan’s survey suggests this slump could continue over the next 12 months.

    Roy Morgan says 553,000 Australians intend to buy a new car within 12 months at the end of 2018 (which is 9.9% less than a year before), although around 4 times as many – 2.125 million intend to buy a new car within the next four years, which is a rise of 6 per cent…
    https://thedriven.io/2019/03/20/aussies-stave-off-buying-new-cars/

    above links to:

    8 Mar: TheDriveN: Giles Parkinson: Plunging sales suggests end is nigh for fossil fuel cars in Australia
    Consider these two statistics:
    No 1: When asked, more than one third of Australians say that (LINK) – given the chance – their next passenger vehicle purchase will be electric. More than two thirds think the shift to electric is inevitable.
    No 2: In the first two months of 2019, sales of new petrol and diesel passenger cars in Australia slumped a stunning 21 per cent in February, versus a year ago (LINK). Overall new vehicle sales, according to the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, were down 9.3 per cent – a fall of 370 vehicles a day.

    15 Mar: Roy Morgan: Intention to purchase new motor vehicles declining DOWNLOAD PDF
    Intending buyers show increased interest in alternatives to petrol…
    Alternatives to petrol all showed higher preference levels among intenders compared to their share of current sales. Diesel was 3.6% points higher among intenders (27.6%) compared to share of sales (24.0%), Hybrid (petrol and electric) higher by 7.1% points (to 8.0%), fully electric higher by 2.0% points (to 2.1%) and LPG 0.3% points higher (to 0.3%)…
    https://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7904-new-vehicle-purchase-intention-201903150023

    30

  • #
    pat

    meanwhile, why does it seem Labor and the Coalition (or at least the Liberals) are bowing to the Greens, if I believe all the polls posted are unbelievable?

    the membership losses in NSW quite possibly reflects a possible split in the wider green vote:

    Updated 10 Feb: SMH: Hundreds of members quit NSW Greens amid internal instability
    By Lisa Visentin
    An internal party report described the loss of up to 485 party members in the 12 months to November 2018 – a decline of almost 13 per cent – as a “significant and worrying reduction”…
    The hemorrhaging of members followed an escalating factional war within the party, between the “left” wing, which includes upper house MP David Shoebridge, and the “right” wing, which includes upper house MPs Cate Faehrmann and Justin Field.

    As revealed by the Herald, the internal instability intensified to the point that a group of Greens MPs, which included Ms Faehrmann, Mr Field and Jeremy Buckingham, sought the advice of former Australian Greens leader Bob Brown in August about the possibility of forming a breakaway party (LINK)…

    Evelyn Kennedy resigned as the Greens NSW candidate for the western seat of Barwon last week and may join Mr Buckingham’s new independent ticket.
    “There is a mighty chasm between most of the people in the Greens and a small, insidious far-left faction full of vitriol,” Ms Kennedy said…

    According to the latest figures provided by Greens NSW, its membership has grown by 93 people between November and January, bringing the total to 3404 members as of January.
    In January last year, the party had 3796 members…
    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/hundreds-of-members-quit-nsw-greens-amid-internal-instability-20190204-p50vjs.html

    5 Apr: 9News: AAP: NSW Greens MP quits over party ‘division’
    NSW Greens upper house MP Justin Field is quitting the party because of internal division and “hyper-partisanship”.
    Mr Field plans to continue to sit as an independent in the Legislative Council and campaign against coal mining and for action on climate change and marine conservation…

    5 Apr: PedestrianTV: NSW Greens MP Ditches The Party To Work More Closely With The Government
    By David Adams
    Field, who has long advocated against coal seam gas projects and called for further environmental protections for NSW marine life, said he will work from the cross bench to “build consensus within the next NSW Parliament for positive reforms.”
    His announcement comes after an extended period of tension within the state branch of the party.
    His arrival in the upper house in 2016 came after a preselection process which put members of the so-called left faction offside…

    5 Apr: SMH: NSW Greens MP quits party to sit on the crossbench
    By Alexandra Smith
    Mr Field, who is midway through his term, said he did not want to spend the next four years “yelling at the government” and would prefer to work with the Coalition, not against it…
    “This is a critical decade for climate action and reversing the decline of the natural systems that make the planet liveable. More than ever we need to build political consensus to provide for a safe and healthy future for all,” he said.
    Mr Field said he feared last month’s election would put the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party and One Nation “in the box seat” to “control the agenda in this state”…
    “I’ve got a lot of criticism of the Coalition government, particularly their poor environmental record and their failure to legislate for real climate action,” he said.
    “But an ideological opposition to working with any one side of politics is pointless when it manifestly fails to deliver outcomes.”…

    Mr Field’s resignation comes as the party has been battling a bitter internal war, which has seen hundreds of members of the Greens resign and left the parliamentary party room divided…
    “The rise of progressive independents is in part driven by the evidence that political parties in Australia seem incapable of working together to deliver better outcomes for the community and respond to the growing ecological crisis,” Mr Field said.

    Mr Field said some of his priorities would be building political consensus to reduce NSW’s emissions to zero “as soon as possible” and phase out coal and gas in “an orderly but expedited way”…
    https://www.smh.com.au/nsw-election-2019/nsw-greens-mp-quits-party-to-sit-on-the-crossbench-20190404-p51aud.html

    11

  • #
    TdeF

    The real question is whether the public has been told incessantly for thirty years that there is rapid Global Warming and rapid sea level rise and they are caused by fossil fuel. 100% of people would agree.

    The next question is whether they been told bushfires and floods and droughts and storms are all caused by rapid Climate Change and that the Polar bears, whole species, all snow and sea ice are vanishing and Antarctica is melting away.

    The critical question is whether after thirty years they have noticed any of this personally at home or in their travels, the sea level rise, the cities being flooded or that storms are worse or more frequent.

    And do they believe bushfires are really caused by Climate CHange.

    Then they might be asked whether in their personal opinion, based on their own experience and travel around Australia and the world, whether the environments of any cities or countries had changed at all in their lifetimes. That includes weather, rainfall, seasons, sea level. I would expect most would say no.

    The other question is, what is Climate Change? Is it Global Warming, Global Cooling, something else, don’t know?

    The problem with these questions and the reason they will not be asked, is that they expose a very profitable global fr*ud, a Climate Scientology, a religion which takes a lot of their money and wants much more. In this every government is complicit and behind it are the massive unelected world governments of the capitalist EU and the socialist UN. And of course the people who make Polar Bear costumes.

    110

    • #
      Ian Hill

      I hadn’t read your post TdeF before posting below. I regard the obvious lack of change of sea level in my lifetime as the single best indicator that CO2 emissions just don’t matter.

      81

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      its game we can also play against the CAGW zealots – just tell the public the CAGW zealots have got it wrong. 30 years later, the data just doesnt support it.

      Very few will go and check, its a battle for peoples minds in a pub, a club or on the kids soccer game sidelines one person at a time.

      Tradies know its complete nonsense – a good spot to start.

      61

  • #
    Ian Hill

    Jo, I sent you an email with a short article from Omega magazine July 1985 titled “Greenhouse Earth: False Alarm?” Although not about extreme events it is interesting to read that instead of sea levels causing coastal flooding within a few decades (ie right now) with new “Venices” everywhere, sea level may actually drop causing red faces at the Environmental Protection Agency!

    Personally I don’t think sea level has done anything but stay the same in the past 45 years I’ve lived in Adelaide.

    100

    • #
      Vladimir

      That is the question to end all questions!

      I asked many people, both anti- and pro-GW, if they noticed any sea level changes where they live and swim. I have not heard a single Yes.

      This is not so unscientific exercise because we are told the real physical/economic disaster has already started.

      61

  • #
    Dennis

    The Sky Fell last month, but almost nobody noticed.

    The sky fell on Hawaii last month, all because carbon dioxide levels peeped above the much-hyped 400 ppm hurdle. Chicken Littles all over the world squawked into their friendly media megaphones about numerous imminent global warming disasters. One warned: “the fate of the world hangs in the balance.” (Similar alarms were rung when the 350 ppm level was passed).

    But nobody else noticed anything scary.

    Four pieces of well-established evidence say that 400 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not a concern.

    Firstly, there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1998 despite 16 years of rising carbon dioxide levels and heavy usage of carbon fuels. Clearly, CO2 is not the main driver of global temperatures.

    Secondly, the ice core records show clearly, with no exceptions, that all recent ice ages have commenced when the atmosphere contained relatively high levels of carbon dioxide. The temperature fell first, and then carbon dioxide levels fell. This proves that high carbon dioxide levels do not guarantee a warm globe, but could suggest that they may be a harbinger of a coming ice age. Ice will cause far more damage to the biosphere than the even the worst warming forecast.

    Thirdly, current levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are not extreme or unusual. Carbon dioxide reached 2,000 ppm in the luxuriant era of the dinosaurs, and ten times current levels (4,000 ppm) when the great Devonian coral reefs were flourishing. There is no tipping point into runaway global warming, or we would have tipped eons ago.

    Finally, current carbon dioxide levels are just above starvation levels for plants. All vegetation would grow stronger, faster, and be more drought resistant and heat resistant if carbon dioxide levels trebled to 1,200 ppm. Such levels are no threat to humans – US submarines operate at up to 8,000 ppm for cruises of 90 days. Topping 400 ppm should be a cause for celebration – it shows that Earth is emerging from the cold hungry years of the ice ages.

    Climate Cassandras have blown false trumpets once again.

    Viv Forbes,
    Rosewood Qld Australia

    120

    • #
      Dennis

      At the Copenhagen Conference the delegation from China reported that during 3,600 years of civilisation and record keeping there were three warmer than at that time (Copenhagen Conference), and each warming period delivered greater prosperity from crop yields.

      80

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    Hi Jo. I’ll contribute this:

    Two amazing fires in North America: (using Wikipedia titles)

    1. Great Fire of 1910
    . . . . burned three million acres (4,700 sq mi; 12,100 km2) in North Idaho and Western Montana, with extensions into Eastern Washington and Southeast British Columbia – also called The Big Burn;

    2. The Chinchaga fire,
    . . . . burned in northern British Columbia and Alberta in the summer and early fall of 1950. With a final size of between 1,400,000 hectares (3,500,000 acres) and 1,700,000 hectares (4,200,000 acres), it is the single largest recorded fire in North American history.

    I was a child in western Pennsylvania during the 1950 fire. On a Sunday afternoon (Sept. 24) the ash came, the Sun turned deep red, then the sky completely darkened. This is 3,000 km from the fire. Read the section in the Wikipedia file subtitled “The Great Smoke Pall”.
    That write-up is correct. We had no idea what caused the darkness.

    80

  • #
    David Wojick

    Off topic news: Double witch hunt Tuesday. Y’all come.

    Two House hearings on climate change:

    https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/oversight-committee-to-begin-key-hearings-on-climate-change

    PM subcommittee hearing includes “misinformation” (that is, skepticism).

    AM committee hearing directed at proposed Happer presidential committee of skeptics.

    AOC is on that subcommittee, so can speak at both hearings.

    Both are viewable. Should be fun.

    90

  • #
    el gordo

    Mark Butler wants a one party cultural Marxist state.

    “If the next Labor government is not allowed to make serious changes in this area, I hate to think where Australia is going to be in 2030.

    “I hate to think of the scale of betrayal to our children and grandchildren if, for politics, our government, if we are elected at the next election, is prevented from implementing this policy.”

    61

  • #
    New Chum

    This website has many newspaper articles from around the world listed under bad weather.
    https://www.c3headlines.com/

    50

  • #
    John

    All I can say is God help us if that climate psycho-alarmist Mark Butler gets hold of your tax deposits. It will be much much worse than handing Dracula the keys to the blood bank.

    50

  • #
    TdeF

    The real question is why 50-60% of people believe something without any evidence. How have they even heard of ‘Climate Change’? Who told them? The media, the newspapers, the internet, television and ultimately political organizations called the Greens, Green peace, the UN, China, EU and profiteers around the world. And of course the Greens and their desperate friends, the Labor party.

    Is it true? Would anyone have noticed any change without being told every day? Is it hotter? Have the seas risen? Are cities drowned? Has Sydney Harbour risen 10-30 meters as predicted by the ABC’s science guy?

    Consider this is a democratic country where recently a most senior Catholic Cardinal has been jailed for a crime against someone dead, someone who denied it happened and for which no evidence was presented of a most unlikely event. So one man’s word against another but in his retrial the eighty year old cardinal had to face a tape recording as his accuser was too stressed to appear. That should not have happened to a man presumed innocent but twelve people believed a tape recorded accusation beyond reasonable doubt. It’s what they have been told endlessly by the media, the arrogant Cardinal against an innocent altar boy, as retold thirty years later by one man and denied by the other. Confirmation bias.

    It’s no surprise then 50% to 60% of Australians believe Global Warming aka Climate Change. It’s what they have been told for 30 years. It shows the power of the media to control what people believe, without evidence. Sell the ABC. If it was private, it would be illegal.

    80

    • #
      RickWill

      TdeF asked:
      “The real question is why 50-60% of people believe something without any evidence.”

      They have been taught it at school. There are a myriad off courses designed to educate our children and grandchildren on Climate Change and they have been in place for decades now:
      https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Search?q=climate+change&p=38193

      A typical outline:

      Climate change science involves a range of uncertainties, which mean that the scientific community cannot predict future warming precisely, or detail exactly how climate change will affect particular regions. Models improve as the scientific community collects, shares and analyses more data, but even though models can be improved, they will always struggle to make reliable predictions for systems in which small changes can have large effects (ACSES095). However, although scientific models cannot predict the exact trajectory of change, they do provide significant evidence that climate change is occurring and that future global warming is likely. Decisions about actions to mitigate this effect depend on the perception of risk by individuals, communities, governments and international agencies and reflect their social, economic and ethical values (ACSES093).

      The “significant evidence” is from Climate Models – what more do you need!

      80

    • #

      It is amazing what normally very acute people will believe when the authority of the media is exerted from all sides. I was impartial on the Pell matter till I read the account of the actual offence. It was like a cheesy Hollywood script written by someone whose ideas of Catholics and their rituals came from a 1980s doofus movie. The sheer impracticality was matched only by the sheer theatricality.

      Well, Elon’s upholstery is floating in space, a clumsily superimposed head of a Grafton boy speaks with a thick Kiwi accent…and Australian coal kills the planet unless you ship it offshore to Asia.

      What next? When the alien arrival is announced will I be the conspiracy theorist for doubting that?

      90

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        I always say you need to check the facts for yourself.

        On the matter above, I know someone who was actually close to the whole mess, whose comments make me think “where there is smoke…” holds true.

        I guess he and Risdale can swap notes….

        61

        • #

          So many people, even those with science qualifications, have never even glanced at natural history to see what climate is supposed to do according to centuries of geology, stratigraphy, archaeology etc.

          The Quaternary and Holocene should be at the very centre of our reflections on climate, but instead the media and boffins talk of last month’s weather of some event that occurred when the planet was younger and continents were in entirely different positions with different shapes.

          The period of humans climaxing with the epoch of modern humans. The Quaternary and Holocene should be the focus, never are. Why is that?

          Like I’ve said before, a great slogan for the climatariat would be Stulti Numquam Verificant…or Mugs Never Check.

          60

  • #
    pat

    heard this on ABC’s What The Papers Say the other nite, re a Courier Mail article. the floods were mentioned a couple of times as not being a concern for the buyers. ABC’s Philip Clark repeated the “flood” bit, but neither Clark nor the Courier Mail rep thought to say CAGW is clearly not a concern either, despite the 24/7 CAGW propaganda by ABC & the rest of the FakeNewsMSM!

    5 Apr: news.com.au: Richer on the river: Waterfront homes hit new price heights
    The days of snapping up a riverfront property for under $1.5 million in Brisbane have officially washed up, with a new record set for sales all along the city’s main artery.
    by ELIZABETH TILLEY
    Not a single waterfront sale under that price tag was recorded in Brisbane last year — the first time ever according to a new report from Place Advisory.

    It appears the 2011 floods are now a distant memory, with only one per cent of houses not on the waterfront changing hands for more than $3 million in 2018 — proving it pays to live by the river…
    The report found the median price of a waterfront house in Brisbane is now $2.65 million — that’s nearly three times more than the non-waterfront house price median of $925,000.
    Last year, nearly two thirds of all waterfront house sales in the city occurred at a price point of more than $3 million…

    Place managing director Sarah Hackett said riverfront properties had become a way of life, not just a home…
    “We’re finding there are not enough properties on the market on the riverfront to meet supply.”…
    Last year, the biggest home sale in Brisbane was a property in Hawthorne’s Virginia Avenue, which changed hands for a whopping $11.128 million…
    https://www.news.com.au/finance/real-estate/brisbane-qld/richer-on-the-river-waterfront-homes-hit-new-price-heights/news-story/b8cf85382e104f902027f1b70964de87

    30

  • #
    TdeF

    Also consider the question

    “What is Climate Change causing in Australia”.

    This is a push opinion.

    Firstly you are told Climate Change is real, a real thing.
    Then that it causes problems.
    Then you are asked what problems it is causing.

    You are not asked what is Climate Change, who invented the term, why?
    The questions produce confirmation bias.

    Also who invented the universal phrase ‘Climate Change’. Language like this is invented by someone and pushed through the media.
    Why? Because Global Warming isn’t happening and the sheep will start questioning it.
    Then if cooling happens and it is mighty tough stopping the satellites from denying warming, cooling has to be caused by
    .. wait for it.. CO2, fossil fuels. It will be called ‘Climate Change’.

    So again you are being educated by the usual suspects. The solutions will include more windmills, solar panels and billions and billioins in carbon taxes. All to stop ‘Climate Change’

    Polls like this are a way of educating people in something which is not true, simply by asking leading questions. All very Yes Minister, Sir Humphrey Applebee. The war against Christians, Jews, ‘white’ people, democracy is well underway and conducted by the universities, internet giants, public service and the hundred thousand bureaucrats in the EU and UN.

    80

    • #
      TdeF

      You see by even answering the question, you are giving life to this scam.

      I would ask what Climate Change was, who defined it, how did they define it and why should Climates be changing more rapidly than normal and what happened to Global Warming? At least Global warming had an explanation, no matter how unlikely and now disproven.

      In the comments above, we have to argue that increased CO2 is not likely to warm the oceans. Why even bother? No one ever said that CO2 should warm the oceans. No one ever bothered to give a scientific explanation for this extraordinary phenomenon. Remember that the original terrible worry was the air was supposed to get warm because of trapped Infra Red, not the oceans.

      Even so, clearly in the press the warmer oceans are associated simply by correlation with increased CO2. That’s all it takes. Correlation is causation.

      Say we accept that. Why would it not be that warmer oceans increase CO2 rather than CO2 somehow warms the oceans? After all, 98% of all CO2 is freely dissolved in the oceans, like O2 in rapid equilibrium with the thin air above and controlled by surface temperature and Henry’s law. Henry’s law tells us that warm beer or lemonade or champagne release CO2. Warm beer does not absorb CO2, causing beer acidification.

      So the question should be, why are the oceans getting warmer? Not what are the effects of ‘Climate Change’ on Australia? That is just push opinion.

      80

  • #
    Bill in Oz

    Once upon a time we all knew that drought & heatwaves & floods were part & parcel of Australia’s climate.

    And we did something about it. We built dams and sank bores to make sure water was available.

    And in 1896 Banjo Patterson in “Song of the Artesian Water” celebrated that effort in this poem

    ( Published in the Bulletin 12/12/1896 )

    NOW the stock have started dying, for the Lord has sent a drought;
    But we’re sick of prayers and Providence — we’re going to do without;
    With the derricks up above us and the solid earth below,
    We are waiting at the lever for the word to let her go.
    Sinking down, deeper down,
    Oh, we’ll sink it deeper down:
    As the drill is plugging downward at a thousand feet of level,
    If the Lord won’t send us water, oh, we’ll get it from the devil;
    Yes, we’ll get it from the devil deeper down.

    Now, our engine’s built in Glasgow by a very canny Scot,
    And he marked it twenty horse-power, but he don’t know what is what:
    When Canadian Bill is firing with the sun-dried gidgee logs,
    She can equal thirty horses and a score or so of dogs.
    Sinking down, deeper down,
    Oh, we’re going deeper down:
    If we fail to get the water then it’s ruin to the squatter,
    For the drought is on the station and the weather’s growing hotter,
    But we’re bound to get the water deeper down.

    But the shaft has started caving and the sinking’s very slow,
    And the yellow rods are bending in the water down below,
    And the tubes are always jamming and they can’t be made to shift
    Till we nearly burst the engine with a forty horse-power lift.
    Sinking down, deeper down,
    Oh, we’re going deeper down
    Though the shaft is always caving, and the tubes are always jamming,
    Yet we’ll fight our way to water while the stubborn drill is ramming —
    While the stubborn drill is ramming deeper down.

    But there’s no artesian water, though we’ve passed three thousand feet,
    And the contract price is growing and the boss is nearly beat.
    But it must be down beneath us, and it’s down we’ve got to go,
    Though she’s bumping on the solid rock four thousand feet below.
    Sinking down, deeper down,
    Oh, we’re going deeper down:
    And it’s time they heard us knocking on the roof of Satan’s dwellin’;
    But we’ll get artesian water if we cave the roof of hell in —
    Oh! we’ll get artesian water deeper down.

    But it’s hark! the whistle’s blowing with a wild, exultant blast,
    And the boys are madly cheering, for they’ve struck the flow at last,
    And it’s rushing up the tubing from four thousand feet below
    Till it spouts above the casing in a million-gallon flow.
    And it’s down, deeper down —
    Oh, it comes from deeper down;
    It is flowing, ever flowing, in a free, unstinted measure
    From the silent hidden places where the old earth hides her treasure —
    Where the old earth hides her treasure deeper down.

    And it’s clear away the timber, and it’s let the water run:
    How it glimmers in the shadow, how it flashes in the sun!
    By the silent belts of timber, by the miles of blazing plain
    It is bringing hope and comfort to the thirsty land again.
    Flowing down, further down;
    It is flowing further down
    To the tortured thirsty cattle, bringing gladness in its going;
    Through the droughty days of summer it is flowing, ever flowing —
    It is flowing, ever flowing, further down.”

    Banjo Patterson like our ancestors ‘knew’ about our country.
    But it’s time to remind the city folk
    Living in air conditioned houses and offices
    That this is where we live.
    The climate ain’t changed.
    It’s just folks are now ignorant.

    91

    • #
      Bill in Oz

      There is one very ignorant climate reality ‘denier’ here who likes to red thumb ‘reality’.

      Ahh well he can always take shelter in his Air con house & office.

      The rest of us don’t care !

      11

  • #
    pat

    while checking something else on BBC just now, came across this. cute replies:

    TWEET: BBC Reality Check:
    We have deleted our tweet about the US ambassador’s claim on food poisoning because we wrongly compared US estimated figures with UK confirmed figures…
    5 Apr 2019

    from replies:
    Ian #FXTrader:‏
    #brexitbashingcorporation?

    Malt: is the BBC still trying to scare everyone away from an actual alternative to being locked into EU trade deals by convincing us we’ll all be eating chlorine chicken instead of the faultless food imports we currently have (*cough*horse meat*cough*)?
    https://twitter.com/BBCRealityCheck/status/1114164511521628160

    40

  • #
    pat

    4 Apr: NY Post: Cuomo says only ‘very rich people’ can afford to drive into Manhattan
    By Carl Campanile
    Gov. Andrew Cuomo defended congestion pricing on Thursday, saying most motorists won’t be affected because only “very rich people” can afford to drive into Manhattan.
    “Outer-borough residents are not driving their cars into Manhattan. That’s not how they come in,” Cuomo said at the Association for a Better New York.
    “I’m a Queens boy. Only very rich people can drive into Manhattan. You have to pay the toll. You have to pay parking . . . it probably comes close to $100 a day.”…
    He told reporters afterward “it’s a luxury” to drive into Midtown…

    But Assemblyman David Weprin, who represents middle-class sections of Queens, said he’s being ­inundated with calls from constituents alarmed by the congestion plan.
    “A lot of people, they have no choice but to drive in,” Weprin said.

    Cuomo drew a hearty cheer from the well-heeled audience when he said the congestion plan “will endure to the benefit of Manhattan real estate interests when we have a better transportation system.”…
    https://nypost.com/2019/04/04/cuomo-says-only-very-rich-people-can-afford-to-drive-into-manhattan/

    20

  • #
    Dave in the States

    CAGW meets all the prerequisites of a pagan cult. AOC is just latest false prophet-ess. The climate action sacrifices they demand are the modern equivalents of throwing 10 virgins into the volcano to appease the nature gods.

    42

  • #
    Another Ian

    Scepticism ought to increase if the public get to hear this

    “Grid Scale Battery Nonsense 2019″

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/05/grid-scale-battery-nonsense-2019/

    30

  • #
    pat

    wade through a hundred or so paras to get to ***a touch of scepticism:

    6 Apr: news.com.au: The reality of electric cars in Australia
    It’s the announcement that has many people scratching their heads but is Labor’s electric car plan as unrealistic as it sounds?
    by Charis Chang
    When Labor revealed its ambitious electric car policy this week, many people greeted it with scepticism — but for many others, it was a statement of the inevitable…
    Interestingly, modelling for the Coalition’s climate change policy also assumes electric cars will make up between 25 per cent and 50 per cent of new car sales by 2030, according to The Guardian…

    ***One of the reasons there are not many electric cars in Australia is because of the lack of charging infrastructure and choice when it comes to affordable models…
    Labor’s assistant shadow minister for climate change and energy Pat Conroy: “They are not coming here because there isn’t a demand and there isn’t a partnership with government,” he said.
    “If we can grow demand … we will expect to see those cheaper vehicles entering the market that will be more accessible.”…

    However, there some potential pitfalls.
    Some are worried that this will make petrol cars more expensive and shifting to electric cars will see less money collected on fuel excise.
    Experts believe the government will have introduce a road usage charge to make up for the loss of fuel excise. However, Labor has indicated this is not being considered at the moment…

    WHAT ABOUT THE STRAIN ON THE ELECTRICITY GRID?
    There are concerns the growing number of electric vehicles might put pressure on baseload power in Australia.
    But Labor spokesman on climate change and energy Mark Butler said this was an issue that is being dealt with by countries around the world and he expected the impact to be lower in Australia because of the high uptake of rooftop solar.
    “A whole lot of the purchases of electric vehicle will be plugging their vehicles straight into their own microgeneration on top of their roof, probably with a battery as well,” Mr Butler told reporters…

    Energy Network Australia also warned in a submission to the Senate’s electric vehicle inquiry that measures needed to be put in place to ensure electric cars were not being charged at the same time, especially on a hot summer day when electricity demand was at its peak.

    However, Infrastucture Partnerships Australia has suggested this would be managed by using a smarter electricity grid that could store off-peak renewable energy for use when there was high demand.

    “It might be that you plug your car in and it starts drawing power from the grid or, potentially more likely, you plug your car in and it actually powers your house,” Infrastructure Partnerships Australia chief executive Adrian Dwyer said.
    https://www.news.com.au/national/federal-election/the-reality-of-electric-cars-in-australia/news-story/ebc70930d49758db0ad0f6b5a91df0c6

    AUDIO: 1min02sec: 6 Apr: 2GB Motor Torque: 50% electric cars by 2030? – hang on a minute, our three best sellers in March were diesel powered utes
    On top of that four SUV’s also got into the top ten selling vehicles most noticeable the trusty Toyota LandCruiser which is far from a light carbon dioxide emitter. Which all points up how Labor’s misguided 50 per cent electric vehicle plan if implemented would have a major impact on the way we go about motoring. The whole electric vehicle plan by Labor has gained enormous exposure this week – exposure for being so poorly researched in every step – electric cars offer much and deserve better frankly and I’ll talk about that in my segments tomorrow. I’m David Berthon…
    https://www.2gb.com/podcast/50-electric-cars-by-2030-hang-on-a-minute-our-three-best-sellers-in-march-were-diesel-powered-utes/

    20

  • #
    pat

    a friend of **Shorten’s?

    6 Apr: Daily Mail: New ultra-fast pumps can charge up an electric vehicle in just 10 minutes – but car batteries aren’t advanced enough yet to handle it
    •New types of EV chargers can have a battery fully charged in minutes not hours
    •Companies beginning to roll them out in Europe, but batteries haven’t caught up
    •Storage and accepted voltage are the major issues, industry experts say
    By James Pero
    One company, the Australia-based Tritium, says it can provide drivers about 210 miles of charge in just ***10 minutes — a feat that would shatter prior standards…

    Most cars are not yet compatible with ultra-fast charging and according to CEO of electric infrastructure company ABB, who spoke at a recent conference in Houston, and the process of trying to develop a viable ultra-fast charger can be dangerous.

    ‘[Ultra fast chargers] are a real breakthrough in terms of convenience,’ said Ulrich Spiesshofer at CERAWeek conference in Houston last month as reported in Bloomberg. ‘We barbecued a couple of cars until we got there.’
    The biggest hindrance for ultra-fast chargers is reportedly the size of the current generation of batteries as well as the voltage they can accept…
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6892099/New-ultra-fast-pumps-charge-electric-car-minutes-theres-battery-handle-it.html

    5 Apr: Daily Mail: A battery breakthrough? Swiss startup says it has invented a lithium-ion electric car battery that can run for 600 miles on a single charge
    Battery still in development and the firm says it could take five years to launch
    By James Pero
    The secret to Innolith’s battery, is the use of what the company calls a specially designed ‘inorganic electrolyte.’
    The electrolyte, according to a report from The Verge, is what one company executive calls ‘salt-like materials.’…

    In addition to providing drivers with a longer charge, Innolith says that their technology would also be safer than current ‘wet’ lithium-ion batteries that involve the use of volatile chemicals which are prone to fires…

    While Innolith’s claims are eye-grabbing, the company says that its product is still currently ‘under development’ in its Germany lab and said it will take another three to five years to bring to production…
    Two representatives for the Electrochemical Society declined to comment to MailOnline.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6888183/A-battery-breakthrough-Startup-says-invented-electric-car-battery-600-mile-range.html

    UK Express wrongly says Innolith is Swedish – it’s only PR anyway:

    5 Apr: UK Express: Electric car BREAKTHROUGH as new battery TRIPLES current life range
    A REVOLUTIONARY battery giving electric cars three times today’s usage rate has been unveiled, sending shockwaves through the sector.
    By Tom Fish
    But the age of electric cars may finally have arrived, with a lithium-ion battery capable of powering a vehicle for 600 miles being trialled…
    ***Swedish startup Innolith has engineered the battery, but admit it may take up to three years to launch the battery…

    no mention in the above pieces about this- read all:

    10 Oct 2018: GreenTechMedia: Lithium Battery Hopeful Innolith Rises From Alevo’s Ashes
    Execs look to focus on R&D—and leave manufacturing to third parties.
    by Jason Deign
    Executives from the battery maker Alevo, which went bankrupt last year, are hoping to relaunch the business with a different focus, under a new brand.

    Alan Greenshields and Sergey Buchin, Alevo’s chief technology officer and chief operating officer, respectively, have arranged the purchase of intellectual property held by Alevo in Switzerland. They also bought its research and development facility in Bruchsal, Germany, and its only operational battery plant, which is located in the U.S.

    Because of Alevo’s distressed position, a company administrator said earlier this year that the sale price of U.S.-based assets would likely be “surprisingly low.” (That quote was not referring to the IP in Switzerland.)

    The company is now being rebooted this week under a new name, ***INNOLITH, and with a focus on R&D rather than battery manufacturing.
    Innolith, which is registered in Basel, Switzerland, will look to license its technology to third-party manufacturers.

    In this respect, Greenshields, who is acting as Innolith’s board chairman, and Buchin, the CEO, are clearly keen to avoid the mistakes made with Alevo. The company ran into financial trouble after betting big on manufacturing capacity…
    https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/lithium-battery-hopeful-innolith-rises-from-alevos-ashes

    10

  • #
    pat

    AUDIO: 1min31sec: 6 Apr: 2GB Motor Torque: Bill Shorten’s far reaching electric car plan lack of detail
    Despite all of the talk of electric cars and the Labor Party’s policy that 50 per cent of our vehicle fleet should be electric by 2030 little has been said about what impact that would have on government revenues. Petrol excise currently makes up a large proportion of Government revenue – from Tuesday’s budget paper expected to represent $19.7 billion in the 2019/2020 year – based on a fuel excise level of 41.2 cents a litre.

    So how is Bill Shorten going to make up the $10 odd million shortfall in petrol excise if he is successful in winning the election and implements his electric vehicle plan. A road user charge seems to be the answer replacing fuel excise with a charge across all vehicles for kilometres actually travelled.

    As I said earlier, Bill Shorten was asked by a rival radio station this week how long did it take to charge an electric car, his answer – depending on the state of the battery around 6 to 8 minutes. This shows an absolute lack of knowledge of electric car usage and technology and you wonder just how much detail has gone into the Labor Party’s electric vehicle plan. Of course the Electric Vehicle Council has quickly embraced Labor’s electric car proposal – describing it as “a game changer that will spur investment and start driving the nation into a cleaner transport future”.

    The Council Chief Executive Behyard Jafari suggesting Labor’s policy “was an exciting stride forward for the nation”. Really, never mind what it will cost the average family. I’m David Berthon
    https://www.2gb.com/podcast/bill-shortens-far-reaching-electric-car-plan-lack-of-detail/

    20

  • #
    pat

    6 Apr: BusinessInsider: Wall Street’s biggest Tesla bear says shares are going to crater 80% to $54
    by Arjun Reddy
    •Wall Street’s biggest Tesla bear, Vertical Research’s Gordon Johnson, reiterated his “sell” rating and lowered his price target to $US54 – 80% below shares were trading Friday.
    • He says Tesla is “running out of people who want to buy its cars.”
    • Johnson is also worried about heavy competition coming from the likes of Jaguar, Porsche, and Mercedes.
    • Watch Tesla trade live.

    And while Johnson is definitely the most bearish Tesla analyst on Wall Street, with a price target almost $US260 below the consensus, he’s not the only one who was worried about the automaker’s first-quarter deliveries.
    “Tesla’s 1Q19 vehicle production & deliveries report was substantially worse than expected,” JPMorgan analyst Ryan Brinkman, who lowered his price target to $US200 after Wednesday’s report, told clients in a note out the following day.

    In addition to this “demand hell,” as Johnson refers to it, Tesla CEO Elon Musk continues to battle the Securities and Exchange Commission…
    https://www.businessinsider.com.au/tesla-stock-price-to-plunge-80-biggest-bear-says-2019-4?r=US&IR=T

    5 Apr: ExtremeTech: Like a Rock: Tesla Sales, Worldwide and US, Sank in Q1
    By Bill Howard
    Did anybody know it was going to be this bad? Tesla sales dropped 61 percent in the US in the first quarter, 31 percent worldwide compared with the last three months of 2018. It’s not just Tesla EV sales that are soft. Somebody forgot to tell US auto buyers that EVs are the future: Fewer than 10,000 EVs not named Tesla were sold here January through March. Every time a non-Tesla EV gets sold, 405 other new cars go out the door before the next non-Tesla EV is purchased…READ ALL
    https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/288938-like-a-rock-tesla-sales-worldwide-and-us-sank-in-q1

    30

  • #
    PeterPetrum

    Jo, would love a reference list of “the biggest/hottest/fiercest things that have happened before”. It would b so useful.

    A case in point – my wife’s ex school principal boss and his wife visited us yesterday – both lovely people but, being teachers, are left leaning (my wife isn’t?!). In conversation he just happened to mention that “last year was the hottest year eva”. I said “no, 1939 and the 1890’s were warmer”. He through for a minute then acknowledged that it had been so hot in 1939 that his mother had allowed him and his brother to walk around the house naked! Point conceded.

    So yes, Jo, a list of past extremes would be more than useful: I would say an essential conversation resource.

    62

    • #
      Speedy

      Hi Peter
      And another issue of logic – coincidence isn’t causation. Even if it WERE the “hottest day eva” that doesn’t prove AGW, especially if we’re coming out of a mini-ice age. The “hottest day eva” line is CONSISTENT with the theory, but doesn’t PROVE it.
      On the other hand, if the theory cannot explain why we’ve had ice ages and high CO2 levels at the same time, or if it can’t explain the “missing” tropospheric hot spot, or if it can’t tell us why the “warming” of the late 20th century was man made, but the more statistically significant Greek, Roman and Medieval Warm periods were only “natural variation”, then the theory has some serious gaps.
      And another question. If the science is so good, why do they need to resort to subterfuge and outright lying? The first duty of science is to the truth.
      Cheers,
      Speedy.

      00

  • #
    Speedy

    Why do they call it “Climate Change”?

    Because “Global Warming” isn’t happening, perhaps?

    Cheers,

    Speedy.

    00

  • #
    Brenty

    Jo, A great chronological history of early weather events over 2000 years was written by James A Marusek http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Weather.pdf
    It will take you a very long time to read it. There is quite a lot of early Australian weather history included in this book.

    10

Leave a Reply to Dennis Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>