Even the US Democrats have realized that times have changed and talking about “climate change” has become toxic to voters, but the Australian conservatives can’t figure it out.
Even as Sussan Ley, the Opposition Leader, contemplates taking a baby step away from “Net Zero” targets (pushing it back to 2060), the latest advice for Democrats is “Don’t say Climate Change”.
The Democrat leaders say they’ve seen the light because of a recent Searchlight poll, but polling numbers have been the same for the last ten years. Voters have always said climate change is a catastrophe, because it was social-death to say anything else, but they also rank climate change near the bottom of their ToDo lists. They never cared, and it didn’t matter — not until their electricity bills caught fire, and the smelters started closing. Then it mattered, but in a bad way.
The field is ripe for a real opposition to pick up this dissatisfaction, instead the Australian Liberals tinker with a different shade of pagan fantasy, while the world moves on, and the left gear up for a flanking manouver.
Don’t expect to hear a nano-quark of a mea culpa, or any lessons learned — the people at the front of this political wagon are not admitting they were wrong, they’re just agreeing to hide their obsession with weather-changery, and then lie about how the Republicans are making electricity expensive.
They’re still patting themselves on the back, and telling themselves they’re smarter than the voters. Listen to Rep Sean Casten (D) as he softens the bad news for the genius Democrats:
“There’s no obvious electoral upside in being really smart on energy and climate policy.”
Nearly a year after the 2024 election, Democrats are still trying to figure out what went wrong. In the midst of this soul-searching, a new piece of advice has appeared: “Don’t say climate change.”
Having hammered us with righteous Climate Fear for twenty years, the Democrats are just starting to realize that the voters know the party cares more about the climate than it does about the voters…
That’s the takeaway from a recent poll by the Searchlight Institute, a new Democratic think tank. Americans said they see climate change as a problem, but it’s rarely one of their top issues — voters in battleground states are more concerned with affordability and health care. But when asked which issue they think the Democratic Party prioritizes, climate change was number one.
The Searchlight poll shows that half the population will still call climate change a serious sort of crisis, but only a pitiful 1 to 6% actually think it’s the top issue.
If only US Democrats had been reading skeptical blogs they would have known this years ago.
SearchLight
So this is a win for skeptics, but gird your loins, the battle is just shifting to a new front — “cheap” energy:
Advocacy groups are on board, too, with the League of Conservation Voters, Climate Power, and others running an ad blitz this summer blaming Republicans for increasing energy costs.
Australian conservatives still think they need a “Net Zero” policy to impress the voters, but as Barnaby Joyce says, it’s the liability that cost them the last two elections.
This is just another public service announcement so nobody misses out on finding out just how far the media will prostitute themselves to trick the voters.
Two policemen were put in hospital at the March for Australia rally, but it was by rabid left leaning protestors throwing rocks, and bottles filled with broken glass. Despite that, the ABC didn’t even think it was worth mentioning at all and SBS used the violence to suggestively imply that both sides of the anti-mass-immigration protest were badly behaved.
The ABC said not one word about mass protests in every capital city, but they had time to tell Australians about anti-Trump No Kings March on the other side of the world and a tour of Japanese lamb-chop chefs. Even bunkers in Finland were more important. Priorities mate…
If a dozen people had turned up to protest climate change, they would have been on the news.
Victorian Police were understandably fed up. Commander Wayne Cheeseman was blunt — the violence was all from the left and the March for Australia crowd were peaceful and well behaved.
His words, from The Australian:
Bottles filled with shards of glass were being thrown at police. Rotten fruit, bins and flags were set on fire. People came to pick a fight with police.
“The people that came to pick the fight with police were the issue-motivated groups on the left,” he said.
“The March for Australia group – they were peaceful, engaging and followed instructions. The others came with masks, hoodies and umbrellas, throwing rocks and hiding behind barriers. They came to harm our members, and it’s got to stop.”
— by Mohammed Alfares, Joanna Panagopolos, and Mackenzie Scott at The Australian:
…
It was like a parallel universe on SBS
The Blob is very afraid these protests against mass immigration will grow.
The point of news stories like this one below, by the publicly funded SBS is to scare middle Australia away from attending these rallies. The last thing the Blob wants is for people to bring out their kids to wave the Australian flag? Oh No! That’s the wrong kind of pride…
SBS has a long write up of the protests but does not use the word “left” even when quoting the Police Commander. Should we call that misinformation, or malinformation?
Just ask, would SBS staff get bigger salaries if the message in the protests spread and Australians voted in a cost cutting government?!
The violence becomes the story, like a smoke flare, to hide the real topic — look a squirrel!
The violent lefties provide the performance the Blob-Media needs to tar, feather and confuse ordinary Australians. But equally as important, the violence itself fills the news cycles like a smoke bomb, hiding the real topic. Most Australians won’t go to bed tonight thinking about a pithy comment made by a speaker at a rally, because they didn’t hear the speakers. The whole topic was reduced to barely one word, anti-immigration.
If we had an honest media, people would be talking about this protest at the watercoolers tomorrow…
The next big protest rally will be Australia Day January 2026. Get ready. Spread the word.
_______________________________________
UPDATE: Reports from commenters who were there at the Melbourne rally include a report that an ebike was deliberately ridden into the crowd injuring an older lady.
March for Australia Against Mass Immigration will be held in every major city as well as Grafton, Wodonga, Rockhampton, Townsville, Mackay, and Yeppoon. Take your Australian Flag!
People who want to print and drop flyers in letterboxes can find the PDF files here.
From their flyer: The questions that Australians should be able to discuss without ill-will:
What are you passing on to your children?
A NATION WITHOUT FAIR WAGES
Not Enough Nurses? Instead of raising wages to attract more Australians, the government imports nurses from the third
world – who are happy to work for less! Fair wage demands get ignored. This applies to any and all industries. Don’t
count on unions, because diverse workplaces are less likely to unionise1.
More Migration = Bigger Labour Pool = Weaker Bargaining Power for Australian Workers
A NATION WITHOUT HOUSING
What do you think adding 7 million people to Australia’s population in 20 years does? Our housing shortfall is not a
supply issue – it’s a mass migration issue. We will never meet demand, when demand is infinite.
A NATION WITHOUT SAFETY
In Victoria, we’ve seen Africans murdering 12-year-olds by cutting their hands off with machetes2.
In Queensland, we have grandmas being stabbed to death in front of their own grandchildren3.
Widespread home invasions mean that Australian families don’t even feel safe in their own homes. Did you always lock your doors?
A NATION WITHOUT COMMUNITY
Make no mistake, when housing in your community is sold to foreigners, those foreigners are directly displacing your
own children. What is ‘community’, when your children need to move hours away from where they grew up. What is
‘community’ when you don’t even speak the same language as your neighbours?
A nation without identity
The Liberals and every other established party refuse to call for migration policy that preserves our demographics.
Australia could become 95% Indian and they wouldn’t care. If Australia became 95% Indian, would it still be Australia?
What does it mean to be ‘Australian’, when supposedly all it takes is stepping off a plane?
YOU OWE IT TO YOUR CHILDREN
Join hundreds of thousands of Australians, in marching for Australia, across all capital cities nationwide.
Meet at Hyde Park, [Sydney]*, at the water fountain on October 19th at 12PM.
[Melbourne, Parliament House Steps | Brisbane, Emma Miller Place | Adelaide, Light Square, Currie st | Perth, Langley Park | Canberra, Captain James Cook Memorial | Hobart, Salamanca Gardens | Grafton, Grafton Tafe | Rockhampton, Central Park | Yeppoon, Central Park | Townsville, Anzac Park | Darwin, “TBA” | Wodonga, Les Stone Park | Mackay, Bluewater Quay. ]
The ABC won’t let you know about this, so I’m passing it on as a public service. Share it with a friend, eh?
It’s time to move the goalposts to rescue some reputations
We always knew this day would come. The moment when history gets rewritten so The Blob can pretend their life and death battle for climate change was not scientific Voodoo, and a total waste of twenty years and a thousand billion dollars.
If we move all the goalposts, the Paris Agreement is looking good, even though man-made emissions are rising, and almost no one is meeting their targets.
Watch the agitprop in action — firstly they pretend this is about maths — “the numbers are in” as if they have evidence and can count to four. But every number is completely invented, totally elastic and all of it was modeled, and none of it has happened. They’re just saying (and lying) that things could have been a lot worse, but phew, the Paris Agreement is working:
As global heat records keep tumbling, a new analysis shows the Paris climate treaty is having an impact, with warming on track to reach 2.6 degrees if nations meet their commitments, rather than 4 degrees as was predicted before the agreement was signed in 2016.
O’Malley is trying to gaslight the audience into thinking that the IPCC was “predicting 4 degrees C” as the most likely outcome when the range stretched from 0.3°C up to 4.8°C, and all the talk at the time was about staying below 2 degrees with an aspirational target of 1.5°C.
The 4 degree extreme predictions came only from the absurd “RCP 8.5 scenario” — where the whole world flew Concordes to work every day and CO2 reached 936ppm. (But even die-hard modelers like Gavin Schmidt and Zeke Hausfather now agree this was an unlikely and unrealistically extreme outcome.)
But nine years later, after coal use hits record highs and renewables projects are collapsing, there’s not even a hint that global CO2 levels have slowed at all — yet The Blob cheer-squad hails a modeled 2.6 degrees future as a success (if everyone keeps their word which they never do).
And since the 2.6 degree “future” is calculated with models we know don’t work, every single part of this might as well be chicken entrails.
If man-made emissions mattered at all, this is not what “success” looks like:
Back in 2016, the goal was 2 °C. Later, when it looked like the disasters weren’t coming in fast enough, they decided that 1.5 °C of warming was still a terrible thing. Now they’re celebrating 2.6 °C. Only in climate politics can every miss be a win.
A Climate Oracle hath spoken and the ABC soaked it all up, no questions asked
In research believed to be “the first of its kind” badly trained scientists have gone where no respectable scientist dared to go. They have “attributed” some deaths that haven’t happened to a specific fossil fuel project.
This opens the door (they think) to a legal bonanza.
Australian researchers have linked a single fossil fuel project to climate impacts, modelling that Woodside’s Scarborough project will cause 484 heat-related deaths in Europe.
It is the first time a scientific paper has attributed the climate impacts of a specific fossil fuel project.
It also found that the incremental rise in global temperatures from that one project would result in an additional 16 million corals lost in every bleaching event on the Great Barrier Reef, and expose an extra 516,000 people around the world to unprecedented heat.
The whole 30 year Scarborough project will only warm the world 0.00039 degrees
Even according to their exaggerating skillless models, the entire effect of Scarborough emissions will supposedly raise global temperatures by all of four ten-thousandths of a degree. Frankly, this analysis will have the exact opposite effect the researchers hope. It’s going to reassure Australians that it would be crazy to stop this project going ahead.
In the new paper published in the Nature journal Climate Action, researchers found Scarborough’s 880 million tonnes of emissions over its lifetime — including emissions when the gas was burnt — would increase global temperatures by 0.00039 degrees.
If only it had been peer reviewed by a respectable journal, the editors would have sent them packing…
Firstly, if emissions could warm the world, it would save lives. Death rates from the cold, swamp any paltry losses to heat theoretically imagined in 50 years time. Cold weather is not just 10% more deadly, it’s 600%, 1000% or 2000% more likely to kill. Any reduction in cold weather will save lives. Plus heatwaves tend to kill people who were going to die in the next six weeks anyway.
Secondly, cheaper gas saves lives immediately, (what’s the discount rate on a theoretical death in 2100?). Gas heats homes, fertilizes food, cooks food, and makes cheap clothing. If Scarborough was not approved, all these things would be slightly more expensive, thus hurting the poorest of the poor.
Thirdly, if Scarborough were shut down the gas would just be dug up somewhere else. Most countries are not banning gas exploration or extraction, and are not adopting suicidal taxes in a quest to change the weather. The authors don’t even consider this “leakage of carbon emissions” which is an industry standard in this sort of analysis.
The Scarborough Gas project will save so many lives, it would be a crime to stop it
The researchers claim they took the beneficial effects of warming into account and say magically “The increase in temperatures would result in fewer cold deaths in some parts of Europe, but even accounting for those deaths, the study estimates that 118 more people would die in Europe overall.”
So the 484 deaths in the headline is really 118 extra deaths even in their own paper. Are they here to serve Australians or deceive them?
Cold weather kills 6, 10, or 20 times as many people
The largest study across 13 countries found cold deaths were twenty times more common than heat deaths. In richer European cities, with gas stoves and coal fired power stations *only* ten times as many people will die of the cold. (Mazzelot et al) Even in warm sunny Brisbane, Australia, six times as many people die in mild cold weather as in the heat of summer. (Cheng et al).
Abram et al (this new paper) uses the Gasparrini data set, but extrapolated far outside what it was intended for.
a/ The new modeling assumes the warming-death trend is linear even down to fractional tiny increments of a degree which is “brave” given that daily temperatures vary in any given city by 20,000 times as much.
b/ They assume that only temperature matters and ignore changes in wealth, unemployment, or healthcare.
c/ They assume if Scarborough was shut down the emissions are not just emitted elsewhere, which they almost certainly will be.
If climate modelers were paid to show windmills and solar panels kill people, it would be easy
If the Greens think they can stop projects with “attribution lawfare” they could get a nasty surprise. Once the doors are open on this scientific swamp of dubious extrapolation, the crocodiles will eat their own favourite projects alive.
We all know that modelers can find any answer they want if they have enough free parameters to toss their salad with.
Obviously, when it comes to deaths due to unreliable energy and higher electricity costs modelers have plenty of gears to turn. Senior citizens and the poor will die in cold rooms they can’t afford to heat. Food prices will rise, so families will run out of money to pay for healthy food and have to feed the kids cheezels for breakfast. Et Voila, there is obesity and diabetes to add to the funeral pyres. Sooner or later, a proper blackout will kill people on operating tables and in train tunnels. As electricity prices rise, businesses and factories will fail, so jobs will be lost, which raises suicide rates, homelessness, poverty and divorce.
And of course, there’s always the big one, that nations with no industrial strength are sitting ducks for foreign invasion and takeover. Could unreliable energy and pagan quests to control the weather with electrical generators break a civilization? Don’t get me started. You want mortality?
Someone could ask Lee Zeldin, Administrator of the US EPA, if he could fund that modeling?
REFERENCES
Abram, N.J., Maher, N., Perkins-Kirkpatrick, S. et al. Quantifying the regional to global climate impacts of individual fossil fuel projects to inform decision-making. npj Clim. Action4, 92 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-025-00296-5
Masselot et al (2023) Excess mortality attributed to heat and cold: a health impact assessment study in 854 cities in Europe, The Lancet, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(23)00023-2
At the top of the Magic Faraway Tree, the cheapest form of energy needs more subsidies. Just keep pouring the money…
The Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) has finally quietly admitted that they’ve given up on wind and solar power becoming cheaper than coal. Instead, renewables are so uncompetitive they will need another ten years of subsidies, or however long it takes until the last coal plant shuts off.
It’s so revealing. Once upon a time they might have thought (or at least pretended) that subsidies were there to get the unreliable generators ‘over the development hump’ so they could compete in a free market. But after 20 years of subsidies, there are no new economies of scale left to wait for. We got to the bottom of the cost efficiency curve and we’re going up the other side. Costs are now rising as the new projects have to go to far flung fields and wait for impossible transmission towers to appear. Windmills kept getting bigger until there was a nasty surprise in the maintenance bills that wiped 36% off Siemens shares in a single day.
AEMC opine about getting back to a free market once the coal plants are forced off the grid by the Big Government subsidies. They might as well be telling the world that wind and solar will never be as cheap as coal is.
How could the new unfree market, post coal, possibly be cheaper than the old one?
Australia’s official energy policy adviser says government subsidies for renewables will likely be kept in place for as long as coal-fired power generation keeps operating, locking in underwriting schemes for at least another decade.
It’s not renewables fault, it’s because we need “an orderly transition” (to a forced, fixed, and unfree market):
The Australian Energy Market Commission said underwriting mechanisms were needed to ensure there was an orderly transition to green energy as coal generation exited the nation’s power grid.
Sorry, did we say the subsidies would end? We meant “maybe”.
“Are we going to get past this at some point when we won’t have governments underwriting new capacity. Maybe once we’ve seen coal exit and we’ve built out this phase of the transition,” AEMC commissioner Tim Jordan told the Citi Australia and New Zealand Investment Conference on Tuesday.
All the talk of free markets is just an illusion:
“We can then return to a more market-led approach where underlying demand growth will determine whether new capacity enters.”
Mr Jordan said the industry and government should aim for “market principles to take over again” once the transition from coal to renewables was complete.
What do we call a free market when the cheapest competitor is banned?
If the green subsidies can’t end until coal power is gone, it looks more like their primary goal was not to help renewables so much as to destroy coal…
With the climate olympic-junket just weeks away in Brazil, the race is on for word-salad-catastrophes flavored with science-incense to shake down more cash and concessions from the rich democracies.
And thus the University of Exeter proffers the first round of this year’s “on the brink” specials.
The first tipping point is almost upon us, just like it was every year for the last 29 years in a row:
The world faces a “new reality” as we have reached the first of many Earth system tipping points that will cause catastrophic harm unless humanity takes urgent action, according to a landmark report released today (13 Oct) by the University of Exeter and international partners.
With ministers gathering today ahead of the COP30 summit, the second Global Tipping Points Report finds that warm-water coral reefs – on which nearly a billion people and a quarter of all marine life depend – are passing their tipping point. Widespread dieback is taking place and – unless global warming is reversed – extensive reefs as we know them will be lost, although small refuges may survive and must be protected.
We are on the brink of more tipping points, with devastating risks for people and nature: the irreversible melting of polar ice sheets, the collapse of key ocean currents and the dieback of the Amazon rainforest – where COP30 will be held.
With global warming set to breach 1.5°C, the report – by 160 scientists at 87 institutions in 23 countries – argues that countries must minimise temperature overshoot to avoid crossing more tipping points. Every fraction of a degree and every year spent above 1.5°C matters.
It might as well be straight out of the Neolithic Sorcerers Cookbook — How to wind up the crowd before you ask for the goats and girls:
Pick things the audience likes but mostly won’t have any direct experience of, like, say, corals 100km off the coast and under 10 meters of water. Even in the unlikely event a single critic dives on one reef, the real crisis will turn out to be in the 100,000 reefs they didn’t visit.
Use vague, ill defined terms, like “climate change” which can mean long term, short term, man-made, natural, or a thing that dropped in for the weekend.
Queensland has opened the veil of Sauron — toying with planetary ostracism, death, fire, and cosmic doom.
The State Government shattered the taboo, asking: “Should we build the pumped hydro to bend the jet streams — or save $26 billion dollars and keep the coal plants instead?
In a brave move they added up the costs of storing sacred green electrons in an artificial lake upon the mount, and decided they’d rather save the money and just stick with perfectly serviceable, reliable coal plants. Turn on the lights.
This move will save every household in Queensland $1000.
Somewhere, a thousand bureaucrats are shrieking. The government are summoning forbidden megawatts from the underworld. They’re calling back the black fire! And not just for a few cowardly years, but for two whole decades. The oracles of Paris will not forgive this.
Queenslanders will be saved $26bn – or $1000 a household – by keeping coal-fired power stations open for longer and scrapping or downsizing enormous pumped hydro schemes, Treasury analysis suggests.
Energy Minister David Janetzki said the new Treasury modelling indicated the former Labor government’s renewable energy plan – which hinged on building one of the world’s biggest pumped hydro facilities in north Queensland – would have cost the state $86bn in capital expenditure to 2035.
The big danger in messing with the delicate Green social conditioning is that if word gets out, this kind of rampant clear-thinking might spread.
If the e-Safety commissioner doesn’t ban discussion of cheap coal plants fast enough, other states will hear about this. Consider the state next door, where the owners of Tomago Aluminium Smelter just gave warning that they will have to close down because electricity costs are too high. They’re not waiting for New South Wales to build another 50 Gigawatts of wind and solar, Rio Tinto just don’t see any future where electricity is cheaper.
If only we had vast brown coal seams, or the worlds largest uranium deposit…?
Rio Tinto is preparing to make a final call on the future of the Tomago aluminium smelter and its more than a thousand workers which could be out of a job by 2028.
The mining giant, its partners and the New South Wales and federal governments cannot solve the problem of high east coast energy prices that make the smelter an unviable future prospect.
A legacy coal power supply contract with AGL Energy expires in three years’ time, at which point Tomago will likely shut forever. To stay in business, it is faced with paying twice as much for its electricity needs beyond that date, a scenario that Rio and its partners are unlikely to support.
If Queensland doesn’t turn into horned turnip or a snivelling hunchback, other states might get the crazy idea that they can do this too.
Especially when the businesses move to Queensland…
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.
Seen at the last rally:
Recent Comments