The Green-Blob actions betray them. Greens don’t care about the environment or CO2, just power and money

Bask in the hypocrisy — the concern about CO2 is faked

Greens, green mask, greenblob, jobs, money, environment Climate change is The Greatest Threat on Earth but the Merchants of Panic don’t really care if we reduce CO2.  Follow what they do, not what they say. This is our last chance to save the planet, but they won’t consider nuclear energy — apparently the planet is just not that important. Nor will they consider Ultra Super Critical hot burning coal, which could reduce emissions by 15% at a stroke. Likewise fracking. Instead, the answer to everything is always inefficient, government-dependent industries and trading schemes. These schemes don’t reduce much CO2, but they reward the patrons of big-government and punish the opponents. They suck money from independent corporations, and churn that cash through the “renewables” cheer-squad, the financial houses, and the groups that profit from keeping the climate scare going. Ponder that the EU had a monster emissions trading scheme, but the USA cut far more emissions — thanks to fracking and no thanks to any fake “free market”. The bottom line is that we may face the Anthropocene Mass Extinction Event, but apparently things are not so bad that the Greens will consider fracking. The big EU market was riddled with corruption for years, which caused more CO2 to be released, but the Green Blob didn’t care enough to audit it, or to be outraged when it was failing.

Environmental success is measured in terms of money, not megatonnes. (How does “89 trillion” sound?).

And success was supposed to be measured in degrees C in any case, but the Greenblob doesn’t care whether the policies do that either. If heat is the problem, why is the amount of cooling irrelevant? And if windfarms are good for the environment, how come hardly anyone seems to care when it slaughters and roasts endangered birds?

Abbott was too dangerous because he gave Greens exactly what they *said* they wanted

Tony Abbott out-greened the Greens and threatened to expose that their fake concern. His “Direct Action plan” saved far more CO2 than the carbon taxes of the GreenBlob parties. He achieved cuts in CO2 for $14 a ton instead of spending $1,500 a ton. Direct Action is 5, 10 or 327 times more effective than The Carbon Tax. For the same amount of money, he could save a lot more planet.

If the Green Blob cared about CO2, Abbott would be called a hero — the statesman from the conservative side that got results.  Instead he’s a pariah. Indeed, it’s because he called their bluff that made him so dangerous. He gave them what they said they wanted — reductions in CO2, but he didn’t give them what they really wanted — power, money and the glorious sense that they are superior.

The Green Blob wear the mask of concern, but judging by their actions it’s just the cloak that hides self-serving, freeloading ambitions. If they really put the planet first, they would not be trying to save it with erratic wind and expensive solar power. They eschew all the cheap efficient options because those only reduce CO2 (which appears to be irrelevant) and don’t help with the real goal, namely bigger-government and a smaller independent sector.

If the goal is money and power, reducing CO2 through cheap efficient means would actually be counter productive. It would stop the flow of cash to the patron saints of wind and solar and show how pointless they are:

One MIT study estimated the cost of abating carbon with wind was about $60 AUD per ton, and the cost of solar was $700 AUD per ton. (Marcantonini, 2013). Another estimate put the price of carbon reduction at South Australian windfarms at $1484 per ton.

Hence Tony Abbott had to be stopped at any cost.

9.6 out of 10 based on 159 ratings

144 comments to The Green-Blob actions betray them. Greens don’t care about the environment or CO2, just power and money

  • #

    You forget that the Greens also torpedoed all future investment in Hydro with the Franklin Dam protest in the early 80’s. No government has since has the courage to propose a hydro scheme.


    • #
      Ted O'Brien

      The Greens and Who? A better description would be The Marxists.


      • #

        “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for [Un]Sustainable Development” Power and Control”

        The Agenda

        Read this recent (Aug 12th, 2015) UN Document A/69/L.85, referred to as ‘The Agenda’ by the UN in the text, and see clearly what your Government and Politicians are signing you, your children and their grandchildren, up for.


        • #
          James Murphy

          Reading this endless aspirational waffle reminded me of the British National Union Of Students meeting, which reads pretty much the same way.

          Few sane humans would disagree with the concept of poverty reduction, equal rights, better healthcare and education, etc, but I do not trust the UN to do it effectively, equitably, or cheaply.

          Interesting though, is the use of the phrase “…All countries and all stakeholders, acting in collaborative partnership…” on the 2nd page. I thought the UN officially existed to represent member countries, which, in a perfect world, represent the people living in those countries, so I didn’t think there were more stakeholders than that, but I guess I suffer from some sort of severe delusion in that respect.


          • #

            James , a couple of things come to mind when you mentioned the NUS ( and yes we suffered through them at Uni… )

            (1) When you read much of our new Legislation, often you will see many laws are in fact framed aorund our UN treaties. In effect, the UN is dictating our laws. Doubt it not.

            (2) The UN is a wolf covered in lambskin….bear in mind the UN is a *private* organisation with zero accountability, yet govts around the world are falling over themselves to be part of it. The UN appears to be heavily communist so ask yourself why should allegedly “democratic” govts want hold positions within such an organization?

            Here is a section relevent to our discussion, but really I think describes the true intent of the UN and its view toward the plebs ( sub article (3) is the most telling ) :


            Article 29.

            (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

            (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

            (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.


          • #

            Not sure I agree with your notion of ‘endless aspirational waffle’ as comfortable as that might feel. I think the UN document is clearly bereft of ‘waffle’ for example,


            We recommit ourselves to the full realization of all the Millennium Development Goals


            All of us will work to implement the Agenda within our own countries and at the regional and global levels


            We commit to making fundamental changes in the way that our societies produce and consume goods and services


            States are strongly urged to refrain from promulgating and applying any unilateral economic, financial or trade measures not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations


            [COP21] we underscore the commitment of all States to work for an ambitious and universal climate agreement. We reaffirm that the protocol, another legal instrument or agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all parties shall address in a balanced manner, inter alia, mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology development and transfer and capacity-building; and transparency of action and support.


            The scale and ambition of the new Agenda requires a revitalized Global Partnership to ensure its implementation. We fully commit to this.


            Finance. We recognize that the full implementation of the Addis Ababa Action Agenda is critical for the realization of the Sustainable Development Goals and targets.


            The new Agenda deals with the means required for implementation of the Goals and targets. We recognize that these will include the mobilization of financial resources … and the transfer of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries on favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms…


            Official development assistance (ODA) providers reaffirm their respective commitments, including the commitment of 0.7 per cent of gross national income for official development assistance (ODA/GNI) to developing countries and 0.15 per cent to 0.2 per cent of ODA/GNI to least developed countries.


            We acknowledge also the essential role of national parliaments through their enactment of legislation and adoption of budgets… for the effective implementation of our commitments. Governments and public institutions will also work closely on implementation with regional and local authorities, subregional institutions, international institutions, academia, philanthropic organizations, volunteer groups and others [aka. ‘civil society’]


            If our politicians see through this all well and good. Our friends over at The Conversation rather like it. To date slow progress is manifesting a relentless constraining creep visible at local council level.

            It’s reminiscent of a frog being boiled alive.


            • #
              James Murphy

              Manfred, yes, you certainly have a point, perhaps I just didn’t express what I was thinking very well. On reflection, my points should have been more along the lines of :
              – Whilst the NUS are unlikely to achieve their goals, the UN seems quite capable of doing so.
              – Some percentage of the people who write/believe the NUS claptrap will (and have already got to) be in positions of real influence whilst maintaining a very similar mindset and vision for the world.


              • #

                James, thank you for your comment. Your point was well made. I was taking a devils advocate position.

                Bureacratic waffle-ese is a deeply toxic art form. Bringing nations together under the shackles of Green Global Government has to be, as someone somewhere once said, like herding cats. I sincerely hope so. The herders are also subject to their own difficulties, Maurice Strong caught handed with his green fingers in the till.

                In the meantime, one takes nothing for granted, least of all Their Intent and wider torpitude.


            • #
              Graham Richards

              I could have sworn that the WWW said all that


            • #

              Manfred, this is some of the most depressing language I have read in decades, The creep in it is now obvious and I think we may well be in the ” End Games”. I wonder how far the “Hunger Games” are in our future? Some of the other stories on this thread about the Heritage Sites are equally frightening.


        • #
          Geoff Sherrington

          In the 1980s I saw some of this UN control in the pipeline. The rush to create national parks and world heritage areas was not for their protection for future generations; it was a blatant grab for power to enforce UN ways in Sovereign countries.

          Accordingly, I used our Corporate facilities to challenge the widespread land grab of huge areas of the Top End of the NT where, in 1969, my colleagues had started to discover and disclose a new uranium province of global importance.

          It was, at the time, common knowledge that our Constitution required appropriate and just compensation if the Commonwealth acquired property from another. We had the potential of billions of dollars in the land in the Top End that we had covered with leases and exploration licences.

          The UN was out to grab the lot, without even giving us a chance to talk of alternatives or compensation.

          We won in the first instance in the Federal Court, the Commonwealth appealed and reversed, we went to the High Court where we lost on the basis that the matter was non-justiciable. That is, it was a matter that was beyond the power of our Courts to become involved. The was some other terrible jiggery-pokery by the Commonwealth as well, such as amending the Acts under which we worked to specifically prevent us from any operations for the recovery of minerals – even on our leases, granted by the Commonwealth a few years earlier.
          Have a read of

          Being from the Uni of Tas, even this summary is Green-painted but it gives the outline.

          What our Courts agreed was that our Government, without reference to affected Parties, could make laws to reserve land for specific uses (including doing bugger all with it) contrary to existing uses and subject to oversight by the United Nations.

          What a drastic way to prevent some uranium exploration!!!

          BTW, one of the Fed Court Judges, Murray Wilcox, was a former head of the Australian Conservation Foundation. He did not recuse himself. It gives us an idea of how far back this notion of United Nations government extends.


          • #

            The was some other terrible jiggery-pokery by the Commonwealth as well, such as amending the Acts under which we worked to specifically prevent us from any operations for the recovery of minerals – even on our leases, granted by the Commonwealth a few years earlier

            Most of the populace simply refuse to believe that an elected Govt could indulge in such bloody-minded hypocrisy … but we know better

            Yet the NSW Baird Govt is pulling exactly the same type of nauseating stunt with the NuCoal ex-lease in the Hunter Valley, even to the point of cowardly retrospective legislation to negate a High Court ruling


          • #

            Geoff, interesting to read thank you, and the frog was at a lower temperature then, than at the present!

            It seems on reading the case conclusion, that international treaties trump local law and the Cabinet may exercise its prerogative to supplant private national interest and natural justice. International law sees the application of the full extent of the precautionary principle, in this case, presumably all mining must be environmentally unsound?

            Any person with private proprietary rights or privileges in property proposed for World Heritage nomination would have been entitled to natural justice in the making of the decision to nominate. This despite the fact that such decisions are made by a political entity (the Federal Cabinet) in fulfilment of the Commonwealth Government’s international legal obligations under the World Heritage Convention.
            …It is clear that the decision to nominate an Australian property for the World Heritage List does not somehow extinguish all private interests in that land. What listing, or nomination for listing, does mean for those with private interests in the land is that any activity which is likely to damage the World Heritage values of the property can be prohibited under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act. Activities which are consistent with the protection, conservation and presentation of the World Heritage values of the property to the public can continue.


        • #

          Same as it evah was …
          philosopher king
          as it


  • #
    King Geo

    The “Green-Blob” or “Watermelons” – green on the outside but red on the inside as James Delingpole famously quoted.

    You see a watermelon is 92% water – and the “Green-Blob” are as “weak as water” with their “parasitic modus of operandi”. You see the “Green-Blob” are like parasites – sucking hard earned tax payer dollars out of our pockets so that they can put a “wrecking ball” through Economies worldwide – they have been successfully achieving that in the EU but forget the new “Economic Powerhouses” like China & India, they won’t allow the parasites anywhere near their burgeoning economies. The EU will learn the hard way of their mistakes once they have degenerated to “3rd World Status”. When that realization materialises then the “Green-Blob” or “Watermelons” will be despised vehemently.


    • #
      Peter Miller

      I hate to correct you, but the EU rarely learns anything.

      Despite the obvious insanity and unsustainability of their energy policies, their course is set ever closer to the rocks.

      Placing the welcome mat out for hundreds of thousands of refugees, which will number in their millions next year, will be totally unsustainable and fuel nationalist movements, which in turn will inevitably lead to the EU imploding. And this does not even consider the social and political impact of IS and other terrorists guaranteed to be hiding amongst these swarms of miserable people.

      In the EU, bureaucratic hegemony is everything, Brussels is famous for its never ending diktats of rules and regulations designed to justify its hideously expensive Eurocracy and hobble its members’ economies.

      If the EU needs an epitaph, it should be: “Eurocrats before people and unelected commissars over all.”


      • #

        Tough times for Old Europe.
        Reckless migrations are likely to be compounded by a cooling climate.
        A very cold a coming in 2019/20
        Check out this retired weatherman’s website and you tube video.
        Not fancy, but best “commoner” explanation I’ve seen in awhile.
        Would love to know what the skeptic thinks of his patterns and cycles.


      • #

        Traditionally, when the economy of an individual country starts to tank, devaluing the currency to try and inflate out of trouble is the preferred way

        Individual EU zone members cannot do this as the Euro is common to a large number of countries. Individual devaluation is not possible in this circumstance

        So we see two separate reactions to this impost, one for Greece and another for Cyprus. Which reaction was chosen was decided by the relative “size” of the demographic involved

        Greece was “loaned” heaps more money with exactly the same caveats on the “loan” as caused it to renege on its’ previous loan – BRILLIANT

        The Cyprus population simply had its’ private savings accounts (including superannuation/pension funds) confiscated overnight without warning

        This is an example of why I agree:

        If the EU needs an epitaph, it should be: “Eurocrats before people and unelected commissars over all.”


      • #

        The Russians mock the West about the EU, they call it the European Soviet….

        Takes one to know one….

        Explains a lot.


      • #
        King Geo

        Quoting Peter Miller

        “I hate to correct you, but the EU rarely learns anything”.

        Yes you are right – I was just hoping that the EU would eventually ignore the likes of Charlie & the Pope spreading “Green-Blobitus” to the masses leading to an inevitable “Green-Blobitus Pandemic”. One hopes it spreads no further than that but with nutters like Gore, Merkel, Obama, Trudeau, Flannery etc one has to be very concerned.


  • #

    It was never about saving anything, the creation and funding of the greatest bureaucratic beast unleashed unto all global governmental systems has just reared it’s ugly head at Paris, and the news of it’s creator having recently passed barely raised a hyper over emotive response from the climate compliant pressitutes.

    Even after death this evil lives on in the form of silencing through fear instilled into the weak and like minded, I urge any sceptical thinkers out here to explain this obvious and timely link to everyone, the life of Maurice Strong should be known by all, every sordid detail from planning to implementation, for the sake of all.


  • #
    el gordo

    Greg plans to tap into the junk carbon market at the drop of a hat and the Greens love him.

    ‘Late on Friday night, after some last-minute wrangling, Hunt got what the Turnbull government had keenly sought: the acceptance of accounting rules that allow Australia unrestricted access to the 128 million tonnes of surplus emissions credits it claims from the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.

    ‘That handy surplus will allow a big increase of emissions above current levels, and should the current upward trajectory of pollution breach the weak targets, Australia – once it ratifies stage two of the Kyoto Protocol – will get to tap international carbon markets to make up the difference.

    ‘At present prices, UN certified carbon units are selling for under $1 a tonne – a bargain compared with the $13.12 a tonne paid by the Abbott-Turnbull governments under its $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund.’

    Read more:
    Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook


    • #

      Yes but at the heart of it all, Turnbull is still playing ball to tghe green rules…..its “freedom” within tight confines…but not actually telling the greenies to get lost….

      A gold plated cage is still a cage…..


  • #

    … what they really wanted — power, money and the glorious sense that they are superior …

    [from the opening post]

    I concluded a while ago that the feeling of moral vanity is as addictive and dangerous as amphetamine (ice)


    • #

      I agree Ian, but what I find most disconcerting is the prospect of a single big government. My reasoning is that it seems plain to me that a natural healthy approach is to have many smaller sovereignties competing and adapting, call it diversity if you will. The successful will lead because the others will naturally follow. This doesn’t preclude cooperation at all. It just allows for self determination and adaptation to whatever challenges come our way. One universal elitist government is bound to come unstuck….very quickly it would seem, judging by the shenanigans of the anthropogenic global warming fiasco.


      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        If your feeling oppressed in one country you can move to another. When the world is a single government, where ya gonna go?


        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          …where ya gonna go?

          Only to places where your travel authorisation permits you to go, and only by the means provided, for persons of your status.


          • #

            If one might freely associate — ‘2084’…

            The Sheeple travel widely in cheap, regulated, automated, tracked, driverless electric vehicles. No one owns one. It is not permitted. The alternative is public transport or State Taxis. The latter cannot always be relied upon to take you to your chosen destination. The State may have something else in mind.

            The ersatz-elite, those with pretensions of being Elite and who can afford it, travel in more expensive, slightly more independent hybrid vehicles which, in exceptional circumstances, may be driven manually. Occasionally, they may even own one or two for themselves.

            The Elite, retaining their State limos and a pleasing array of personally owned modern independent vehicles, move about freely and quickly, are rarely tracked unless deemed to be of vital bureaucratic importance (which requires a court order) and in many locations even have their own dedicated road lanes.

            Flying remains the sole province of the Eco-Gods.


            • #

              I lived in a similar scenario between 1960-1981. The workers lived on a fish paste that was by name only as it smelled fishy. Meat available through food stamps after 1977 and people thought that a war was just about to begin. After August 1980 when things began cracking (I lived in Gdansk, Poland- where as a member of anticommunist underground organisation called the “Young Poland” I was allowed to enter the shipyard during the strikes) I discovered that people were going to the local communist party headquarters for meals with almost the same drab food with a spec of indescribable meat. Workers and masters cuisine was not that different. Finally the equality was achieved. Everyone had nothing. Even the ones who supposed to have something had not much either as there was nothing to steal.


        • #

          When leftists talk of “peace” for dissenters – they literally mean “the peace of the grave”. We best hope they never hold sway over us, as we would be talking world wide genocide for all dissenters. I also think given the cahnce, they will kick of a West-Muzzie conflict to try and let each side wipe itself out, then goven the shell-shocked remnants….

          The Leftists have not changed, and Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot/Hitler tactics are still in use.


    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      If you have not already done this, have a read of the UN splinter that was named ICLEI, later Local Governments for Sustainability and a few other acronyms. Easy to Google.

      Basically, local Councils sign up to be members of a world-wide group that swaps notes and can act upon “guidance” from the UN, to do a number of global government things without the rate payers knowing. Ask why some local Councils have reps in Paris as I write.

      The part I really hate is that under UN guise, Councils like mine have instituted educational programs for children. Sorry, but it is brainwashing on a level that to me in my old-fashioned way, is enough to send activists to jail.

      All our readers, send a note to your own councils asking if they are swapping notes and taking tips from the UN under an existing scheme or two or a dozen. Be prepared for evasive answers. The little darlings hate it when you lift the petticoat and see STD.


      • #

        Thanks Geoff

        My local council has been doing the UN tango quite a while now. The local Mayor is one of those younger up’n coming Greens who revels in LOOK AT ME stunts, quite the shallow sea persona, and is openly gleeful of the UN connection

        Most people who have read my comments know I believe that the forces of unreason have well and truly won the day. Mr Mayor here is a good example of why I believe that – I find him a repulsive green blob who does very little else but damage. In the bushfire crisis two years ago, we had to push him aside, literally, to allow the actual firefighters and park rangers to brief us


      • #

        Not just local government councils, Geoff, But the Kimberley Land Council sent along 5 to hustle for money the this year. Only 2 went along to Copenhagen. Prefer that it seems, to paying to keep remote communities open!


  • #
    Gary in Erko

    Ode for the green blob

    dear little upside-down cake.
    your troubles will never stop.
    because little upside-down cake.
    your bottom is on your top.
    poor little upside-down cake.
    worries and woes, you gott’em.
    because little upside-down cake.
    your top is on your bottom.


  • #
    Robert R

    These people are “Green Blobs”……what a great way of putting it!
    A great article… 10 out of 10. Reading the above is so refreshing after being indoctrinated all week by the “climate change” disinformation and shallow propaganda being callously presented by the ABC and SBS to coincide with the Paris circus going on at the moment.


    • #
      Robert R

      Another example of the Green Blobs’ gross hypocrisy is their action against the Adani coal mine in Queensland. They wanted to stop the mine to save the yakka skink and ornamental snake, two species claimed by them to be on the verge of extinction.
      In reality the greens are not in the slightest bit interested in the plight of these animals, as proven by their absolute disregard for the thousands of birds being killed by wind farms that they insist must be expanded with their renewable energy targets. These blobs couldn’t care less about wild life. They are so cynical.


  • #

    This scam has been ongoing for decades now and I wonder just how much longer we are going to have to suffer it. The real cost is the lost oppourtunity for research and real problem solving that could have been achieved with those dollars. It is going to take courage and intelligence to end it. Unfortunately these are the two qualities not displayed by politicians. Greg Hunt should actually get off of his brainwashed backside, approach his portfolio with an open mind and visit a few truly scientific sites (like “JoNova” or “Watts Up With That”) instead of babbling and parroting eco propaganda. Information is easily accessed and presented clearly and logically so that even the layman can follow it. It doesn’t take a lot of time or effort to do your own research. Politicians really have no excuse not to educate themselves so that they can make informed decisons based on facts and not on propaganda sourced from self interest groups when they spend our taxes.


    • #

      “This scam has been ongoing for decades now and I wonder just how much longer we are going to have to suffer it.”

      Until it gets cold is the most likely answer.
      2019/20 according to this old fella.
      It’s part of the natural rhythm of things.
      He appears to have a handle on cycles and patterns and does it in easy to understand lingo.


    • #

      I think it best to point out every opportunity we get , that CAGW cant be proven by science. Its this simple reality that exposes it as a massive scam….people will work it out, but we have to keep pplugging away just speaking the scientific truth…whioch is why Abbott was shafted – he wanted the B*M audited for its slight of hand with Rutherglen et al data.

      Thats another thing which communists are good at – rewriting facts to suit themselves, or in this case re-writing climate histiory to show a warming when there never was one, hence falsification fo temperature data under the banner of “homogenization”.

      I recall once a report went up on a tv stations’ web site that quoted the ex-President of Indonesia who said candidly that the Intel agnecies controlled the “terrorist” groups within Indonesia. Once the media twigged what was in it, it disappeared for “fact checking” and never saw the light of day again. I managed to get a copy before it disappeared.


  • #

    That’s right the science is settled’s a science fiction scam and it has always been about the money especially for the ring leaders who have the biggest snouts in the trough .
    The notion the scam was science based is laughable .
    Anytime you get the earth has a fever promoters hooked up with hedge funds and bankers you know some people are going to get fleeced .


  • #

    So, there we have it.

    One day…one day.


    • #
      el gordo

      Could you be more explicit?


    • #
      Peter C

      What do you mean scaper?


    • #
      el gordo

      ‘One day…one day.’

      I’m thinking Lenore Taylor had a scoop, care to do some political projection?

      If the government can keep the Coalition together they will romp home, but if the troika lean too far to the left on climate change then we are entering unknown territory.


  • #

    This lack of concern about reducing CO2 extends to the UN. There is no set of policies being discussed in Paris that will reduced Global GHG emissions. Yet UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres believes they do. She is quoted by the BBC as saying

    The INDCs have the capability of limiting the forecast temperature rise to around 2.7C by 2100, by no means enough but a lot lower than the estimated four, five, or more degrees of warming projected by many prior to the INDCs.

    These projections are obtained from splicing modeled data onto short-term forecasts. Looking at the marginal policy impact reveals a totally different picture. A UNFCCC report reveals the small effect, and it is only in a table hidden a the foot a very boring Technical Annex that you find the larger figure from external organisations.
    I think the Green Blob are deceiving themselves. They do not know the difference between real world forecasts and hypothetical projections. Nor can the differentiate between some vague pledges and actual policy results.
    Full story here.


    • #

      There have been a couple of surveys done that strongly suggest another reason for the Green Blobs’ real agenda. They are the Lewandowsky et al surveys – the Moon Hoax and US Surveys. Their actual conclusions were rubbish, but the data has quite strong support for another hypothesis – that the dogmatic believers in Climate Science are mostly extreme-left environmentalists. Indeed the Moon Hoax survey, with the vast majority strong believers (unsurprising as it was located on alarmist blogs) showed that the respondents were more anti free market than pro-climate. How I reached this conclusion (with some colorful graphs to illustrate) is here.

      Lewandowsky’s questionnaire data provides us with an important issue for public policy. Is the promotion of climate science out of a genuine concern to save the world from catastrophic global warming, or a means to implement an extreme-left agenda by self-anointed experts by-passing liberal democratic processes?


      • #

        Further to my last comment to #11.1, there are now multiple lines of circumstantial evidence to support this my claim.
        1. The Lewandowsky questionnaire data.
        2. The viewing of contrarian beliefs in both climate and politics from the vantage point of those who have access to a higher truth inaccessible to the non-believers. This is the premise of Marxist epistemology.
        3. The assumption that any policy proposal thought up will be enacted.
        4. The failure shown above to validate that the policy will make the changes desired in theory, and the failure to learn from past policy fiascos.
        5. The failure to have independent standards for evaluating the science (e.g. Popperian falsificationism); for checking the data (e.g. temperature homogenisations); the policy costs (they accept data analysis from vested interests, but reject it from critics); different policy priorities (climate is always the World’s no.1 priority); nor other ethical or economic perspectives.
        6. The incessant name calling, conspiracy theories (big oil funding) and intolerance of other opinions.
        I do not, however, claim that this list is exhaustive. Maybe the folks here could provide other examples, or illustrative examples with a short comment to support.

        I might be wrong in some of the points, or there might be counter-examples.


  • #
    el gordo

    This is the view of a strident Green.


    ‘So now we have a new Prime Minister with the same Environment Minister telling the same lies when trying to sell the line that increasing emissions by 6% over today’s level by 2020 is something to be proud of.

    ‘He seems to get away with it domestically but on the world stage the questions are getting more strident. You can’t con the experts and you can’t expect others to take action without sanction against those who are not pulling their weight.

    ‘For the fourth time, the Australian public will be going to an election where action on climate change will be a clear difference between the two parties. So fickle are the voters that the result could very well depend on how hot the summer is.’

    Kaye Lee / The Australian Independent Media Network


    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      You can’t con the experts …

      I hear that a lot, from Environmentalists.

      My questions to them, in return is, “Yes, but can the “experts’ con you? And if they were conning you, how would you know? By listening to other ‘experts’ that are singing from the same song sheet, and drawing a salary from the same Government sponsored research funding?”


      • #

        Agreed… always struck me that people were always told to “trust the experts” so that they never ventured beyond the official meme of the day.


  • #
    King Geo

    Quoting Jo – “Environmental success is measured in terms of money, not megatonnes. (How does “89 trillion” sound?)”.

    That was from Jo’s article about 7 months ago (May 19, 2015).

    US$89 trillion required by the UN by 2030 to fix Earth’s Climate (which doesn’t need fixing).

    I guess 7 months on that figure is now closing in on US$100 trillion.

    How obscene. We all need to tell Turnbull’s Govt – NO NO NO!!!! – WE DON’T WANT TO PAY ANYTHING TO THE UN’S “AGENDA 21 KITTY”.


  • #

    The readers of this blog site appear to be numerate. Percentages. Tonnages. Proportions.

    Spare a thought for those who cannot add or multiply and whose world consists of big and little and more and less. People who failed long division at school and cannot tell their East from their West. The innumerate. They are a big proportion of the population and cannot calculate anything and work in proportions or absolutes. For them nothing done is enough. Any CO2 is too much. Everything should be banned. For them the business of carbon reductions is all a mystery as it is for the numerate. If you say 5% they want 50%, because it is bigger. Carbon reductions of 45% sound like a compromise, so that is Labor policy. The idea of the Left of politics is to scare the innumerate voters into demanding more. The challenge of the realists, the pragmatic and the rational, is to reach the innumerate, emotional and confused and reassure them with absolutes.

    The seas are not acid. The world is not warming. CO2 is the building block of all living things and not pollution. The weather is fine and the sea is not rising significantly in a lifetime. Whatever insignificant Global Warming was occurring has already occurred and stopped. You can relax and not pay any taxes. The weather is just the weather. We have no control over the weather.


    • #

      An insightful comment yet again. We must think very much alike.

      Part of the problem IS innumeracy and computer illiteracy. The vast bulk of the population don’t feel qualified to challenge the science. It seems to me that no-one at the ABC knows what a logarithm is let alone how to use one. Instead we trust the scientists, but it turns out that they can’t even manage MS excel, let alone write a half decent statistical algorithm. I’ll wager that few climate scientists knows that in a computer using integer arithmetic 100×(10/8) is NOT the same as (10×100)/8 or 10 × (100/8) !

      Many people just switch off as soon as a number is used. This is why I think we ned to stress the moral arguments for cheap energy, along with more oxygen and food, which of course needs more CO2. It’s a math free way to make an argument, much more likely to reasonate with someone who thinks a technology that only works for 5 hours only on non-cloudy days and generates less than 3 households of energy for each hectare tiled with solar panels is viable.

      I have a spreadsheet here that shows that after the effects of site clearing are accounted windmills are substantially negative for CO2, that is they make almost 3 times the CO2 as coal. Useless argument for a green that only cares that windmills “feel good”.

      Jo, please make more of these arguments.

      1. The ways CO2 are essential
      2. How can CO2 be a pollutant if removing it would kill all life on the planet? Is lowering CO2 even constitutional because of this?
      3. The immorality of restricting access to energy from the third world.
      4. The waste of resources that could be put to use curing cancer or immunising kids. Building windmills in South Australia instead of Cyclone Shelters in Manilla.
      5. The burning of foodstuffs in vehicles.
      6. The morality of the eat or heat choice being foisted upon our most vulnerable people.
      7. The moral problem with lowering CO2 where there is a loss of food production of 1% for every 2PPM CO2 reduction, in a world where population is increasing at 1% PA, IE: we need CO2 to grow at 2PPM per annum to just maintain food availability at the current (inadequate) level. Is it constitutional to damage your national food supply like this?

      There are many types of sceptics of “climate action” we’d do well to keep them in mind.

      1. Those that think Radiative gas warming is wrong – eg the skydragons
      2. Those that believe CO2 cools the climate (there is a good argument for this)
      3. Those that think radiative gasses can warm but the climate is regulated by other means so that there is no warming.
      4. Those that agree CO2 could warm the climate but feedbacks are negative (or equivalently there are rerouting losses so the CO2 warming never reaches the ground) and warming is therefore inconsequential.
      5. Those that believe all the warmist hype but don’t think taxes can cool the planet.
      6 Those who think cooling the planet with taxes is uneconomic, eg Gillards tax’s actual performance priced mitigation at around 40 Quadrillion dollars per annum per degree C
      7. Those who agree with the warmists but think that we lack the technology to mitigate the heating (eg that Solar and Wind is useless)
      8. Those who believe but think it’s better to plant trees.
      9. Those who believe but think there are better things to spend our tax money on, (like say Jobs, health or education or any of the other 15 things the UNs survey puts ahead of climate change)
      10. Those that believe the whole thing is a scam to scrape money from the population for the UN (or for wealth redistribution).
      11. Those that just resent the constant reaching into their wallet by the government in the name of climate change (regardless of their personal belief in CC)
      12. Those that just want to be free enough to decide for themselves whether they will change their light bulbs instead of being forced.
      13. Those that believe, but think that adaptation is better than mitigation.
      14. Those that belive that warming and/or higher CO2 is good for the planet (regardless of their CC opinion)

      Any of these reasons by itself is sufficient to reject Carbon Taxes (so-called climate action) – and most people would agree with at least ONE. Seriously, this is the argument that needs to be put, I’d guess that around 97% would test as being sceptical of Carbon Dioxide (AKA energy) taxation.


      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        The list is fine, but it has problems.
        E.g. item 2, one could envision a case where you claim government action is compulsorily acquiring your property namely your share of CO2, without compensation. But one on the other side could argue the State is acquiring his/her share of oxygen.
        Better to populate your list with examples that can have practical effect?


        • #

          Interesting interpretation of item 2, and worthy of some thought. Rather I was more thinking of rights to life liberty and justice. By attempting to removing CO2 the government by their own science is attempting to lower CO2 partial pressure AND make it colder, both of which reduce the food supply and (by the governments own science) would reduce the temperature to below LIA if the government succeeded in getting to 270 PPM. In such a climate places like say alaska or maybe in OZ Tasmainia may become uninhabitable. Is the compulsory acquisition of an entire state constitutionally actionable?

          Now let’s consider the US government, say science invents some machine that scavenges CO2 and then uses it to reduce CO2, in the limit the US government in removing the EPA regulated pollutant CO2 would kill all life on the planet. The EPA endagerment finding is therefore unconstitutional because it fails to consider the low CO2 case, they need to state exactly when CO2 goes from being life-giving gas to pollutant because to remove it from the atmosphere is existentialy dangerous. I believe the CO2 endagerment finding is challegable on this ground. By removing CO2 the US government is attacking the right to LIFE.


      • #

        Fantastic thought provoker!



  • #

    No need to worry. Mal is all over this climate stuff.
    Mal was all over that NBN stuff.
    Mal was all over that Murray Basin water stuff.
    Mal was all over that Brian Burke/Carmen Lawrence stuff.

    He’s a brilliant man is our Mal.


  • #

    5 Dec: AberdeenPress&Journal: David Kerr: Conservationists win court battle against giant Highland windfarm
    An environmental charity has won its court battle against plans for a 67-turbine windfarm in the Highlands.
    The John Muir Trust launched a judicial review after the Scottish Government granted permission to the Stronelairg development last year…
    The John Muir Trust objected on grounds of impact on wild land, peat and tourism…
    Stuart Brooks, John Muir Trust chief executive said: “This is great news for all those who love Scotland’s wild land and wish to see it protected. A financial appeal brought a tremendous level of support from over a thousand well-wishers, allowing the Trust to proceed. Lord Jones has now decided the Trust’s court action was well-founded.”…

    5 Dec: NYT: Melissa Eddy: Denmark, a Green Energy Leader, Slows Pace of Its Spending
    Then, in June, a center-left government was replaced by a right-wing, minority coalition determined to tighten spending and balance the budget in a program to grow the economy…
    “This funding has proven instrumental for Danish advances in clean tech for many years, and it is incomprehensible why it is being cut now,” said Soren Houmoller, whose 1st Mile consulting company helps businesses apply for public funds in Denmark…
    One lesson they may learn from Denmark is how it is possible to substantially replace fossil fuels with clean and renewable energy. But even when progress is made in reducing environmentally harmful carbon emissions, countries may have difficulty sustaining the gains because of politics, economic concerns and, in places like the United States, ideological disputes…
    The new government in Denmark argues that spending on alternative energy and innovation is still high, but that the budget must be reeled in as the country faces a predicted deficit of 3.3 percent in 2015. Shortly after taking over in June, the new government was forced to cut its forecast for economic growth to 1.5 percent this year and 1.9 percent in 2016, citing a slow recovery in domestic demand…


  • #

    5 Dec: Crain’s Chicago: Steve Daniels: This $2 billion deal was more about the past than the future
    Invenergy, the largest independent wind power producer in the U.S. and Chicago’s main player in the burgeoning clean-energy economy, hit the jackpot with its remarkable $2 billion deal to sell seven wind farms built with immense state and federal financial assistance…
    Increasingly, though, wind power must compete on a more level playing field with traditional sources of electricity, such as coal, natural gas and nuclear…
    What’s striking about the Illinois farms is how heavily subsidized they are, aided by two separate arms of the federal government. The two Illinois projects in 2012 won a combined $245 million in Treasury Department grants under the 2009 federal stimulus plan. That program provided more than $24 billion in subsidies aimed at covering 30 percent of the construction costs of renewable-energy projects launched during that time.
    In addition, the two farms obtained 20-year contracts to sell their output to the federally owned Tennessee Valley Authority, which powers much of the southeastern U.S. California Ridge sells at $69 per megawatt-hour and Bishop Hill at $77.50 per megawatt-hour, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Those numbers were high in 2012 and are more than double the price of wholesale power now.
    Polsky declines to talk about how profitable the Terra-Form deal is for his firm. Invenergy declines to disclose its annual revenue…
    Though Terra-Form expressed the desire in July to acquire more Invenergy projects in the future, it since has suffered major financial setbacks make more such deals unlikely. In energy parlance, TerraForm is a “yieldco,” existing strictly to acquire assets with long-term sales contracts and distribute most of the earnings to investors…
    Since the July announcement of the Invenergy deal, TerraForm creator SunEdison’s stock has plummeted (as has TerraForm’s) from $29.86 to a closing price of $3.64 on Dec. 4. The company has said TerraForm no longer will purchase assets from firms other than its parent…
    There’s even a question now about whether SunEdison will need to restructure…

    9 March: GreenTechMedia: David Jeffries: A Comprehensive Guide to Rebates and Tax Credits Under the California Solar Initiative
    Most people who look into going solar know about the 30 percent federal Investment Tax Credit. But many don’t know that there are more than 100 different solar tax credits, rebates and incentives in the state of California.
    In fact, there are so many solar incentives that many of the solar installation companies operating in California don’t even know about the policies in a given area…
    Here is a guide, in alphabetical order, to local solar incentives in California…


  • #

    29 Nov: Financial Times: Ed Crooks: Sunnova Energy calls for end of US solar tax break
    The largest privately owned residential solar power company in the US is calling for an end to the main tax break that supports the industry, breaking with other businesses campaigning for it to be extended.
    The US investment tax credit (ITC) for solar power is scheduled to decline at the end of next year, a move the industry association has warned would cause the market to collapse and cost 100,000 jobs.
    But Houston-based Sunnova Energy has written to members of Congress urging them to let it happen, as the industry will be on a stronger long-term footing if it is not supported by tax breaks…
    If Congress fails to renew the ITC, the US solar market will drop from 11.3 gigawatts installed in 2016 to just 3.4GW in 2017, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance…
    However, John Berger, Sunnova’s chief executive, argued in the letter that “the ITC has served its purpose” and solar “no longer needs government subsidies to survive”.
    Sunnova is estimated to have more than 30,000 customers…
    Companies have already started to prepare for a decline in the ITC. Elon Musk’s SolarCity, the largest US residential solar installer, plans to slow its growth and focus on cutting costs, so it could generate positive cash flow in 2017 even with an ITC of 10 per cent.
    Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, said the affect would be harder on smaller businesses. “Can the big guys weather it? Yes, they probably can,” he said. “It’s the small guys who won’t survive.”

    an amusing side-note:

    Sunnova Leadership: William J. (John) Berger | Chief Executive Officer
    He began his career in 1996 as an analyst for Enron Corporation. He completed his tenure there as Director for Enron Energy Services before leaving the company in the summer of 2001 to attend business school.He served as an advisor during business school to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission…


  • #

    There is no Anthropocene, we are still in the Holocene. I realise you are merely reporting the hype, but we should not allow them to dictate the vocabulary. Similarly with the arguments whether Abbott’s plan was cheaper than the alternatives. There is no need to reduce CO2 emissions. If it is 0.8C warmer now than in pre-industrial times, should we not be truly grateful, because coming out of the LIA, it was pretty damn cold, certainly in the NH. Who decides what is the correct temperature for the planet, if there can indeed be a meaningful global temperature.

    In 2005 the UK The government chief scientist was Sir David King. He is currently the UK government climate “czar”, leading the UK offers of “climate retribution” in Paris. He made this comment in January of that year: “Over the past five years the science of climate change has become very secure.”

    Yet in a publication dated January 2005, just before the Tony Blair initiated Exeter Conference on Dangerous Climate Change, Hadley was far from certain of its models, in this summary. The Met Office’s Richard Betts was one of the authors.

    “Stabilising climate to avoid dangerous climate change — a summary of relevant research at the Hadley Centre January 2005″

    What constitutes ‘dangerous’ climate change, in the context of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, remains open to debate.

    Once we decide what degree of (for example) temperature rise the world can tolerate, we then have to estimate what greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere should be limited to, and how quickly they should be allowed to change.

    These are very uncertain because we do not know exactly how the climate system responds to greenhouse gases.

    The next stage is to calculate what emissions of greenhouse gases would be allowable, in order to keep below the limit of greenhouse gas concentrations. This is even more uncertain, thanks to our imperfect understanding of the carbon cycle (and chemical cycles) and how this feeds back into the climate system.”

    Yet they have been saying the whole time that the science is settled, or we get the classic “increasing scientific evidence suggests”

    The UK Tyndall Centre was established in 2000 and is based at the University of East Anglia, with regional offices at the partner Universities of Manchester, Southampton, Sussex, Oxford and Newcastle, together known as the Tyndall Consortium.

    Part of the mission statement is to “exert a seminal influence on the design and achievability of the long-term strategic objectives of UK and international climate policy”

    In Tyndall Working Paper 72, Tyndall Centre, March 2005, they were researching the impact on public perception of the disaster movie, “The Day After Tomorrow”, in a paper entitled “Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster narrative and public perceptions of climate change”, Thomas Lowe et al, based upon a supposed breakdown of the Thermo-Haline Circulation.

    The Tyndall researchers made the point that it is an extremely unlikely event:

    “expert elicitation on abrupt climate change undertaken by Arnell et al. (2004) found that several experts declined to respond because they felt the science was too uncertain and that subjective judgements would not be appropriate.

    Thus, there exists no globally accepted consensus on the likelihood or extent of rapid climate change and agreement among scientists and policy makers over the ‘danger’ posed by abrupt changes in the climate system appears unlikely.”

    They also said: The general public garners most of its knowledge about science from the mass media (Nelkin, 1987; Wilson, 1995). Therefore the role of the media is significant in the public’s cognition and perception of climate change issues.

    “….pioneering industry leaders will appear more legitimate or relevant to industry audiences, religious leaders more legitimate in providing the moral argument and (in the case of climate change) even using the skills of artists, story-tellers and musicians to popularise what is seen by many as a ‘dry’ scientific matter, as a “deeply human affair”.

    Another working paper Working Paper, No 58, was entitled:
    “The Social Simulation of the Public Perception of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change” Dennis Bray and Simon Shackley, (September 2004). These are just a few points:

    “As the science itself is contested, needless to say, so are the potential policy changes. So how then do people make sense or construct a reality of something that they can never experience in its totality (climate) and a reality that has not yet manifest (i.e. climate change)?

    To endorse policy change, people must ‘believe’ that global warming will become a reality some time in the future.

    Only the experience of positive temperature anomalies will be registered as indication of change if the issue is framed as global warming.

    Both positive and negative temperature anomalies will be registered in experience as indication of change if the issue is framed as climate change.

    We propose that in those countries where climate change has become the predominant popular term for the phenomenon, unseasonably cold temperatures, for example, are also interpreted to reflect climate change/global warming.”

    Why are we so concerned about CO2 emissions? They are not in the climate driving seat and we should be killing the myth that they are.


  • #

    Being ‘green’, environmentalism, and sustainability are nothing more than tentacles of Communism.

    Global warming and climate change is all about curtailing Capitalism, curtailing freedom, curtailing population, and redistribution of wealth.


  • #

    Beware what the warmists might mean,
    Concerning the anthropocene,
    As pretence to be true,
    When more CO2,
    Feeds plants to grow lusher and green.


  • #
    William Astley

    Come on man. What is the end game? This is surreal.

    Where is the CAGW insanity leading? It is unbelievable that no one has done and no one has asked for a formal back of the envelop calculation to determine the implications of the cult of CAGW’s paradigm. How much would it cost or more importantly what would the life ‘style’/living ‘standard’ changes be necessary to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emission to zero?

    The pathetically incorrect Bern model and the pathetically incorrect general circulation models (GCMs) used by the IPCC to push this scam, requires anthropogenic emitted CO2 to be reduced to zero, not reduced by 20% for developing countries by funny math. The trillions of dollars spent on green scams to date have not even stopped the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    To cut anthropogenic CO2 emissions to zero would require Khmer Rouge type super extreme, fascist government policies for the entire world not one country. World enforcement would require a military fascist world government to enforce the same madness on all countries.

    Zero carbon dioxide emissions by humans is not possible, unless we return to the stone age and reduce global population to around 200 million. To reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions for initially 6.5 billion people by let say 80% (actual target made not silly promises) would require complete banning of tourism air travel, drastic population reduction (say cut the population to 3 billion), complete change to nuclear energy, banning of second homes, banning of all recreational vehicles, banning of individual homes, forced energy reduction by a maximum energy usage per person not a carbon tax, and so on.

    The above comment ignores the minor issue that that every scientific assertion in the IPCC reports is incorrect. There are dozens of observations and analysis results that support the assertion that almost all of the warming in the last 150 years was due to solar cycle changes (for example there are periods of millions of years in the paleo record when atmospheric CO2 is high and the planet is cold and vice versa) and the majority of the CO2 rise is due to natural changes not due to anthropogenic emission.

    The CO2 increase in the atmosphere is without question the best thing that has happened to the biosphere, in the last 3 million years. Commercial greenhouses inject CO2 into their greenhouse to increase yield and to reduce growing times. The optimum level of atmospheric CO2 is around 1200 ppm.

    Picking one of the key cult of CAGW urban legends is how much ‘warming’ of the earth’s surface is due to greenhouse gases. There is a reason why the cult of CAGW compares the earth’s surface temperature with no atmosphere to the earth’s temperature with the current atmosphere and attributes the entire 34C temperature difference to ‘greenhouse’ gases.

    What would the earth’s surface temperature be with an atmosphere of nitrogen, no water, no ‘greenhouse’ gases, same pressure as current? The so called skeptics need to get the 1-dimension surface temperature, re-done for a case of nitrogen only, no water vapor and no greenhouse gases by a neutral specialist and vetted by neutral specialists.

    ‘Greenhouse’ gases increase convection cooling as the time to emitting infrared radiation is long compared to the time for molecular gas collision. Hot air rises which causes cold air to fall. The dry lapse rate (air without water vapor) is roughly twice as large as the wet lapse rate (air with water vapor). The fact that the earth is 70% covered with water causes the planet to be colder not warmer.

    As the energy in must equal the energy out, the total long wave radiation energy ’emitted’ by the top of the atmosphere with or without an atmosphere is the same. The total long wave energy must equal the total short wave energy from the sun that is absorbed by the earth. The temperature gradient in the atmosphere determines the surface temperature of the planet. Greenhouse gases reduce the lapse rate, not increase the lapse rate.

    The cult of CAGW’s so called one dimensional no ‘feedbacks’ greenhouse gas calculation assumed incorrect that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in no change to the lapse rate which is physically impossible. The cult of CAGW’s incorrect 1 dimension no feedback assumption of no change in the lapse rate was required to create the surface forcing of 3.7 watts/meter^2 and temperature rise of 1.2C without ‘feedbacks’. In addition the same no 1 dimension calculation did the calculation with no water vapor in the atmosphere. As there is overlap of the narrow bands of infrared radiation that is absorbed by water vapor and CO2 and as the 70% of the planet is covered with water and hence there is a great deal of water vapor in the lower atmosphere particularly in the tropics, the surface warming is drastically reduced if the fact that water vapor and CO2 radiation absorption overlap. Re-doing the 1-dimension calculation not ignoring the water vapor in the atmosphere reduces the warming the surface warming due to doubling of atmospheric CO2 to less than 0.15C. Taking into account the decreased lapse rate reduces the surface warming to less than 0.1C. It is unbelievable that no one has challenged this calculation.


    • #

      You are correct – the elite plan to reduce the worlds population to approx 500 million from its 7 billion, through world wars….


      • #
        el gordo

        World wars are destructive and very costly, whereas cultivating an upwardly mobile middle class would see the world’s population halve in a couple of generations.

        Its a sobering reminder that capitalism always seeks new markets to remain prosperous, lifting people out of poverty brings its own rewards.


  • #

    Well said.

    There will be no “challenge” to the calculation while ever scientists are fearful of losing their incomes.

    The post on bullying a few threads back now, was an essential item in understanding how this mess is able to continue ans be perpetuated by our intellectual betters.




  • #


    French L’Express On Huge Impact by Climate Skeptics…”Have Caused Us To Lose Time We Will Never Get Back”!

    L’Express writes that the recent rise in French skepticism has been especially fuelled by former France 2 television meteorologist Philippe Verdier. who was sacked weeks ago by France 2 television for challenging global warming science and the “ultra–politicized the IPCC scientists (1)” in his recently released book.

    The French daily writes that there has been more talk about Philippe Verdier in the French gazettes than there is of the regular climate scientists

    read on @notrickszone
    ~ ~ ~
    Meanwhile @smh, some “classic quotes” …

    One of Australia’s oldest meteorologists, John Zillman, talks on climate science, then and now

    But Mr Zillman said it is important to remember “we had extremes then, we have extremes now”.

    “I personally, from my experience, couldn’t detect any significant change to the extremes.
    It’s almost impossible to see any real trend in extremes except by very technical statistical techniques,” he said.

    “The analysis of all the historical data by the statisticians and the modellers suggest we are having heavier, more intense rainfalls than we used to, but other studies suggest the opposite.”

    “In those days we only tried to get a forecast for the next 24 hours. Now there’s skill out to five and six days

    “I would say with absolute certainty, that nobody who did their meteorological training in the ’60s and ’70s ever imagined there would be such a great global concern about greenhouse warming.
    It just wasn’t seen as all that significant in those days.”

    “Back in the ’50s and ’60s there was an expectation of long term warming.
    Then in the ’70s there was a scare that went round the international meteorological climate community about threats of a new ice age, which temporarily dented the confidence … in a warming trend,” he said.


  • #
    Mike Smith

    Almost every day the mainstream media carries articles about the adverse impacts of CO2 on just about everything; climate, health, crime, war etc.

    But never a mention of the scariest impact of all. CO2 has become the route of choice to absolute power over all social and economic activity.

    Hence you will never read stuff like this in a medium that is directly or indirectly controlled by the establishment. Their utter corruption and hypocrisy is to remain secret, at all costs!


  • #
  • #
    el gordo

    ‘The head of one of the world’s biggest solar companies has accused China of embarking on a “mindboggling” binge on new coal-fired power plants, undermining its commitment to roll back fossil fuel use.

    ‘Shawn Qu, chief executive of Canadian Solar, said Chinese President Xi Jinping’s pledge to cut coal’s share of the power sector from 70 per cent to 60 per cent by 2030, had been undermined by a record year of approval of new coal-fired power station by China’s provinces.

    ‘So far this year, China had approved 155 coal plants with a capacity of 120 gigawatts – equivalent to about 120 large-sized plants in Australia.’

    Read more:
    Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook


  • #

    A great article, Jo, going to the heart of the deception. The EU and UN embrace this scam as it fits exactly with their own concurrent scams. One thing to add is that the Green Blob is also opposed to hydro, except when they need to count it in to boost renewable figures. The Green Blob is otherwise opposed to all Hydro and Dams.


    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The Green Blob is against hydro, because people go boating, and waterskiing, and fishing, on the lake, and swimming in the waters, and generally have LOTS OF FUN!

      Not only that, the output of water from the Dam can be controlled, in order to produce white water down stream, so that people can kayak or inflatable raft down the rapids, and have LOTS MORE FUN!

      Such fun MUST NOT BE ALLOWED. Having fun, is not taking the environment seriously.


      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Greens are the new Puritans.


        • #

          Quakers, shakers, Amish too. In the 19th century, 10% of the people in England were Quakers, including all the chocolate families, Cadbury, Rowntree and more plus their US counterparts like Forrest Mars. An amazing story of people who really wanted good for everyone and to live good lives. They showed governments who to build cities and combat poverty. Many Greens are in this category, but they are being deceived by this new Green religion. CO2 is the stuff of life. Ashes to Ashes, dust to dust. The cycle of CO2 from plants to graveyard is the story of humanity. Now we are pollution.


          • #

            Sorry how to build cities. Also Hershey was a Quaker. The Chocolate Wars by Deborah Cadbury is a great read.

            Also the definition of POLLUTION

            “the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance which has harmful or poisonous effects.”

            Without CO2, life on earth would not exist. CO2 is not harmful or poisonous. Nor is H2O but you can drown in it. The vilification of CO2 with terms like “Carbon Pollution” has to stop.

            Late 2008
            Rudd announces details of Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme

            White House officials hope the timing of their binding pollution regulations – the first ever US limit on carbon pollution from power plants

            This is not acceptable language and a display of appalling science ignorance. Whatever side is talking the use of Carbon (Dixoxide) Pollution has to be stopped. We are carbon life forms. We are made ultimately from Carbon Dioxide, burn sugars (Carbohydrates) and output CO2. We are NOT pollution.


      • #


        I’m not even a warmer , and I FELT that.

        Good one


        ps The failure to build dams is one of my pet peeves.

        Here in the state of NSW a previous government (and I use that term lightly) was uncharacteristically prudent enough to buy up lots of land for a new dam in the Hunter Valley. We the water payers could see a future asset for our region.

        Oops; silly me.

        It wasn’t the government (aiuttl) but the local Hunter Water Board which bought the land with the “saving” from overcharging us for water.

        Now the present Lib government, which I helped vote in because of the apparent good character of the potential “member” then decided to agree with the greens and pretend we don’t or won’t ever need a new dam.

        They recently SOLD. the land. Backwards a thousand paces.

        The money of course, went back to the Hunter Water Board.

        Oops; silly me.

        The money was taken by that nice Mr Baird and put into the State coffers.

        Our area, every water user has been robbed!!

        Not onlyb of our CASH but also of future water supply.

        If there was a court that we could appeal to for justice it would be nice; but we are in 2015 and the time of media magic.

        Few have noticed the theft.

        Why do I feel so depressed. IS it that I feel fifty hard years of taxes and effort are being stolen?



  • #
    Egor TheOne

    It has never been about co2 .
    It has always been about crucifying industry , western wealth , freedom and the idea of democracy ….World Socialism , by the back door .
    In addition a political crusade to usher in great big new taxes and big business opportunity via tax payer subsidy to the political parties masters.
    The banks with their ‘carbon credits’and Emission Trading Scams, and the unions with their fists in the big fat taxpayer funded renewable pie .
    Even the most absurd business ventures become viable when taxpayer funded .
    It’s akin to betting at the casino , when you own the casino ….you cannot lose .

    If co2 is the agent for warming then why has there not been any for 19 years , and if everybody has /is decreasing their co2 output (through draconian regulation) ,then why is co2 still increasing ?
    Where is this non existent proof they tell us about ?
    How is it feasible to spend trillions to stop warming via co2 reduction when the temp increase has already ceased for nearly 2 decades ?
    Why would even a slight increase in temp be non beneficial ?
    Migration has always mostly been towards warmer climates , not cooler ones !
    How can the Doomists claim to know what the future holds when all of their past premonitions and prophecies have been spectacularly wrong ?

    How much is Malcom the TurnTrueB’lverBull’s 1,000,000,000 aud handout going to reduce our stopped global temperatures by ?

    Another unauthorized captain’s pick with our money for a 1mm per year SLR
    He could not refrain his True B’lverism bursting out of the closet once he was parading around among the other BSers on the global stage and throw our money around .

    Is this what he calls ‘being agile in exciting times’ ?
    Borrowing one billion from an overseas bank to hand it to these United Nutter(U.N.)criminals?

    Also ‘Carbon pollution Bill’ was criticized for his 45% renew target (already down from 50% just a few weeks ago !

    Yet hardly a murmur about the Greens opening bid of a 90% target !

    Do we hear 100%

    Yes 110% …Sold to that Green Nutter in the Straight Jacket , their esteemed leader >>

    Bring back Abbott and get rid of this Goldman and Sachs true b’lver lackey and appeaser !


  • #
    Get Real

    I would like to propose a new tax. The expression ‘Climate Change’ ought to be taxed wherever and whenever it is used. $10,000 to use the term ‘Climate Change’in any form, spoken or written, in news items, university essays or political speeches. The money raised would come from those who use the term (user pays) and ultimately the rest of us would no longer have to endure the propaganda.


  • #

    as unbiased as ever:

    7 Dec: ABC Breakfast: ‘Negative emissions’: Plan B to avoid dangerous climate change
    Professor David Karoly, Professor of Atmospheric Science in the School of Earth Sciences, and Board Member, Climate Change Authority
    Erwin Jackson, Deputy CEO, The Climate Institute
    Professor Tim Flannery, Chair, The Climate Council
    Dr Steve Hatfield-Dodds, Chief Scientist, Integration science and public policy, CSIRO'negative-emissions‘:-plan-b-to-avoid-dangerous/7006152

    7 Dec: ABC Breakfast: Pacific leaders call for stronger cuts to global carbon emissions
    The Foreign Minister of the Marshall Islands, Tony De Brum, joins James Carleton on RN Breakfast.


  • #

    AUDIO 8mins47secs: 5 Dec: ABC The Science Show: Touch the emotions to communicate science – Ramakrishnan
    Venkatraman (Venki) Ramakrishnan is an Indian-born American and British structural biologist and from November 2015, President of the Royal Society…
    He works at the Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB) in Cambridge. In this discussion with Robyn Williams, he describes the challenge in communicating science when people are sometimes irrational and not open to evidence. He says our modern society is based on science and people need reminding of the great achievements made in just 200 years.

    rough summary:

    the usual nonsense about scientists being relutant to speak out, being dreadful communicators. Robin Williams asks Ramakrishnan, how well can he advise his fellow scientists on reaching the emotions, as well as the evidence and the facts?

    at 6mins25sec in: Robin Williams: have you ever had any vigorous exchanges with people who deny aspects of science – be it evolution, or, OBVIOUSLY, climate change?

    Ramakrishnan: oh yes, I have in-laws who I think are often engaging in all sorts of irrational beliefs. for instance, some of them believe in homeopathy – they think it’s not such a bad thing, and they’re generally suspicious of any mainstream idea. it’s very hard to convince them because they believe it at an emotional level, as you say. but I keep trying…etc
    (ends with: he was with our own President of the Australian Academy, Andrew Holmes, this week making plans!)


  • #

    “our own President of the Australian Academy, Andrew Holmes”:

    28 Oct: The Conversation: Australian Academy of Science President: why we divested ourselves of fossil fuel investments
    by Andrew Holmes, President of the Australian Academy of Science, CSIRO Fellow & Laureate Professor of Chemistry, University of Melbourne
    (This is an extract from the speech given by Australian Academy of Science President Professor Andrew Holmes at the Greenhouse 2015 Conference in Hobart on Tuesday 27 October 2015.)
    Disclosure: Andrew Holmes is the President of the Australian Academy of Science and works at Bio21 on the development of low-cost printed solar cells. He has received funding from the Australian Research Council, Australian Renewable Energy Authority, Victorian Government (DSDBI and Energy Technology Innovation Strategy), CSIRO, University of Melbourne, veski (formerly know as the Victorian Endowment for Science, Knowledge and Innovation), Department of Industry (Australian Government).
    The Australian Academy of Science has been involved with the PROMOTION of climate science since the 1960s, when it co-ordinated Australia’s participation in the Global Atmospheric Research Program, which subsequently became the World Climate Research Programme…
    The Academy has a strong set of programs in school science education – Primary Connections and Science by Doing – both of which include units with relation to climate change…
    This year, the Academy resolved that it would no longer hold investments in environmentally sensitive activities.
    Accordingly, in the last month the Academy has divested itself of DIRECT LINKS to fossil fuels in its investment portfolio…
    For those scientists who think that you don’t have a place in the policy process, I urge you to remember the words of Margaret Mead:
    “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”…

    wonder what “plans” Holmes and Ramakrishnan were making?


  • #

    7 Dec: The Hindu: G. Ananthakrishnan: Progressive Paris Agreement will unlock green funds, says We Mean Business coalition
    Besides direct benefits, the (Indian) economy could save enormous costs in the future, both in terms of higher efficiency and avoided losses due to more severe catastrophic climate events, Edward Cameron, policy lead, We Mean Business, a coalition of corporations whose members include Google, Microsoft, General Electric and ***SunEdison told The Hindu.
    The We Mean Business group consists of seven business-facing networks working to promote business action on climate, and to develop a policy enabling environment for a clean economy. It works with investors who collectively are worth almost $20 trillion in assets under management…
    Businesses are looking to the forthcoming U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change agreement to provide policy certainty, “as the type of investments we need are not six month or five year investments, they stretch across multiple decades. The important market signal that is sought is the long term goal towards decarbonisation before the end of the century”.
    Without the agreement, the physical, operational and financial risks to all businesses all over the world will be huge…
    “We have indicated to governments not only the type of agreement we would like to see, but also where the text should be placed in the context of the new agreement,” says Mr. Cameron…
    The only way businesses would make those investments is if “they are certain that governments around the world will honour those commitments made in Paris”. So the very important market signal is the long term goal towards decarbonisation before the end of the century…
    “Business innovates quickly, and we need the pace of innovation within government policy to keep pace. That means five year review, not ten year review,” Mr. Cameron says…
    It would be very difficult for renewable energy to be cost effective, if there are government subsidies for fossil fuels that artificially lower the cost of fossil fuels while making renewables more expensive. Government subsidies going into R and D on fossil fuels, and not renewable energies, would be a problem…
    Mr. Cameron said China presents an economic opportunity not just for renewable energy companies, but for all of the companies involved in retrofitting factory, retrofitting manufacturing, and energy efficiency. This opened up the economy for private investors like pension funds, multilateral banks, private equity companies to invest in a growing segment of the economy. Walmart said in China that they wanted their supplies from those going down the road of low carbon.

    6 Dec: Forbes: Antoine Gara: Rethinking The Collapse Of Wall Street Favorites Valeant And SunEdison
    Renewable energy developer SunEdison and specialty drug manufacturer Valeant Pharmaceuticals can be slapped with a lot of the same labels as they’ve tumbled in 2015. Call them hedge fund hotels or financial engineering Frankensteins, their complexity and leverage are being looked at with fresh eyes by both rank-and-file investors and hedge fund billionaires…


  • #


    6 Dec: WUWT: Eric Worrall: Mandatory Indoctrination for BBC Officials who Broke Climate “Rules”
    The BBC broadcast an obscure programme on state radio on August the 5th, on Radio 4, called “what’s the point of the MET office?”, which allowed the voice of climate skepticism onto British broadcast radio. As a result of this massive breach of BBC policy, there has been a major internal inquiry, and several BBC officials have been sent on mandatory climate re-education courses…READ ALL


  • #

    Thank you Jo, for another informative, accurate and honest article, which is good for my state of mind.


  • #

    The single most difficult thing to tell this green blob is that their solution ….. renewable power (and here read only wind and solar) just does not work.

    The nature of electrical power supply is the worst enemy we (I) have in trying to explain this.

    It’s just always there, always readily available at that proverbial hole in the wall.

    Even with rooftop solar power, there is always power available, because in 99%, sorry 97% of cases, they are grid connected. (Joke, Joyce, because grid connected solar is closer to 99.95% or higher) So, people who have no concept of understanding about how power is supplied will always believe that their panels are providing their power.

    Because wind plants are connected to the overall grid, as are large scale commercial solar plants, and that power is still coming out of that hole in the wall, then people will always believe that they are just part of the overall makeup of that availability of electricity.

    There is also no concept of scale, how a 150MW wind plant (45MW in reality) is not the same as Bayswater with 2640MW.

    They cannot understand Capacity Factor, how renewables can only supply at best 30%, and that 30% can be explained as either 30% of its rated maximum, or even supplying for only 30% of the time, and that time could be any time at all, an hour or so here and there, or days on end with very little, and the occasional day of good delivery, while with a coal fired plant, it’s the absolute maximum while ever they feed in the coal.

    It’s just always there, so people just won’t believe that it cannot supply.

    They hear of a (tiny at only 20MW) solar plant in Spain which supplied continuous power for 38 days in Mid Summer and think that Base Load is solved, and then try and explain that to deliver the same amount of power as Bayswater, you’ll need at least 170 of those plants and still not get power on that regular basis.

    Try explaining that their life span is only 15 years to 25 years at the absolute outside, while Bayswater has already been delivering for 30 years plus and it’s one of the more recent ones, and has at least another 20 years in it, probably more.

    Try explaining that they will never have battery storage on the scale required, and that the cost for any battery storage will always be astronomical.

    Try explaining a Load Curve to them and what it means.

    Try explaining how much total power is consumed and that changing a few light bulbs will just not give the efficiencies required.

    Try explaining that power in you home is not the same as power consumed everywhere else. Try pointing to a city skyline and asking how much power that uses, or even you local shopping Mall, or even the local Coles or Woolies supermarkets.

    It’s just always there, and people naturally will believe that it always will be.

    You can’t educate the public in electrical engineering, because the basics are even going over their head at Space Shuttle altitude.

    It’s a losing battle until somewhere in one of the Developed Countries, they go too far and crash the grid totally, and even then people will still not get it. They’ll just say ….. “that can’t happen here, thank heavens!”

    As long as power continues to come out of that hole in the wall, people will always believe that renewables actually can supply.

    They can’t. That’s it. They will only ever be a niche supplier at inordinately expensive cost, and for very little actual power.

    Thank heavens for coal fired power.

    THAT is what makes renewables look so attractive, because on their own, they are an abject failure.



    • #

      Tony, they know;

      conomic Systems: The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man’s stewardship of the environment. But we know that’s not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.
      At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
      “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

      Read More At Investor’s Business Daily:


  • #

    re the business coalition from The Hindu – “Progressive Paris Agreement will unlock green funds, says We Mean Business coalition” –

    About “We Mean Business”

    1 Dec: NPR: John Ydstie: Businesses Awaken To The Opportunities Of Action On Climate Change
    Out of the some 5,500 delegates at the summit in Rio, Bakker says, “only a handful — to be precise, 13 people — were representing the business sector in that first meeting, and most other delegates thought that business was the cause of all evil.”
    Fast-forward to now: More than 1,000 business representatives will be in Paris and most will be supportive of climate action, says Edward Cameron, who represents We Mean Business, a nonprofit coalition that is working with companies on climate change…
    One gauge of business support for curbing carbon emissions is that more than 150 large U.S. companies have signed a White House pledge to reduce their carbon footprint. The list includes firms like General Motors, General Electric and Wal-Mart…
    It’s an idea that has gotten Wall Street’s attention, too. Big banks and investment firms are beginning to change their approach to investing. They’re looking out over the horizon and seeing a low carbon future.
    That means limiting investments in carbon intensive businesses and putting more money into companies and sectors that will thrive in a low carbon environment.
    Val Smith, director of sustainability at Citigroup, says while her bank wants to be seen as a good global citizen, this is really about good business…
    Cameron says what businesses want governments to deliver in Paris are clear goals for curbing carbon emissions, and a price on carbon, in the form of taxes or other measures, that reflects its threat to the planet.


  • #

    the sorry state of science!

    6 Dec: AP: Seth Borenstein: Scientists enlist the big gun to get climate action: Faith
    The cold hard numbers of science haven’t spurred the world to curb runaway global warming. So as climate negotiators struggle in Paris, some scientists who appealed to the rational brain are enlisting what many would consider a higher power: the majesty of faith.
    It’s not God versus science, but followers of God and science together trying to save humanity and the planet, they say.
    Physicist John Schellnhuber, founder of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said he has been coming to these international talks for 11 years and essentially seen negotiators throw up their hands and say “sorry guys we tried our best.” And no one protested. But this time, with the power of Pope Francis’ encyclical earlier this year calling global warming a moral issue and an even more energized interfaith community, Schellnhuber feels the world’s faithful are watching and will hold world leaders accountable.
    “They know they will be measured against the encyclical,” Schellnhuber, a member of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences, said Saturday at a Catholic Church event…
    Faith “is much deeper” than science, said Caroline Bader of the Geneva-based Lutheran World Federation…
    Scripps Institution of Oceanography scientist Veerabhadran Ramanathan, a non-Catholic who advised Pope Francis on climate and is on the pontiff’s science academy, says he thinks this new alliance will play a major role in what he hopes will be a historic agreement.
    But for Ramanathan, now a member of the Holy See’s delegation to the climate talks, it’s more than science or history. About four years ago he had a moment that he called “a revelation.”…
    The world will not act enough on climate change, Ramanathan said, “until we teach this in every church, every mosque, every synagogue, every temple.


  • #

    6 Dec: ClimateChangeNews: Five days to make history: What next at the Paris climate talks?
    By Ed King and Megan Darby in Paris
    They’ve got three days before a deal needs to be ready, said France president Laurent Fabius, as it needs to be translated from English into the other five UN languages. The summit officially ends on Friday…
    France and the UN have chosen 14 ministers to head a series of groups focused on sensitive issues. Here’s a full list:…ETC
    Note each team has a developed and developing minister. Note too the absence of India, China and the US from the roster…
    ***Pontiff offers backing
    Pope Francis led prayers for the COP21 summit at the Vatican on Sunday:
    “Let us pray that the Holy Spirit will enlighten all who are called to take such important decisions and give them the courage to do what is best [for the] greater good of the whole human family,” he said. Catholic churches in Paris did the same at mass.
    On Tuesday evening, St Peter’s Basilica will light up with images of the natural world by some renowned photographers, to underline the theme…READ ALL FOR AVAAZ ATTACKS ON HEARTLAND, LOMBORG, ETC


  • #

    7 Dec: BusinessStandardIndia: Nitin Sethi: Ministerial round of Paris summit advanced to Sunday
    The ministerial round of climate change summit was advanced by a day, with the French hosts announcing the talks would begin on Sunday afternoon and not Monday, as scheduled…
    All these meetings would run behind closed doors. A daily stock-take would help provide all a collective sense of how the negotiations are progressing…
    However, the choice of ministers to lead the talks in the four clusters left some developing countries worried. It is usual practice for the host Presidency to select one minister from the developed countries’ bloc and another from the developing bloc. The French chose the minister from Gabon, a francophone African nation, and one from Germany to deal with the critical talks on financial and other support to be provided by the rich countries to the developing world.
    The choice of ministers from developing countries for other groups as well, some delegates complained, was “convenient” for the developed world. The French decision to ask the minister of St Lucia — an island country seen strongly influenced by the US — to help conduct negotiations on the issue of a long-term goal of the Paris agreement also raised concerns among the G77 countries. While the ministers might not be able to dictate terms, their political inclinations make a difference as they push the conversation in specific directions.
    At the same time the head of the G77+China group, Ambassador Nozipho Mxakato-Diseko’s statements candidly talking in public of attempts to bully negotiators from developing world raised concerns in the camp behind closed doors…
    Javadekar: “India is here to ensure that seminal principle of CBDR is respected…

    6 Dec: BusinessStandardIndia: Nitin Sethi: The principle trouble in Paris is called differentiation
    Why India is so focused on keeping it alive in the new climate agreement
    As talks enter the ministerial round in second week of the climate change summit, for the Indian delegation led by the Union environment, forests and climate change minister, Prakash Javadekar, this issue alone has become the central objective to achieve success on.
    The principle is enshrined in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was agreed to by all countries in 1992. It basically requires that polluters pay for the damage they cause. In this case it asks the countries with greater accumulated emissions of greenhouse gases over the passage of time be made to do much more to clean their act and help others move on a cleaner road to growth…
    The US and most other developed countries want no reference to the Annexe in the Paris agreement. Even though, they agreed that the Paris agreement would be decided under the UNFCCC. IN other words, the convention was like the constitution of a country, and the Paris agreement would implement its objectives like a law following the
    constitutional provisions and principles. One of that principle is that of common but differentiated responsibilities…
    But the US so far has been blunt that it will not permit the reference to the Annexe I and non-Annex countries in the Paris agreement…


  • #

    Finally getting closer to the truth about the Greens and the socialist left. It never was about the CO2, global warming, etc. Their goal is to destroy Western civilization as we know it and replace it with a neo-Stalinist form of directorship, it’s that simple. Doesn’t matter how they do it as long as it does the job. Not sure if Australians will ever wake up to this and start voting with their feet. Trouble is where do they go now that the only real Liberal leader was dumped by his own party and replaced by a Rudd like snake oil salesman? ALA perhaps? A lot more Libs defecting to the Nats would be nice.


  • #

    presumably an anti-abortion or pro-life website in Canada…but well worth a read. so funny:

    4 Dec: LifeSiteNews: Pete Baklinski: Vatican, World Bank partner to launch Year of Mercy with St. Peter’s ‘climate change’ light show
    On December 8, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception as well as the opening of the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy, Pope Francis has allowed climate-change partisans and population-control advocates to project a light show onto the façade and cupola of Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome — the most important church in the Catholic world — so as to “inspire change around the climate crisis.”…
    The event, billed as “contemporary public art,” is sponsored by organizations named after Greek and Roman pagan gods that push the climate change agenda and by an organization that directly funds abortions in developing countries…
    The main financial backer behind the event is the US-led World Bank Group via its Connect4Climate initiative…

    no carbon constraints for this lot:

    6 Dec: NYT: Coral Davenport: At Paris Climate Talks, Top French Envoy Tries to Avoid Mistakes of Past Hosts
    As Laurence Tubiana, France’s top climate change envoy, prepared for her government to host the high-stakes summit meeting now unfolding just outside Paris, she thought at length about lighting design.
    “The lighting must be soft, it must make people feel comfortable,” she said in an interview before the meeting. Sure enough, each work space at the gathering — which is taking place in a complex of temporarily converted airplane hangars and tents — is illuminated by a gracefully curved table lamp, casting a gentle glow.
    Ms. Tubiana also thought about food. Typically the fare at such conferences ranges from forgettable to demoralizing. Ms. Tubiana wanted cuisine that would facilitate diplomatic breakthroughs. At the French climate conference, negotiators from the United States, China, Russia and India are dining together over duck confit, boeuf bourguignon and French wines.
    Ms. Tubiana’s attention to such details comes on top of 18 months of near-constant world travel…


    • #

      At the French climate conference, negotiators from the United States, China, Russia and India are dining together over duck confit, boeuf bourguignon and French wines.
      Ms. Tubiana’s attention to such details comes on top of 18 months of near-constant world travel…

      And here’s me thinking they were there to work.



  • #
    Abbott INSIST

    APPEAL to the UN and all member states
    After the “warning” solar super-storms that hit Earth in 1859 (Carrington event), 1989 (Quebec blackout), 2003 & 2015 (Sweden blackouts), 2005 (GPS blackout) and our for nine hours near-miss annihilation by the July 2012 super-storm, that would have shattered power grids and thus blew up all nuclear (as NASA and many researchers have pointed),
    we ask all public and private sectors for a GLOBAL DRILL and disconnection of all transformers and devices from the electric grids, so that humanity will be ready, when the satellites alert in time for the next super-storm.


  • #
    Egor TheOne

    ” the concern about CO2 is faked ”

    Monckton and Patrick Moore ,just to name 2 have been claiming this statement for years !

    The whole thing is just one big scam and a global political coup !

    All its main propagators are of extreme left ratbag leanings ……coincidental ?..I think not.


    • #

      No of course it’s not coincidental. One can’t even say it’s accidental due to a widespread problem of stupidity or ignorance. It’s definitely deliberate and orchestrated. Their aim is to bring down Western civilization. That’s why the socialist left appease the Islamic extremists so much – they have a common goal. However, that’s where the collective stupidity does have an impact – they are too stupid to realize they would be the first to be executed if the extremists ever did manage to control the world (which I don’t believe they will).


      • #

        Peter, they dont want to bring down western civ. The vision is not that big. Mostly (apart from a few megalomanics) they want more holidays to the Andes and Antarctica and to send their kids to schools with less riff raff. The few megalomanics don’t want to destroy civilization. They want to rule over it and it’s not fun if there are no serfs eh?

        So it’s all very mundane — each individual simply sees a personal net benefit to themselves — some get bigger grants, but for many the benefit is just some touchy feely fantasy world where everyone is nice and the government (santa for grownups) provides what they need. They are playing with political and economic fire-crackers (like some play with drugs) merely to fit in and get invites to dinner parties on saturday night.

        The reason some socialists pander to the Islamic extreme is more a case of the enemy of my enemy is my “friend”. But lets not take the thread there…

        You are right that most have no idea that loyalty to a leader without principles will not save them from the Guillotine.


        • #

          Long ago in the 1950s Hoffer wrote a book called The True Believers.
          He eloquently elaborates of what you describe.
          The desire to belong to something that elevates a sense of who we are is ever pressing.
          This desire is often exploited by mass movements.

          One of the more vulnerable groups to mass movements are the educated professionals who have fallen out of favor and look to rekindle lost love and admiration.
          Other groups are attracted because they have tasted some version of delight but have not sustained it, wish for more and are delusioned by their mundane life.
          The truly poor have little or no interest as they are preoccupied with safety, food, clothing, shelter … aka survival.

          We can be a petty breed, but if I can just touch the hem of your garment I might be saved or at least my demi god of a child might be invited to the right birthday party.

          It is nearly certain that the above behaviors will never end as it is far more likely that man meanders from one mass movement to another. It is far more likely that the earth will cool as demonstrated by age old paleoclimate patterns and then what will we do ?

          Bloated governments are famous for amassing momentum to fight a war that no longer exists.

          Will the warmists be shoveling the coal in to the furnace as penance or leading the charge for animal free clothing ?

          The unintended positive consequence of the CAGW ruse is the elevated discourse that has resulted among the masses. A great uplift has occurred concerning identification of fallacious rhetoric and perhaps the youth of this generation will not be so easily tricked in the future.


  • #

    The Papacy will announce its new policy tomorrow.

    If you are from a developed nation you will be required to reduce your carbon footprint or tithe an additional 5% of your yearly income.

    Members of developed nations will receive 0.1% of that tithe to be added to their annual income.

    The remaining 4.9% will be used for the UN operating costs. The Papacy will be secured for a fixed percentage of 25% of the 4.9%.

    Those with elevated carbon footprints from developed nations who do not tithe accordingly will have to demonstrate penance by walking around with solar panels attached to their clothing while kneeling in full view of onlookers.

    Knee pads will be provided.


    • #
      Egor TheOne

      ‘Repent Ye Carbon Polluters !
      Lest Ye Burn In Eternal Damnation !’

      El Socialist Pope Propaganda has spoken .


  • #

    Another piece at the ABC spruiking renewables as competitive:'innovation'-agenda/7007536

    The author is head of The Australia Institute, which, for those that don’t know, is a green-leaning think tank. The OP, Ben Oquist, was former Chief of Staff for Milne and Brown.

    I have put forward a comment exemplifying the hypocrasy given they bagged Abbott for wanting teh CEFC funding to go towards research:

    Any coal subsidies (assuming they exist) are miniscule in terms of actual kWh delivered relative to renewables. This is because coal actually works. The Chinese get this, which is why there are so many coal-fired power plants being approved and built there.

    On the flipside, renewables run for the hills as soon as the massive subsidy spiggot is closed every so slightly.

    It will be great to see renewables compettive (along with storage) one day. I may even live to see it, but they certainly aren’t today. Oddly the previous PM wanted the CEFC to do exactly that … here I quote directly from the ABC (Abbott was reported as saying):

    “The best thing that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation can do is invest in new and emerging technologies, the things that might not otherwise get finance,” he said.

    Needless to say, he was roundly criticised for saying this at the time… right here. On this web site.

    Make up your minds folks, which is it?


  • #

    6 Dec: ClimateDepot: Marc Morano: Activists demand UN ‘revoke’ credentials of ‘climate deniers’ in Paris – Claim ‘Climate Hustle’ film is ‘full of lies’ – without seeing it – Warn skeptics may ‘derail’ UN treaty
    Graham Lloyd – Environment Editor
    Sydney: Green groups want alternative views on climate science silenced in Paris, with a call for delegates with contrarian opinions to be ejected from the UN talks.
    Sceptic groups such as the Heartland Institute have started to arrive in the French capital, sparking fears among environment groups that they will derail proceedings using funds from fossil fuel interests.
    A new documentary, Climate Hustle, was due to be premiered in Paris tonight (Monday). Producers claim it will be for nonbelievers what Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth was for the converted.
    Climate change action lobby group SumOfUs has pushed back with an international campaign to raise funds for a counter offensive.
    The group has planned a major advertising campaign in France’s biggest-selling newspapers.
    It has called on UN organisers to revoke the conference credentials “of the most disingenuous ­climate deniers”…


  • #

    taxpayer-funded ABC elitists aren’t happy India will utilise coal:

    7 Dec: ABC The World Today: Will India stand firm on coal at Paris Climate Conference?
    ELEANOR HALL: At the climate change talks in Paris, fears are growing that India may yet play a similar spoiler role as China at the Copenhagen meeting…
    But climate experts say if the world is to avoid dangerous global warming, India must not follow China’s carbon hungry path to development…
    PIYUSH GOYAL: Over the last 150 years, the United States, Europe, Australia – these are the countries which have put in all the carbon in the atmosphere…
    JAMES BENNETT: Fail to keep warming below two degrees, and scientists say vast numbers of India’s 1.3 billion will feel the consequences, through droughts, floods and food shortages.

    Indian writer, Sadhvi Sharma, couldn’t care less what ABC types think:

    3 Dec: Spiked: Sadhvi Sharma: India is right: coal makes the world go round
    India’s defiance at the Paris climate talks should be celebrated.
    (Sadhvi Sharma is a writer and researcher based in London, and has a PhD in international political economy from the Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.)
    But India’s defiance is something to be encouraged. Coal is the most readily available means of motoring the sort of development that India, and other developing countries, so desperately needs. India has 301 billion tonnes of available coal – the fifth largest reserve in the world. And it plans to open one mine a month over the next five years. None of this is a bad thing…
    Coal has been crucial to lifting millions out of poverty in India and China over the past two decades. Building schools and roads, powering villages, towns and commercial centres, supplying food and sustaining production – all this depends on readily available energy. Between 2004 and 2011, the number of poor people in India fell from 407million to 269million. Since India won its independence from Britain, life expectancy has doubled. In 2013, India eradicated the scourge of polio. All of this is an offshoot of coal-fired development…
    Coal costs less than one quarter of the price of oil and natural gas. According to one report, a hydropower plant in India generates 33 per cent less electricity than a coal power plant – and coal is also far cheaper than hydro. The cost of natural gas, considered much cleaner than other fossil fuels, is 175 per cent higher than current coal
    The expansion of the human footprint is essential if we are to solve the problems of the future. For this to happen, we must exploit the resources that are readily available to us.


  • #

    Wrap up, a Mini Ice Age may be heading our way! Met Office issues warning that temperatures could plummet as Sun enters cooler phase
    The last big chill was felt hundreds of years ago when Frost Fairs were held on the frozen River Thames
    The prediction is based on counting sun spots – dark patches on the sun – that are hot spots and signs of increased solar activity
    The Met Office said the new freeze will not be enough to cancel out the effects of global warming
    PUBLISHED: 09:07 EST, 24 June 2015 | UPDATED: 14:15 EST, 24 June 2015

    Read more:


    • #

      However global warming would start again once the new Little Ice Age ended.

      They are mad.

      I predict that after a Winter warming will commence again in Summer.


      • #


        It seems you are using that discredited 12 month cycle.

        The UNIPCCCC or more correctly unipcccc has banned that one, it is too obvious.


        please don’t capitalise the un.

        That’s a joke on two levels for the smart ones here.


  • #

    Phew !! panic over !
    The Sunday times confirms that CO2 emissions “may” have plateaued and may begin to decline sometime in the future.
    A mild caveat is that China and India intend to build 1600 or so new coal fired power stations by 2030 possibly buggering things up to a degree
    But it looks like Paris might have been a fabulous success or could be a win win for the greens , the planet is saved !
    Oh frabjous joy
    coolah coolay coolaid.

    The climate Jihadis simply do not understand “hubris” at all .


  • #
    William Astley

    In support of
    December 7, 2015 at 12:59 pm • Reply
    that green scam energy does not work, cannot reduce CO2 emissions more than around 15% if the energy input to construct the green scams is included and the reduced grid efficiency.

    Windpower is at the cube of wind speed. Wind ‘farm’ output therefore can and does vary from zero to 100% and can change 30% in 20 minutes. As the entire electrical grid must always be balanced when wind farms increase and decrease natural gas power plants must be turned on/off/on/off/on/off/on/off.

    Green energy requires 100% backup by natural gas burning power plants or nuclear. Green scam energy doubles the amount of kit that is required to power the electrical grid and reduces grid efficiency so more energy is required to provide the same total power. for the following engineering facts (not a theory).

    Combined natural gas plant which produce stream from the waste first pass natural gas turbines are roughly 20% more efficient than a single pass natural gas plant. Combined natural gas power plant however takes 20 hours to start and hence cannot be turned on/off/on/off/on/off/on/off.

    Nuclear power plants take roughly a week to start and hence also cannot be turned on/off/on/off/on/off/on/off.

    As the amount of intermittent green scam energy increases on the grid, combined cycle natural gas power plants can no longer be used which reduces grid efficiency by 20%.

    In addition to a 20% loss in grid efficiency for green scams if the amount of green scam energy exceeds roughly 15% of total grid load varying green scam energy forces the electrical grid to be redesigned to transmit massive changing power via high power DC lines from one region to another. The green idiots call this a ‘smart’ electrical grid.

    There is a roughly further power loss of 20% to 30% for the transportation of power due to line loss and the loss to convert from AC to DC and back to AC, in addition to the billions of dollars cost for the high voltage DC power lines and the conversion power stations.

    Ignoring the cost issue (Electrical power in Germany is three times higher than in the US) the maximum CO2 reduction green scams are capable is around 15% due to above engineering facts.

    The idiotic politicians that are pushing green scams do not understand the implication of the cult of CAGW’s paradigm (See my above comment) and do not understand the engineering reality/limitations of green scams. The idiotic politicians also do not understand that every developing country has run out of money to spend on everything. More money spent on green scams that do not work means less money for schools, road, bridges, health care, public ‘servants’ salary, pensions, and so on. Spending money on green scams that do not work is lose/lose not win/win.


    • #

      William, it’s worse than that. Windmills must be in windy places, on hills or coastal areas that are typically also lift zones which generate rainfall. This means their natural state is usually tree covered. But wind power requires that the friction between the air and surface be minimised. Put another way there must be no obstruction to the wind for some 3-500m up and down wind of the turbine. This means that your typical 1 MVA windmill needs 5 hectares of cleared land with NO trees.

      Trees sequester upwards of 200 Tonnes per Ha of CO2 per annum, up to 500 tonnes per Ha per annum for some fast growing species. So over the say 15 year life of a windmill one must be able to make CO2 savings of up to 37 kilotonnes of CO2 per 1 MVA turbine, even to break even with the vegetation that was removed to position the turbine.


  • #

    Here’s one for Pat, a sublime example of being hoist with your own petard;

    The developing nations, especially the small island states, critically want liability and compensation from the Annexe 1 nations, for damage from climate change written into the agreement. However, as long as the propaganda line is ALL adverse events are attributed to climate change, then the bill for “compo” will dwarf even those (in the UK at least) for cracked pavements and RTA whiplash!


    • #

      diogenese2 – thanks for the link.

      surely the developing countries are realising there’s nothing in it for them. they should walk away and end this scam in the process.


  • #

    Carbon pollution. Say we somehow eliminated the entire 0.04% CO2. Does anyone really think the planet temperature would drop dramatically? That would be hard to believe. However all the plants and so all the animals would be dead.

    Then a tiny amount, 0.02%, plants and life would struggle to survive would it still be freezing?

    Why was everything just fine at 0.3% but now disaster at 0.04%? Tipping points. Armageddon. The end of the world. Drowned cities. Vanishing coral. The end of life as we know it. Which is all a bit odd when 40% of humanity live in the much hotter tropics anyway. Paris today 8C to 13C. I bet they wish it was a bit warmer, say 2 degrees?


  • #

    Beijing is on red alert for pollution.
    It’s ‘orrible.
    CO2 as far as the eye can see!!!!


  • #

    The greatest refutation of the Green Malthusians is that they actually RECARBONIZED the German and now the French economies.

    The NYTIMES blogger Andrew Revkin expresses his astonishment.


  • #

    I have long thought is not CO2 or climate change. Look at what they do not what they say. Greenpeace wanted and still does to ban the use of chlorine. They then moved on to fossil fuels. Both of these if implemented would be an effective way to attack modern civilisation. It is instructive to examine the wishes of those who call themselves deep ecologists. A common phrase is save the planet this is for its own sake nothing else not humanity. Their desirable scenario is to reduce world population to about what it was in 1800 that is about 1 billion people. Food production would also be reduced to that level. You can tell whether environmentalists will approve of any particular thing. It must cost a lot and be pretty much useless.


  • #

    The two Irish scientists who opened up Hansen’s and others’ post-Hansen, post-laws-of-thermodynamics models are named ‘Connolly’ or something like it. Ronan and Michael Connolly are their names.

    These models don’t operate according to the law of thermodynamics written for the atmosphere it’s as simple as that.


  • #

    Great post at Tim Blair.

    Highlights what climate change really means to the greens.