Alan Kohler (ABC economics guru) thinks there is so much overwhelming evidence that a Royal Commission would persuade the skeptics. Skeptics say, yes please, lets do the due diligence that’s never been done. Go on convince us.
Over 50% of Australians are skeptical of the IPCC explanations (think that’s changed? See the last election results). Over 60% don’t want to pay even $10 a month. So lay it out. We want a Royal Commission, some kind of public debate, based on scientific evidence, not “scientific opinion”. It’s not enough to show the climate’s changed, we expect to see evidence about cause and effect. Let’s get all the uncertainties laid bare, not buried behind models and hidden by indignant namecalling. What are they afraid of?
If you worry, like I do — that any institutionalized forum can be another waste of money — captured by the swamp — then view this as a play in the only court that matters, the court of public opinion. Let Alan Kohler know there are lots of skeptics and we want a debate. Ask why the ABC won’t tell the world that there are tens of thousands of scientists and engineers, including NASA stars, meteorologists, Nobel Prize winners, and men who went to the moon, and they are willing to speak out even though the ABC likens them to pedophiles and tobacco profiteers and calls them denier scum.
If the science were settled the ABC wouldn’t be so afraid of phoning up Buzz Aldrin or Harrison Schmitt to ask politely “Why are you a skeptic?”
— Jo Nova
Sign Parliamentary Petition EN1231
Don A reminds Australians who sign the petition that they MUST confirm they’re not a robot, and tick the relevant boxes AND respond to a subsequent email. Make it count!
The PRESS RELEASE:
_________________________________
Cool Futures Funds Management
Climate and Energy Policies – Due Diligence Initiative
We support Alan Kohler’s call for an Australian Royal Commission and the related House of Representatives e-Petition EN1231 to review the evidence on our Climate and Energy Policies.
If the Government is genuinely interested in dispassionately resolving the polarized climate and energy debate, it should welcome this Royal Commission.
No one among the public, the policy-making ministers, the bureaucrats, the corporate and management class, the public intellectuals, or indeed our journalists, has ever seen or understood the empirical evidence in support of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW). Why do the climate scientists believe in CAGW? Is there any empirical evidence? Can we see this evidence? What due diligence has been done so far?
This Royal Commission, as Alan Kohler suggests, will fill a critical need.
“… a review of the evidence on (climate change and energy) in which everyone is required (under oath) to tell the truth.”
The Australian Sept 21, 2019
Alan is alluding to those who are sceptical of CAGW. He wants to convince everyone the evidence on ‘climate change’ demands a ‘carbon’ emissions drop. Policies are supposed to be “science based” and “evidence based,” so we all need to know precisely what the relevant terms mean and what the evidence is. The public only ever hear or see people, including scientists, giving their opinions on climate change. But opinions are not evidence.
Climate & energy policy due diligence – not only has to be done – but has to be seen to be done.
Dr David Evans, who built Australia’s forestry and agricultural carbon accounting system (FullCAM):
The reasons for believing CAGW are purely theoretical. CAGW is a theory based on basic physics models and large computerized models. That’s why there is no empirical evidence for it, and why we cannot simply point to some evidence and convince everyone that it is true. Because it is theoretical belief, that belief cannot be falsified in the eyes of the modelers with empirical evidence.”
Chris Dawson, Cool Futures Funds Management – Climate and Energy Due Diligence Initiative:
Quality due diligence is essential for an informed market, and for the body politic to function optimally. Similarly, guidelines on director’s fiduciary obligations on climate and energy are ambiguous, bureaucratic and disturbing. For example, the terms ‘climate’, ‘climate change’, ‘global warming’, ‘climate science’ are not defined; and the relevant scientific literature is not cited. This lack of definition and information leads to a climate of uncertainty and fear for many company directors and public officers.
___________________________________________________________________
Done
100
I love how economists think they know more than Engineers.
Old joke…if you laid every economist end to end, they would still never reach a conclusion.
My Dad was an economist, used to consult with a very well known firm. He saw stuff from the inside….
210
But, but, but Ross Garnaut is an economist…
40
As the old saying goes: “Economists were put on this earth to make astrologers look good!”
121
The filing cabinet
Lies
Damn Lies
Statistics
10
I’m number 402.
Get moving people, we have until the 4th of March.
30
I saw this petition last week and signed it. As of as of 8am EDST 17/ Feb there were 404 signatures!
It is like most of the other petitions on the register, unless they are publicized some how they fail by neglect!
71
I just signed it ….. now 540
10
605
Cheers
Dave B
00
There’s a reason climate science hasn’t gone to court yet , a little thing called evidence .
570
Not somuch the ‘evidence’itself as the credibility of the witnesses under cross examination. That said and recalling the skewering of various exewcutives during the financial services RC, how can we be sure that a suitab;y motivated counsel can get across the science and cross examine a scientist witness?
Anyway I am good for it.
120
Courts can be corrupted. Starting with the appointment of a “favourable” judge.
350
Can we borrow Brett Kavanaugh from the US Supreme Court?
161
“Minister, never call for an enquiry unless you know the ocome beforehand….”
Sur Humphrey Appleby
“Yes Minister”
This make me wonder if those who are called for evidence will favour the Establishment side and use the royal commission as a gigantic theatrical appeal to false “authority” of the heavily politicized govt bodies.
The only way the royal commission will have any form of credibility is if it engages in balanced evidence supplied by both sides of the argument…other wise it will just be a giant stitch up…..being realistic – they have activist judges in most countries, so we need to be watchful who they appoint as whoever runs the royal commission isnt just another climate change yes man…
150
It all depends on terms of reference.
If too narrow, then will lead to wrong or more likely pee determined conclusions
80
Will it be run by layers and practicioners of “post normal science”, or scientists and statisticians?
30
“will lead to wrong or more likely pee determined conclusions”
ICPP at work.
00
Big problem Ted.
Every public servant in Australia has been inveigled in this scam. If not by their own consciously made investments, then at very least through compulsory superannuation.
120
Please not Michael Kirby – he is absolutely sold on ‘climate change’! I know a few lawyers who arent!
31
Given that the legal profession is crawling with socialists, I wouldn’t have any confidence in a Royal Commission into AGW. A Royal Commission isn’t a scientific investigation, it’s a legal process and so the terms of reference could easily be cooked. Let’s not forget the Royal Commission into child abuse was called the “Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse” and specifically excluded physical abuse.
20
I would prefer a proper televised debate. Ably chaired.
150
Cheaper and quicker.
Sadly those in power hang their hat on Appeal to Authority; which is the IPCC and 97% of scientists.
I do fear that this could backfire on the sceptics, but it would be nice to get some serious cross examination done.
110
Yeah it could be a very unfortunate kangaroo court.
50
Excellent.
20
Or a debate series perhaps….on the core issues …not bushfires and floods…maximizing use of the time rather than getting into the weeds.
No bloviating…or blarney.
No Karoly or Gergis….certainly no Flannery.
40
No Karoly or Gergis….certainly no Flannery.
Not so. I want them to be grilled in public and have to answer questions. It won’t matter how many believers are called — what matters is whether the person doing the grilling knows what they are talking about and is drilling for the truth.
130
Won’t happen. Their science might suck, but their politics are spot on.
20
Good thinking…you’re right!
Trouble is I’ve watched Karoly too many times using his own special brand of theatrics to divert attention from the substance…so the quality of the interrogators would be crucial.
Most of Gergis’ testimomy would be frolics of her own.
The thing would sink or swim on the mind set and knowledge of the interrogators…so how could it be ensured that people who were determined to get at the truth in Australia’s interests…were chosen?
20
RR
As a person who followed the Unions Royal Commission, I cannot believe it to be anything other than a stage-managed process of political theatre.
The way the specific evidence went was pretty much contrary to the ultimate outcomes.
Some players, clearly culpable on evidence, not only got off but went on to gain elected public office.
[ the cabal conveyor still rolls on………..]
A RC into the science, objectively managed & honestly run would, imho would expose too many plain truths & too many self-interested parties.
It would be a reprise of the band performance on the Titanic with similar motivations & results.
190
If a RC is called, anyone can make a submission and if there are sufficient sceptical scientists who make learned submissions but are then not called to give evidence to the commission and instead we have a parade of practitioners of “the science”perpetuating the CAGW myth, then that alone will show the alarmists up for the shysters and liars they are.
As well, the terms of reference, if favouring one side of the debate will also show the establishment up as weak and terrified of a true debate.
70
A repeat of the Unions RC is my fear too…the demonization and slander of the Commissioner…the deterrents deployed IMO-that made witnesses lose their memories or courage overnight…the horse trailers of documents carted off…strategic documents going missing simultaneously across four states..fortuitously for a former PM who had established her own RC into cover-up of child sex abuse…in full confidence that the case Labor and the MSM were/are still covering up would never be featured in their RC.
That case of the QLD LABOR government with Rudd at its epicentre …that illegally destroyed evidence to protect alleged pedophiles at a youth detention centre…and thereby denied justice forever to the Aboriginal victims who were supposed to be in the government’s care….was of course never even mentioned by MSM in relation to Labor’s RC…just as it was ensured it wouldn’t feature in the 2007 election campaign…by threats and intimidation…and hush money to an alleged victim in lieu of justice.
With Labor and their fixers …it’s pretty certain that any RC in Australia or any watch dog body will always be a plaything of the LEFT.
40
Done
40
I will look at this petition again tomorrow morning!
Let’s not rush in here. Sir Humphrey Appleby said: Never hold an Enquiry unless you know the answer in advance!
The terms of the a Royal Commission have to allow questions about the fundamentals of Global Warming, including the threadbare scientific underpinning, an analysis of the role of CO2, the Greenhouse Theory, BOM data manipulation, etc.
This process has been done before; The BOM sham reviews left a bitter taste in my mouth.
What we do not need is a Royal Commission that cements Alan Kohler and the ABC views more firmly.
550
I agree with you entirely. If the terms of reference don’t allow for scrutiny of BOM’s official ACORN dataset, then the whole thing will be a farce and will only serve to further the alarmists point of view.
I, personally, can’t support the call for a Royal Commission unless the terms of reference are clearly defined in the call for such a Royal Commission.
460
Exactly — the last thing we need is another whitewash show trial.
Let’s discuss what kinds of terms of reference we need to see.
Imagine you were given the role, which organisations would you want to grill, and what questions must they answer?
280
Like all performances it is all about confusing the story and the IPCC are experts. And most of Australia’s organizations are utterly dependent on Climate Change based funding. Obfuscation will be the objective.
However there is one and only one thing which needs to be proven, that mankind is responsible for the steadily increasing CO2 levels. This is never debated, never proven, only inferred by vague correlation. Without this single item, it is all busted. Whether CO2 causes warming and warming causes everything else is debatable endlessly and the whole thing becomes bogged down in one expert’s opinion vs another.
The one correlation equals causation argument is that atmospheric CO2 levels are man made. That is demonstrably false. The C14 fingerprint would be admissable in a court of law. The extra CO2 lacks the fingerprint of fossil fuel.
Without that single premise, the whole argument for massive taxes, 400,000 giant windmills and electric cars and killing cattle just collapses.
411
For real? Do you have a link to a paper by any chance?
111
The usual “proof”. Salby and Harde.
Take these guys with a grain of salt. The more skeptics wed themselves to cranks peddling fools gold the more the alarmists win.
016
John
I for one have found no reasonable refutation of Salby, Harde, or Berry. The refutations I have seen fail upon inspection. If you have found errors in their work that invalidate it please let know about them.
110
DMA, They ignore anthropogenic CO2 once it leaves the atmosphere. They’re only looking at a very narrow part of the ledger. They ignore how adding CO2 to the atmophere can cause atmospheric CO2 to build up.
We’ve emitted about 1500 Gigatonnes of CO2 since we started burning fossil fuels.
There is an extra 1000 gigatonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere in the corresponding period. Much of that 1000 gigatonnes has cycled around many times. These guys only count comparatively recent CO2 emissions as anthropogenic (hence their obsession with the C14 decay curves), thus they ignore most of the total and falsely claim humans couldn’t have caused it.
Denying this is a really bad look. It undermines skepticism. We should be challenging CAGW. Holding the “science to account”. Challenging bullshit artists like Mann. Instead we’re putting forward our own piles of horseshit.
27
John
I believe you have misinterpret these authors. Their analyses include reemission of CO2 that has been absorbed in the flow of CO2 through the atmosphere. Your criticism is specifically addressed by Berry in his latest carbon cycle paper that shows the errors in the IPCC model. See https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/human-co2-has-little-effect-on-the-carbon-cycle/
50
“It’s not well known that 97% of carbon dioxide molecules agree that global warming results from natural causes.”
60
Look at the paper below. It proves that CO2 is essentially not the green house gas that it is supposed to be. And when you take off the blinkers this explains why we have not seen runaway greenhouse issues in the past when CO2 was north of 4000pppm
https://www.allphyscon.ch/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Allmendinger_Behaviour-of-Gases_IJPS-rev.pdf
This is the not only one I have seen. The Connellys from Ireland also have done similar research.
If the Royal Commission is called then we need to allow papers like this, and their authors to present.
As noted above, terms of reference would need to be very clear. No “only climate scientists are able to present” or other stupid rules.
130
That paper discusses the effects of CO2, not whether humans are causing CO2 levels to rise.
17
Yes John, but we need to understand which problem we are looking at.
You suggest that the problem is that ‘man’ is cause CO2 to rise.
However if we look at the problem from the point of view that Greenhouse Theory is junk science and CO2, in context, is not actually a ‘greenhouse gas’ then the problem of who is causing the CO2 goes away.
Look at the big picture from time to time. Often you can clarify your end game and simply remove the smaller details as being utterly unimportant in context.
60
Sure. This one by Fergusson published by the Royal Society, 1958.
70
To put this in context, with the discovery of C14 dating around 1956, it was a great revelation. Dr. Suess himself noted this an amazing revelation of his data. It was newsworthy. And this is 60% through the 20th century after two world wars and a massive amount of ordinance, concrete, manufacturing, cars, aircraft and oil burned. No one was too concerned about efficiency. After the war cars and planes and engines proliferated, so the world was in mass consumption from 1936 to 1956 apart from Alred Nobel’s dynamite. And it was all missing.
The IPCC had to hide this. After all without man made CO2, there is no man made anything. And the money stops.
190
https://hhgpc0.wixsite.com/harde-2017-censored
This site has Harde’s paper and Kohler’s lame refutation.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C27&q=Hermann+Harde+2020&btnG=
This paper is the belated reply to Kohler
https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/contradictions-to-ipccs-climate-change-theory/#comments
This is Berry’s paper on this subject.
https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/what-is-really-behind-the-increase-in-atmospheric-co2/
This is a video of Salby discussing the subject and responding to Kohler.
30
Here is a link :
https://notrickszone.com/2020/01/30/over-440-scientific-papers-published-in-2019-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/
Get back to us when you have read them .
20
TdeF
I fully agree and have been actively trying to promote a full examination of this aspect of the consensus “science”.
The first question for the commission should be “What analysis confirms the IPCC assertion ” The recent rise of atmospheric CO2 content is entirely due to human activity”?
Salby has shown at least 8 independent first principle analyses that dispute (in my opinion falsify) that statement. Harde and Berry have peer reviewed papers that support Salby. Extensive statistical analysis supports Salby’s findings and disagrees with the IPCC statement.
Truly, if Salby and these others are right, humans hardly effect atmospheric CO2 and have no means to control it.
210
Even IF 100% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 was human caused, so what?
A rise in CO2 alone cannot raise the temperature of the earth.
So even if you prove your point, they’ll move the goal posts to another cause. They are convinced it’s human. There has to be a better approach to go about it.
The whole fiasco started with CAGW. They dropped the Catastrophic pretty quick, so they already know their science is wrong.
110
“Even IF 100% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 was human caused, so what?”
Although I agree with your sentiment here I am convinced that this initial erroneous assumption of the AGW hypothesis is where to start the science review. If the public were aware of this fallacy none of the other arguments are necessary because there is nothing we can do to fix our sins if we aren’t sinning.
60
CAGW is foolish, but so too is denying that humans have caused the recent CO2 increase.
How can we expect to be taken seriously when we’re claiming that?
120
Why is it foolish? Or is that just an opinion? What proof do you have? Have you ever seen any proof that humans have caused the recent CO2 increase. Try the Fergusson paper, 1958 before man made Global Warming was mandatory.
190
And why is it that this foundation stone of man made global warming can be taken as a true without question? Consider for a second the implications if it is not true and say again it is foolish to question it. If you have any documentary evidence that the CO2 increase of 50% over a century is man made, I would love to see it. What people used to call proof. Correlation is not causation.
150
That paper concerns the average lifespan of individual CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, which is the order of 4 years.
It doesn’t “demonstrate” that continually adding CO2 to atmosphere doesn’t cause atmospheric CO2 levels to rise. All it shows is that any individual molecule is likely to have cycled out of the atmophere within 4 years. The CO2 balance can still rise. And you would have to be seriously blinkered to deny the possibility that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is what’s causing the current increase in CO2 levels.
There are gaping holes in catastrophic warming theory. The idea that humans increase CO2 levels isn’t one of them. Why do we continue to run into that brick wall instead of going for the openings?
26
Yes, it does. For a scientist, a physical chemist say, it is all about equilibrium. If equilibrium exists and is rapid, you can add as much CO2 as you like and make no difference.
The IPCC realise this is a disaster to their argument and have arbitrarily stated that man made CO2 stays around for ‘thousands of years’, which is wrong. In another report, the IPCC says the half life is 80 years before half the molecules are recycled, something you now also agree is wrong.
That extreme IPCC view is necessary because human output is quite tiny. We output 2% a year of atmospheric CO2 and it would take all the output of 100 years to explain a 50% increase and that is presuming no CO2 leaves the atmosphere, at most half in 80 years. But that is wrong, as you can agree.
110
Ok, I think I get what you’re driving at TdeF. If we delete all natural emissions (and sequestration?), the amount of CO2 we emit is so miniscule as to make no difference. So…of the 430ppm or whatever, we account for, say, 10ppm….and only if the CO2 hangs around for 80 years, which it does not.
Not had chance to read the article yet….work and all that..
20
It’s not foolish at all.
Cold sea water absorbs CO2 easily. So around the poles CO2 gets absorbed into the oceans. As the ocean currents circulate around the globe they reach the warm waters of the equator, where equilibrium causes the CO2 to be released back into the atmosphere.
The oceans therefor cause the 800 year lag in the Vostok ice cores. And there is evidence that the oceans have been warming since the Little Ice Age 140 years ago.
Besides; It is impossible for a warm atmosphere to warm the oceans. Can not be done. The warming of the oceans is done via penetration of the sun’s rays.
140
And like warming beer, CO2 comes out. Surely that is more obvious and logical than the new theory that the oceans get warmer and absorb CO2. Or that the CO2 trapped infrared heats the air which heats the ocean which absorbs CO2, which is in contradiction of simple physical chemistry, Henry’s law. The whole thing is based on unproven and unlikely and wrong made up science, Climate Scientology.
170
How can all the increase be due to human emissions if changes in rate of emissions do not cause any change in the rate of growth in the atmosphere? (https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/19/co2responsiveness/ )
70
Exactly. In the CO2 record we cannot see the bushfires in Australia, Indonesia, California, Greece. We cannot see the volcanoes. It is as if the CO2 level is set by some other factor, like sea surface temperature and that is stright physical chemistry, Henry’s law.
70
Your uninformed comment exemplifies the whole problem brilliantly.
As Jo says above;
you are offering scientific opinion.
I am sure that a thermodynamic analysis of the daily atmospheric churn created by the combined effects of the Earth’s rotation and exposure to the Sun is the answer.
Three things;
Temperature variations of the atmosphere over the 24 hour cycle show no evidence of the activity of that Devil Gas CO2.
Known atmospheric physics places CO2 as an integral component of the “atmosphere” above 30 metres altitude.
Below that point the “atmosphere” is picking up energy from conduction with the ground and possible absorption of ground origin IR, in the case of the greenhouse gases.
Above 30 metres it is simply one component of a gas following the universal gas laws.
Individually it cannot “trap” heat, it behaves exactly as one component among many until through convection it is at altitude where humans would freeze to death.
Then things change and CO2 may unload any spare energy it holds as a gift to space.
There’s no room in this process of solar induced atmospheric churn for CO2 to cause any kind of heating let alone “catastrophic” heating.
My previous rough analysis under the title “IF” shows that CO2 is thermodynamically inconsequential.
And that’s the troof.
Any contention that CO2 is dangerous, made at this moment in human history, when we understand so much of the intricacies of science, is downright Evil and is evidence of massive corruption of our Democratic Process.
What is the motive in all of this?
KK
101
How does any of that disprove the idea that human CO2 emissions have increased atmospheric CO2 levels?
18
And then John, being worried by the authenticity of my comment replies.
Just look at it.
“How does,,,,, blah blah blah”
KK
41
John,
You have adsorbed the classic “correlation” senario that the UN etc promotes. ..IE,..
.”.CO2 is increasing, AND it is getting warmer (alledgedly !).
THEREFORE the temperature rise MUST be due to the CO2 increase”
But of course it could just as easily be reversed, and that the temp rise may be causing the CO2 increase ??
I know you cannot agree ,
…. because you have been indoctrinated !
70
Chad,
Call me indoctrinated if you want, but in my opinion the alarmist story is ridiculous. Al Gore and Michael Mann etc are fraudsters and hypocrits. I think the risk of CO2 is grossly overstated, and that we are stupidly risking our society and prosperity as it descends into the grip of a quasi-religious doomsday cult.
I also think it’s pretty delusional to believe that the recent 1000 gigatonnes increase in atmospheric CO2 isn’t primarily due to the 1500 gigatons of CO2 we released immediately prior.
13
John,
You were going alright until the last paragraph.
It shows that you have been misled by the eco propaganda. In the area of CO2, human activity is puny and irrelevant.
On the other hand eco warriors focus on this non issue and totally ignore real pollution which damages nature and the environment.
The flooding of our local river with cyanide a few years ago was totally ignored by the Eco Warriors and “involved” politicians. Money was “saved” and the environment was polluted.
The fact is that politicians on both sides need to be monitored without fear or favour
Unfortunately even our judiciary is out of control.
KK
10
“The extra CO2 lacks the fingerprint of fossil fuel.”
Most of the extra CO2 has cycled many times. Like Harde you make the basic conceptual error where you only count the fresh emissions that are still in the atmosphere, which are of course a small part of the total.
Excreble analysis. So so terrible. We deserve languish as cranks when this sort of garbage is the best we have to offer…
27
John
What part of Harde’s paper or Salby’s work gives you the impression they are not including reemission of absorbed fossil fuel CO2 in the flow equations they present. Salby specifically mentions that inclusion multiple times in his presentations. Please show me where you get that information. I have not seen it. If you are right I will reassess my understanding of their work.
10
John
See https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/what-is-really-behind-the-increase-in-atmospheric-co2/
at 59:40 where Salby describes the test ban decay as “net absorption”
20
Nature created the little ice age.
The miniscule CO2 “bounce back” from that event is entirely natural and little or nothing to do with the puny human CO2 “emissions”.
People are being seriously misled; CO2 is the Gas of Life and not without reason.
If you really want a good scare campaign you should use Oxygen, it’s far more dangerous to humans than mild mannered CO2.
KK
00
You do realise that the fingerprint of fossil fuel CO2 is that it is depleted in C12 and C13? The fingerprint or lack thereof is the dilution of C14 and C13 as a percentage of CO2 in the current atmosphere. This is measurable, has been measured and the result is clear Those isotopes are diluted/
00
This “fingerprint ” has been falsified. See Berry’s paper at
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=298&doi=10.11648/j.ijaos.20190301.13.
The reason it was mistaken as a fingerprint is that natural CO2/13 emissions are temperature controlled like CO2/12 but anti-correlated to to them.
00
ACORN-SAT for a start.
100
Think Stalin Show Trials when politicks,’n not truth ter data, is yr aim.
10
Peter, I agree with you it is all too easy to rig the results depending on who is called to give evidence.
Will the Commission hear both sides of the argument or will it be loaded down with so called ‘climate scientists’?
It would be brilliant if both sides were heard and propaganda for the UN Church of Climatology ignored but ignoring the propaganda will be hard considering how much it has been pushed to the population via the government propaganda machine of the ABC, the schools and XR.
180
I agree PeterC..100%.
This statement bothers me…
‘where the issue can be tested judicially, (under oath) and agreement reached … (on a plan) …”
You can bet that judge would be a LW activist judge of the variety that has just handed down a HIGH COURT ruling that’s manufactured a third class of Australian …with very special rights that could give them all the special Indigenous rights as well as the rights of other Australians and those of their birth country…ie even if they’re criminal foreign-born non-citizens.
And this sentence doesn’t make sense to me…
‘Although based on large computerised models incorporating basic physics models, there is no empirical evidence anyone can point to, suggesting Australia’s current climate and energy policies are due diligence and evidence free.’
It doesn’t bode well for due diligence in a Royal Commission.
What would the terms of reference be? The Left would try to confine testimony to scientists presently working in Climate science…to exclude those freed from hostage status eg a group of NASA scientists….dobbing in NASA.
Scientists worldwide would have to be allowed to testify.
Imagine the reception Bjorn Lomberg would receive…
I would want the UK Institute of Physics to testify and to produce in full their original response commissioned from them by the House of Commons ..the report they were subsequently told to revise amid outrage from the HADCRU centre.
The original report was scathing of climate science and the scientists ..Phil Jones etal…. who’d defied FOI laws to deny access by other scientists to their raw data for testing purposes…and point by point the report was scathing about peer review corruption …data fudging …everything.
The revised report was a pussycat of course.…but even then they finished with this…
‘A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science: to provide the planet’s decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future. The challenge that this poses is extensive and some of these decisions risk our standard of living. When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right. The science must be irreproachable.’
You can see the problem though…the government would be constrained by geopolitics ..alliances etc because British inquiries into the HADCRU scientists were deliberate sham inquiries…no interviews with…let alone testimony from complainants…some of those heading the inquiries …appointed by the British Government…had massive personal and family vested interests in RE and related renewable technology…..people who would stand to lose huge money if the science was discredited …likewise with the US and the Albany State inquiry grudgingly conducted into the Wang etal research into the temperature history of China…..British scientist Doug Keenan having alleged that the data on China was pretty much made up.
Keenan wasn’t even interviewed for the Inquiry…no testimony…didn’t even know it was over until he inquired about when he would be called….and was told it was over and had found against him.
Any Royal Commission would have to reveal the MO of the IPCC too…the role of environmental activists and NGOs.
Really those who demand world upheaval and destruction of countries like Australia should be the ones who have the obligation to produce unimpeachable evidence…not we who question them…but it’s obvious IMO that the Kohler Petition requires those asking for proof and evidence …to do the proving and produce the evidence.
180
” Sir Humphrey Appleby said: Never hold an Enquiry unless you know the answer in advance!”
Yes – that way, you can be sure to appoint someone “sound” to run it, who will give you the answer you want. Who is “sound”? Someone who knows what the answer you want is, is “sound”!
Yet even if we got someone “fair and balanced”, what chance the Govt will do anything other than shelve (or better, bury) a report it doesn’t like?
I signed the petition anyway.
30
Kohler is an economist trained journalist.
WTF does he know about science ?
Given that he has been subject to the
Australian Brainwashing Corporation’s
Climate Warming Propaganda for decades
In my opinion it’s a loaded game
Not worth playing.
ScoMo is in the midst of organising a royal commission into
Why the recent bushfires happened.
We know they were caused by the lack of Cool burning.
Let him get on with that.
180
I would like Kohler to explain why Australia must be the only nation on the face of the earth forced by its leaders to struggle to survive with a 100% weather-dependent intermittent electricity system with weather-dependent props…with zero baseload security forever…when all of Australia’s competitors will have multiple sources of baseload security forever…in coal..gas..nuclear..river hydro…multiple interconnectors to other countries.
That question must be answered….not just by him and other RE zealots…but especially by Scott Morrison who has Australia on a helter skelter Turnbull transition to a ruined subsistence economy.
Why do they want Australia so exposed?
Why would an Australian economist want Australia to be a 3rd world poverty-stricken insecure country…unless he’s hugely invested in RE.
230
Because we arr tgr designated NWO crash test dummies they get to test thier demented policies on before its rolled out globally. We are an unimportant backwater.
We need to defeat them here in the long game, regardless how long it takes. Asymetric “warfare of ideas” is feared by most incumbent armies…
60
I think in this case we’re at the top of the Global Socialists’ ‘must clobber’ list rather than ‘unimportant backwater’…although that’s what they’ll reduce us to.
I think too many countries want to burn our cleaner Australian coal for our own good.
The only way to kill coal worldwide is to kill Australian coal so that buyers would be forced to buy dirtier coal …for which they could be shamed and pilloried….and sanctioned.
With Kohler though…I think he’s almost certainly invested in RE as Garnaut and Hewson are.
It’s obscene that they’re allowed to influence so many people …especially shareholders, banks and insurance providers….without disclosing on every occasion.
Likewise the MSM pundits who try to sell the Kool-Aid on RE.
00
The role of H20 Is much more important, and CO2 should be very much sidelined.
CO2 as warming agent nothing but a worthless naked ideological excuse to blame human beings in order to guilt and undermine modern Western cultural influences and effectiveness, by ungraceful shameless misanthropes addicted to lying about the topic.
Quantities matter.
230
Yeah, but skip the test-tube physics applied to a huge ball thinly coated in land and water but full of hot squish getting tugged at by forces up and down the universe.
Before we attend to poorly digested theories on the poorly understood dynamics of climate change we need to look at the great leper topic: actual climate change leading up to the last century or two. Yeah, that total roller-coaster they like to pretend was somehow level or “stable”.
Any inquiry must take in as much information as is available about Quaternary climate, sea levels, glaciations, melts etc with special emphasis on the last twelve thousand years.
This is the ever-avoided subject. This will lay bare the imposture.
210
They knew it was fake from the get go but it paid off hugely. Now a lot of people know it was fake and that they have been had: big time. Once, they could accuse us of being ignorant monsters destroying the earth. It is no longer working. Now more and more know that they are the monsters and they have no place to hide.
Once it would have been pitch forks, touches, and rope riots to storm the castle and hang the self elected elite. The end of such a thing is almost always rivers of blood and mountains of bodies. The fakers thought it would be our blood and bodies. They now fear it is going to be their blood and bodies. I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes.
111
When climategate occurred, I was so excited that finally this sham would be exposed and the global warming fantasy would be over. I naively thought that the emails were so unequivocal in what they contained I thought certainly that any enquiry would recognise that these emails exposed manipulation that was at best I’ll advised and at worst criminal. The enquiry concluded nothing to see here and the only criminal activity identified was carried out by whoever hacked into the East Anglia computers.
One thing I’ve observed is that the infiltration of warmists through our institutions , our corporations, our public servants, our politicians, our scientific institutions, our academic institutions, our media is so comprehensive that unless sceptics are properly represented it will be a waste of time. Because a royal commission in such a threat you can be assured that the warmists will be doing everything they can to rig the result. Whilst I feel that climate change should be a clear political choice, Liberals should be do nothing , no subsidies for renewables, build new HELE plants , no special deals for electric cars, creation of a nuclear power industry , get out of Paris etc. and should contrast with Labor, high emissions targets, more subsidies for renewables, shut down coal , no nuclear, etc. ( effectively mirror the Greens. Unfortunately on this issue, there are many ( what I would think of as traitors) in the Liberal parties who have similar sentiments to Turnbull. Ironically with the info about the Otis group from the Labor party they may eventually become the more sensible ones on this issue and there is a lot of concern being expressed by unions that demonisation of coal is putting at risk the jobs of its members. So in this environment where I don’t really trust either side of politics to give a balanced approach to a royal commission sceptics run a risk that such an enquiry would Reach the conclusion that the view as espoused by ABC, BOM and scientific academics will prevail.
I wish I was wrong but I can’t imagine Scomo has the fortitude to put a sceptic in charge of putting together the terms of reference.
270
All true, except that man made Global Warming would have to be proven. Which scientists are going to testify that man is heating the planet, that mankind is entirely responsible for increasing CO2. Personally, I would love to hear the arguments.
This is because if man made Global Warming cannot be proven, the whole thing is busted.
The defence from the CSIRO, BOM, ANSTO will be that it is all true. Because they say so as Australia’s premier scientists in weather. The defence from authority.
However they just might have to prove what they say and that will be the challenge considering that 350 scientists of the CSIRO tasked with the job could not find any proof in what must have been 1,000 man years of trying.
Besides, if a Royal Commission decides that Global Warming, CO2 levels are man made, we are no worse off. After 32 years of this, all sides of politics believe that today. And Alan Kohler is a true believer, not a denier.
170
Your point is quite valid . Just because the probability is that the playing field will be rigged doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t take the opportunity to enter into the contest. With a number of sceptics within the Liberal ranks and Labor starting to recognise the political cost of its green global warming policies you just never know. It would also be difficult for the ABC to ignore the information and findings that would flow from such an enquiry. It was interesting to hear the chief scientist talk about transitioning in the future to gas and that a price on carbon was complicated and probably won’t work.
It could be that under the pressure of an enquiry certain home truths will be revealed. A proper enquiry which scrutinises the claims is really what sceptics have been crying out for. The fact that it will probably be rigged we are no worse off. That slight probability that it will be fair is too important a chance to not take.
I’m signing the petition.
120
Your point is quite valid . Just because the probability is that the playing field will be rigged doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t take the opportunity to enter into the contest. With a number of sceptics within the Liberal ranks and Labor starting to recognise the political cost of its green global warming policies you just never know. It would also be difficult for the ABC to ignore the information and findings that would flow from such an enquiry. It was interesting to hear the chief scientist talk about transitioning in the future to gas and that a price on carbon was complicated and probably won’t work.
It could be that under the pressure of an enquiry certain home truths will be revealed. A proper enquiry which scrutinises the claims is really what sceptics have been crying out for. The fact that it will probably be rigged we are no worse off. That slight probability that it will be fair is too important a chance to not take.
I’m signing the petition.
20
I think it would be a good idea to demand (!) that Finkel table the proof requested by then Senator Roberts with empirical evidence of his position.
A blank page is about all we’ll see I suspect, even though he’s had several years to prepare something.
Cheers
Dave B
10
Brilliant. Another Scopes Monkey trial. Lawyers arguing Science. Besides, they have the real incentive of preventing terrible bushfires, droughts and flooding rains. And justifying the $6Billion a year stolen from our electricity bills by the Federal government and endless more hundreds of millions spent by State governments to pretend that having the world’s highest electricity bills is not destroying our manufacturing industries.
Let’s hear from lawyers why man made Global Warming (aka Climate Change) is causing every storm, every flood, every drought and every bushfire. I want to hear proof not supposition that CO2 levels are man made, because if they are not, it is all a waste of money.
240
And the Scopes Monkey Trial was a total carnival from the get-go. Even Bryan was in on the farce. Nobody cared about the new anti-evolution act till locals realised what a controversy could do for the town of Dayton. As for Scopes…he was a jock, keen to be prosecuted to help out the town, not even interested in the subject, had probably (he couldn’t remember) skipped the part of the text-book that was supposed to be controversial (and which was actually prescribed by the state, despite the act).
What’s needed is that debate which was declared so necessary…then declared over and won while we were in the bathroom or checking the letterbox. The only way is with equal time, strict rules, no rigged ABC audiences etc, and lots of input from geologists, historians etc who were engaged in understanding climate change long before it went political. No lawyers, especially no barristers. (I come from a legal family…no barristers!)
As you say, they’re pretending we can have an industrial base with electricity prices through the roof. Just like we can have expanding cities and agriculture without dams. That pretense can only lead to one very undesirable end.
120
And my other point is to ask why electricity prices are through the roof if wind is cheaper and 90% of our electricity and all of our base load is still coal based using existing power stations.
250
I pointed this out to Tony Abbott. He had not thought of it. It is utterly against every tradition of Westminster government to force the public to pay third parties. Governments can only tax to raise money. This new type of legislation forcing people to gift cash to third parties in their bills is robbery by Royal assent, outlawed in Magna Carta. The forced enrichment of third parties, friends of the king.
The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act of 2000 would not pass the High Court. It is legislated theft to satisfy friends of the Greens and reward with our cash the builders of windmills and the buyers of solar panels. For that we do not get electricity and they get rich. So is the pay in rate for lunch time solar, which is useless in dormitory suburbs.
It would be great if the legality of the RET was examined.
280
And it would be better public value than another Royal Commission in to the recent bush fires. Those expensive stunts are simply to cover up and confuse responsibility when everyone knows who is responsible. The deceptively named Greens, anti progress progressives, totalitarian communist socialists and the antiFA fascists.
120
This is the response I received from Australia’s Nuclear Science and Technology spokesman and ‘expert’ when asked about C14 proof that CO2 is not man made.
“Unfortunately you are wrong on many occasions in your endeavour.
Your interpretation of radiocarbon data is incorrect.
If you wish an explanation – you are welcome to come and talk. However, we should prearrange time for this, as I may be busy with other stuff.
So, I am happy to tell you the truth – we are into climate change, and it is grossly man made, alas.”
Firstly, it was labelled [UNOFFICIAL] and secondly nothing is to be put in writing and thirdly a public servant spokesman may just be too busy to talk.
The Fergusson 1958 Royal Society paper showed conclusively that CO2 had surprisingly little contribution from two world wars (2.03 ± 0.15% over the period 1860 to 1954), that the CO2 had nearly all gone.
An ANSTO paper also mentioned the C14 had nearly returned to the historic levels, which is impossible if CO2 stays in the biosphere.
However, the policy is clearly, denial and nothing in writing.
160
The ANSTO statement which prompted my letter was
“The use of bomb-pulse radiocarbon has become widespread as a precise dating tool for the last 60 years, leading to new applications in forensic science, biology, physiology, plant and animal growth, and climate studies.
Carbon-14 (14C) was generated by nuclear explosions in the atmosphere due to weapons testing, mostly in the 1950s and 1960s, and the resultant 14CO2 gradually being distributed throughout Earth’s atmosphere and essentially put a mark in time and can be used as an accurate dating technique.
The atmospheric 14CO2 level is now approaching its natural prebomb value. ”
Now how is that possible if man made CO2 is stuck in the atmosphere or even the entire biosphere? C14 cannot vanish. Except that the IPCC and the Bern diagram explictly reject the idea that the 98% of CO2 in the deep oceans has any role to play in the exchange of CO2.
130
Not looking to fight, but….
Is it not the bath tap and drain concept? If the tap is delivering a whisker more than the drain can take away, then the water level will raise. But that’s not the same as saying the water remains in the bath – over time it will be replaced, but the level will still continue to rise. i.e., if you added a colouring to the water, over time it would fade to clear. Both from the that the volume of water increases (in the bath) and also from some of the colouring exiting via the drain.
Would this not be the same situation with the Carbon14 from the bombs? It’s disappearance does not necessarily mean we didn’t leave the tap on.
I may be missing something that’s obvious to you and not me.
32
The IPCC definition of the biosphere deliberately and with little argument ignores the deep ocean where CO2 is a major component, so much that 98% of all CO2 is dissolved in the ocean. Even the IPCC agree but they say it is disconnected from the biosphere as deep ocean currents take thousands of years to surface. This is despite the fact that dissolved gas is not water. It is a convenient and necessary argument, again without proof.
Now with the reduced volume of ocean, CO2 is in a much smaller closed system, the atmosphere, dissolved in the shallow ocean surface, in sea life (fish, kelp , krill, crustaceans), the land (soil, grasses and trees) and the mobile living things (insects, birds, animals). None of these live forever and many less than a few years. C14 cannot vanish down the plughole as it is a closed system. And it cannot be destroyed. Further we can detect its presence in all these things easily, which is used to date wood, bone.
However it is gone from the atmosphere. The amount of atmospheric C14 was doubled in 1965. According to Australia’s own Nuclear science group, C14 atmospheric levels are nearly back to normal, which is the ancient level for the last 50,000 years. That means an amount of CO2 as much as in the entire atmosphere today has vanished without a trace. I mean that literally. The air of 1965 is gone completely, at least the CO2 part of it.
Now think about that can happen. Where did it all go?
80
Loved that last paragraph!!
🙂
KK
00
I’ve just given a green tick because you admitted that you may be missing something.
Thank you.
11
“Is it not the bath tap and drain concept?”
Yes, but with an ever expanding drain.
10
Treacherous spineless coward.
That danger is clear and present.
(h/t Tony Heller)
100
He probably should have mentioned the danger the UN represented as well.
50
Surely, Kohler suggested this after the left’s very “successful” Banking Royal Commission. They did over the Banks – now they want to do the climate skeptics.
And remember the main reason for that RC was retribution after the Trade Union Royal Commission.
The Banking RC was an absolute joke and the way the bank chiefs rolled over just smacked of utter cowardice. I’d be ashamed to associate with those gutless turkeys.
So how do you insure that an AGW RC would not go the same way? Too many “prominent” people are willing to virtue-signal these days.
Political and Social “Science” has more power at law today than Physics, Geology, Mathematics, and the other real sciences.
Today’s commissioners are incapable of understanding real science or even its difference from these pseudo-sciences.
So they are more likely to probe where they feel comfortable than where they can be made to look foolish.
There be dragons … and Kohler know it!
81
Yes, but a public debate has never occurred. The experts in the field would have to include people such as Professor Ian Plimer. Who are the proponents going to call? Professor and eminent scientist Tim Flannery? There would be nowhere to hide in cross examination. Even a profound knowledge of ancient dead kangaroos and wombats is not going to help.
150
All we have to prove is that climate change in the 21st century is not unprecedented, how hard could it be?
10
We need a very experienced political operator as Royal Commissioner to conduct proceedings and Tony Abbott should be free.
100
Agree. While an open and unbiased enquiry would be welcome; would a RC be either. Experience of RCs in UK shows they are normally rigged. An establishment friendly Judge of the ‘right opinion’ is appointed who selects a bunch of cronies to help. The Terms of Ref are prescriptive and dont allow a wide enquiry (this is how they rigged the climategate enquiries). Limits are set on who can present evidence and what evidence will be abmitted. The probability of a farcical stich-up is very high.
So first we need to know – who will run the enquiry and how will a balance of views be reflected in the judges? Who will appoint the judges? What powers will and wont those judges have to run the enquiry and call evidence? Who will write the ToRs? What will be in the ToRs? Will the judges have the power to ‘follow the evidence’ and alter and expand the ToRs? Who and How can parties submit evidence? What restrictions on submitting evidence will be applied?
So chances of an open, wideranging, unbiased, data led RC? Answer – vanishingly small.
90
Of course. Yes, Minister stuff. That will be the intent. However I think people like Alan Kohler are genuine. He really wants the truth to come out, believing as he does in man made Global Warming.
However it may backfire, as we hope. As a platform for Ian Plimer and Peter Ridd and a host of other experts, the certainty of Climate Change would collapse against the weight of evidence. After all, apart from the shrill voices claiming Climate Change controls our lives, not a single prediction has ever come true.
No one really believes the bushfires are caused by Climate Change. And even Alan Kohler would have to admit Australian business is being strangled by carbon taxes and rocketing electricity prices and the push to close coal mines and smelting and every activity of a first world economy is being challenged, including farming, trucking, flying, holidays.
As an economy we cannot afford any longer to indulge the Climate fantasists. And they have abandoned every pretence of having a scientific basis for their predictions of doom for the last 32 years. A Royal Commission could at least conclude that historically for the last third of a century, the alleged dire and imminent and endless consequences of increased CO2 have factually been non existent.
90
In a sense, I would hope that the Royal Commission turns out like the Brexit vote. Never did David Cameron in his wildest dreams realise he and his friends were completely wrong about what people really thought. The same is true of man made Climate Change. The bulk of the population think that Climate Change is, to quote Tony Abbott, crap. That would give the politicians courage to ignore the deep state Greens in the capital cities. They are not the people, speaking as a fully qualified deplorable.
100
‘So chances of an open, wideranging, unbiased, data led RC?’
I’m confident it won’t be a whitewash because because Morrison has asked the states to offer their terms of reference for the bushfire Royal Commission. The PM is going to entrap them and allow the RC to find in our favour, if the Commissioner is acceptable and the prosecutors have teeth, we can’t lose.
00
“… based on basic physics models and large computerized models.”
There’s no physics involved here, if anything, the computer models defy physics. If models were bound by the laws of physics, the scientific truth would already be accepted. The most important law being violated is Conservation Of Energy.
The IPCC’s nominal ECS requires the next W/m^2 of forcing to increase surface emissions by 4.4 W/m^2 in order to manifest an 0.8C increase, while the average W/m^2 of solar forcing results in only 1.62 W/m^2 of surface emissions each, the last on manifesting an increase of only about 0.3C. Considering the next W/m^2 to be so much more powerful than the average W/m^2 is such a blatantly obvious violation of COE, it’s an embarrassment to all science and a pox on anyone who calls themselves a scientists and who blindly accepts such nonsense.
80
POST UPDATE: This spells out my feelings better:
If you worry, like I do — that any institutionalized forum can be another waste of money — captured by the swamp — then view this as a play in the only court that matters, the court of public opinion. Let Alan Kohler know there are lots of skeptics and we want a debate. Ask why the ABC won’t tell the world that there are tens of thousands of scientists and engineers, including NASA stars, meteorologists, Nobel Prize winners, and men who went to the moon, and they are willing to speak out even though the ABC likens them to pedophiles and tobacco profiteers and calls them denier scum.
If the science were settled the ABC wouldn’t be so afraid of phoning up Buzz Aldrin or Harrison Schmitt to ask politely “Why are you a skeptic?”
300
Alan Kohler knows how many sceptics there are. That is why he wants a Royal Commission. To remove the threat of further changes and settle the issue.
But a petition for a Royal Commission into policy? Is that really the heading for the petition? That’s surely nonsense.
50
Yes a Royal Commission such as this in the current political climate will be a warm up for the Inquisition, which is what these new zealots desire.
10
Yes, we are likely to get a result as bad as the Stern Report, but the action speaks to skepticism.
20
Surely it does. Scepticism is too big to avoid. I suggest that the the driving force here is the current US political scene.
The trouble is that the pressure for “action” is mounting rapidly. If we rush to this “action” we will be isolating Trump.
The bushfires Royal Commission is coming. It will cover some of the same ground. People will try to use it to promote the AGW scam.
If we can make sure that it covers the right ground it might prove a short cut from an unexpected direction.
10
With the greatest respect Jo the science is indeed settled. The scientific community would be clamouring if it were otherwise. I don’t see them busting their guts to try and bring truth to the table. There are of course exceptions but the broad scientific community treat them with contempt. This is the reason why propagandists like the ABC have such a free ride. They have the scientific community on their side. So unless the scientific community changes their tune the real scientific debate will never happen
51
Interestingly this community unity may be about to change. Half of the CMIP6 models are suddenly running hotter than CMIP5 and a lot of people are questioning it. The modeling community may divide over this, in a way that mirrors the new division in the policy community between moderates and Action Now radicals.
One can only hope so. The “consensus” is based on all the modelers speaking with one voice. That may now end.
70
Your taxes in action.
10
The ‘scientific community’ consists of bosses and employees. You can see what happened to Dr Peter Ridd and Dr. Muray Selby when they disagreed. The punishment of both was to make an example of them. They were not just fired, they were hung, drawn and quartered. And how many scientists in Australia actually work in their own businesses? And who can afford to annoy the government bureaucrats and the endless Climate Change departments and laws and regulations?
The Oregon Petition of 1998 still stands. 32,000 creditable scientists who signed their names and said it was all rubbish, giving name, position, qualifications, address. It was never discredited. 100% of those scientists said it was crap, as Tony Abbott agreed. That is still true, 22 years later. One of the signatories was Edward Teller, part of the Manhattan project. Governments and journalists have buried the multiple Oregon petitions and stick to 97% of scientists agree, which is total rubbish.
70
“the broad scientific community treat them with contempt.”
Show me a survey of the broad scientific community. As I linked in the post, every broad survey of the hard sciences is dominated by skeptics.
I think you mean the official approved and certified “Climate science” community, and possible soft psychology and life sciences.
Lets be accurate. Skeptics outnumbers believers in broad surveys.
40
Maybe the ABC haven’t told the world about the ‘tens of thousands ‘ of sceptics is because they haven’t provided any evidence ?.
Sure, let them try in the public eye against real scientists ( rather than hide in bloggy land ) where they can publicly fail, then the creationists should have their turn too.
110
Exactly EP. Watching great profs correct those ill informed deniers would be so much fun on live TV yet all those profs run like chickens…
130
They don’t run, they’re bored explaining science to lay people who don’t want to understand…..just like the creationists.
07
Figure this: Life on Earth depends on getting “climate action” to save the world but the scientists who believe that are too bored to debate top skeptics.
70
Many people here are not “lay” people.
Seems you are, because you are totally unable to produce any evidence of anything.
50
‘ … they’re bored explaining science to lay people …’
Well this is their big chance to end the debate, but Karoly, Flannery and Mann must not be allowed to say ‘in a projected warmer world conditions will get worse.’ That is speculation and the Commissioner only wants the known facts.
They must only answer whether this bushfire season and droughty conditions are unprecedented over millennia.
30
And where is YOUR empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2?
You need to change your name to, “I have NO Evidence”
30
I’ve never had any problem with the Creation issue. The whole problem there is the word ‘Day” in the modern interpretation of Genesis.
You’ve only to study one foreign language to discover that for many words there is no exact interpretation in the second language. Or there are multiple interpretations. So how many translations has Genesis’s “day” come through to get to us?
Clearly a day is a period of time, in this case hundreds of millions of years. Evolution is a tool of Creation.
How did Genesis get the order so right? It was always there to see in the sedimentary fossil record.
I have no need for further argument.
10
Excellent point Ted,
but I have run into Creationists over the last year or two and they steadfastly attach themselves to the biblical 7 day period of creation and rest.
It’s frightening: 2019 and it felt like 1519.
KK
20
A bit late for that. Real scientists in Australia who studied climate are gone.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/08/silencing-climate-change-dissenters/
https://mlsxmq.wixsite.com/salby-macquarie/page-1f
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/22/peter-ridd-case-appealed-by-james-cook-university/
60
They were always in a tiny minority so the scientific community was always biased towards the CAGW agenda. As I said above unless the scientific community changes their tune the real scientific debate will never happen.
30
I believe a lot of them are simply lazy and have never looked into the issue first hand.
I’ve listened to both Neil deGrasse Tyson and Brian Cox talk about CAGW. Both of them know what science is and how it’s done. I get the impression that they simply accept the word of the IPCC because appeal to authority is convincing to them.
But as soon as a person researches for themselves the science, Like Patrick Moore for example, appeal to authority falls away and the lies and deception become too overt to ignore.
The theory fails because there is no substance within. It’s all smoke and mirrors, threats and authority. Money, taxes and Power for the UN; which is why I believe they took it up in the fist place. You may recall in the early days the UN wanted to impose a global Carbon Market with them in control of the funds.
70
The issue is trust in the scientific method/process by non-climate scientists. Most of these are aware of the limits of their own understanding of climate and weather systems so they don’t question the so called experts in climate science as they expect that the climate scientists would go through the hypothesis/experiment/observation/conclusion process of the scientific method before publishing the CAGW outcomes.
Laziness? Perhaps.
I think it’s more to do with concentrating on their own fields (although deGrasse and Cox also seem to spend a fair amount of their time self-aggrandisising)
10
N deGrasse and B Cox may be scientists in their own right, but they are much than that…
They are both very high profile public figures in the Main Stream Media , with very lucrative media careers on the line should they support anything so contoversial as a skeptical viewpoint..
They have seen what happened to their collegues like Dr David Bellamy when he “crossed the floor” !
No, they are corrupted by their greed for the public attention they both delight in.
They are not reliable sources.
50
“Both of them know what science is and how it’s done.”
“…because appeal to authority is convincing to them”
These two positions are mutually exclusive. Both cannot be true at the same time.
They cannot simultaneously “know what science is and how it’s done” and consider “appeal to authority…convincing”
The Scientific Method has no room for logical fallacies.
Based on the available evidence, it would appear the second statement portrays the truth. The First is invalid, meaning the term “Scientist”, when applied to these two, is merely a stage-name and not a profession.
10
And I have been told that only one in a thousand people would understand my story about Carbon 14. So I will try one more time.
Fossil fuel has no C14 but CO2 in the biosphere has C14. A fingerprint. The amount of CO2 in the air with the fingerprint of fossil fuel is under 5%. This means the 50% increase in CO2 is not man made.
Whether CO2 warms the planet or not, even if humans did not exist, the CO2 levels would be the same. Our tiny contribution from fossil fuels is absorbed rapidly into the gigantic oceans in constant and rapid exchange.
So why is CO2 higher? Simple chemistry tells us warm oceans mean higher CO2. The reverse argument is an invention of the IPCC. As for the current story that CO2 is warming the oceans, the IPCC does not even try to explain that and Australians are suffering for no reason.
The insanity does not stop there. As reported by Breitbart one UK professor thinks if humans were extinct the world would be saved. For whom?
170
Yes it does and lab tests have proved it. One explanation from recent studies show that C14 can form underground. The decay of uranium and thorium, among other isotopes, produces radiation which can create C14 from C12.
30
Re this: ” The amount of CO2 in the air with the fingerprint of fossil fuel is under 5%. This means the 50% increase in CO2 is not man made.”
The claim is not that the increase is composed of our CO2 emissions. Given the huge flux our emitted molecules are gone in a few years from emission. The claim is that our emissions are causing the increase, not that they comprise the increase. Supposedly the huge natural flux is in perfect balance which we are upsetting.
This is pure speculation. Given that most natural sources and sinks are independent of one another and naturally oscillating it is statistically impossible for them to be in an aggregate balance.
70
David, how do our CO2 molecules cause the increase without being the increase?
How does the physical world tell the difference between Carbon from fuel and the Carbon from natural fires and the carbon you output with every breath?
Every living thing outputs CO2, I would suggest much more than all our fuel. And there are 6 billion more people on the planet than in 1900. They breathe in at 0.04% and breathe out at up to 14%. And as people breathe out 24/7, their total output is comparable to a car which only runs a short distance.
As for world level equilibrium being statistically impossible, the reverse is true. That the fundamental concept in all physics and physical chemistry. Just as water seeks its own level, mixing continues until levels are constant, the second law of Thermodynamics “systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium, the state with maximum entropy”. Thermodynamics is all about statistics at a microscopic level. All weather is about water and redistributing incident solar heat energy as there is no other source.
60
You are raising too many different issues. Natural emissions run around 200 billion tons per year of carbon, compared to our measly 8 or so, from all human activities, not just combustion. However, the annual increase is a lot less than our annual emissions, hence the hypothesis that our emissions cause the increase.
I am not defending the speculation, but here is the simple minded reservoir model it is based on. Start with a tub of water, with a sizable input flow and an output flow that matches it. The water level is constant but the water in the tub is constantly changing as some is withdrawn and replaced. Now add a small second input flow. It will cause the level to rise, but the rise is not make up of the inflowing water, as it too gets withdrawn over time.
As I said, this model depends on the huge natural emissions and withdrawals of CO2 being perfectly balanced and that is impossible because most of the components are natural oscillators, they being biological populations.
10
There is only one issue.
Talk of tubs and water and leaks is not right. This is a closed global system. There is a constant total amount of CO2, mostly in the ocean. The amount in the atmosphere is only 2% and as you say our output is 4% of that. It would take all of the output for 15 years to produce the 50% increase in the atmosphere, providing none left the atmosphere.
However consider that in 1965 when we doubled the C14 in the air, half the CO2 was ‘infected’. Now all that extra infected CO2 is all gone. Where?
Not just the C14 which cannot be destroyed, but the air which contained it. Half of the CO2 in the atmosphere of 1965 has vanished. So much for the idea of unilaterally collecting fossil fuel CO2 on one side of the water.
Then the elephant in the room is what happens if the oceans heat even a little. And that is precisely what has happened.
It also relies on the complete lack of participation by the greatest reservoir on earth, the oceans. If equilibrium at the water/air interface exists, as it usually does, then the amount of CO2 in the tiny atmosphere is totally controlled by the 98% dissolved in the vast oceans. Check Henry’s law.
Yes, our output is tiny. That’s why all proponents of man made CO2 have to argue without evidence that it stays in the air effectively forever. The evidence that it is not true is unequivocal.
Or you also have to believe CO2 is heating the oceans instead of the obvious, established fact of warm beer outgassing.
The non scientist has no idea of equilibrium in equations and in a closed system. By the way I do admit that 100 years of burning CO2 has increased the total amount of CO2 in play, but as the atmosphere is only 2% our entire contribution might be 1% and that is 98% in the ocean.
And in time a lot of that extra CO2 gets absorbed in new plants which respond to increased CO2, the stuff from which they are made. That does not decrease CO2 in the air, as it is replenished from the oceans.
The normal expectation of a scientist faced with a planet with 75% covered with oceans 3.5km deep and weighing therefore 350x as much as the air, is that most of the air is in the water. What is in our thin atmosphere, the one in which we live, is entirely determined by how much leaves the water in closed system. And that is set by sea surface temperature.
By the way, while our earth is not a beer bottle, no gas can escape the system, except Helium which can reach escape velocity. The world would not have any helium if it was not continually produced underground in radioactive decay, especially in the US.
50
The meme that the fossil fuel related dilution of C14 in the atmosphere is 3% relates to the 1970 measurement. The current global average of modern carbon is now 13.56 ± 0.07. Remember that the carbon emitted from fossil fuels is recycled naturally in the same way as other sources.
00
What is the source of that data ?
There have beenrecent studies and research that have concluded a 4% level of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere
I will try to dig out the references
00
Access the Carbon isotope measurement data available at scrippsco2.ucsd.edu and do the calculation yourself. The best to use is the C13 ppm data which precludes any need to back out the decay of the nuclear weapons test C14.
10
The argument of atmospheric CO2 origin is a red-herring at best.
It doesn’t matter, so long as it keeps increasing. That is the imperative for life on Earth.
If anyone chooses to believe that humans are the cause of a large percentage of the rise, and that increased atmospheric CO2 is anything but totally beneficial, they are in for very depressing time. 🙂
Because thanks to India , China, developing Asian and African countries, and many other coal based countries, humans emissions will continue to climb.
And there is nothing they can do about it.
40
Human contribution is thought to be about 4.3%pa.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335418316_What_Humans_Contribute_to_Atmospheric_CO2_Comparison_of_Carbon_Cycle_Models_with_Observations
10
Your work is clear Tdef well done and I for one am begining to understand your CO2 argument.
I particularly like the use of the word (and the concept) of ‘equilibrium’ in relation to heating/temperatures of the atmosphere and the ocean. Heat in equals heat out ..
GeoffW
10
Hi Geoff, it’s probably better expressed as heat in is proportional to heat our. There’s likely a few sinks in there to drain some of that “heat in”.
🙂 KK
00
Alan Kohler’s day job is giving financial advice, and I expect his advice would be good advice. So far as I know he is in business with Robert Gottliebsen. Both write for The Oz.
Nearly three(?) years ago their comment on AGW politics published in the Oz became very agitated of a sudden. Noticeably so. Simultaneously. Why?
My guess at the time was that they had discovered the losses that would occur for investments made on advice they had given in good faith if the RET was abolished, and were shocked by that discovery.
They did not advocate policy, but I felt that they felt they were exposed until the RET issue was settled.
It needs to be understood that a financial adviser’s primary concern with the science is not the quality of the science, but the economic policy that will be developed around people’s perception of the science.
120
So that removes an argument of professional incompetence and replaces it with one of conspiracy to defr*ud. I would hope neither are true. As said, a Royal Commission might have the exact opposite effect to the one Alan presumes of silencing dissent.
60
I saw no advocacy. Only pertinent comment. Remarkable, really!
20
Commentary is one thing. However you are talking about consultants and advisers who charge for their expertise and advice. To act to protect discovery of previous bad advice is a comment but it is also a serious question of ethics. A very large amount of money is involved in the Climate business at every level.
50
…since Al Gore persuaded Clive Palmer to “protect” the RET!
10
Oh well, why not:
In the USA, the name “Kohler” is that of a company that makes flush toilets. With ad lines:
The Bold Look of Kohler;
A Throne Fit for a Queen;
Clean with every flush;
How about flushing clean the mind of your ABC economics guru and he can have another go at the science.
90
We’re gonna need a bigger flush.
20
I was riding my bike through Eastern Park in Geelong yesterday afternoon. Riding past a couple of blokes who were resting from their run I heard one of them say, ” You know, there really hasn’t been a hot summer’s day in Geelong this year”.
I thought, ‘Yes! There is hope yet! Reality may eventually push out ideology.
120
This is the greenest Melbourne February that I can recall in 28 years of living here. A combination of regular precipitation, humid air from the east or northeast and often overcast conditions. The smoke may have briefly reduced evaporation rates as well. Then there is all the extra CO2 that is supercharging plant growth.
40
“But opinions are not evidence.” says Jo – yah precisely. So if I want to know about space flight I might ask Buzz Aldrin otherwise I’ll stick with people who may know something on the climate topic.
And speaking of multi-layer evidence – pity Jo didn’t get down to AMOS. All those pesky SSTs off the coast. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-13/indian-ocean-dipole-linked-to-global-warming-in-new-research/11943178
Now this is just one bit of research for sure. But hafta say – not even a tad curious?
Anyway isn’t going to happen. Most don’t want to learn anything. Just being part of a tribal group is more fun. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF7r8uBoeHg&t=41s
220
What Al Gore, Tim Flannery, Greta Thunberg, Adam Bandt, Malcolm Turnbull?
120
Yes they are most tedious and annoying.
13
It’s exciting when someone from a “Centre of Excellence” works out another connection between SSTs and rainfall. And it seems they do it without once talking to a fisherman…who would have told them straight away and spoiled the mystery.
Well, now our GameBoy scientists raised in the era of tick-box and true/false have a new button to add to their climate console. Or maybe two buttons, a red IOD and a blue or green one, to put right under the ENSO buttons and the CO2 knob. Whoever gets to “global warming” with the fewest presses wins and gets their grinning moosh pictured at the top of an ABC article.
Excuse me everybody. I drank a bit too much tea and have to go to my Centre of Excellence.
130
That’s just your opinion, Vushnu.
70
Specialisation. The inside view.
I had a friend, a wonderful friend from school days who was taken from us far too young by the Golden Staph. He was a senior lawyer in the Department of Industrial Relations, I a farmer, and we disagreed strongly on political matters.
One day I tried to explain to him the inefficiency I saw when Telstra laid a trunk line through our farm. His reply: What would you know about laying telephone lines?
I knew that if I paid two D7s to stand around when with better management one could have done the job in less time my farm would soon be broke. But for him that didn’t count. The two jobs were insulated from each other.
It was then that I realised that in his world professional people protect their patch by never dipping a toe into somebody else’s patch. The end result is that within a generation there is nobody who knows how the patches fit together.
It is nonsense to insist that only people with specified letters are qualified to comment on climate.
00
“There has been a decline in cool season rainfall over southern Australia in recent decades, with the strongest signals over the south-west and south-east of the country,” BOM said in a statement.
“These declines are associated with changes in atmospheric circulation, consistent with global warming.”
The strengthening of the subtropical ridge over recent decades kept the winter rains south of the continent, but that came to an end in 2017 when the STR lost its strength.
The return of cool season rain to South West Western Australia is evidence that global warming is over.
80
El Gordo – 2017 – oh come now. One swallow doesn’t make a summer.
212
You’re out of your depth, try and catch up, SWWA is back to normal winter rains.
I nominate Marohasy and the gang to be involved with any RC.
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2020/02/cooling-the-past-made-easy-for-paul-barry/
130
Oh good to know a blip has changed a 60 year trend.
25
There is a 60 year cycle, found in ice cores and shallow sea cores, so I’m optimistic about a cool future.
I accept the general premise that the IOD is becoming more positive in a warmer world, but its not unprecedented because it must have been happening during MWP.
40
https://notrickszone.com/2020/02/12/arctic-sea-ice-sees-dramatic-recovery-and-expansion-northern-europe-january-cooling-30-years/
70
Vishnu you will notice the ABC graph shows the Centennial Gleissberg Cycle 1900-20, which indicates the power of global cooling on the IOD.
10
Elgordo just came across this 400 year animated rainfall map of Australia and over this longer time span there is a difference that’s visible .
It’s now wetter .
https://vimeo.com/266247951?fbclid=IwAR0eOCZz01htpXfXpVakaK7L1pvZ3RV0oopIqp2NQx0eTtk1_i3cObitzT8
80
That is a terrific teaching aid, we should use it at the RC.
60
“And then if we look at climate models, they produce this increasing frequency and intensity of positive Indian Ocean Dipole events and project that, as the climate continues to warm, we will see those trends continuing.”
That needs to be tested, was southern Australia less droughty during the Little Ice Age?
20
The Medieval Warm Period was droughty in Australia.
‘Eight megadroughts are identified including one 39 year drought (1174–1212 CE), which occurred during an unprecedented century of aridity (1102–1212 CE).’
ARC Centre of Excellence
60
“One of the big drivers of drought in Australia, the Indian Ocean Dipole, is trending towards a more drought-causing positive state due to [global warming], according to new research.”
UN settled science has new research.
That would explain why the BoM got the “permanent drought” so wrong when they thought carbon (sic) was influencing El Nino, causing droughts.
Australian droughts are now caused by the southern annular mode, the IOD and el Nino.
Don’t forget the mysterious drought vortex …
“Is a mysterious new weather system causing the drought in southern Australia?
Climatologists are desperately trying to explain the mystery of where southern Australia’s winter rainfall is going.
They’ve known the rain is being pulled south by an unexplained force.
Now they’ve devised a revolutionary new theory to explain why.”
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s948858.htm
Not even slightly curious why the BoM failed there, Vishnu?
What a laugh.
30
And how does a carbon (sic) induced global warming IOD influence floods in one place, but bushfires in the other?
Why didn’t carbon (sic) cause the rain in Australia, instead of Africa?
It did eventually, when the IOD broke down: Feb 13, 2020, One person is dead as southern Queensland braces for more wild weather, flash flooding
Is there some other unmentioned force at work?
Indian Ocean Dipole: What is it and why is it linked to floods and bushfires?
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50602971
It would seem carbon (sic) has no influence.
40
“Why didn’t carbon (sic) cause the rain in Australia, instead of Africa?”
I see – hmmm so you are running the old uniformitarium line. Why isn’t 9it the same everywhere. Really?
15
the outlook is positively cool
https://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2019-2/
40
All very good as long as the judges are not biased towards the CAGW scam and instead are true sceptics as is the case in true science, or at least it was. We would need people like Turnbull to be kept well away from it for obvious reasons.
40
Don’t worry. His puppet Ross Garnaut will be called up to provide “expert commentary” to validate CAGW, rather than Turncoat.
20
Needless to say the vast majority of witnesses that would be coming from the broad scientific community will be biased towards the CAGW scam for a number of reasons, the main one being their careers would be on the line if they spoke against it. So I don’t see the point of having such a Royal Commission. Alan Kohler would know this and it’s the reason he and many other alarmists would love to see such a commission performed. The only way to resolve this dilemma is to have an open and truly unbiased scientific investigation as part of the Royal Commission taking evidence from all sides. Such an approach would most likely be blocked by people like Kohler at all costs to avoid the embarrassment of being proven wrong.
40
I’ll defend Alan Kohler. Whatever the rules are, he can work with them.
What he fears is chops and changes to the rules.
10
I have signed but I can hardly wait for Solar Cycle 26 (the Eddy Minimum)and want to see their faces with eggs splattered all over?
50
… we’ll have to form a queue! I’m in for that spectacle too.
Not long to go: 2030. It’s only a decade away …
20
The wind and the sun are free!
“The wind and sun are both free and almost infinite, and therefore each extra unit of energy generated is not only clean but also essentially free.”
https://theconversation.com/with-cheap-solar-and-wind-power-is-it-time-to-rethink-energy-efficiency-90041
If you believe that, you’ll believe anything.
71
So what else is free on that basis?
– Food
– Water
– Radio and TV
– Billycarts and bikes for transport
Socialist utopia – everything is free!! (except for coal and hydrocarbons apparently)
60
Coal, gas and oil are free too, like the ruinables, but also like the ruinables, the infrastructure to make use of them is costly.
50
Wind is most definitely not that. If it was, we wouldn’t have many windless days and so far this year, there have been less than a dozen windy days where I am.
00
Tonight is the seventh night in a row of horizon to horizon cloud, and no wind.
Darn.
I want another look at Betelgeuse!
00
OMG…
Yes..it was disgusting to see them admitting to corruption so easily.
They should have stalled for a few days then admitted the corruption for sure..
30
All the Banks had to do was take away the $2 fee from ATM use, and they were off the hook.
Now they let ATMs fall into disrepair, then charge everyone even more for constant cashless transaction fees, and it costs the Banks less to maintain, the vendors pay for the equipment and up keep, and the cattle are all in the pen mooing.
“Stand and deliver!” The Bush Rangers bought the banks instead.
40
There are billions (and ultimately multiple billions) of dollars tied up in the Global Warming scam. There are hundreds of powerful people in it up to their necks. That kind of money and power can buy any number of lies even in a Royal Commission. The commissioner would have to be of the highest integrity to resist that influence.
100
You are right about the money Colin and there must billions more to be made if Bezos is setting up this fund
https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/jeff-bezos-launches-10-billion-bezos-earth-fund-fight-climate-change
30
Darn …
… that’s another worthwhile petition I can’t sign.
We could always set up one of our own … but our governments are not at all good at following the expressed “will of the people” …
70
In EU Commission, democracy votes you!
40
But, but but, I’m not in the EU.
Nor am I in Australia.
So I am a non-resident alien. (Try it! it’s fun 😀 And no, I neither own nor use a UFO.)
I think it best not to sign the petition. I don’t want to pollute it’s standing.
50
Dr David Evans, who built Australia’s forestry and agricultural carbon accounting system (FullCAM):
Thank you Dr Evans. ! 🙂
That last bit requires repeating
That’s why there is no empirical evidence for it
And as shown by the absolute linearity of temperature against molar density in the atmosphere…
There can never be any measured evidence for it.
132
Temperature is not linear against molar density in the atmosphere.
It varies quite a lot.
http://www.bom.gov.au/aviation/observations/aerological-diagrams/
21
Sorry, but balloon data shows that it is.
Those charts are NOT of temperature against molar density.
81
They are Balloon aerosonde flights. They plot temperature against pressure.
I suppose that atmospheric density might not reflect molar density, which is what I thought.
00
https://youtu.be/XfRBr7PEawY?t=1568
I’ve started the video at about the right place. Go to around the 55 minute mark.
Have fun with the Irish accents 😉
00
And all that paleo data. Shhhh.
25
You mean the stuff from the Holocene?
Shhhhhh !!
Correlation is never be evidence, buy non-correlation certainly can be.
40
Or do you mean the Vostok cores that show that at peak CO2, the world was cooling, EVERY time !!
40
There is too much entrenched bias in all Government related institutions to enable a science based RC to work. I think a large televised public debate would be more useful. Just needs an organisation like Sky to run and promote it.
80
Agree.
See #35 below.
20
‘I’ll be judge
I’ll be jury,’
says cunning
old Fury,
60
No, Alan, you really don’t want that.
But we do 🙂
20
We should get Extinction Rebellion to campaign to ban beer and sparkling wine – after all, both emit carbon dioxide – and then see how many sign up.
60
It’s not just beer and sparkling wine … add all carbonated drinks to that list.
(Now, where did I leave my Coke?)
30
But the difference between the alcoholic drinks and the carbonated soft drinks is that with the alcoholic drinks, CO2 is emitted when yeast converts carbohydrates to alcohol, as well as when the container is opened.
00
In fact all alcohol should be included
00
No No. It is mostly carbon neutral until you add in the heat necessary to boil wort for beer or mash to distill.
10
A Great Debate!
Jo is quite reasonably cautious about Alan Kohler’s call for a Royal Commission into Climate Change.
I fully agree that the Court of Public Opinion is the one that matters. The question is how best to get there, given the way that sceptics are sidelined and marginalised.
An even better proposal was suggested by John Ruddick in his recent article in “The Spectator”
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2020/01/climate-notes-3/
Ruddick suggests a great debate, or symposium occurring over a week or more. Alarmists and Sceptics each nominate their own speakers, who give 20 minute TED type talks, followed by rebuttals and then questions.
Alarmists have mostly rejected such forums in the past and I expect that they will continue to do so.
Sceptics have organised their own conferences and even invited participation by alarmists. Environmental pressure groups have tried to disrupt or even ban such activities. Then they (sceptics) are largely ignored by the mainstream media.
I think as a best current tactic, another conference is called for in Australia, perhaps co-inciding with the Royal Commission (if it happens). If the conference is disrupted or prevented by the Alarmists, so much the better because it gets publicity, which is the main thing, the only thing that matters.
51
It wont happen
42
Nor will Brexit, Donald Trump, Boris Johnson, Morrison’s election, stopping the boats, Adani, an innoculation for Ebola,..
111
Ah touche
60
But China will contain Covid-19 ‘cos the WHO said they were doing a stellar job, saving the world.
61
and another great point.
20
I suspect that the PM has had a “yes Prime minister” talking to, “that would be very courageous Prime minister” to go against the warmist doctrine. He will have been told that Bazillions of dollars of workers superannuation has been invested in renewables. If he does or says anything to reduce the RET, abolish LRETS etc then he will wipe out the superannuation of millions of Australians. Not a good look in the polls. Very Courageous Prime minister. So He sits on the fence hoping that nature shows what reality is.
30
Perhaps such a Royal Commission could also examine the evidence that climate change is happening. Perhaps the Bureau of Meteorology could explain under oath how they obtain the data that proves temperatures are increasing.
I look at the Deniliquin temperatures. I have noticed that the daily maximum temperature as recorded in the Climate Data Online site always exceeds the daily maximum observed temperature by at least 0.1°C and up to 1.2°C. From 8th to 16th Feb the difference was 1.2°C one day, 1.0°C on two days and 0.8°C on five days, including four consecutive days.
On the other hand, minimum temperatures recorded in the climate data online site are up to 0.3°C less that observed minimum temperatures, usually 0.1°C less, and occasionally both are the same.
Observed temperatures are usually shown for for the half hourly timeslots, with occasional additional times and are recorded for 72 hours. After that the data disappears. Climate Data Online data does not show a time and becomes the data record for each site.
I know this is only one station, but if the same happens at other weather stations, perhaps it could explain warming temperatures.
60
The climate change acolytes won’t debate the skeptics on an open platform … I rest my case.
That really is end of story for any open-minded person.
Our side needs to challenge them with a little more conviction.
60
In principle, a royal commission into climate change would indeed be a good thing. In practice however, it would be a complete waste of time and money. I have no doubt that it would be conducted in such a way as to arrive at pre-determined conclusions (climate change is real, it is caused by CO2, we’re all doomed, it was the baby boomers wot done it, etc).
Not only that, whilst it ran its inevitably slow, tortuous and lengthy course, the ABC and MSM would gleefully report – and misreport – every utterance from carefully-chosen participants who would universally support AGW while dressing up theories, modelling and outright dodgy data as passages from the new Bible of Holy Climate Change.
In any case, we know already that RCs accomplish nothing if the ABC and leftist media don’t want them to. Just look at the Rc into the Unions which, despite uncovering hard evidence of corruption going all the way to the very top of the Labor party, barely registered on the ABC’s coverage, quickly being swept under the carpet. Conversely, the RC into the banking industry, championed by Labor, gets wall-to-wall, heavily partisan and anti-capitalist reporting, with real repercussions.
Nah, a Royal Commission would simply be an expensive, pre-determined Leftwing farce, and a soapbox in the spotlight for every Greens MP and activist.
20
Did it yesterday Jo!
Alan will be thrilled with getting people to back his move for a Royal Commission; I’m not sure he’ll be so thrilled to find lots of skeptics signing his petition though ……
40
it is not his petition. Did you read it?
31
Alan Kohler is a financial journalist who also operates a subscription investment advisory service. His call for a Royal Commission, an exercise which seems to be something of a growth industry lately is driven by financial considerations, one could even posit vested interest.
Ill considered Federal and State emissions reduction policies have already inflicted significant damage to the nation while making not a whit of difference to the rate of increase in global emissions. Secondary industry, manufacturing and processing has been gutted and can no longer claim any degree of self sufficiency, being completely dependent on imports. Now primary industry, mining and agriculture is under threat and oil shale reserves which would make us self sufficient in petroleum products are not being exploited. Essentially Australia is a regressing nation, dismantling its industrial base and unwilling to use its own resources to sustain the population but happy to export them to assist other nations to grow and prosper.
The effect of increased CO2 partial pressure has been seriously overstated by the IPCC and perhaps our leaders should pay more attention to the statements by leaders in that organisation and the world bank that their objectives of their policies are not about the environment but rather the redistribution of the world’s wealth and bringing about the end of capitalism. Unfortunately absurd claims from the extremes such as Flannery’s chicken little prophesies and the denial that greenhouse gasses are a regulator of the Earth’s energy budget do not help.
30
Already signed it.
40
From earlier on rough quantitative analysis.
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/08/time-mag-buttering-up-believers-why-deniers-brains-cant-process-climate-change/#comment-2176226
30
Court of public opinion, hilarious and pertinent – Spooner’s cartoon in today’s Australian with Mark I (solar) and Mark II (wind) powered subs on the wall…
30
Hi “PeterS”,
At #19.1 above you state that:
“Yes it does and lab tests have proved it. One explanation from recent studies show that C14 can form underground. The decay of uranium and thorium, among other isotopes, produces radiation which can create C14 from C12.”
That’s a reaction that requires the embedding of an additional two neutrons into the C-12 nucleus.
Radioactive decay of either uranium or thorium does not normally produce the necessary neutrons.
I am aware that self-fission of uranium does occur, producing neutrons, but it is a relatively rare event.
Would you like to provide a detailed explanation describing the reaction, the sources of the necessary energy/particles, and the overall production rate. As to the latter, how does it compare relative to the cosmic ray production of C-14 in the upper atmosphere?
I am aware, for example, of the existence of what was a natural uranium nuclear reactor at Oklo in Gabon,
operational when the naturally-occurring U-235 concentration was much higher aeons ago, but my understanding is that this phenomenon is deemed to have been extremely rare. (Such a reactor would be a source of the neutrons presumably necessary for the C-12 -> C-14 transmutation.) However, there is no indication in the literature that I have seen that this natural nuclear reactor phenomenon was necessarily associated with carboniferous deposits.
I am also aware that the geological conditions surrounding coal seams often lead to higher concentrations of both Uranium and Thorium than the surrounding strata. See, for example:
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-163X/7/12/239/htm , but I am unaware of literature that suggests that such conditions necessarily lead to the production of neutrons in significant quantity.
Therefore it would be useful if you can provide references that describe the proposed reaction, and the likely natural conditions that allow it to occur. Whatever, it’s fascinating to contemplate.
Hi “TdeF”,
Re #12 above: would you like to “name names” at ANSTO?
It might be useful to pursue further discussion with this “public servant”.
Regards,
Paul Miskelly
62
I only caught a little bit of a documentary on Sunday night. It talked about how humans have limited resources and had Harrison Schmidt talk about the same things. Didn’t watch enough to see if climate change was brought up but I assume it did.
Anyone know the name of the documentary?
20
Soylent Green I believe. The solution was recycling.
10
A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore. The physicist says, “Let’s smash the can open with a rock.” The chemist says, “Let’s build a fire and heat the can first.” The economist says, “Let’s assume that we have a can-opener…”
90
Guess they didn’t sink under global warming seas after all …
Maldives rejoins the Commonwealth – an hour after Brexit
https://news.sky.com/story/maldives-rejoins-the-commonwealth-an-hour-after-brexit-11923497
1988: A gradual rise in average sea level is threatening to completely cover this Indian Ocean nation of 1196 small islands with- in the next 30 years, according to authorities.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/102074798
20
Seems to me that there is a lot of technical interpretation and highly advanced math to sort out the CO2 side of the argument but the crux of it is still it’s a “theory” and from what I’ve seen there has been no provable evidence brought forward by anyone to prove it’s anything other than plant food.
What I am seeing all the time is ocean acidification, the Pacific islands drowning – sea level rise and the melting poles .
We can now add bushfires to the list of claims put forward for their “climate emergency ” rhetoric.
All these are a lot easier to debunk as rubbish claims as is the 97% meme but all should be included and thoroughly exposed as the sham they are during the commission.
I’m still not convinced the left will allow judicial scrutiny to proceed there is too much to hide and too much at stake for an honest look at what passes for climate science .
51
487 when I signed at 11am 18 Feb.
40
Petition signed 489
21
Hello Rex,
Missed you at the last lunch.
Currently overseas investigating the expansion of solar reflectors to reduce rice production.
And windmills too.
KK
00
You spend $2T to lower the temperature by 1°C via CO2 and the average cloud cover changes by a few % and wipes that all out. You don’t have to be an Einstein to see how stupid that is.
80
Depends on who received the $2T.
50
How many scientists could you hire for $2,000,000,000,000 a year? 20 million of them. Let’s call them climate scientists.
Of course no scientist would accept a fake job for $US100,000 a year if they didn’t believe the story.
30
Ah, my mind goes back to the BEST temperature reanalysis, one which was supported here and at WUWT, back in the day.
18
Or not. See http://joannenova.com.au/tag/best-project/
Just making things up again?
70
you know, I could have sworn there was an pre October 2011 post about Best on you site. Shows how wrong memory can be.
From Wikipedia for Watts
In March 2011 Watts visited the Berkeley Earth Temperature project (BEST), and said “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.” In October the project released data and a draft of their paper which produced results supporting the existing scientific consensus. Watts said that its methodology was flawed, complaining that the BEST study analyzed a larger period than his own research, and that it was not yet peer reviewed. Richard A. Muller, founder of BEST, later said their study directly addressed Watts’ concern about the condition of weather stations; “we discovered that station quality does not affect the results. Even poor stations reflected temperature changes accurately.”
Interestingly a search of WUWT also draws a blank on the pre October 2011 BEST conversations
14
Swear away. I don’t think I ever got excited about the BEST project, even before I realized Mueller’s daughter his co founder ran a green carbon profit making entity. Clearly the whole BEST thing was junk with an agenda from the beginning.
50
“Just making things up again?”
That’s the best type of data; none of that pesky collection and checking stuff.
It’s even got a name Manamatic Data.
50
BEST.. all the very worst of data, combined using regional expectations.
Not science of any sort.
Muller did a consummate job conning Watts, even though many warned Anthony against him.
41
I assume you (Jo) will be applying to be a participant in the RC if it gets off the ground. If so note the following:
I took two cuttings from the same rose bush and planted them back in December in two pots. I placed disused dink bottles over them and left one with an open top. They have had the same water and sunlight. In the one with a screw top, I blew that awful pollutant (known as C02) every other day since. Of the two plants the C02 plant has gone berserk. I was surprised it did not expire from my bad breath of 40,000 ppm C02 but its loving the experience. Try it yourself and present it to the RC Jo.
80
🙂 🙂
20
The closed topped container would have had a higher RH
20
Why?
00
It retains moisture, specifically as condensate, which is in equilibrium with the trapped air. Unless measurements are provided, the act of breathing into a container would not raise the internal CO2 for more than a very brief time. He doesn’t have a gas seal.
00
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ipcc+corruption&t=ffab&atb=v201-1&ia=web
self explain
10
I wonder if Alan understands what little significance CO2 has on weather/climate?
And about “nature”, Acts of God” and “natural disasters”.
H2O and the Sun?
40
Definition of irony.
Alan’s latest book:
It’s Your Money: How banking went rogue, where it is now and how to protect and grow your money
– Alan Kohler (2019)
But supports the biggest $trillions fraud pushed by banks and bloated bureaucrats in human history – Carbon Credits and Derivatives trading.
I wonder if he doesn’t advise investors how to protect and grow your money by investing in Big Green funds/trusts?
10
If a Royal Commission inquiry is arranged please don’t allow the focus to be on the climate hoax debating points and ignore socialism masquerading as environmentalism …
04:24 PM ET 11/24/2017
Environmentalism: Every once in a while, environmentalists will let slip that the goal of fighting climate change can’t be won unless capitalism is first defeated. The fact that there’s no evidence to support the claim doesn’t seem to matter.
The latest to make this case is Arizona State University fellow Benjamin Fong in an Op-Ed published recently by the New York Times, headlined “The Climate Crisis? It’s Capitalism, Stupid.”
“It should be stated plainly: It’s capitalism that is at fault,” he writes. Or, what he later calls “the rampant stupidity of capitalism.” The answer, he says, is a “democratic socialist society.”
Fong isn’t the only one making this claim. Naomi Klein’s 2014 book titled “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate” argues that the planet is doomed unless the world abandons “free market” ideology.
Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of climate change policy wasn’t just to cut CO2 emissions, but “to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
Assume for the sake of argument that everything environmentalists say about global warming is true — that the computer models are perfectly accurate in predicting future warming and that the result will be entirely negative.
Is capitalism to blame? Let’s review the evidence.
Free market economies have become far less carbon intensive over time. Data from the United Nations show that the U.S. emitted 62% less carbon for each dollar of GDP produced in 2014 than it did in 1990. In Hong Kong, which is ranked as having the most free economy, its carbon intensity dropped by 58% over those years.
What about more socialist countries? Communist China emits 86% more CO2 per dollar of GDP than does the U.S.; Russia emits 50% more.
Worldwide, carbon intensity has steadily dropped since 1990. Those were years when free market capitalism was spreading, and the trend started long before the world was taking climate change seriously.
Why? Because even without any government oversight, free markets reward efficiency. And one of the biggest sources of waste is energy use. Trying to increase profits, therefore, invariably means less energy use, and less pollution, including CO2.
Free markets are also inherently “sustainable” because businesses want to stay in business. That means making sure resources are carefully managed for the long term.
Socialism, in contrast, is dirty business. The Soviet Union was a horrendous polluter, as were other Eastern Bloc countries. “The socialist world suffers from the worst pollution on Earth,” noted Thomas DiLorenzo back in 1992.
Here at home, the federal government is the biggest energy consumer and polluter — despite being free of any profit motive.
The simple truth is that, as long as there are people on the planet, they’re going to need and want things. The best, most sustainable, most earth-friendly way to deliver those things is through free market capitalism.
Investors
20
Out of my Y2k experience I know that if “world temperature” drops and stay low, the ABC, the Hollywood, et al… will say it is because of their effort.
If the the World goes opposite way the same crowd will scream on every corner that somewhere in Cloncurry, Qld there still is an operating mine and demand Abbott’s blood for not shutting it 10 years ago.
I nearly signed this petition, but no – it will be total waste of time This battle is lost, let the winners enjoy the fruits of their victory.
30
Vlad
The Battle will be lost by the warmists for several reasons;
1) Renewables DON’T work – in WA we are moving towards a grid collapse due to excessive solar. When this happens, which I believe it will as too many have no comprehension of this, then other states will be forced to rein in the idiots who push intermittent energy. This will probably avert disaster on the eastern seaboard.
2) A Solar minimum is underway
In the next ten years the BOM and co will not be able to hide this. It will be very obvious, yet CO2 will still be steeply rising as Asia and Africa rush on with their development programs unhindered.
3) Peoples Livelihoods are involved
If the crazys have their way things will get a lot worse and many will start to ask what the hell is happening.
At this stage whilst I don’t believe Scomo is standing up to the idiots like he should, but we have solar projects at a standstill and no renewal of subsidies. We have coal fired power stations still running, and if people close them then the blackouts will be a big warning.
With more problems from renewables about to become obvious and the unions pushing for more coal at some stage we will have a HELE plant built and then more will follow. If you want less emissions its totally logical
I’m not saying there will not be damage, but the truth always comes out. And the truth is there is no proof about CO2, but a lot of very obvious data tampering and cherry picking is going on. When it falls out of fashion normal people will start to see it, even though we can see it plain as day…
20
A propper gummint inquiry should of happened years ago well before we went mad on Solar panels from China and not keeping up to date with modern coal fired power stations.
In years to come people will look back on this climate hoax as we now look back on the Salem witch trials and ask “what were they smoking?’
31
A Royal Commission on warmism would unfortunately just provide a Hall Pass for the warmers.
Commissioners aren’t scientists, so it would just be an exercise in trawling the deep for ‘experts’ to give their entrenched opinions – through corruption or fear of career harm, at least 97% of them would sing to the tune of warmism.
I really don’t think an RC on APGW would be a good thing for skeptical science.
I have no confidence that it wouldn’t just turn into yet another charade to sell some engineered consensus.
20
Alan Kohler’s definitely not a Jedi master, ‘difficult to see the future is…’
10
Hi Jo
I’d pay good money to see a debate between believers and skeptics but it hasn’t happened in 30 years and it is unlikely to happen any time soon.
As for a royal commission, it sounds good but we have so many now that the process runs like clockwork. A commissioner from the legal class will be appointed, council assisting from the legal class will be appointed, the parliament of greens, green Labour and green Liberal/National will set the terms ensuring only those of one view will get a say and will not face very hard questioning.
In the end they will all slap each other on the back and tell us what a jolly good lot they are for proving the climate scientologists were right all along. There will be no need of further debate as they will point out that we had a royal commission that answered all the questions, even if the real questions were never asked.
GM stopped manufacturing cars in Australia because the government didn’t want to spend $200 million per year on subsidising working class jobs, a good or bad thing I don’t know, but it seems the government doesn’t mind spending billions per year propping up the renewable energy sector so beloved of the merchant banker class on the north shore of Sydney! Wounder why?
Australia is still a democracy and with the major parties now only having just over 60% of 1st preference votes we are only about 10% from a tipping point, not on the climate, but on tipping the peanuts out of the parliament.
10
Just signed. No 630
10
Climate change is coming to kill us. Why are people so scared of the climate? How did we get to this? Something has gone horribly wrong. The climate will not kill you. Breathe.
40
World leading physicist Dr Will Happer was asked what he would say to people worried about climate change. He responded that he would ask them to look at the counter evidence. Some of this can be found in ‘White Papers’ on the CO2 Coalition website. They should read responsible criticism including the paper ‘Think for Yourself’. Dr Happer was asked if CO2 was in any way dangerous. He replied “of course not” and gave the following example. We breathe out huge amounts of CO2. Our lungs have got 40 to 50 thousand parts per million CO2 compared with only 400 parts per million out in the air. The reason people get sick from hyperventilating is because they don’t have enough CO2 in their body. CO2 is essential for the proper functioning of animals. Breathing reflex is control by CO2. If you have too little CO2, you stop breathing and you can die. It’s also very good for plants.
He went on to say that CO2 has almost never been at low levels the way it is today over geological history. We’re in a famine with respect to CO2. So the idea that adding CO2 is in some way is harmful is baffling. If you look at the science, CO2 is not at all harmful, it’s actually good for the world. There is no evidence that CO2 is driving catastrophic climate change. Climate always changes but the rates of warming are a third of what was predicted by the first IPCC models. No one knows how much of that one third is still natural because we’re coming out of a ‘Little Ice Age” that ended around 1800. The ice began to melt by 1790. By 1880 most of the ice in Glacier Bay was gone, and there was almost no increase in CO2 by 1880. So it has been warming but the warming began long before any increase in CO2 and we don’t know how much of the current warming is still part of that natural rebound from the Little Ice Age.
Dr Happer was asked if we know how much anthropogenic CO2 is contributing to climate change. He responded that it can be estimated. Most people estimate that doubling CO2 leads to around 1 degree of warming but that’s not enough to worry people very much so they’ve invented all these positive feedback mechanisms that a little direct warming from CO2 will be greatly amplified and the villain is supposed to be water vapour and clouds. However, there’s no real good evidence of that happening. In fact there’s a lot of counter evidence that it’s probably not happening.
40
I think that having a Royal Commission on climate science will be a disaster. It will be science by committee, which is the total antithesis of the scientific method. The skeptics will use reason and logic that is applied to real-world observational evidence. Tactics like these will not stand a chance against the hysteria and emotion used by the climate zealots that are based upon ideologically driven General Circulation Models.
The only benefit of a royal commission will be to record the arguments of skeptics for posterity. After 30 years, trillions in wasted spending, millions of lost jobs, hundreds of thousands of lives destroyed and the reputation of Science repeatedly dragged through the mud, I suppose it will make good reading once the climate hoax is finally revealed.
I hope I am wrong.
60
Morrison has asked the states to come up with the terms of reference, we should have a better idea when its called. The word unprecedented should be banned and finding a suitable Commissioner won’t be easy.
00
It will take a very brave PM to call a Royal Commission.
We’ve seen that despite doing more than our bit to lower our CO2 emissions, we
are seen as a bad world citizen by the UN community because we source that coal to overseas markets that
demand it. That doesn’t suit the UN games nor the activist bench from around the world at Doha.
Our antagonists from around the world would really apply maximum pressure against our government if it
exposed for the first time the scientific deficits in their CO2 theory. There are many very powerful
people of the world that would do anything to prevent being exposed by an RC that permitted open and
hard scientific debate between the two sides of this argument. An RC would suddenly legitimise and give
voice to the ‘sceptics’ whom the system had successfully shut out of the climate conversation, worldwide.
Kohler has been a hard supporter of the current system; a true believer. For him to put up this suggestion
for a Royal Commision makes one wonder if he is suddenly seeing the light and having terrible doubts about his
position and his former excoriation of ‘sceptical resistance’. I wonder if he is beginning to try to apply a
bit of that statistical knowledge he has to the maths of the topic and can’t verify his grounds as a true believer.
I’m all for a Royal Commission but one had better be ready for the almost guaranteed violence it could stir up
amongst the real activists that use the CO2 theory for purposes unassociated with climate per se. I see the problem
Trump has as coming from the left that considered they had everything sewn up, as with the non-brexiteers in Britain.
They saw total power of governance and the further guarantee of a big step to globilisation after an election win.
Trump snatched all their security of that ideal from them, smashed the ego of the elites and has proceded to reorder
society back to the middle classes and below. They see another term of Trump as their complete destruction.
A Royal
Commission here with full and open purely scientific debate from the multi-disciplines with knowledge would have the
same effect, but on a world scale, for the activists and pushers of global warming theory that have come so far and
sit on the same brink of final success – just to see it snatched away. That could be cataclysmic.
30
Royal Commission like the judges in the High Court who just created another class of Austrlians…That’s all we need.
When will people start to realize that there is no such thing as global warming and, 1 degree warmer. Where? As Bob Carter said (rest his soul) “Context” The whole notion of ‘Global Warming’ is a flawed premise and a Royal Commission will validate it! I live in High country Victoria where 1 degree won’t make summers longer which is what is needed here.
10
Dr Tum Ball.
Check the Terms of Reference
16:30 We got the terms of reference from the government and the terms of reference were such that they specifically directed you to only one solution.
https://youtu.be/e92U5HzBuLI
00
Signed.
As always sceptical. However it would be worth it just to see a certain Mr Cook given the wire brush and turpentine treatment by a competent QC.
00
Originally posted at Catallaxy Files.
Poster was known here in the dim, dark, distant past as “Memoryvault”.
Alan Kohler took over as the MSM’s chief mouthpiece and disseminater of misinformation when Laurie Oakes retired back in 2015.
Kohler’s first major foray into misinformation peddling was when he did an article claiming the Senate had passed a bill in secret just before Christmas 2015, allowing the introduction of a defacto emissions trading scheme (ETS) which would skyrocket our power bills. It was much discussed here, at Jo Nova, and elsewhere at the time.
It was nearly all BS to hide the true details. There was no “bill” and no vote. There was a regulation incorporated into Tony Abbott’s Carbon Tax Repeal legislation that quietly, and without announcement, allowed for the introduction of an ETS once “sufficient” countries had signed the Paris Accord, which was being negotiated at the time.
Abbott signed that regulation into force in September 2015 – the last thing he did as PM. He got ousted a couple of days later. The regulation, and hence the ETS, came into effect as of July 1, 2016. It has been powering electricity costs ever since.
Stop being led around by the nose, peoples. This “Royal Commission” is being set up to “prove” once and for all, the evil threat of so called climate change. And if you sign this petition you are simply pumping fuel into the bad guy’s gas tank.
30
Delighted to see you back MV. 🙂
Yes, the swamp, the swamp. The only battle that matters is the court of public opinion. But anything that helps bring that public discussion forward is something…
The Safeguard mechanism was loaded there and remains that way, surely largely unused at the moment but if Bill Shorten had won 2 more seats it would be screwed into action quietly to send funds to Big Bankers and their clients.
10
You need to wake up and smell the roses, Jo. It didn’t need a Labor government to be elected. Right now legislation is making its way through parliament that effectively sells us all into financial slavery to the banks. This is being done by the Morrison LIBERAL government.
By Christmas we will all be paying interest on OUR money in our bank accounts, and we will not be able to just draw it out and go back to cash. They are making that illegal.
Sometime thereafter the banks will introduce a fee for every transaction in and out, just like applies on ATM’s now. All brought to you by a LIBERAL government. What will it take to convince that they are not the “good guys”? There ARE no good guys, just “them” and “us”.
These are the same lying, treasonous bastards you want to now entrust with a Royal Commission into Climate Change? I’ll give you three guesses how that’s intended to pan out. And you are promoting it?
——————
On a personal note, I have been having extensive heart surgery and the docs reckon I’m now good for another five years. Not so for Marilyn, my lovely wife and best friend these past forty years, who died a year ago.
20
So tell us about the bank / money legislation. Hard to search for vague terms. I assume you also mean “negative interest rates” and that absurdity of industrial banker theft of which I am aware.
So sorry to hear about Marilyn. A seismic kind of event in anyone’s life to lose a soulmate. :- ( You were fortunate to have spent so long together. I’m glad to hear your heart surgery went so well, hope Coronavirus doesn’t come our way until they have a treatment.
PS: Email coming.
10
Nothing bloody vague about it, Jo.
Google “Currency (Restrictions on the Use of Cash) Bill 2019”.
It has already been passed by the House of Reps with Liberals, Labor, and Nationals all supporting it. It is now before the Senate. It is going through based on a limit of $10,000, but the Act allows the grubbymint to change that limit to whatever it likes, whenever it likes.
Contrary to fevered imaginations it is not an attempt to create a cashless society. It will just mean YOUR money HAS to go into a bank account, and with lowered limits, be withdrawn in dribs and drabs, as already applies in Italy, Greece, and elsewhere.
Meanwhile you will be charged interest on YOUR money on deposit at the bank, probably 4% to start with, but that’s just a guess.
After that will come a transaction fee on EVERY deposit and withdrawal through your bank account.
Eventually interest rates will go up again, but the transaction fee will be with us forever and ever. Which is the whole idea.
All brought to you by the Scott Morrison LIBERAL government. The SAME Morrison Liberal government you honestly expect to have an honest and open inquiry into Climate Change, which is a furphy anyway to draw attention away from the Cash Restrictions bill.
00
Nice to see you back Peter…I used to enjoy your comments.
I’m sorry to hear you’ve been having such a rough time.
00
Thank you for the kind words Annie, but I am not “back”. I was “disappeared” off this site by the moderators, so “disappeared” I intend to remain.
But this issue is just too important to sit by and watch good people here and elsewhere be conned into supporting something something that is, from beginning to end, a con job.
00
Its on …
‘Earlier this month Scott Morrison said he had selected former chief of the Defence Force, Air Chief Marshall Mark Binskin, to lead an inquiry should it go ahead.’ SMH
00
Terms of Reference have been released, the Murdoch Press is running the story but the ABC and Guardian are mute at the moment. Apparently its all about hazard reduction and nothing much on climate change.
00
Does anyone imagine sceptics will get a chance to design the questions and/or format of such a RC? Does anyone think ANY sceptical scientist (yeah, I know, a tautology) will even get an invite?
Does anyone think it will make a difference? After all, we’ve all seen how many bankers got charged with fraud and malpractice from the Banking RC right?
Oh… Wait…
Keep waiting…
00
Careful what we wish for ,
Who could possibly adjudicate the outcome ,
What would be the criteria ,
Evidence only from ‘peer’ reviewed ‘scientists ?
Us against the EU,UN,Ipcc ?
Lots of money and future promotions in the balance .
Would become a political circus promoted by certain media and influential high profile celebrities and the enriched .
20