JoNova

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


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

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



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Australians: still the Global Patsy grand achievers of climate change with 46% cuts, but we’re getting better at selling that

PRE NOTE: Obviously Australian emissions of free aerial fertilizer are a net benefit to the world, and we should be paid for them, not charged. But in this world of witchcraft, and lacking a billionaire celebrity who can win elections and face down the media mob — this post is about the obvious, immediately doable ways to reduce the burden of being the worlds Global Patsy. Read it in that spirit. Even within a game with stupid rules, it’s time to go on the attack..

Suddenly the Australian government uses the magic term “Per Capita” and baffles the commentariat

While the rest of the world revels in their glorious fantasy future carbon “targets” the Australian government has finally realized that the measurement units “per country” suited the European overlords, and it was time to reframe the debate.

I have been saying for years,  years and years, that Australia has been the Star Global Patsy, doing more per capita than any other nation despite being the fastest growing, furthest, remotest, sparsest and most dependent economy on coal.  This is despite most nations of Earth not even pretending to meet their targets. In a quiet moment, even believers in the Paris agreement agreed the obedient sods downunder were going to be hurt more by the Paris agreement than nearly anywhere else on Earth apart from OPEC and Russia. Heck, many years, we are the worlds largest coal exporter, and coal powers most of our electricity. To make it harder on ourselves the chief commodity we are disadvantaging happens to be our second largest export industry. On top of that, we’ve had the fastest population growth in the West, adding a staggering 50% more people since 1990. Is it not beyond obvious, that if a global CO2 agreement was needed, Australia is so unique it would occupy a dot all by itself in an orbit past the end of the graph?

Finally, the Australian Government is catching on — pointing out how well we’ve done, how we met our targets when most others have failed. And also — finally — trumpeting that our emissions cuts per capita are huge. Which they are. Far too large.

Since 1990 — Every Australian has cut CO2 emissions by 46%

Australian emissions per capita. CO2, Graph. 2021.

Emissions per capita (grey line) are exceptional, but emissions per GDP dollar (orange line) are even better.

How to confuse a journalist

This week Scott Morrison flummoxed a room full of journalists and business types by mentioning that since 2005 we’ve already achieved a 36% cut in emissions. Adam Morton of The Guardian described this as “new” and said it was received with raised eyebrows across the room. It had no precedent in the global debate, he proclaimed, apparently astonished and quite confused:

“No explanation has been offered as to why this is a valid way to count emissions cuts – it has no precedent in the global debate. In the words of one analyst, it is a “Trumpian misrepresentation” of what the data actually says.”

That bad eh? But the real situation wouldn’t have surprised any of them if they’d been halfway competent, read what skeptics have said for years, or even done their own research. After all, the Greenhouse Office has been publishing these per capita graphs quarterly, forever. It’s not like it was a secret.

Is a per capita value “valid” asks Adam Morton?

What other method could possibly be better — asks  Jo?

In a thirty year debate about doing our “fair share” what could be fairer than per person measures? Indeed, for years the Green Blob has been accusing Australia of being the “second worst in the world” per capita, and they still are. So if it’s OK to criticize us per capita — why was it not OK for the government to brag about our cuts — per capita?

The hard numbers: Australian emissions have been cut 46% per capita, while the population grew 50% larger and the GDP grew 135%.

  • National inventory emissions per capita were 19.9 t CO2-e per person in the year to September 2020.
    This represents a 46.2 per cent decline in national inventory emissions per capita from 37.0 t CO2-e
    in the year to September 1990. Over the period from 1989-90 to September 2020, Australia’s population grew strongly from 17.0
    million to around 25.7 million13,14. This reflects growth of 50.2 per cent.
  • Australia’s real GDP (chain volume measures) also experienced significant growth over this period,
    expanding from $0.8 trillion in 1990 to around $1.9 trillion in the year to September 2020. This
    represents a growth of 135.3 per cent.

Quarterly update of Australia’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory, Sept 2020

Australia installs more renewables than anywhere else per capita

Morrison and co are not even using the Blakers et al graph below.  In 2018 and 2019 Australians were installing renewable energy, faster than any place on Earth. Why don’t Australians know this?

Per capita, Australia (all shades of red) blitzed the field for installing renewables

 

Australia is more dependent on mining and resources than most other developed nations:

Fully fifty percent of Australian exports are from mining. These are the most energy intensive exports on Earth, and the world needs these resources. Someone has to dig them up somewhere around the world, yet Australians’ get lumbered with all the emissions accrued in getting these minerals out of the ground?

Australia is not falling behind even by the normal EU-biased way of accounting

The idea that Australia lags behind is a nonsense-stick to beat good people with.

The usual way of comparing emissions reductions is per country, not per capita. This suits the EU. Even so Australia has set a similar target compared to everywhere else, which only goes to show how bad our negotiators were. A long time ago, in the first Kyoto agreement John Howard’s team negotiated an 8% increase in emissions for Australia which made some allowance for our rapidly growing population, distances, and energy dependent export industries.  Since then, Australian politicians have only managed to weekly, meekly, “join the pack” at our great disadvantage, and at the same time get harangued for not doing even more.

We don’t need to reduce CO2 at all, but if a government feels (because it is weak) that it has to pretend to go along with the global fashions, at least give Australians credit for “achieving” and negotiate properly. Put Australia first eh?

Our CO2 emissions are irrelevant in so many ways. We emit almost nothing compared to China. Global levels don’t seem to be controlled by our emissions anyway. It’s probably phytoplankton and ocean currents doing most of the emissions, not your car.

The world would be a better place, and Australians would be $18 billion dollars richer ten years from now, if we just spent a couple of million dollars doing goddamn due diligence checking the IPCC version of “science”.

Who audits the IPCC? No one.

UPDATE: Why we should remove “export” emissions from our tally:

Commenters are wondering what the point is of “export emissions” — this means the emissions we send into the sky in order to dig up the iron ore or the coal that other nations use. Because the Australian economy does so much of this heavy lifting for other nations, we are the Worlds Quarry, it’s not fair to count those emissions as our per capita emissions, instead of theirs. We are one of the worlds highest emitters per capita, because other nations have economies based on making t-shirts or software.

Chad asks whether our coal burnt overseas is counted in our emissions. (It isn’t)

But it’s a good question, and here’s my reply in comments below:

We count the emissions emitted to dig the stuff out, and for the transport (those bulk carriers fill up in our ports). So that includes emissions from 2km long trains hauling megatons of rock across hundreds of km. It includes all those 100T huge diesel trucks carrying rock out of deep holes. It includes flying a workforce 2,000 km from home to office etc. It includes building the gas rigs and towing them 2,000 km, plus manufacturing the machines/trucks/trains and also constructing buildings in remote locations and then airconditioning those buildings in 45C heat. Not to mention that fully 10% of the electricity in NSW and VIC is used in one smelter in each state. These are major consumers of fossil fuels. etc etc.

Once the coal arrives in China, theoretically, the burning of it, is “their CO2”.

REFERENCES

Australia’s 2030 Emission Reduction Target

Australia’s Low Technology Roadmap (a magic pick-the-winners wish list).

Scott Morrisons Address to the Business Council of Australia, 19th April, 2021.

Quarterly Update of Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory: Australia’s National Greenhouse Accounts, Department of Environment.   Sept 2020. PDF

9.8 out of 10 based on 61 ratings

163 comments to Australians: still the Global Patsy grand achievers of climate change with 46% cuts, but we’re getting better at selling that

  • #
    Ted O’Brien.

    It’s dtill a scam. Carbon dioxide is not harmful.

    601

    • #
      Penguinite

      Heartly agree Ted!

      210

    • #
      John

      The whole article had to be written to argue against the Dark Age’s “believers” who believe that CO2 poses a threat. If it poses no threat, as multiple scientific papers (at least 12), then why is Australia bending over backwards – or is it forwards? – to appease the ignorant?

      The whole fuss about carbon dioxide is like a medieval witch-hunt. Sources vary widely as to the number of deaths from those witch hunts in Europe but a mid-range figure is about 30,000. What’s more they continued for about 300 years (from 1450 to 1750).

      The science “belief” about phlogiston lasted maybe 100 years. It seems that getting wrapped up in belief lasts for generations … and that’s very bad new regards the CO2 scare.

      250

    • #
      glen Michel

      Secretary of State Kerry wants all CO2 out of the air. Presumably that means all carbon-based life forms of the bi- pedal nature. Idiot.

      240

      • #
        Annie

        How to prove utter stupidity!

        110

      • #
        Mal

        He should stop breathing out, that will save 10000 parts per million of Co2
        By his own definition, he is a little polluting organism
        Shame on you Kerry for not practicing what you preach

        110

    • #
      ghl

      “which only goes to show how bad our negotiators were”
      Who was that masked man, sneaking in to the Paris talks, with his blond mate?
      [email protected]@&%^!!’n Turnbull. Again.

      110

  • #
  • #
    Simon

    The fact that Australia can make such deep costs at no real cost to the consumer shows that a transition to a low greenhouse gas emission economy is possible. There is a long way to go though, Australia is still about the 10th worst emitter per capita.

    264

    • #
      Pauly

      Hardly “at no real cost to the consumers”!

      Electricity prices have doubled for most consumers across the country. South Australia, which now has no coal fired power stations, consistently has the highest retail electricity prices. Oh, and South Australian consumers probably felt some pain during the three days it took to restart the entire South Australian electricity grid back in September 2016. It may have been pure luck that no one died as a result of that blackout.

      However, what is dying in Australia are all our heavy industries. Car manufacturing shut down in 2017. Whyalla’s steel mills on the verge of collapse because of a new “green” owner”. All the aluminium smelters being forced to shut down during summer because of rolling blackouts, due to lack of sufficient power. And of course, that their products are becoming uncompetitive in world markets, because they have to pay higher energy costs.

      Then there are all the “green” rent-seekers delaying any new mining leases, fracking, etc. These fools are making investing in Australia a very dubious proposition. And that includes Australian companies, not just international ones. So the “consumers” miss out because the potential new jobs never eventuate. With no increase in demand for new jobs, and the unrelated government policy of high immigration, wage growth in Australia has been flat for over a decade. I wonder if that hurt the average consumer?

      Why are all these linked? Because our society is driven by energy. Increase its cost and everyone feels the pain. Most particularly, those on fixed incomes (pensions or welfare benefits), who are now struggling with the very real concept of energy poverty.

      And that discussion entirely ignores the alternative uses that all the government subsidies for renewable energy might have been put to.

      710

      • #
        another ian

        Just remember in WW2 we MADE (under license) P & W R1832 radial aircraft engines, which are a tech step up from blitzes

        10

    • #
      Travis T. Jones

      FYI: Just saying it is a “fact” does not make it so.
      Also, a “transition” is pointless as it won’t stop your imaginary global warming.

      360

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘ … a transition to a low greenhouse gas emission economy is possible.’

      Of course, but CO2 doesn’t cause global warming so this whole business is a French farce.

      381

    • #
      Ian

      Simon you write “Australia is still about the 10th worst emitter per capita.”

      In fact Australia is consistently in the top three worst emitters per capita below Saudi Arabia and USA

      020

      • #

        Except CO2 is aerial fertilizer and beneficial. They should be paying us for our emissions.

        321

      • #
        Klem

        ‘In fact Australia is consistently in the top three worst emitters per capita below Saudi Arabia and USA’

        Top three? But only a few years ago the Australian government was claiming the top spot. So was Canada and the UK, several EU countries were also claiming to be number one at that time.

        Now Oz has fallen to third place, that’s disappointing, wouldn’t you say?

        10

      • #
        James Murphy

        Ian and Simon, are you able to provide some justification as to why “per capita” a valid unit of measurement when talking about CO2?

        30

      • #

        Ian
        I saw an article recently that estimated that the crop yield boost from the increase in CO2 to current levels was worth $1 trillion per year.

        And all we hear is catastrophic cries of doom.

        Why are we not hearing more of this incredible miracle? Sadly the Left do not want to hear any good news at all – climate catastrophy, covid pandemic, racism etc – a one track dirge of disaster and negativity.

        If we can get rid of this endless obsessing over CO2 we could have a far better world…

        60

      • #
        neil

        Australia has rated between 10th and 14th for the past two decades. But that is not shocking enough for the Greens, they want us to be much more evil than 14th so they ludicrously include the emissions from coal we sell and is burned by other countries. They insist that we are responsible for that CO2 but they don’t accept that OPEC states are responsible for the CO2 from oil they sell to us, we have to accept responsibility for those emissions as well so the Greens can claim the Australian way of life is much more evil than everyone else.

        10

    • #

      Simon,

      Your delusions have no bounds. If you understood basic physics, biology and math, you would see that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is far more beneficial to the biosphere than removing it. This would still be true even if the IPCC was close to correct about its influence on the surface temperature. That they are demonstrably wrong by at least a factor of 3, is an embarrassment to all legitimate scientific pursuit.

      The fake climate change crisis is a fabrication of politics and has absolutely no legitimate scientific basis. What you think of as climate science is nothing but craptrap designed to fool the masses who are largely ignorant of the principles of proper science.

      60

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    President Scomo has told O’Bidens conference that he will spend money on Hydrogen , blah blah blah.

    I hope it’s only window dressing because if he wastes any more money on Renewables it means we are doomed.

    MalEx444 wins.

    350

    • #
      Richard Jenkins

      How is he getting the H2?
      H2 is very difficult to handle and explosive.
      Scomo should get some informed advisers!

      100

      • #
        Richard Owen No.3

        And one of the sites for hydrogen production is Whyalla, in a dry part of “the driest State in the driest inhabited continent.
        Does he plan a pipeline from Lake Argyll?

        30

        • #
          Chris

          Maybe they propose to use steam reforming Methane which is about 90% efficient, as opposed to electrolysis of water which about 75% efficient – this is the easy and cheap part of Hydrogen production.

          1Kg of Hydrogen has a specific energy of 143MJ/kg or about 40kWh/kg, however this requires 50-85 kWh of electricity .

          Ten times as much energy is required to compress Hydrogen than Methane.

          Sounds suspiciously like another money making subsidy scheme to fleece the sheep.

          50

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        My suspicion is that his first step Will be to commission a scope of work.

        Total cost maybe two months work for a PhD candidate; $10,000.

        This will show a number of serious issues with H2 production and storage which will require another “study”, approx $20,000.

        At the end of this three years of preparation it may be that the whole CO2 thing has been outed and collapsed.

        If he does this I’ll be happy and call him Mr Cunning.

        If he spends billions a la MalEx444, I’ll be very unhappy.

        20

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    Well yes this is true, but irrelevant coal post shifting.
    The targets by country were based on that countries’ own emissions, so the cut would be fair, but the scale would be different.

    Changing it to per capita looks good for Australia, if you squint and be really selective. As this link shows – Australia has cut its emissions/ per capita, but not as well as china (who we hate)
    https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/australia?country=AUS~CHN~USA~GBR#per-capita-how-much-co2-does-the-average-person-emit

    345

    • #
      Furiously curious

      I’m squinting really hard but I cant see any cut in Chinese emissions. I think it was 2014 when China was getting more energy from burning firewood and cow dung that solar. Way out in the bush in western China most people seemed to have at least solar hot water, so there was of solar around.

      210

    • #
      Zigmaster

      Peter

      I must have looked at something different to you but I can’t see anything that backs up your statement that China has cut its per capita emissions faster than Australia. Perhaps you can link the exact chart that you think makes your point rather than a dozen or so random charts that all seem to show China underperforming Australia no matter which way you slice it.

      200

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘ … if you squint and be really selective.’

      If you care to open your eyes its plain to see.

      ‘By mid-2020 China had permitted more new coal plant capacity than in 2018 and 2019 combined, bringing its total coal capacity in the pipeline to 250 GW, and brought 10 GW of new plants online. China is going against the global shift away from coal and now possesses roughly half of the world’s coal power capacity as well as coal-fired power plants in development.’ (Climate Action Tracker)

      170

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        el gordo, Zigmaster, Furiously curious, did you scroll down? Sure you can cherry pick, but the trend is clear

        117

        • #

          I scrolled to the bottom and off the page. There is no graph I can see where China outdid Australia’s per capita reduction in CO2 emissions. I think you mixed up China and the UK, their lines cross. UK emissions per capita are falling, but Chinas are rising.

          And I don’t think OWID include Land use and forestry change either.

          230

    • #
      MP

      Do you ever check what you link to?

      00

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    Goal not Coal

    317

    • #
      el gordo

      Per capita is just silly, some kind of guilt complex, doesn’t anyone care about the grandchildren anymore. The largest polluter in the world should immediately stop production for the sake of the planet, its a catastrophe.

      62

      • #
        Ian

        Jo is applauding Morrison’s use of per capita. But I’m not so sure it is such a brilliant idea.

        Jo writes ” We emit almost nothing compared to China.” That is correct based on a total population basis but definitely not so on a per capita basis.

        Using this newly minted “per capita” shows that per capita Australians emit 15.4 metric tonnes of CO2 year which is the second highest global per capita’

        In contrast, China’s per capita CO2 emissions are 7.5 metric tonnes of CO2 which is half that of Australia and thirteenth highest globally

        Using per capita starkly draws attention ust to how much CO2 each Australian actually contributes to global CO2 emissions per year. Given the per capita numbers this doesn’t seem to be such a brilliant idea

        41

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          Ian – on a per capita basis we are 16.88 Tonnes with China 6.68 Tonnes. And that is after the alleged reduction.

          So it would be better to look at a per country basis.

          011

          • #

            Just get the people who buy our coal, gas, and iron ore etc to include the emissions used to extract them and transport them in their own national accounts. Add that to their per capita tally, not ours.

            Then make an allowance for the per capita people who live furthest from world populations to allow for long distance travel, low population density etc.

            Our negotiators have been babes in the woods at those national conventions for the last 20 years. Pathetic.

            200

          • #
            Ian

            So it would be better to look at a per country basis.

            Better for whom? Better for what?

            01

            • #
              Richard Jenkins

              There should be a distance ratio in the calculation.
              Travel allowance. Even on our East coast Melbourne to Sydney uses a lot of energy.

              10

          • #
            Zigmaster

            Peter
            Are you nuts. China has a similar land mass ( even smaller) than Australia and 1.4 billion people compared to around 25 million. ( barely 2% of Chinas population ) . On emissions China has 40% of emissions per capita .
            I know who’s causing issues on causing almost all of the worlds global warming and it ain’t Australia. If you can’t see that when it comes to reducing emissions only one country matters then you are just being selectively blind. Whatever Australia does is absolutely irrelevant and futile whatever terminology is used to express emissions .

            30

        • #
          Jason

          Australia may have high emissions – but we have even higher absorption. Australia is a net carbon sink and it’s time we pointed that out

          170

      • #
        Chad

        el gordo
        April 24, 2021 at 8:17 am ·
        Per capita is just silly

        Im not sure what you mean by that ?
        Australia has ben targeted and criticised because of its high “ per capita” emission figure compared to other countries..
        …So it makes sense to compare our reduction performance on the same “per capita” basis.
        However, we all know Australia’s total emissions are trivial compared to other western industrialised countries.

        120

        • #
          el gordo

          I’m aware of the politics involved, but surely if CO2 is causing so much havoc then China should stop building new coal fired power stations, like Australia. We know how to virtue signal better than them.

          81

          • #
            glen Michel

            The whole thing is null anyway since emissions are a furphy and a scam. Still, the social engineers and the attendant carpetbaggers will carry on this pseudo science- believing the science as they do, but not really understanding it. Get it? It’s the time of idiots now and all that is common sense is passed. I guess it had to happen.

            150

            • #
              el gordo

              Donald was intuitive when he said its a Chinese hoax. A long time back Premier Ji told Brussels they would do nothing on climate change until we reach energy parity with the West. So the idea of ‘per capita’ was born, which allows individuals in the West to put on sackcloth, in line with millenarian thinking.

              Weighing their masses against our puny numbers is a joke.

              80

    • #
      Ian

      I thought it quite clever

      40

      • #
        Serp

        Yeah, the harbinger of a wit upgrade which would be bringing us all sorts of thoughtful insights; and then he goes and spoils it.

        10

    • #
      another ian

      Peter! Peter! Peter!

      Before that post it looked like you were having a tentative play with the English language!

      00

  • #
    Jojodogfacedboy

    You know at the best of times, our politicians rarely are truthful in what they are doing.
    They want to keep society on a leash of control in every aspect of our lives.
    The climate has been uncooperative in their push in global warming as the reason that we need to get off this heroine drug of cheap fuel.

    Oil is a poison. It kills vegetation, animals and marine life.
    We have over our species lifetime span, manage to manufacture it into an aerosol worldwide.
    This is having a negative effect on our species as we have poisoned ourselves.
    The politicians big freak out is they too are affected.
    You know, ‘We’re ALL in this together’.

    What our governments are terrified is that citizens and society will no longer follow our politicians directives.
    Hence, more and more restrictions, regulations that make very little sense.

    Fly my child, the truth shall set you free…
    Sorry, wrong lifeline. But now you understand our governments hate on in fossil fuels.

    41

    • #
      Jojodogfacedboy

      Or we go after our politicians due to their ineptitude over the century?
      Their definitely afraid of something we all may do.
      Why keep up this charade when they can be truthful for a change.
      Why are they not looking at us for ideas?
      No, they need to impose more laws, regulations and restrictions.
      Can’t even cut the 100 million to one person trees as our politicians made it illegal.
      And yet they want us off of fossil fuels.
      To what?
      Everything else to manufacture is deemed illegal.

      50

  • #
    Penguinite

    Great speech! Shame the gathered throng couldn’t hear it all! Per capita love it!

    80

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    John Kerry: “We need to get all carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.”

    https://mobile.twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1385276993319677953

    Insane.

    Hold your breathe, you idiot.

    320

    • #
      John R Smith

      Maybe he means get to 350 PPM.
      Sad part is there’s no one around with enough knowledge of the issue to ask for clarification.
      Maybe they did.
      He should know enough to more precise.
      But I’d bet Mr. Climate Czar knows considerably less about the issue than me.
      Sad.

      110

    • #
      Ted O’Brien.

      Did he say that? Surely it must have been April 1.

      30

    • #

      In Ian Plimer’s book: Heaven and Earth, The missing Science of Global Warming, he points out that if CO2 was absent in the greenhouse the global temperature would drop to a level making it too cold for us and many other species to survive. More people die during the cold seasons on earth than during the hotter seasons.
      Australia’s efforts, having no impact on global climate trends, should be targeted at following the big emitting countries from a distance rather than leading or even ”keeping up’ with them, assuming, of course, even their efforts have some effect! Let’s see what happens in the U.S., a similar geographical size to Australia with a much larger population, when the grid fails to support a fully electric new car fleet, the economy falters and all the Trumpians, and maybe some rural Demos, siege Capitol Hill because they can no longer get their daily dose of Mackas!

      80

  • #
    Harves

    Leftwing journos who for years have loudly trumpeted Australia’s unacceptable per-capita emissions, suddenly screaming that per-capita I not a valid measure.
    You really can’t make this up.

    190

  • #
    TdeF

    “Global levels don’t seem to be controlled by our emissions anyway.”

    Dr.Tom Quirk, Phd Nuclear Physics and Oxford Don is absolutely right. C14 can tell the difference between fossil fuel and biosphere CO2. One has no C14 and the other is uniformly tagged. His point is that this ratio should show a lag from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern. There is no lag. So industrial CO2 has no observable fingerprint.

    He concludes that the CO2 comes out of the oceans equally each year in the North and Southern hemispheres. Which is very surprising for the emissions pushers as only 2% of humanity lives in the bottom third and all the heavy industries live in the top third.

    No one should be surprised. CO2 is so soluble in water, we use it every day in cooking and drinks and of course every living thing is built from CO2 and combusts oxygen to more CO2. So we get bread, cheese, wine. CO2 comes in and out of our surface world rapidly. The IPCC says that is not true when we have had proofs of this for 70 years.
    I have not heard ‘tipping point’ and ‘armageddon for a very long time.

    Climates are controlled by water and heat, both from the vast solar energy battery we call the oceans which contain all the CO2 and covers most of the planet. Aerial CO2 levels depend only on the temperature of the water at the air/ocean surface. Warmer water, more CO2. As Alexsandr Orlov would say, simples.

    Plus 98% of all CO2 is dissolved. We could not control CO2 levels if we tried. And at $1.5Trillion a year now for a third of a century, nothing we have done has had any effect on CO2.

    So the physical chemistry science question is why ocean surface temperature is not the obvious controller of CO2. And how does CO2 control ocean temperatures? I have read no explanation. Jim Hansen’s infra red argument is science gibberish.

    Which is why man Made Global Warming has vanished for a decade. ‘Man Made’ has been dropped. ‘CO2′ has been dropped and has become ’emissions’. And ‘warming’ has vanished because it is getting rapidly cooler. This is coordinated language control, just like the gender business.

    So I am waiting excitedly for the explanation of how Climate Change causes rapid cooling.

    But at least Scott Morrison is playing them at their own nonsense games. And to read that the Guardian is whingeing at the use of Per Capita is just lovely. Everyone underestimates Morrison who stopped the boats, works hard, has strong values and is himself no patsy for the likes of Malcolm Turnbull and the extremely left press.

    It’s all made up nonsense.

    330

    • #
      Tilba Tilba

      And ‘warming’ has vanished because it is getting rapidly cooler.

      How does this sit with the recent history – the ten hottest years since records began have occurred since 2005 – so where is the data to show the world is rapid cooling?

      032

      • #

        Pure rubbish Tilba – endlessly repeating lies does not make them true. And when the temperatures from the BOM are from stations where over 50% don’t comply with WMO guidelines, when they falsify results by homogenisation then your claim is completely meaningless

        For Australia the years back around 1902 at the Federation drought were at least as hot if not hotter than now. And for the US the hottest years were around the mid 1930s.

        And rather than just dwell on recent history how about acknowledging that we are in the bottom 20% of temperatures for the last 10 000 years, during 99% of the time we had CO2 levels around 280ppm. But that would give the game away…

        280

        • #
          Ian

          “Pure rubbish Tilba – endlessly repeating lies does not make them true. ”

          Are you sure? Many here believe Trump won the 2020 election and it makes no difference to their belief that there is no robust and incontrovertible evidence in support of that

          020

          • #
            ghl

            Ian
            Just as it took years for the truth about the Russia hoax to surface, there are investigations going on into the election. Evidence must be assembled, books and papers must be written. In time people will boast or regret their actions. Evidence will emerge. The best we can hope for is that public pressure will force an improvement in the mechanisms.

            70

        • #
          Tilba Tilba

          It was hotter in the Carboniferous 350 million years ago as well.

          The point that the majority of climate scientists make is that the really rapid increase in world temperatures in the modern era (from 1880, but particularly since 1975) is where the climate emergency lies. And some parts of the planet are warming in really disturbing ways – the Arctic, Siberia, etc.

          The cause of this rapid, recent temperature increase is a higher level of CO2 into the atmosphere resulting from human industrialisation and the burning of enormous amounts of fossil fuel.

          That is what the vast majority of climate scientists say, and it is the science that I thin we should all go with.

          011

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            “The cause of this rapid, recent temperature increase is a higher level of CO2 into the atmosphere resulting from human industrialisation and the burning of enormous amounts of fossil fuel.”

            Bizarre.

            Tell that to the 10,000 Russian reindeer, Caribou, that were frozen to death in Siberia a few years ago.

            Unprecedented cold.

            Get it. That’s the opposite of Hot.

            KK

            110

            • #
              Tilba Tilba

              So much anger. So much zealotry … you’ve lost the capacity to think rationally and discuss reasonably.

              The overwhelming majority of experts (not zealots) believe that the planet is warming, and warming because of the burning of fossil fuels, and warming rapidly compared to long-tern natural variation.

              The rational people of the world are not spending billions on a hoax, or false science – I can assure you.

              BTW there’s a difference between seasonal weather and climate.

              02

              • #

                So I’ve just published this boring, repetitive, wallpaper-of-a-comment to show I publish the best counter opinion offered, which is a sad sad statement on how pathetically weak the “best” pro-climate-panic arguments are. Don’t feel any need to reply and draw out this low grade fallacious “Argument from Authority.” It’s not even worthy of Target Practice. Lift your game TT. — Jo

                40

          • #

            The so called rapid rise? We can look back and see many rapid rises in the past.

            There is no proof CO2 is involved in the rather slow rise we have had since the mid 1970s. Yes I am old enough to remember the ice age scare when temperatures had been steadily falling from the mid 1930s – but complete silence on that or ridiculous comments that it was “one article in Newsweek”, lies as I read numerous articles and it was on the TV regularly. Nowadays manipulation has removed that inconvenient truth.

            Consensus science is not science at all – only that by the scientific method. Please see Michael Crichtons take on this https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/michael-crichton-explains-why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-consensus-science/

            Dud climate models, political pressure and threats of no grant money unless the narrative is followed is more like the science story here Tilba.

            Again silence on the USCRN network showing no warming at all since 2005, ditto satellites, but models, conveniently for the catastrophists provide the answer with ever constant warming. In the future they will look back and wonder at the utter stupidity of so many, not seeing the blatant manipulation of temperatures by the BOM, NOAA and NASA. Simple comparison with past graphs shows it clearly. But there are none so blind as those who will not see. Too easy to just nod and follow the narrative….

            20

      • #
        TdeF

        Sure the warming peaked around 2015, as predicted. (12:18 in). The end of the Little Ice Age (1880) has itself ended. We are in a very rapid decline now, which should be obvious.

        “the ten hottest years since records began have occurred since 2005”

        Your point is understandable. This is often quoted as proof but that’s all anyone can say to support Global Warming because they cannot say “the temperature is increasing” or “it’s getting warmer”.

        This tortured logic is an obvious attempt to pretend it is still warming when it isn’t. Or as NASA states “2020 was the second hottest year since 2016”. Spot the trick.

        You could swap it all around.

        The temperature is not increasing. Temperature has peaked. 2016 was the hottest year in the last 6 years. etc. And in many countries, winter 2021 was the coldest winter in decades. Even the spring is freezing. Texas was frozen and the grape harvest in France devastated.

        So where’s the rapid man made global warming? Three statements. All wrong. So where is it?

        And why the devastating, economically crippling war on CO2 (in Western democracies only) if there is no warming?

        CO2 is still going up steadily and the temperature is not. What does that tell you?

        And what does the subtle deviousness of those statements tell you? Deception dressed up as science. You are being manipulated.

        310

        • #
          TdeF

          And it is unbelievable that China is leading the war on CO2, when they have promised sincerely to do nothing until 2030 when their rapid coal station building program should end. So President Xi and President Biden are talking about what everyone else can do, because China is an innocent, third world carbon dioxide victim state needing and receiving Carbon Credits.

          John Kerry says China and the US can do nothing because they only are responsible for 20% of ’emissions’. He obviously worries more about his hair than his facts.

          It’s all fake. Man Made Rapid Tipping Point Global Warming is science fiction, fake facts, a political device to devastate America and the EU and turn Australia and Canada into Chinese vassal states, as if that is not completely obvious.

          When WWII finally came, people asked why no one could see it coming. Of course they could.

          220

          • #
            Dennis

            So, from the date of commissioning their last coal fired power station in China, and in other nations based on foreign aid projects, effectively China will be a major contributor to “greenhouse gas” emissions until and beyond 2200.

            The often used accounting purposes operating life of a power station is 20 years but well maintained they will continue generating electricity for 80 years plus.

            China, the “developing nation” that now claims to rival the USA is laughing at the climate hoax followers.

            110

        • #
          TdeF

          And to expand the argument about warming vs reality, I remember when this all started, 33 years ago in the US Senate on 24th June, mid summer, a day after the equinox. Rapid global CO2 driven warming, end of world, ten years to fix it.

          So Prof Weiss’ numbers fit all the historic temperatures for the last 250 years to very high precision, amazing considering only two cycles are necessary and he did it ‘blind’. He could predict in hindsight the end of the little ice age, the slow climb though the 20th century, the peak and the ‘pause’ and now the plummet. So Prof Weiss has a precise explanation for the last 250 years, an explanation for everything.

          Now in hindsight, the ‘Climate Models’ could not get the last 33 years right and could tell you nothing about 1850.

          So who do you believe? Professor Weiss and his friends, retired mathematicians who can explain the past so easily, predict the 20th century so accurately and everything we have seen, or the people who use La Nina and El Nino the Indian Dipole and Arctic Vortexes to explain why they are always wrong? Events they cannot even predict with their atmospheric models.

          It’s entirely the sun cycle and the cycles in that gigantic solar battery we call the oceans, especially the Pacific ocean which covers half the planet to an average depth of 3,400 metres. Isn’t that what you would expect?

          And Tim Flannery is a specialist in ancient wombats and kangaroos. It’s an unusual profession. So what would he know about science? The rains which fell nearly wiped out a million people Brisbane because the dams can fill in a night.

          Why did people in ancient times trust Druids? And could the Druids really tell the future?

          170

          • #
            GlenM

            They have locked themselves in on CO2 and quite erroneously. The use of CO2 as a catalyst for something political came not too far down the track. So, the message and demonising has been amplified by all concerned to control and twist 9billion people. Hang on to your hats!

            30

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘ … the ten hottest years since records began have occurred since 2005 – so where is the data to show the world is rapidly cooling?’

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2021_v6.jpg

        22

        • #
          TdeF

          Really? It is self evident. Just look at your own graph. The right hand side. I see very rapid cooling. What do you see?

          50

          • #
            el gordo

            Temperatures have reached a low ebb because of La Nina, but where to from here?

            If global cooling is upon us then we should expect the hiatus to continue for another five years. Is this your interpretation or do you expect temperatures to return to dizzying heights?

            01

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              Elizabeth Gordo, the answer to your question as to whether it’s getting hotter or colder lies in sea levels.

              You seem to be an expert in oceans so you should be able to say right now what ocean levels are doing.

              20

            • #
              TdeF

              Look at the graph of temperatures experienced and predicted in #11.1.2 and you have your answer. It’s an amazing fit from two and only two well known cycles. The game is over.

              30

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        yesp and the records move on with 2019 (second hottest) and 2018 in 4th place. And the UAH only measure the air, not the surface, and last time looked, my feet were on the surface

        111

        • #
          GlenM

          So, by how much ? The second part is ludicrous. Get a grip.

          70

          • #
            GlenM

            Others can tell you – but since you lack any sense of enquiry what is the point , that the surface record is a shambles. Maybe you can explain why temperatures for much of eastern Australia are well below average for the past few months. No kidding.

            90

        • #
          Richard Jenkins

          Using homogenised data.
          Actual original data shows 1934 is hotter.
          Many other hotter years are recorded. Before 1910 there are many hotter years.
          Roy Spencer did not use satelites before 1970.
          When the facts don’t fit the argument alarmists adjust the facts. I am the fastest sprinter in the world if I change the facts.
          Climategate revealed history changing methods.
          The vikings grazed Greenland. To deny that is ridiculous. It was much hotter then.
          Michael Mann had to hide his crazy tree ring data.

          100

          • #
            Graham Richards

            Why is everybody arguing about CO2. It’s a tasteless, harmless trace gas which makes up a miniscule part of the atmosphere.
            And yet the activists/socialists & agitators have the whole mob raving about it.
            What a sick joke, conjob.

            The biggest question though is why are supposedly intelligent people like Presidents & Prime Ministers taking part in the hoax?

            90

            • #
              TdeF

              Trillions and power. The organizations behind the hoax include the United Nations, the European Union, the US Democrats party now in control of Washington and of course, China. As I count it, the people who control 1/3 of the world’s population and most of the economies of the planet. That is why Morrison’s strategy of playing them at their own game is so important. Per capita, we are taking a knee. At enormous cost.

              80

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘And the UAH only measure the air …’

          UAH is trustworthy, the CET is almost a perfect match. It hasn’t been this hot for hundreds of years.

          https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

          03

        • #
          TdeF

          And the last time I looked, the people were not the planet. Global Warming is not personal. It is not about the temperature of your feet.

          40

        • #
      • #
        sophocles

        at noaa.gov.org.

        Go there and look around.

        10

  • #
    a happy little debunker

    Just as an unrelated a point of observation about how ‘selective’ measuring gives a false impression,

    Covid cases in ‘quarantine’ are included in state counts – but Covid cases in ‘quarantine’ are not included in the NT count.

    When you compare apples to oranges you look like a ripe banana… Simultaneously both mushy and bent!

    140

  • #

    Jo – your point about audits needs to be rammed home.

    A substantial part of my business is auditing factories for quality compliance. Over the years I have inevitably found that the claims of “compliance”, “following procedures”, “risk assessment plans” etc etc are nearly always wrong and far too often I find severe deficiencies. I would also add that most of the auditors proceeding me have been utterly incompetent and not found any of what I find.

    The businesses I have audited and assisted now have far more robust quality systems. Ones that work and that deliver in product safety, reduced waste etc etc.

    Now to the IPCC and the BOM . Even a basic review of their reports and releases shows severe deficiencies. I can tell you now that if you let me loose with the BOM they would be shut down with any number of issues which you and others here have highlighted for years. We, the taxpayer, throw hundreds of millions to Dr Johnson and his minions at the BOM, and receive no value for money, in fact we pay for propaganda. Propaganda which destroys businesses and hamstrings this countries economy.

    Scomo is showing some signs of sense, but the most urgent one is to have a proper Quality based audit of the BOM. Dr Johnsons references to data sharing and reviews by other meteorological organisations are a farce. A proper Quality audit reviewing his organisations internal procedures, the maintenance of their stations etc etc will find an appallling situation.

    190

    • #
      ghl

      P.o.D
      A public accounting of all costs of policies for green energy.

      All subsidies.
      All forced purchases.
      All tarriffs.
      All government expenditure. ( Snowy 2 )
      All tax concessions.
      Associated costs such as “Gold Plating” transmission lines.
      All storage devices.
      All costs (food spoilage, loss of production) of outages.

      Total cost to Australia.

      30

  • #
    David Maddison

    Why don’t we just adopt China’s “carbon emissions” policies?

    Nobody would complain about that…

    150

    • #
      glen Michel

      It would get the green communists frothy at the mouth and more deranged.

      70

    • #
      Ian

      “Why don’t we just adopt China’s “carbon emissions” policies?

      Nobody would complain about that…”

      Given that on a per capita basis China emits about half Australia’s emissions adopting China’s policies would be a very good idea

      00

      • #
        David Maddison

        I am talking about POLICIES, not their level of emissions per capita.

        China is by far the biggest overall emitter of CO2, about twice the next biggest, the United States.

        They have no restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions, neither should we.

        80

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        I can assure you that when the charcoal, from coal, coal direct and wood, from the local bush, used in outlying Chinese regions for cooking and warmth is tallied the CO2 created would be far greater than that of the alternative coal fired electricity from efficient plants.

        Not to mention the actual pollution resulting from the production of charcoal and the direct burning of the other two items.

        If the real Chinese environmental budget was considered they would have to be marked Fail.

        Yes they have many modern cities and regions, but out the back it’s an ecological nightmare.

        There’s more to heaven and earth than most can dream of.

        KK

        80

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          Having said that, in absolute terms there’s a big issue with saying that countries like China and Indonesia are “poor countries”.

          Australia has a population approaching 26 million.
          Indonesia is ten times Australia.
          China has 1.44 Billion people or fifty times that of Australia.

          In both China and Indonesia the wealthiest 26 million people would have far greater wealth on average than Australians.

          And yet we are told that they are poor and we are “rich”.

          Why are we being led up the garden path so that we feel guilt and need to make bigger contributions to these countries and the U.N.

          KK

          70

        • #
          Richard Owen No.3

          Or we could adopt the UK approach where burning imported wood chips from 200 year old forests and emitting 32% more CO2 get subsidies.
          Or The Netherlands approach where buying Certificates from Norwegian Hydro reduces the emissions from their coal fired stations by 77%.
          Or the Danish (and German and Swedish and Finnish) approach of burning wood chips (from Russia) in power stations and households, along with burning household rubbish for heat, doesn’t increase emissions.
          I wonder how shutting down nuclear power stations and replacing their output with OCGT using (Russian) natural gas will be accounted.

          60

  • #
    David Maddison

    How much of the cuts in “carbon emissions” are due to the fact that Australia is deundustrialising due to having some of the world’s most expensive electricity, due to Australia’s fanatical commitment to the anthropogenic global warming fraud and “renewable” energy?

    220

    • #
      TdeF

      All of it.

      Manufacturing is simply the substitution of energy for slave labour. And it’s a competitive world. No cheap energy, no manufacturing jobs.

      As Singaporean maestro Li Kuan Yew said angrily to a critical Australian reporter, you Australians only dig it out of the ground or grow it on the backs of sheep.

      Once again it is agriculture and mining which pays for all our imported stuff. And the Greens want to shut them all down while they live on the free money taxing the work of others.

      200

      • #
        Dennis

        That very astute leader, Li Kean Yew, also warned that Australia was heading to become the “white trash of Asia Pacific Region”. He said that prospect saddened him but he hoped our leaders would wake up and correct the problems.

        70

    • #
      Ronin

      Basically while miners and farmers toil away in the outback, we in the cities sell each other overpriced real estate and cups of overpriced coffee.

      170

      • #
        TdeF

        Made from imported coffee beans.

        80

      • #
        John R Smith

        Overpriced beach front property?
        I’ll have a half-caf fair trade organic soy latte with fresh hand ground organic cinnamon sprinkles in a BLM cup.
        Thanks.

        20

  • #
    Zigmaster

    One thing you didn’t mention that makes our achievement more remarkable ( and more insane ) is that we have refused to use nuclear to power our energy whilst we hold some of the largest uranium reserves in the world. Whilst I think the government is right to bat of critics by emphasising how much we are ahead of the world in reducing or emissions but it really is a prize that we should not be aiming to win. All it tells me is that despite every election being about action on climate change and each time we have rejected doing more we somehow have had governments that have managed to put us near the best when it comes to action on climate change. All it tells me is that we are one of the most gullible populations in the world to believe that when you vote against action we somehow end up doing more than anyone else in the world.
    When will our government take real and meaningful action on climate change , and do something to make a difference and get to tackle what has been the core influence of climate change in the world ;the blatant indoctrination of our younger generation by our education system and our older generation by our media and politicians and tackle head on the gross misrepresentations and lies that allows alarmists to continue to control the agenda. It’s time to rip the bandaid off and until we attempt to re-educate our population about the climate emergency we will always be defending critics that want to cause more mayhem to our total economic systems and lifestyle. It’s time debate the issues because the facts are on our side.

    210

    • #
      el gordo

      The nuclear option is political dynamite and the build too expensive for our foreseeable needs.

      117

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        Maybe we need to “defuse” that nuclear dynamite and push towards reality.

        150

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        Gordo,
        Are you complaining that Australia in 2021 is vastly inferior to France in the 1970s or so, when they moved to 75% nuclear?
        Why? How?
        Geoff S

        210

        • #
          Simon B

          Good pick up Geoff. Australia is a young country in an economic sense and continues to think like that. A step back shows we are the envy of the West and I have no doubt with countries with long economic and cultural backgrounds like France, Germany, Britain, Korea and Japan, with the resources, we have, at their disposal they would be telling the rest of the world what they want to hear and meanwhile using those resources to develop in the manner they choose – just like China is now!
          We, however, feel being good obedient global citizens is the way to be liked and determining whether trade agreements. We need to grow up and use our resources to determine what our society will be, not continue to be a feeder nation with an inferiority complex.

          120

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘Nuclear power production is currently not permitted under two main pieces of Commonwealth legislation—the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 (the ARPANS Act), and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act).’ (APH)

          11

          • #
            Serp

            Then it’s out of bounds for investors. Why is anybody talking about it?

            01

          • #
            another ian

            There used to be that “bloke with red flag” in front of a “horseless carriage” requirement.

            What happened to that law?

            Trying to tell us that idiotic laws are eternal?

            40

            • #
              el gordo

              Australia doesn’t need to build a nuclear power plant unless CO2 really does cause global warming. Coal is our best way forward, but in the meantime gas is good to back up renewables until they realise CO2 doesn’t cause global warming.

              20

  • #
    Chad

    Clarification needed here…
    Am i correct that Australia’s emission “tally”. Includes the CO2 content of all the Coal and Gas etc that we export to other countries ?
    If so, does that mean that the recieving countries ( China, Japan, etc),.DO NOT include those values in their own emission count ?..
    …. OR DO THEY ?
    If the recieving countries DO include the CO2 emissions from imported fuel. Then there is a lot of “doule counting”
    If THEY DO NOT include those imported fuel emissions, then there is a serious miss allocation of emissions.
    Can anyone clarify exactly “Who Pays” for these export/import emissions

    70

    • #
      Robert Swan

      Been discussing this recently at Bishop Hill. The answer is that, no, China “pays” for what it emits when it burns our coal. The not so fair part is that we “pay” for the emissions generated in pulling that coal out of the ground and transporting it to a port, even though all of that is for China’s benefit.

      See this Wikipedia entry for more detail.

      80

      • #

        Thanks Robert. That is my understanding. We pay to dig the stuff out, and part of the transport (those bulk carriers fill up in our ports). So that includes 2km long trains hauling megatons of rock across hundreds of km. It includes all those 100T huge diesel trucks carrying rock out of deep holes. It includes flying a workforce 2,000 km from home to office etc. It includes building the gas rigs and towing them 2,000 km, plus manufacturing the machines/trucks/trains and also constructing buildings in remote locations and then airconditioning those buildings in 45C heat. Not to mention that fully 10% of the electricity in NSW and VIC is used in one smelter in each state. These are major consumers of fossil fuels. etc etc.

        Once the coal arrives in China, theoretically, the burning of it, is “their CO2”.

        170

        • #
          David Maddison

          The CO2 content of our exported coal is not counted as “ours” but that’s not to say that the REGRESSIVES don’t want to count it as such. E.g., see following quote.

          According to a report released by The Australia Institute, we export 1.1 billion tonnes of Co2 every year, the vast majority of that in coal exports. This 1.1 billion tonne of Co2 does not count against our total emissions, though.

          Australia Institute Climate and Energy Director Richie Merzian said that should change so we could get a better picture of the emissions we are contributing towards so we can shape our goals and our future.

          Beyond Zero Emissions have previously estimated that if this Australian coal was linked to our Co2 emissions our global contribution would be 4 per cent, making us the sixth-largest contributor to climate change.

          https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/why-are-australias-co2-emissions-so-high/

          40

        • #
          Jojodogfacedboy

          Jo, I’m giving you a freebie.
          Our society desperately still needs to use all these carbon polluting equipment.
          We put exhaust on them for noise reduction but we never have created a carbon capture before it leaves the exhaust.
          My idea would be a sand and water capture system to capture that nasty poison in the exhaust.
          As long as the water and sand is violently in action, it should capture the solid carbon particles.
          Certainly the smartest and cheapest.

          Your welcome Jo.

          00

    • #
      Len

      I before E except after C

      30

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        And there’s a “b” in double.

        Dubble trubble, boil and bubble.

        10

        • #
          • #
            TdeF

            Great story. Amazing soliliquys. And the entire theme was the disaster brought by the ambition of Lady Meghan and a king who tried to please his wife. What amazes me is that most of the audience was illiterate and this complex script was public entertainment for people who were standing.

            Their ability to absorb complex English was far greater than modern audiences who tire if there are too many words in a sentence or a video audience which tires after 8 seconds. Now that most people can read and write, their ability to absorb spoken information quickly has actually dropped remarkably.

            Still the Royal Family has had this before with King Edward VIII whose divorcee American wife turned him from a King into a Duke. This one has turned a Prince into a commoner.

            90

      • #
        TdeF

        A lot of the time, except when there is an ‘ay’ sound.

        It’s a quick list but neither, eight, weight, beige, ceiling, neigh, conceit, deceit, seize, deign, perceive, feign, height, receipt, receive, weird, foreign, leisure and a few with the ‘ein’ sound as in reign, protein, caffeine, codeine, efficient, conscience, sufficient, Eileen. And some with name bases like Geiger. The ‘i’ sound as well.

        A lot of people now learn this with the except when there is the ‘ay’ sound. It’s a far more accurate rule.
        So is the idea that it applies largely when the ie sounds like ‘ee’ sound.

        And however bad the rule, it’s not as bad as French. Plus the two genders to everything. Which is better than Latin or Russian which have three.

        70

        • #
        • #
          SamT108

          The actual rule is ‘i before e except after c’. Your list contains three exceptions, “efficient, conscience, sufficient”, so well done in that department. The rest of the words listed have nothing whatsoever to do with the rule (as lame as it may be) as far as ‘coming after c’.

          In my experience it is useless to try to apply the rule except after c because it follows no order or protocol.

          30

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            Your board is too short.

            10

          • #
            TdeF

            Where is i before e in the following?

            neither, eight, weight, beige, neigh, seize, deign, perceive, feign, height, weird, foreign, leisure

            Your new rule is e before i after c. So efficient, conscience, sufficient break your rule, but that is not the rule.

            I was really annoyed by this rule when I was seven. I still think it is generally wrong. But with the one modification, it is generally right.

            20

    • #
      SamT108

      ScoMo’s reduction: “38% excluding exports”

      AFAIK exports aren’t included in measuring a country’s carbon hoofprint. Which is why Australia can get away with saying it’s “reducing emissions” whilst our carbonaceous fuel exports keep rising year after year.

      What we are doing is burning less coal locally and exporting it instead. Henc3 the fake hoofprint value.

      02

  • #

    All this talk about how well countries are reducing CO2 emissions helps the Global Fraudsters deflect attention from the fact that there is no evidence that mankind’s 3% pa contribution to CO2 levels has any deleterious effect on temperature or the weather. Fraud is very wide-spread these days in science, polling, politics, space travel and finance and it has to be resisted on all levels.

    100

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Shhhh shush,

      It’s 2021 and reality is so “old hat”.

      Many years ago I remarked that Hans C would be ecstatic to see a modern day revival of his story about “the Emperor”; humans seem unable to lift themselves out of subservience to dominant personalities.

      100

  • #
    Robert Swan

    What other method could possibly be better — asks Jo?

    The correct measure is per-area (hectare, square mile or whatever). The world has a fixed number of those and, if it really has a limit to amount of CO2 it can put up with, that amount won’t go up with the number of people. On that score, Australia is one of the least emitting nations on the planet.

    191

    • #

      Nice! Thanks Robert. Good point.

      70

    • #
      Chad

      You are forgetting, that this is purely a political “Game” of diplomacy, where facts count for little in this senario. It is just a matter of who carries the most influence.
      Why is there even this “Biden” climate conference ?….i thought the next significant Climate shindig was set for Scotland in November.. ?
      ..But obviously , Dopey Joes handlers wanted to flex their voice to force a situation in their favor…to bee seen to take the lead.

      90

  • #
    Neville

    Dr Pielke tries to educate us to the BIGGGGGGG problems for the Biden donkey if he wants to be “fossil fuel free” by 2035. Here’s part of his quote and I suppose he’ll just have to SCHOOL this donkey the same way he SCHOOLED silly Obama,Biden and Holdren about the proper droughts data etc. READ his entire comment at the link and look at his graphs.

    Let’s hope our donkeys have the time to look at this data and start to wake up to themselves. And Dr Pielke will have regular updates to check out the Biden Donkey’s progress. What a joke and of course no change to the climate or temperature AT ALL.

    https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/tracking-progress-towards-president?mc_cid=98f7be9b02&mc_eid=dcbe0ef09b

    “There are 164 months until 2035. That means that more than 11 of the fossil fuel power plants operational in January 2021 will need to be closed every month, on average, starting today until 2035. Tracking progress on the closure (or conversion to carbon-free) of power plants can provide a very useful marker of progress toward achieving the Biden Administration’s overall climate targets. The figure below shows a linear trajectory for power plant closures, necessary to hit the 2035 net-zero”.

    Dr Pielke also tells us where Biden should be by this time next year…….

    “By Earth Day 2022 the US will have needed to close more than 100 power plants that were producing electricity in January, 2021 in order to be close to the trajectory set forth by the new emissions targets. EIA reports these data monthly so a more frequent accounting is possible. A strength of this approach is that it allows for independent verification of reports of progress, and in particular, an assessment of whether methodological changes to GHG equivalencies or land use are used to game the results”.

    40

  • #
    Neville

    Another Earth Day update from Dr Spencer and here are the first couple of paragraphs. He shows why their so called models show at least DOUBLE the warming of the observations. Graphs are provided to check his claims.

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/
    “An Earth Day Reminder: “Global Warming” is Only ~50% of What Models Predict”
    April 22nd, 2021 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

    “The claim by the Biden Administration that climate change has placed us in a moment of “profound crisis” ignores the fact that the energy policy changes being promoted are based upon computer model simulations which have produced average warming rates at least DOUBLE those observed in the last 40+ years.

    Just about every climate claim made by politicians, and even many vocal scientists, has been either an exaggeration or a lie.

    While it is easy for detractors of what I will show to claim I am in the scientific minority (true), or that I am a climate denier (not true; I do not deny some level of human-caused warming), the fact is that the “official” observations in recent decades are in disagreement with the “official” climate models being promoted for the purposes of implementing expensive, economically-damaging, and poverty-worsening energy policies”.

    100

  • #
    Flok

    It was first that the global effort was focused to mitigate what might be the human impact on global warming.

    Well, that failed over few decades which is indicated by the funds invested to simply increase the greenhouse gases by output and by atmospheric concentration.

    We come to this point by wasting USD$12.29 per tonne of CO2 to increase it on pretences of the world leaders agreeing to decrease it. The map of the road ahead is a bigger cliff.

    Net zero cliff could just mean net zero in the bank. A flip side of the hockey stick.

    This is a financial emergency warning in this political climate.

    40

  • #
    Simon B

    ‘We don’t need to reduce CO2 at all, but if a government feels (because it is weak) that it has to pretend to go along with the global fashions, at least give Australians credit for “achieving” and negotiate properly. Put Australia first eh?’

    God I’m sick of this rubbish dominating our country. This go along to get along crap has to stop! We’re wasting so much of our time and resources satisfying a fantasy construct which has just as many changing goal posts as critical race theory. We’ve bent over to the brainwashed trashmedia which is parroting drivel with rules designed by our trade competitors. We have been excelling at producing food for what was the humanitarian disaster of 3rd world starvation – which is still there by the way! We have excelled at increasing our skilled immigration and taking refugees as our society boomed and added wealth – with many more who are still in camps and need by the way! Now our competitors – and customers – want us to put more self imposed handbrakes on our economic development to ensure we don’t get ahead of ourselves.
    No surprise the Marxist EU and communist Chinese Party are leading that with a weak kneed and sycophantic UN doing what they do best – make up convoluted bureaucratic hoops to jump thru.
    Australia – while we have a conservative government with some remaining pretences to freedom of economic determination needs to shore up our society. We can’t continue to feed the 3rd world through foodstuffs or financial aid, nor accept more immigrants if we don’t first secure our water and energy.
    We have to be smarter and start talking tougher. Australia has never been an arrogant nation and our next quarter of a century can reflect that, by building on the last 25 years of prosperity with a declaration to the world that we have met every global village obligation, but right now need to use our own resources and technology to rebuild from the latest of this continents regular years of drought.
    We need our federal government to start infrastructure projects which have visionary water storage which can be distributed over vast distances to supplement low rainfall years. We need to do this by stop feeling guilty that we have coal and uranium. The world looks at our continent with envy, despite it’s harsh environment. We have to unapologetically use those resources – just as Russia, Venezuela, Canada do to continue to drive our economy.
    There’s nothing surer that eventually the marxists in the EU and UN will come knocking again and demand we take refugees and feed the 3rd world ‘ victims of climate change ‘, at which time we can either say; sure we’re in a position to increase our population by another 50% in the next 25 years. Or – if the current short sighted hoop jumping continues – not possible, we don’t have the arable land, nor infrastructure to support that growth!
    Grow up Australia, determination our own future starts with the same mindset of the expansion of two hundred years ago, use the available assets of the continent to best advantage while providing the freedom of movement and thought integral to developing innovators who can secure the future for current and future Australians.

    220

    • #
      el gordo

      The Morrison government is doing fine and infrastructure spending will probably be mooted in the next Budget.

      To drought proof western NSW and QLD we need to get water from Papua New Guinea or Lake Argyle (WA), which do you think more likely?

      27

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        If there was some way to harvest water from water spouts over the oceans, that would be ideal.

        The salt would naturally fall to the bottom of the spout leaving the top two thirds drinkable.

        40

  • #
    Alice Thermopolis

    Richie Merzian, the Climate & Energy Program Director at The Australia Institute, is another journalist “dumbfounded” by the per capita numbers.

    From his post today in The New Daily:

    “When it came time to talk numbers, Morrison’s claim that we have reduced emissions by 19 per cent broadly and 36 per cent excluding exports, had me and many others dumfounded. Where did these numbers come from? What dodgy accounting tricks were at play? Turns out 19 per cent is cherry-picked from the middle of the pandemic and the 36 per cent number is just off the reservation. The PM is reinventing UN accounting rules, asking the world to forget about the rising emissions from the production of gas and coal we export!”

    50

    • #
      Dennis

      Australia is not responsible for emissions from fossil fuels exported to foreign countries where they are used.

      Per capita is a commonly used comparison, for example, resettlement of genuine refugees sent via UN HCR Refugee Camps in accordance with arrangements with participating countries, being a small minority of UN member nations. Australia ranks third per capita, US is first and Canada second, Norway is fourth. In other words number of refugees resettled compared to population of host country.

      50

      • #
        Dennis

        By the way, another example of the woke and not very well informed media is the difference between revenue and profit.

        Time and time again media leftists try to claim that businesses are not paying enough company tax, they base that on revenue published and tax paid on taxable income. In other words businesses have legal tax deductions of expenses incurred in earning revenue to achieve taxable profit. The media leftists seem to be blissfully unaware that revenue is total income and then operating costs are deducted.

        60

    • #
      another ian

      Alice

      What is his track record on other numbers?

      00

  • #

    […] Carbon emission propaganda comes unstuck downunder. By Joanne Nova. Australia’s population has been growing much faster than other western countries for the last few decades, so the usual comparisons of total emissions are unfair to Australia. Turns out Australia is a world leader in carbon emission measured per capita, falling by 55% since 1990: […]

    30

  • #

    Most of us remember learning about the “Carbon Cycle” while attending secondary school. So if we take a look at Google Earth you can see that almost the entire continent is covered with some form of plant life. (Even more during the winter months when crops are planted ). I would like to think that all this greenery would be constantly using all, or a very large part of Australia’s Co2 emissions therefore rendering Australia as “Carbon Neutral ” no questions asked. Why isn’t this line of thought get promoted?

    40

  • #
    Philip

    Excellent article. Hats off.

    20

  • #
    Phil O'Sophical

    Squabbling over emissions – who’s does the most, who the least, who is virtuous who isn’t, what the targets should be, ad infinitum – is all just misdirection. Keeping everyone focussed away from the real issue.

    The debate – well there is nothing to debate, the science is settled; there is no dangerous warming and man cannot affect it if there were – should be about the unholy alliance of agendas of those perpetuating the fraud and how to puncture their balloon.

    100

  • #
    Ian Hill

    I know I’ve done my bit. When running, my speed is only half as good as it was in 1990, and assuming I still exhale CO2 at the same rate, 46% looks right!

    PS: Jo please change “weekly” to “weakly” if not already advised. I won’t mention the stray apostrophe!

    30

  • #
    CHRIS

    John Kerry and Al Gore = Dumb and Dumber. The total ignorance of these two God-Complex idiots would be astounding, if it were not for the fact that they are failed politicians. These intellectually challenged dumba$$e$ (just like our own Tom Foolery sand others) believe that, before the Industrial Revolution, there was no CO2 in the atmosphere (well, boyos, there happened to be about 270ppm). Just like Simon B, I’m sick and tired of trying to argue with ignorant trash (eg: St Greta of Thunberg and my brother) about CAGW. I’m 68 years old…I am really hoping that I live for at least another 20 years, in order to see just what the world is doing WRT to CAGW in 2040, which I think will be more like CAGC (ie: cooling). The current cycle of GW is over…looking forward to about 300 years of cooling, and perhaps another LIA, no matter how much CO2 is floating around.

    40

  • #
    another ian

    “Biden And Kerry Get Humiliated On Earth Day, But Are Too Dumb To Realize It”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/24/biden-and-kerry-get-humiliated-on-earth-day-but-are-too-dumb-to-realize-it/

    20