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

We’ll spend $120 b because a foreign unaccountable committee says so, but we won’t spend 0.1% of that checking their science

By Joanne Nova

Scott Morrison will spend $120 billion of our money on technology  because it might solve a problem that a foreign unelected, unaudited committee says we need to solve. So we’ll spent $120 billion on a plan to change the weather on Planet Earth. But we won’t spend one thousandth of that to independently check what the committee says. Almost all the climate scientists who support the IPCC decision are ones whose income increases if they find a crisis.

All the people finding flaws are volunteers, or about-to-be volunteers involuntarily.

Scott Morrison’s $120bn new-tech plunge to hit net zero

The Australian

Scott Morrison has unveiled a “middle path” for Australia to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 which promises dramatic carbon reductions across the electricity and transport sectors and a massive investment of up to $120bn for emerging technologies to help achieve the Glasgow target.

The Prime Minister on Tuesday announced the government’s 126-page plan, promising it would not cause massive job losses and disruption to the regions and that Australians would be better off by $2000 on average by 2050 compared to taking no action.

Make no mistake, no Australian scientist is paid by the government to find holes or errors in the IPCC report

No university gets funding that depends on their success in making better climate predictions with space weather or solar factors and without CO2. No government funded research aims to find out if natural forces are more important than carbon dioxide. No team is offered two week foreign junkets 26 years in a row if they show that CO2 is largely beneficial and irrelevant and the IPCC is a one-sided propaganda tool of President Xi.

The ABC and the Nobel Prize committee are not interviewing people who question the IPCC’s conclusions unless they look like freaks with links to the Klan.

If a hapless researcher finds potential fraud in environmental science, they’re more likely to end up in the High Court themselves than on the 7:30 Report. Ask Peter Ridd whether he got rewarded for finding flaws in the same kind of “reef science” that the IPCC declares is expert research.

Related posts

10 out of 10 based on 105 ratings

138 comments to We’ll spend $120 b because a foreign unaccountable committee says so, but we won’t spend 0.1% of that checking their science

  • #
    John Watt

    In the past few days have sent Scomo,Taylor and our ABC copies of Dr John Nicol’s analysis of CO2’s impact on climate. Included comments about the influence of wokies,Greenies and Greenies on the attitudes of voters.Probably a pointless exercise but at some point reality as described by Nicol’s physics reasoning has to become obvious even to those deluded by IPCC’s mathematical modelling mythology.

    590

  • #
    Jojodogfacedboy

    Sea-level rise is water displacement. Rocks falling into the ocean doesn’t fit the climate emergency narrative nor does new volcanic rock dispersement fill that agenda as well…

    The science is settled and climate change can only be ‘man-made’ the cause by our stressed out media.

    270

  • #
    David Maddison

    Apart from those non-Leftists present on this blog, who is going to fight this insanity?

    -The media don’t ask questions and support it.

    -Academics either support it or are too terrified to speak out and are sacked if they do.

    -Scientists in government research and other organisations also support it or are too terrified to speak out and are sacked if they do.

    -Most regular people are either uninformed, brainwashed, stupid or are apathetic and don’t care.

    -Most politicians are also uninformed.

    -There is a lot of money to be made by Big Green and the socialist billionaires so the lies will keep getting told.

    760

    • #
      Ian

      still the same

      325

    • #
    • #
      Simon

      I know a lot of environmental scientists and without exception they agree that anthropogenic global warming is happening because they see the impacts in their chronological data. Most are highly concerned by what they see and are vocal about the dangers. Very few of them are “Leftist”.

      370

      • #
        clarence.t

        What data would that be. ?

        Start with data proving that human CO2 causes warming

        You can even phone one of your “friends” 😉

        We are waiting… don’t fail yet again. !

        “Environmental” scientists are brain-washed with the AGW mantra..

        … if they don’t “believe” or at least say they “believe” they don’t pass.

        And yes, they are nearly all leftists. Greens voters.. Ask if any voted for Tony Abbott.

        510

        • #
          MarkMcD

          let’s not forget, those ‘scientists’ get their data AFTER it has been modified, manipulated and adjusted to hide the fact it doesn’t support the church of AGW’s agenda.

          That’s the reason the devotees always come up with the, “so you’re saying hundreds of thousands of scientists are in on the scam” garbage. It doesn’t take hundreds of thousands, just that little group who get the data FIRST!

          The exact same thing happens with peer review – the priests control who & what gets published and then proclaim “everybody agrees” as if their conniving and corruption is evidence of anything more than the power of greed.

          350

      • #
        David Maddison

        Simon,

        -science is not about what “a lot” think.

        -I bet all your friends work for the government and their careers depend on them having a particular political viewpoint about supposed warming.

        -What observations have they made which are are attributable to supposed warming and are such observations genuine and repeatable? Every time someone makes a claim such as the reef is dying, that the dams will never fill or agriculture is failing, it turns out not to be true.

        -Before the Enlightenment people believed the earth never changed then during the Scientific Revolution people discovered that wasn’t true. Now the Leftist ideologues are returning us to pre-Enlightenment values and think that any changes in anything are unnatural. The earth probably is changing and it is probably getting cooler, you need to deal with it.

        450

        • #
          Richard+C+(NZ)

          >”What observations have they [“environmental scientists”] made which are are attributable to supposed warming and are such observations genuine and repeatable?”

          And what is their attribution methodology for a local phenomenon which, apparently, can only be human cause via CO2 emissions and cannot possibly be naturally caused?

          Also, are said CO2 emissions attributable to New Zealand say (given Simon’s locality), or China and elsewhere?

          In other words, does the above CO2-based attribution apply local CO2 emissions to “the impacts in their [local] chronological data”?

          If so how so?

          If their attribution includes China, being by far the major global emitter, then if China is unmoved to make “drastic reductions” (see Simon downthread) to greenhouse gas emissions, there is nothing at all New Zealand or even Australia can do to “keep temperature at habitable levels” (Simon again), even if that were possible.

          I don’t think Simon’s “environmental scientists” have thought this through.

          60

      • #
        Broadie

        Let the world see these ‘impacts in their chronological data’.

        Here are our favorite scientists discussing the sharing of their data and revealed in the Guardian of all places! And again.

        From: Phil Jones
        To: “Michael E. Mann”
        Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
        Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
        Mike,
        … I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
        Cheers
        Phil

        Quite ‘simple Simon’, if you read these emails and will not provide support links to such data, than for support of for your statement ‘you do not have any’!

        420

        • #

          Meanwhile, they’re more than happy to include un-reviewed papers and pal reviewed papers that support their position. For example, the Schlesinger paper on feedback that attempted to correct Hansen’s broken feedback paper by introducing even more errors was snuck in to the literature, without any real review, as an Appendix to a collection of papers published in a DOE report. It was referenced in AR1 along with Hansen’s feedback paper to ‘correct’ Hansen’s obvious error that would have easily been caught by anyone familiar with Bode and undermine the ability to claim that massive amplification of the sensitivity from positive feedback provides the theoretical possibility of an effect from CO2 large enough to justify the formation of the IPCC. The Schlesinger paper was later published in a collection of papers edited by Schlesinger himself and contributed to by the same authors who edited the DOE report. His work wasn’t actually reviewed until Roe cloned it in 2009 which only got past peer review because it referenced the Schlesinger paper, errors and all, under the false assumption that it had already been adequately reviewed.

          120

      • #
        clarence.t

        I wonder just how long those “environmental scientists” would have a job if they even let out a hint that they didn’t “believe”.

        “Belief” is part of the job title. !

        280

      • #
        Geoffrey+Williams

        Simon give us one example of those environmental scientists that you know, just one.
        No personal details required.
        Include one piece of ‘chronological data’ and explain in simple terms their concerns.
        Otherwise belt up . .
        GeoffW

        290

      • #

        Simon,

        Just about every environmental scientist I know is a leftist, at least the ones who think CO2 is a powerful control knob on the climate. You have to be real gullible, especially if you have any scientific training, to buy in to the physics defying garbage the IPCC calls science and deny the truth.

        This particular truth is that the climate changes, has always changed, will continue to change and there’s nothing we can do about it, especially by obsessing about a trace atmospheric gas that the ice cores tell us its natural concentration responds to temperature changes and is not the cause of those changes.

        Other things that the ice cores tell us is that the RMS trends in 50+ year averages is about the same as the change in short term averages that you seem so concerned about. They also tell us that these historic trends generally last for centuries. They also tell us that ice is in no danger of disappearing, as the record shows 1000’s of consecutive years of climate that was at least 3C warmer than today, with far lower CO2 levels I might add, and of course, the ice is still here to tell us.

        So, what exactly is it about the recent cronological data that you find so concerning? Is it you opinion that the climate isn’t supposed to change?

        370

      • #
        Ronin

        “I know a lot of environmental scientists and without exception they agree that anthropogenic global warming is happening.”

        Of course they agree, it’s a club and we ain’t in it.

        220

      • #
        Bozotheclown

        Very few of them are “Leftist”.

        Whether they share it with you or not: YOU FOR CERTAIN ARE IN DENIAL!

        You only need to actually look at the proposed “solutions” to see.

        60

      • #
        Doc

        I hope they are better than the last reference you gave out of New Zealand that was said to prove CO2 rises at the same time as average global temperatures. The sleight of hand was, the graphs accomodated very long time periods which appeared to have CO2 rising in sync with rising av. atmospheric global temperatures. The centuries separating the two events, placing CO2 rises post temperature rises are buried in the time scales.

        Why do activist journalists like the one that produced that document have to actively manipulate the basis of their argument against those that disagree with them, to ‘prove’ their point? It’s always been the same, right from the East Anglia Uni email scandal right at the start, and the abuse of process with the tree ring scandal. The biggest run away from their opponents came when they couldn’t win a debate against their peers (in the days long ago when they actually tried to debate their theory). The next thing we were told we had to believe to cover their tails was,
        ‘the science is in’. Even then that had a falsehood applied using the 98% or whatever scientists considered their theory was real. That little gem lasted a couple of days until its basis was pulled apart and showed it was a scam, but a useful one that keeps getting brought up in defence of the indefensible.

        60

      • #
        el+gordo

        ‘Very few of them are “Leftist”.

        Not the working class left, but definitely green.

        40

      • #
        Simon

        Once again, I’ve got a full house in climate change denial bingo. Rebuttals can be found here, not that you will ever read them. https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
        Most scientists I have met exhibit very high integrity and do not take kindly to authorities telling them what to say or think. An enquiring mind is always prepared to change opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence. That does admittedly become more difficult as you get older, which is why the contrarian 0.5% tend to be ’emeritus’.

        015

        • #
          clarence.t

          Once again we have a link to a site with zero scientific proof, just rhetoric.

          “An enquiring mind is always prepared to change opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence”

          We are still waiting for even a tiny bit of actual evidence.!!

          Please point us to the particular page at the comic’s SKS site which proves, scientifically, that CO2 causes warming.

          Until that, you have absolutely nothing.

          “climate change denial”
          ????

          Whatever you think that is, there is none of that here, except from you.

          What do we “deny” that you can prove actual scientific proof for.

          We are still waiting !

          And there goes that plaintive plea to “consensus” yet again.

          If you don’t know what actual science it, just say so. !

          80

        • #
          clarence.t

          1. Climate has changed before..

          and 2: Its the sun.. Yes it most certainly is.

          Solar energy and cloud changes are by far the main current driver of climate.

          https://i.postimg.cc/mDDNXwGS/cloud.jpg

          https://i.postimg.cc/FFDD8LWc/Solar_Proxy_paleo_BE.jpg

          3. Warmer climates have always been times of human progress and prosperity. It the cold periods where human life becomes difficult and dangerous.

          4. Consensus.. blah…. irrelevant to science.

          5. It’s cooling.. Has been since the peak of the 2015 El nino.
          Current temperature are far cooler than nearly all the last 10,000 years.

          6. Models.. are a total joke against reality… https://i.postimg.cc/662fhTJB/Christy-JR-20210121-v2-CMIP6-models-UAH-2021.jpg

          7. Surface temperature is absolutely unreliable, sparse, urban effected, tiny surface coverage that has to be smeared over large areas, where are UAH covers nearly all the planet’s surface in an even predictable grid pattern.. magnitudes more reliable..

          8. Animals have always adapted, they survived right through the Holocene optimum, which was far warmer than now.

          9. The only warming, eve on land has come from the two solar driven El Ninos. Basically zero trend otherwise, absolutely no CO2 warmin signal

          https://i.postimg.cc/brjZmpSZ/UAH_World_Land_zero.jpg

          10. Antarctic is gaining ice.. Yes, it is.. Recent studies show the Antarctic cooling for well over a century, and gaining ice.

          So, first 10 points are shown to be absolutely wrong.

          SKS is a joke site, run by scientific non-entities.

          80

          • #
            Simon

            Reference peer-reviewed scientific literature in reputable journals please, not images surrounded by spam and ads.

            013

            • #
              clarence.t

              So, again totally unable to provide a single precise link.

              Every one of those images is from actual real data or from a peer-reviewed paper.

              I know you hate real data, can’t be helped though.

              You still have produced absolutely nothing of any scientific consequence whatsoever.

              70

            • #
              Richard+C+(NZ)

              Simon >”Reference peer-reviewed scientific literature in reputable journals please”

              Sure.

              Trofim Lysenko’s “scientific literature” was peer reviewed. He was Director of the Soviet Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences, an institution via which he implemented his theories:

              ‘The Disgraceful Episode Of Lysenkoism Brings Us Global Warming Theory’

              Under Stain and Lysenko 10s of millions of Soviets died as a result. Mao Zedong adopted his methods starting in 1958, with calamitous results, culminating in the Great Chinese Famine of 1959 to 1962, in which some 15 million people died.

              That’s what happens when there is no dissent allowed of faulty science and insane policies.

              “Lysenko was consequently embraced and lionized by the Soviet media propaganda machine. Scientists who promoted Lysenkoism with faked data and destroyed counterevidence were favored with government funding and official recognition and award. Lysenko and his followers and media acolytes responded to critics by impugning their motives, and denouncing them as bourgeois fascists resisting the advance of the new modern Marxism.”

              Almost the model for the “climate change” movement.

              A headlong gung-ho rush into “net zero” based on an unproven theory – the models of which are obviously invalid against observations (and literature to prove it) – is inviting economic collapse the consequences of which on top of covid are unthinkable.

              40

              • #
                Richard+C+(NZ)

                Simon >”Reference peer-reviewed scientific literature in reputable journals please”

                Me >”“net zero” based on an unproven theory – the models of which are obviously invalid against observations (and literature to prove it)

                Scientific literature here:

                https://joannenova.com.au/2021/10/monday-open-thread/#comment-2483898

                And so we go round and round….this literature referenced will never be addressed by Simon – that’s his MO.

                10

              • #
                Richard+C+(NZ)

                At the bottom of the link to scientific literature previous there is a link to a quote from the IPCC’s 6th Assessment report in respect to models:

                https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2021/09/22/ipcc-ar6-tropical-troposphere-warm-bias-unspun-edition/

                Synopsis:

                IPCC AR6 Chapter 3 Section 3.3.1.2.

                “In summary, studies continue to find that CMIP5 and CMIP6 model simulations warm more than observations in the tropical mid- and upper-troposphere over the 1979-2014 period (—), and that overestimated surface warming is partially responsible (—). Some studies point to forcing errors in the CMIP5 simulations in the early 21st century as a possible contributor (—), but CMIP6 simulations use updated forcing estimates yet generally still warm more than observations

                # # #

                So a warm bias in CO2-forced models 1979-2014.

                Except, as Ross McKitrick points out in the article linked above the literature previous :

                “we [Mitchell et al. 2020] note here for the record that from 1998 to 2014, the CMIP5 models warm, on average 4 to 5 times faster than the observations, and in one model the warming is 10 times larger than the observations.”

                And,

                we see no improvement between the CMIP5 and the CMIP6 models.” (Mitchell et al. 2020)”

                This disparity between models and observations is just getting wider and wider and the theory of CO2 forcing weaker and weaker to the point of invalidity.

                10

              • #
                Richard+C+(NZ)

                Simon >”Reference peer-reviewed scientific literature in reputable journals please”

                Mitchell et al. 2020 findings:

                “we find considerable warming biases in the CMIP6 modeled trends, and we show that these biases are linked to biases in surface temperature (these models simulate an unrealistically large global warming).”

                “we note here for the record that from 1998 to 2014, the CMIP5 models warm, on average 4 to 5 times faster than the observations, and in one model the warming is 10 times larger than the observations.”

                “Throughout the depth of the troposphere, not a single model realization overlaps all the observational estimates. However, there is some overlap between the RICH observations and the lowermost modelled trend, which corresponds to the NorCPM1 model.”

                “Focusing on the CMIP6 models, we have confirmed the original findings of Mitchell et al. (2013): first, the modeled tropospheric trends are biased warm throughout the troposphere (and notably in the upper troposphere, around 200 hPa) and, second, that these biases can be linked to biases in surface warming. As such, we see no improvement between the CMIP5 and the CMIP6 models.”

                ‘The vertical profile of recent tropical temperature trends: Persistent model biases in the context of internal variability’
                Dann M Mitchell1, Y T Eunice Lo1, William J M Seviour1,2, Leopold Haimberger3 and Lorenzo M Polvani4

                Published 13 October 2020 • © 2020 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd
                Environmental Research Letters, Volume 15, Number 10
                https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9af7

                00

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              “not images surrounded by spads”.

              00

        • #
          clarence.t

          And 11.. 1970s ice age scare..

          [SNIP if I let you say that I have to let them say that. -J]

          The reality and truth are here for all to see.

          https://realclimatescience.com/1970s-global-cooling-scare/

          20

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          Multiple strands of morality and multiple full houses.
          Hilarious.

          10

        • #
          el+gordo

          ‘Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.’

          They say the Anthropocene began in 1950 with nuclear weapons testing.

          Further down that Skeptical Science list there is an admission by John Russell, ‘In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend.’

          Must have been caused by sulphates and particulate matter.

          10

        • #
          Richard+C+(NZ)

          Simon >”Rebuttals can be found here, not that you will ever read them. https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

          I’ve read this:

          6 “Models are unreliable”

          SKS – Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.
          https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

          Out of date and incorrect.

          At the following comment thread header and downthread is up to date scientific literature and IPCC quotations that demonstrate unequivocally that SKS is dead wrong re “in the air”:

          https://joannenova.com.au/2021/10/well-spend-120-b-because-a-foreign-unaccountable-committee-says-so-but-we-wont-spend-0-1-of-that-checking-their-science/#comment-2485473

          00

      • #
        Ross

        Simon just loves to get into this blog, chuck in a hand grenade type statement and then watch the fun. People shouldn’t take the bait.

        53

        • #
          clarence.t

          We should not let his anti-science nonsense pass through without correction… that is for sure.

          50

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            That’s the point.
            It’s been made before but management sees them as token Trolls so they just clog the blog and mess up sensible conversations.

            The fact that their science education has consisted of visits to SkepticalSkience is just adding insult to injury.

            While I suspect that only one reader in a thousand might be taken in by their “contributions” I still feel obliged to “mark” them in some way so that innocent readers won’t step in the pile of steaming Verbalism.

            40

      • #
        peter

        Simon,
        More than 25 years ago I considered doing a post-grad Masters course degree in Environmental Studies. On investigation I found the MEnvStud degree contained no science at all in the course work, none at all! Students just went out looking at Aboriginal middens and the like. So I declined to do it. Big mistake! Since now I have no credibility to talk about environmental issues, apparently. Bachelor of Environmental Science degrees around Australia routinely contain NO physics, chemistry or mathematics in the course subjects. How do you have a science degree without any science subjects? Explain that Simon? Where do those graduates get work? Oh, as climate scientists, of course.

        10

  • #
    Deano

    The moment Australia’s plan was announced and that it would meet or exceed the targets set by the ‘Glasgow Target’, it was attacked for being too little, too late. Activist ‘environmentalists’ change their demands to ensure business and industry can’t win. But that aspect of their behavior doesn’t really annoy me as I expect that from them. I’m angry that we’re wrecking 250 years of blood, sweat, toil and tears by listening to these utter hypocrites.

    That feels better….

    370

    • #
      David Maddison

      The hypocrisy of the Left is staggering. There is even private jet parking at COP26.

      https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/19631775.park-private-jet-according-glasgow-cop26-guide/

      Where to park your private jet, according to Glasgow COP26 guide

      TWO airports that cater to private jets are listed on a COP26 guide for participants arriving in the UK. 

      The United Nations Climate Change Conference will be held in Glasgow between October 31 and November 12.

      And in a guide for participants, which will include more than 100 world leaders, a list of airports in which they should fly into has been set out. 

      This includes Farnborough Airport and Biggin Hill Airport, both in England, which cater exclusively to private jets.

      SEE LINK FOR REST

      250

      • #

        You would think that the kind of eco-terrorists that would justify spiking trees and sabotaging pipelines, some of whom are likely also at COP, would find it a righteous cause to sneak into the private plane parking lots and write graffiti on the planes that says ‘Net Zero????’. Of course, they probably don’t want to upset their deities for fear of cancellation ..

        140

  • #
    Ian

    “The media don’t ask questions and support it.”

    Interestingly News Corp that has opposed emissions reduction for decades has now done a volte face and supports Morrison’s push for zero emissions as has Peter Dutton another long term opponent of reducing emissions. Why is this do you think?

    “:Academics either support it or are too terrified to speak out and are sacked if they do”

    If you are referring to Peter Ridd he was sacked for breaching JCU’s code of conduct not for speaking out on the GBR

    “Most regular people are either uninformed, brainwashed, stupid or are apathetic and don’t care.”

    A very patronising and inaccurate assessment of “Most regular people”, whatever that may mean, many of whom may well comment here

    “Most politicians are also uninformed.”

    What a pompous and an uninformed statement. Politicians have been grappling with emissions reduction for over 30 years and even Tony Abbott the arch opponent of emissions reduction said 2019 Australia should stay in the Paris Agreement.

    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/tony-abbott-debates-zali-steggall-ahead-of-warringah-federal-battle/news-story/a143ec9d8726f2e0fbe55be0cf1d9bc5

    147

    • #

      Ian, good try but JCU sacked Ridd before they had even put together a committee to investigate potential fraud.

      So some “codes of conduct” matter. Faking photographs is fine it appears if you’re bringing in more money to the Admin.
      Ridd was sacked because he spoke the truth about the reef and the institutions that pretend to be “experts” on it.

      I bet JCU spent more money defending their right to sack Ridd than they ever spent investigating fraud.

      700

      • #
        Simon

        Ridd argues that global warming is not yet affecting the Great Barrier Reef, not that the warming is not occurring.
        We have had decades to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but they continue to increase. The longer we delay, the more drastic the reductions have to be keep temperature at habitable levels.

        053

        • #
          William Astley

          In reply to the: “The longer we delay” William: Implementing a plan, that cannot work. The zero emissions plans fail when the magic battery is required or if so someone calculates the energy to build and install the green stuff and to replace the green stuff when it wears out. A plan that cannot work is not a plan. We should save the money and install high temperature, high efficiency new coal fired power plants, same as China is doing now.

          The zero CO2 emissions ‘plan’ will kill our economies (see Germany and the UK who are trail blazers) and will not get our country to zero emissions). ‘Delaying’ will give time to show the green scams could never work and will give time for the climate to cool.

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-google-engineers-say-renewable-energy-simply-wont-work/
          The key problem appears to be that the cost of manufacturing the components of the renewable power facilities is far too close to the total recoverable energy – the facilities never, or just barely, produce enough energy to balance the budget of what was consumed in their construction. This leads to a runaway cycle of constructing more and more renewable plants simply to produce the energy required to manufacture and maintain renewable energy plants – an obvious practical absurdity.

          This Green stuff is just a scam which only benefits China. China is continuing to burn coal and has the cheapest energy in the world and is going to continue burning coal as our countries go b bankrupt. Germany on the other hand had most expensive electricity in the world which explains why the ‘Green’ jobs are going to China.

          The green scams do not work regardless of the amount of money spent. They just make electricity very expensive. The ‘green’ plan(s) will bankrupt our countries installing green scams that can never get a country to zero CO2 emissions.

          Green Jobs Collapse in Germany and Go to China Instead. What a Surprise!

          https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2021/02/09/delingpole-green-jobs-collapse-in-germany-and-go-to-china-instead-what-a-surprise/

          https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/01/business/germany-inflation-eurozone/index.html

          German inflation hits 29-year high as energy costs spike across Europe

          China generated over half world’s coal-fired power in 2020: study
          https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-china-coal/china-generated-over-half-worlds-coal-fired-power-in-2020-study-idUSKBN2BK0PZ

          ● Chinaʼs coal fleet grew by net 29.8 GW in 2020, while in the rest of the world net capacity decreased by 17.2 GW.

          ● China initiated 73.5 GW of new coal plant proposals in 2020, over five times the 13.9 GW initiated in the rest of the world combined.

          ● Chinese provinces granted construction approval to 36.9 GW of coal power projects in 2020, over three times the capacity permitted in 2019 (11.4 GW).

          ● China now has 247 GW of coal power under development (88.1 GW under construction and 158.7 GW proposed for construction) – a 21% increase over end-2019 (205 GW), and nearly six times Germanyʼs entire coal-fired capacity (42.5 GW).

          310

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          As William points out so strongly, the CAGW concepts you are defending and the green energy solutions proposed and instituted, are Wrong at every level.

          The reality of green energy is that it is completely contradictory to all claims made for it .

          280

        • #
          clarence.t

          Did you know that there is more coral on the GBR than for any time in your life time ?

          “The longer we delay, the more drastic the reductions have to be keep temperature at habitable levels.”

          What a baseless statement, unbacked by any science whatsoever.

          We are entering a cooling phase, nothing we do will have any effect on the global climate, especially none of this Net Zero nonsense.

          [snip – LVA]

          211

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          Simon says;

          “I know a lot of environmental scientists and without exception”.

          Yes, and without exception they see large sums of government money entering their bank accounts and this very fact Connfirms that climate change and death by incineration due to human origin CO2 in the atmosphere is absolutely and terrifyingly real.

          That’s about the limit of their scientific skills.

          There’s No operant mechanism by which CO2 picking up PW-IR from ground level can later store heat and bombard the earth from “up there” with dangerous “photons”.

          To further seal the science, even if CO2 was capable of this fantasy, there’s a crushing counter; atmospheric CO2 in quantitative terms is a complete irrelevance in the system.

          If that isn’t enough then the fact that human origin CO2 in the atmosphere is only 4% or so of all atmospheric CO2.

          We are a p 🙂 ddling irrelevance.

          If the propagation of this “story” isn’t Evil then I don’t know what is.

          221

        • #
          el+gordo

          ‘The longer we delay, the more drastic the reductions have to be to keep temperature at habitable levels.’

          If carbon dioxide caused atmospheric warming then you would be on the money, but it doesn’t. Why am I still freezing in late Spring?

          150

        • #
          clarence.t

          “to be keep temperature at habitable levels.”

          Temperatures have been far higher than now even in the last 10,000 years.

          During that period humans grew and advanced, the warmth and carbon based fuels allowed that to happen.

          The two colder period, the Dark Ages and the LIA, were times of much human suffering and illness.

          The vast majority of humans choose to live in warmer climates because cold kills !

          “to be keep temperature at habitable levels.”

          This whole statement is one based on an incredible ignorance of human history.

          141

        • #
          Ronin

          “The longer we delay.”
          The more we will see what a crock it is.

          100

        • #
          el+gordo

          ‘ … to keep temperature at habitable levels.’

          Over the past 200,000 years homo sapiens have avoided extinction because of our brains, nevertheless it was a close run thing.

          World temperature is determined by natural oceanic oscillations and has nothing to do with an increase in CO2.

          71

        • #
          Richard+C+(NZ)

          Simon >”We have had decades to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but they continue to increase. The longer we delay, the more drastic the reductions have to be keep temperature at habitable levels.”

          Tell that to China.

          Or talk to the hand.

          31

        • #
          Doc

          Simon, if you can’t prove your thesis on any AGW being due to CO2 increases, then why on earth would any sane person destroy their lifestyle and economies, export industries and jobs to a nation that just does the same thing cheaper, but dirtier, and puts out more of your evil CO2 in the process, due to its energy source, than you would doing the same thing. Worse, the nation you send you economy to, tells you to take a leap and disappear because it fully intends to continue doing what it does without your interference, forever, while it already puts out a third of the worlds annual output of your poison.

          India, China and Russia laugh at the hypocrisy. The true believers actually encourage the increased industrial activity of their worst polluters by trying to force the Democracies to shed those same activities which the Democracies do cleaner – by this theory.

          Finally, it pays always to remember, all this climate nonsense is based on the ‘just-in-case’ argument, that it is cheaper to destroy ones self now than to wait and do it later if eventually the case can be proven. This is the reason ‘climate scientists’ come out each year claiming they are ‘increasing of the opinion that CO2 is causing warming of the planet’. This is itself a declaration that the science is not ‘IN’!

          One finds the greens setting the stage for the peoples of the Democracies to expect to become much poorer – almost saying who do we think we are being so demanding of protecting our lifestyles. Sackcloth and ashes, mate!
          This is a declaration the greens cannot (don’t aim to) preserve our way of life and hate us for being so demanding.

          50

        • #
          Philip

          oh good grief. Why do you bother? It’s everyday bro.

          10

      • #
        Ian

        Jo I responded to your comment about 8 hours ago but, as so often happens, after being shown, when I re-opened after closing down it had vanished. I am going to see if I can get it back with this post.

        213

      • #
        MarkMcD

        Ian, good try but JCU sacked Ridd before they had even put together a committee to investigate potential fraud.

        😀 Beat me to it! Although you are more polite than I was going to be. 😀

        90

    • #
      el+gordo

      “Most regular people are either uninformed, brainwashed, stupid or are apathetic and don’t care.”

      Its a perfectly rational hypothesis on the cause of mass delusion. Everyone I know thinks like you, they have been brainwashed and need to be properly informed.

      70

      • #
        el+gordo

        Don’t take it personally, its a universal problem.

        Now that you are back, I see a regular person with a lack of intellectual curiosity.

        60

      • #
        Bruce

        Thought for the epoch:

        “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”

        Charles MacKay, “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”

        30

  • #
    David Maddison

    You can’t leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution.

    I.e. the same people who created the anthropogenic global warming fraud are now creating a “solution” to a non-existent problem.

    190

  • #
    Will

    Quote:”What a pompous and an uninformed statement. Politicians have been grappling with emissions reduction for over 30 years and even Tony Abbott the arch opponent of emissions reduction said 2019 Australia should stay in the Paris Agreement.”

    Yes, while your glows with sad, uninformed, leftist righteousness. All politicians are dependent upon the advice of “experts, such as those who conveniently blocked the use of hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin use for Cv19 when it was most needed. Scarcely one bureaucratic advisor in the west has had the courage to stop scaring politicians and to step out of line with the prevailing “consensus”, as they know the cost of telling the truth(which assumes 1) that they actually know it; & 2) that it does not conflict with their own political views). You totally miss the impact of such ensconced “experts” on policy.

    270

    • #
      Dennis

      When he was PM Tony Abbot said that IPCC climate modelling data was “cra*” but acknowledged that climate change is natural.

      His advice to stick with the now signed and ratified (unnecessarily ratified by the Turnbull Government) Paris Agreement was based on the politics and that having exceeded the Kyoto Agreement greenhouse gas emissions target Australia is well on track to meet or exceed Paris targets. And therefore for political reasons why rock the IPCC boat rather than proceed and once again become one of the very few signatory nations that have lowered emissions.

      His sound advice is now better understood as the IPCC attempts to bring forward the 2050 net zero emissions agenda before the Paris target date of 2030.

      30

  • #
    LloydW

    I once did an experiment and gave a close friend chapter and verse about the scientific facts regarding atmospheric carbon dioxide. The response I got was “I don’t need your facts. Climate change is real.”

    This is what we climate realists are up against. When Jo says most regular people are either uniformed, brainwashed or apathetic she is 100% accurate.

    The widespread belief in AGW is exactly like religion. People who are otherwise unremarkable in intellect and achievement can display what they regard as their moral superiority by championing the global warming narrative and damning those who believe otherwise as environmental vandals. IMHO such folk lack perspective, critical thinking and basic common sense.

    300

    • #
      MarkMcD

      I once did an experiment and gave a close friend chapter and verse about the scientific facts regarding atmospheric carbon dioxide

      Do you still have that friend? I lost 2 because I did that over a few beers – one at least had the decency to tell me he didn’t want to talk to me any more because he didn’t like conspiracies; the other simply ghosted me online as I had moved away from that town.

      And that was a guy I had helped get out of a horrible domestic violence situation & find a new life!

      Integrity matters not at all to the rabid lefty. All they see if their belief and you damned well better believe exactly what they do or else!

      130

    • #
      Ronin

      “I don’t need your facts. Climate change is real.”

      It’s a fact free fallacy.

      70

  • #
    Ian

    Hopefully this reply won’t vanish as mine so often do. I can usually recover them however by posting another comment

    “JCU sacked Ridd before they had even put together a committee to investigate potential fraud.”

    Dr Ridd was sacked by James Cook University in 2018, over comments he made that were critical of his colleagues’ research on the Great Barrier Reef.
    The university said at the time that Dr Ridd had breached its code of conduct.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-23/peter-ridd-takes-unfair-dismissal-claim-to-high-court/100235258

    “Ridd was sacked because he spoke the truth about the reef and the institutions that pretend to be “experts” on it.”

    That is not correct. Below is what Janet Albrechtsen wrote ini The Australian on October 15

    “Let’s be very clear why Ridd lost his appeal this week. He did not lose on the intellectual freedom front. Instead, the court said Ridd was rightly censured and sacked for breach­ing confidentiality requirements, contained not just in the code of conduct but in Ridd’s EBA too. Clause 54.1.5 of the EBA binds all parties to respect the confidentiality of those involved in the management of misconduct and serious misconduct processes.

    In other words, Ridd’s right to intellectual freedom extends to criticising JCU decisions and processes but does not extend to breaching his obligations to respect the confidentiality of people involved in discip­linary processes.”

    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/decision-a-blow-for-ridd-buta-win-for-the-country/news-story/75d568d354dadb26941fc5bd4241c15d

    038

    • #
      Robert Austin

      We know Ridd was sacked for endangering the gravy train. The “code of conduct” was the back door used to punish the traitor.

      340

    • #
      clarence.t

      JCU accepts and condones scientific malfeasance and malpractice.

      No action was taken against that, only against the person who brought it to light.

      Academic integrity doesn’t seem to matter to those who support JCU’s actions.

      320

      • #
        Ian

        “Academic integrity doesn’t seem to matter to those who support JCU’s actions.

        Best tske it up with the High Court then as it unanimously supported Ridd’s dismissal

        015

      • #
        MarkMcD

        Academic integrity doesn’t seem to matter to those who support JCU’s actions.

        Correction: Academic integrity isn’t understood by those who support JCU’s actions.

        91

        • #
          Bruce

          They understand it alright, however, it is of more use to them as a political weapon than as a gatekeeper of academic rigor.

          Their acknowledgement of actual science is strictly “situational”.

          There appears to be a LOT of it about.

          Lysenko smiles.

          30

          • #
            clarence.t

            “it is of more use to them as a political weapon”

            So, the absolute opposite of scientific integrity. !

            30

  • #
    Phillip+Charles+Sweeney

    Morrison committed the worse example of appeasement since Neville Chamberlain returned from a meeting with Herr Hitler proclaiming “Peace in our time”

    At least Chamberlain had not done a deal with Hitler to supply German planes to the RAF!

    Morrison has done a deal with China to provide all the wind turbines and solar panels required for the Net Zero folly.

    China will control Australia’s energy supply – but we will still be sending coal to China!!!!

    Time to vote Labor-Lite out of office.

    240

    • #
      Tel

      Neville Chamberlain was perfectly correct in his actions. He was open and upfront about what the treaty entailed and it was necessary to negotiate some type of treaty at the time. Hitler had a choice to keep his word or break that treaty and he decided he wanted to break the treaty … Neville Chamberlain was the one who declared war a few days later after the invasion of Poland.

      No one ever explains what they think Chamberlain should have done instead of negotiating … should the British have made an unprovoked attack on Germany based on something that Hitler had not even done yet? How would history look if that had happened?

      105

      • #
        MarkMcD

        Yup! Bring in Hitler and the Nazis and show everyone you just declared your side has lost the debate.

        Godwin would be proud! 😀

        [I Don’t think that is at all what Tel has done. Are you for real or a bot?]ED

        15

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Anyway, at that time Germany had the better aeroplanes.
      The UK was relying on Gloster Gladiator biplane fighters (although the private enterprise Hurricane was entering service), and the ‘heavy’ bombers were the Fairy Hendon and the Handley Page Heyford both designed in 1932 (if looking at an image of the latter try not to succumb to hysterical laughter). The Navy were relying on the Blackburn Roc and the great Swordfish (even though the last was 100 m.p.h. slower than Jap and US equivalents).

      80

    • #
      MarkMcD

      I commented at the time they got rid of Turdball as an unpalatable pile of steaming… um… excrement. That he held out against Dutton just long enough to get ScuMo into the seat because that ensured at least some of Turdball’s policies would be enacted.

      It’s taken a while but here we are, back in the Paris BS, the rejection of which got Abbott removed from being PM. Remember when Monckton said months before the Abbott coup, that Abbott’s declaration against the Paris farce would get him removed?

      He was dead right and now ScuMo just cemented his place for a while.

      110

  • #
    Phillip+Charles+Sweeney

    Time to get a natural gas-powered home generator

    https://www.popularmechanics.com/home/a24797353/home-generator/

    The times of a reliable electricity grid will not last long with Labor or Labor-Lite (Liberals) in government sucking up to the corrupt United Nations

    70

  • #
    Phillip Sweeney

    No dissent now allowed in Australia

    #COVID19 “On Wednesday, it was revealed Ms Dean at Fair Work Australlia had also expressed support for a social media post that argued public-health measures implemented during the pandemic are akin to ‘Chinese-style totalitarian social control’.

    “In response to the LinkedIn post, which also suggested the world is on the brink of a catastrophe on par with the Holocaust, Ms Dean commented ‘I fully agree’.”

    Fair Work Commission deputy president who likened vaccine mandates to ‘medical apartheid’ is now on restricted duties

    170

  • #
    Phillip Sweeney

    Newcastle Thermal coal is currently trading at AUD $226 a tonne will it crack AUD $300 before the end of the northern hemisphere winter?

    I used to live in Newcastle and used to count all the ships waiting off Nobbies to pick up the coal

    150

    • #
      clarence.t

      Haven’t been to Newcastle foreshore for several years, but I thought they had got the coal flow situations pretty well organised, and there are rarely more than 2 or 3 ships in the queue.

      50

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Up until the last few days there have been up to fourteen ships off NovoCastria, but the last two days none or maybe one in close and another just over the horizon.
      It’s unusual.

      90

  • #
    DMA

    “No government funded research aims to find out if natural forces are more important than carbon dioxide”

    Turns out that CO2 is mostly natural as well and they won’t even acknowledge that.

    150

  • #
    truth

    This is the real….enabling scandal of this ‘moral challenge of our time’…the fact that such momentous changes are being made to how the whole world functions ..to sovereignty of countries …to whether countries have a future…or not…to democracy itself and threats to it …on the basis of faulty science that misjudges past temperatures via tree-ring dating that used too small a selection of trees that were unsuitable for that purpose anyway…the bristle-cone pines…and on an algorithm that produces hockey stick-shaped temperature graph no matter how diverse the input.

    The Left lies routinely…it comes with the Marxist ‘ends justifies the means’ philosophy/strategy…so the Left will concoct anything at all to achieve its ultimate ends ie world domination under Socialism…and on that measure this is the atrocity of the millennium.

    But the psychosis of the millennium is the idea that the world would actually click its heels ..come to attention and obey orders from such people and the discredited organization led by the cronies of despots and dictators in some of the world’s most kleptocratic ….dysfunctional failed states…that leaders of modern countries would be led by the nose by such morons on matters of existential import for their own law-abiding populations and on such flim flam and call it science .

    The countries that are already bleating that Australia’s net zero pitch isn’t enough…UK ..Europe…BidenInc’s America…have terrible records that indicate that it’s no accident that policymakers are buying the Kool-aid…they’re not accidental victims of rogue LW scientists…they’re willing and enthusiastic perpetrators of the hoax.

    We know that by their response to real scientists who’ve questioned the alarmist conclusions over the years …and questioned the probity of the temperature record…the declaration of ‘consensus’ and the science ‘settled’ meme …questions not tolerated… before most of the science was even done …before clouds were researched much at all…when Global Temperature couldn’t really be known because the temperature of 70% of earth…ie oceans was not able to be reliably measured….before the vital metric of climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 was known …as it still isn’t definitively known etc etc.

    But the countries crying now that Australia’s plan is not enough …confirming what we knew…that appeasement is futile because whatever we do short of Hari Kari it will never be enough….those countries…eg UK …have a terrible record of political dishonesty on CAGW IMO.

    The UK is the source of the terrible post-modern claptrap that shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the natural sciences…the Michael Hulme concept of post-normal science …wherein ‘scientists must trade (normal) truth for influence’ and ‘they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking’… Hulme concludes:
    ‘Climate change is too important to be left to scientists’.

    But the UK House of Commons is also a manipulator of science in that it not only established …to ‘investigate’ the scientific corruption revealed in the Climategate emails…phony inquiries headed by carefully-chosen people known to have extensive vested interests in renewables…but it allowed them to flout FOI laws and refuse to actually interrogate those scientists accused of ‘losing’ raw data’…fudging graphs…bragging about the corruption of the peer review process.

    When the UK Institute of Physics wrote a scathing report on the emails …and foreshadowed that the whole concept of CO2-induced CAGW should be brought into question by them….the IOP was summarily required by the House of Commons to ditch their report and write a new cleaned-up version that embarrassed no one.

    Likewise the Albany State University Inquiry in the US…that was reluctantly established when British mathematician Douglas Keenan questioned the science of Wang et al …alleging that land temperatures across the expanse of China were made up and fudged …producing what the post-normal scientists required for their ends.

    Keenan waited and waited to give his testimony but was never called…just informed that the ‘inquiry’ was over and Wang et al completely exonerated.

    None of this is accidental.

    270

  • #
    David Coe

    The recent paper “The Impact of CO2 and Other Greenhouse Gases on Equilibrium Earth Temperatures” predicts a climate sensitivity of just 0.5degC. The paper published in the International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences was retracted by the journal as a result of the usual complaints from climate alarmists. To their credit the journal agreed to conduct a further “rigorous review” of the paper. Subsequently the paper was reinstated without change after this second review could find no fault with it. For those that are interested the paper can be accessed at http://www.ijaos.org/article/298/10.11648.j.ijaos.20210502.12

    130

  • #
    tonyb

    As far as I can see temperatures in Australia will soar and sea levels will swamp all your cities, probably within weeks.

    I offer to buy properties or land currently used, at least 4 metres above sea levels, at 1 cent on the Dollar (subjecttoinspectiongetoutclausesandallsortsoflegaldisclaimersandcaveats).

    its a bargain. I look forward to being deluged with offers . Bail out now whilst you still have time!

    150

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      In 1976 someone predicted a tidal wave would engulf Adelaide. He had a vision of waves lapping West Terrace (about 5 miles inland). My father rang the BOM, then located on West Terrace and said “I have a silly question” and the receptionist promptly replied “196 feet”. My father said “I see I’m not the first this morning” and was told the line was running hot. My father thanked her and worried no more about our sea-side suburb.
      But many people took this prediction as true and fled inland. At least 3 people in the suburd of Lockleys sold their houses very, very cheaply to a (sceptical) neighbour and fled to Barmera caravan park which was full.
      When the scare was over, helped by Premier Don Dunstan standing on the Glenelg pier, those who fled came back and 2 of them complained strongly about their house sales (around $1,000 cash for a value of over $30,000) and wanted Government compensation. The neighbour had a good laugh and said “I sell them back if I get a commission”. Never heard more though the grapevine had it that their panic cost them $1,000 each.
      It just shows how easily some people are gulled by ‘announcements & predictions” and never think to check anything. The AGW farce depends on gullibles like them, and a constant barrage has persuaded many that “man-made warming is happening”. In another couple of years they will be disillusioned.

      100

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    Yet another piece lifted straight out of the playbook developed by the Heartland Institute, back when they were paid by big tobacco. As the institute lost that one, but gained fossil fuel companies, it has now reissued the same playbook

    There are thousands of independent studies supporting the hypothesis that the human caused rise in CO2 is driving global warming. There are a handful of corporate sponsored studies showing the opposite – and just like with cigarettes we are supposed to focus only on those corporate sponsored studies.

    A true sceptic would be rolling on the floor with incredulity

    428

    • #
      Geoffrey+Williams

      Peter, who paid for those ‘thousands of independent studies’
      GeoffW

      150

    • #
      clarence.t

      “supporting the hypothesis”

      A failed hypothesis.

      Still waiting for a paper that proves it, rather than paying lip service to its worthlessness.

      120

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      I would even go so far as to say that there are multiple “thousands of independent studies” confirming whatever it was you claimed was confirmed.

      90

    • #
      Geoffrey+Williams

      Peter Fitz, would you care to comment,
      As an ordinary person I am unable to carry out any sort of study that will establish;
      1. An increase in average global temperatures.
      2. Link any increase in those temps to any co2 increases in the atmosphere and if so by what mechanism does this occur.
      3. Establish and prove that any increase in co2 is man-made.
      These are (3) straight forward but very complex requirements and I use my own personal judgement in order to reach my conclusions.
      GeoffW

      110

    • #
      clarence.t

      “There are thousands of independent studies supporting the hypothesis”

      Yet you have so far been totally incapable of presenting a single scientific paper that proves warming by atmospheric CO2 rather than just paying lip-service.

      At least you now admit it is nothing but a hypothesis… a failed one at that.

      —-

      I see no mention of the Heartland Institute anywhere.

      Why do some people seem to have a thing against scientists seeking facts and scientific truth. !

      Why do some people use the words “Heartland Institute” as an attempted ad hom ?

      Is it because they have absolutely nothing else to offer ?

      160

    • #
      el+gordo

      ‘There are thousands of independent studies …’

      To get grant money a researcher has to believe that CO2 causes global warming, otherwise he’ll be unemployable. Its the wicked web of deceit.

      130

    • #
      Maptram

      “There are thousands of independent studies supporting the hypothesis that the human caused rise in CO2 is driving global warming.”

      I assume these studies are the ones that tell us that temperatures for the period 1990 onwards are higher than the previous period
      So the question is how many of those 1000s of studies ensure that the data in the two periods is comparable?

      During the 1990s the BOM has closed many sites and opened others, many of which are at airports and some at other places that show higher than everage temperatures.

      It has been said on this site that airports are warmer than other places but there are few examples probably because there is few data records of locations near the airports to compare. But there are some examples.

      The BOM site at Deniliquin Airport has been operating since 1997 (first data in June 1997) while the site shown as Deniliquin visitors centre operated from the 1850s until 2003 before closing so there is some overlap between the two sites for the six years 1998 to 2003. The records for January and February show that, in five of the six years, the airport is hotter than the visitors centre.

      The BOM operates two sites at Cobar, the Cobar Meteorological Office (Cobar MO) and the Cobar Airport AWS. The Airport site is about 7 Km South West of the MO site. The MO site opened in 1962 and the Airport site opened in 1993 with first data being recorded in July 1993. Both sites have been operating for 28 years. The 28 year average maximum for January for the Airport is higher than that of the MO. So limited studies suggest that airports show higher temperatures than other places.

      Then there is Noona. Noona seems to be a roadside stop on the Barrier Highway about 80 Km west of Cobar Airport. For some reason the BOM set up an AWS there in 2017 with first data in July 2017. Records show that in January Noona is hotter than Cobar in two of the four years where records overlap.

      So, do the 1000s of studies adjust the data to ensure that the periods are comparable?

      80

  • #
    Rosco

    I say give it to ’em right now while we can restart all the coal fired power plants we shut down temporarily.

    Nothing but 10% of current electricity supply and $5.00 a litre Petrol.

    Maybe then they’d understand what there are inflicting on a scam that won’t make any difference to the Planet.

    100

  • #
    Robber

    The big scam is the continued use of “we must limit warming to less than 1.5C”, without reporting that it includes warming of about 1.0C since pre-industrial times.
    It wouldn’t sound plausible to claim future warming must be limited to less than 0.5C.
    Claiming that a further warming beyond 0.5C will somehow be catastrophic is plainly ludicrous when the world today is a far better place to live than it was in 1850.

    120

  • #
    George McFly......I'm your density

    Madness on steroids.

    40

  • #
    David Maddison

    Disaster is always just ten years away.

    https://energycentral.com/c/cp/un-predicts-disaster-if-global-warming-not-checked-peter-james-spielmann-june-29

    U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked, Peter James Spielmann, June 29, 1989

    UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

    Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

    He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

    70

    • #
      Ronin

      “He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.”

      I didn’t realize we humans had the capability to Terraform planets.

      90

    • #
      clarence.t

      “if Global Warming Not Checked”

      And just how do they propose to do that?

      Nothing they have ever proposed would have even the tiniest infinitesimal effect on warming or cooling.

      These types of statements are totally meaningless virtue-seeking nonsense.

      They have far less than zero scientific merit.

      80

    • #
      clarence.t

      “Coastal flooding and crop failures “

      Coastal flooding… If humans can’t cope with some 2mm/year of sea level rise, they deserve to get flooded.

      Crop failures… most crop failures are from cold or lack of water, not warming, but overall, crop yields and production continue to increase.. this “crop failure” meme is just baseless nonsense.

      80

  • #
    Ken+Stewart

    Coal linked shares such as New Hope and Aurizon have plunged recently. Wait till they bottom then buy in when you see the turnaround before they soar (as they will when people realise they’ve been conned, renewables are a joke, and coal will be desperately needed to keep the lights on.)

    Scomo is a one hit wonder.

    60

  • #
    Neville

    Ken Stewart has used SLs from the earlier Holocene studies compared to the tide gauge records of the last century and drawn an obvious conclusion.
    He checks out the Aussie east coast and lists the various SL studies and he certainly proves that today’s SLs are much lower than 7,000 to 4,000 years ago.
    Certainly this is the world’s biggest and most accurate Thermometer.

    https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2021/08/23/the-worlds-biggest-thermometer/

    70

  • #
    Neville

    More proof that the temp 4,000 years ago was higher than today.
    This is from their ABC’s Catalyst program and the 1.5 metre higher SLs at Sydney area 4 K years BP.
    Here’s the quote and link.

    https://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/narrabeen-man/11010512

    Dr Macdonald: “The date came back at about 4000 years ago, which was quite spectacular we were very surprised”.

    Narration: “4000 years ago when Narrabeen Man was wondering around this area the sea levels were up to 1.5 metres higher than they are today”.

    Paul:” So that spit would have been much narrower. The water levels in the Narrabeen lagoon would also have been higher and it would have acted like a saline estuary”.

    60

  • #

    Just do what Mother Nature has always done. Adapt to changes in the Climate, or die……………..It will be a heck of a lot cheaper………….

    60

  • #
    MarkMcD

    Scott Morrison has unveiled a “middle path” for Australia to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 which promises dramatic carbon reductions across the electricity and transport sectors and a massive investment of up to $120bn for emerging technologies to help achieve the Glasgow target.

    The Prime Minister on Tuesday announced the government’s 126-page plan, promising it would not cause massive job losses and disruption to the regions and that Australians would be better off by $2000 on average by 2050 compared to taking no action.

    So we follow the US into a vast morass of inflation and communist levels of food shortages, lack of usable power because they can’t afford it, (right at the time when the world is heading into the next Little Ice Age) and millions can’t work because either there are not jobs or they haven’t managed to keep up with the govts demands for injections. (or whatever comes next now they have taken the right to “Show us ze papers” before we are allowed to go outside, shop or any of the things we once enjoyed.

    And for this, we are promised that in 28 years we will have an extra $2K? We are selling our country down river for 71 effing $$ per year?

    Oh, I forgot, we also got to shaft France for some submarines we might have in the water in 10 years!

    How many nuclear power plants could we build for $126 BILLION? One for every State so we can keep the lights and heaters on so people don’t die in their homes?

    30

  • #
    Neville

    More on SLs at Fort Denison NSW since 1914.
    Here Andrew Bolt interviews Daniel Fitzhenry (NSW Hydrographic Surveyor) and compares the BOM SL data for Fort Denison since 1914.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mjOmsqIibk

    60

  • #
    Peter C

    Lobby Group Advance Australia turns on the sell out PM, Scott Morrison.
    https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/crucial-lobby-group-has-turned-on-pm-amid-net-zero-commitment/ar-AAPZY5k?ocid=msedgntp

    To make it even more difficult the spokesperson for Advance Austr lia is Jacinta Price, who has the number one spot on the Liberal Senate ticket in the NT at the next election.

    71

  • #
    Brenda Spence

    This is such a good one, it needs to be seen again.

    Alan Jones takes down Saint Greta. 😁

    https://twitter.com/EcoSenseNow/status/1451597572846460928?s=20

    30

    • #
      Neville

      Yes Brenda but I’ve always said that Alan should tell us what he really thinks. SARC. Go Alan,ya gotta luv it.

      10

  • #
    Mal

    Just shows how stupid and disingenuous our political ruling class and the clueless abc and msm media are.
    Totally destroying the economy for for a non problem and enriching all rent seeking billionaires

    50

    • #
      Dennis

      Well the rent seekers are losing their renewables subsidised gravy train now scheduled to end by 2030 making investment in new installations less attractive.

      And I agree, it does highlight how stupid and disingenuous our politicians (too many of them) are, and the journalists who no longer bother with investigative reporting.

      30

  • #
    markx

    Well, that’s all true, and good points are made.

    But are you are suggesting that ScoMo simply has to fund a bit of research, and so quickly refute the beliefs held by much of the developed world?

    If so, you badly underestimate the power of constant indoctrination based around a proclaimed righteous cause.

    20

  • #
    Ross

    They’re politicians – they’re lying toads!! Received an update from my power supplier at my beach property. Peak usage charge is going up by 22% and the supply charge is decreasing by (wait for it) – 2%. So, this must be what Angus Taylor is talking about, where supposedly we’re all going to get cheaper electricity. The LNP have been in government for the best part of the last 20 years and power prices have done nothing but go up. Mostly more than inflation. If anyone believes this nonsense about Net Zero not increasing costs they’ve got rocks in their heads.

    50

  • #
    RoHa

    ” the IPCC is a one-sided propaganda tool of President Xi.”

    I’d be interested to see that demonstrated. It is well known that the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research was set up as a one-sided propaganda tool for Margaret Thatcher. She approved the IPCC when she opened the Hadley Centre.

    “Today, with the publication of the Report of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, we have an authoritative early warning system, an agreed assessment from some three hundred of the world’s leading scientists on what is happening to the world’s climate…”

    https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/108102

    “She was indeed instrumental, with Gorbachev and Reagan, in establishing the format and demonstrably-constrained function of the IPCC, and in promoting the pernicious falsehood that it represents the scientific consensus – when in reality it only represents the national governments’ consensus.”

    Quoted from comment by Lewis Cleverdon on this site:

    https://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-iron-ladys-strong-stance-on-climate-change-15840

    40

  • #
    Philip

    I’ve been saying for a while now, its all lost. We lived in a good era, but that is over, as all things must end. Enjoy the remnants of it.

    All farmers I know are now on board with this also, either that or naive or agnostic.

    I made comment at my dismay at these green farmers getting about. They basically convinced they’ll be given money out of carbon sequestration. Someone replied as to the problem with this, such as the deals are long term commitment, and if a fire goes through that property your liable for all that carbon. I’d like to know more about all this.

    Im noticing the effect of it. This guy I buy beef off is one of them. He envisages forests being grown everywhere because of carbon money. And if you just dont till your soil you stop emissions etc etc. I’m kind of loath to keep buying his meat to be honest I’m so repulsed by his stupidity. My wife insists we stop buying it. Not sure I can be that petty.

    60

    • #
      Ross

      Carbon sequestration in farming is definitely not a new thing. It garnered a lot of interest about 10 years ago. Something has changed in the last 12 months. There must be some govt subsidy somewhere (perhaps US?) that make the scheme somewhat attractive. It never did 10 years ago because carbon price was too low and when you looked at the nitty gritty of increasing soil C in Australian soils, the possible accumulation was negligible. That was even under a good conservation tillage type program. So, Carbon farming is somewhat of a pipe dream. You have to know something about soil dynamics and the relationship between Carbon (C- not CO2) and oxidation. 28% of all CO2 emissions are derived from the earths soils. The little bit that gets sequestered via even conservation farming practices is 2/3 of 4/5 of sweet FA. Also, only cool soils sequester C efficiently because at higher temps the C in the soil gets oxidised to CO2 and is returned to the atmosphere. The hotter soils of most of Australia are impractical for any C sequestration. Some farmers are keen on it because it probably is a marketing claim. Bit like your farmer who supplies you with meat. But, once all farmers start doing it, the advantage quickly decreases. Aussie farmers are very quick uptakers of any new technology and so it would only be a handful of years before it would return to a level playing field.

      40

  • #
    Rick

    Morrison is more delusional than that idiot he admires so much – Joe Biden.
    The best science can’t even tell us what the weather will be next Tuesday, but he presumes to predict what it will be like in 30 years. It’s laughable!
    And while he progressively (haha) destroys jobs and the economy, he stupidly predicts that increasing joblessness will make us all better off by $2,000. What? Per week? Per month? Per lifetime?
    Of course it doesn’t matter what he promises – he can promise us anything he likes. By 2050 he won’t even be remembered as the PM who stole our freedom, nor will he be accountable for any of it so he is free to lie like a fat pig in mud.
    It’s all politics, and it’s all bullshit!

    00

  • #
    Zigmaster

    The battles been lost because we never attacked the problem properly . Even our most credible supporters say we believe that the world is warming, some of it is due to man but it’s not dangerous. And if you want zero emissions go nuclear. I have not seen ANY scientific evidence that there is any relationship between CO2 and rising temperatures. The data following on from predictions has been no where near forecasts but the theory doesn’t even predict the past. From the 1930s to the 1970s at a time when there was a constant rise in human made CO2 temperatures had such a downward trend that peer review scientists were claiming we were heading for a new ice age.
    Clearly the global warming hypothesis is not true. It says that you can’t have falling temperatures and rising CO2. So that should be the end. The theory doesn’t work. But I was wrong! Silly me. The theory wasn’t wrong the temperature data was. Marble bar didn’t really set the world record hottest temperature and longest heat wave, no clearly the data needs to be adjusted because of homogenisation using formulae which we must keep secret.
    There we go. No more downward trend from 1930s -1970s . I should’ve realised that what my eyes saw was just illusion.
    What this really tells me is one , the global warming theory is not validated by data , both historic and based on review of predictions over the last decades. Two that the alarmists have captured certain critical institutions including the BOM and will do anything including manipulate and cheat to protect the narrative.

    20

  • #
    CHRIS

    Idiots like Will Steffen and Michael Mann still believe in a “hockey stick” future for our planet. The latest predictions by these intellectually challenged individuals is that the world will warm by 3C sometime this century. I humbly give you my opinion: The Earth is in the middle of the Modern Warming Period (MWP). Between now and 2100, the world will slightly warm by about 1.1C, which has nothing to do with this 2050 net-zero emissions nonsense. And I will make a prediction that there will be NO ice-free Arctic summers this century.

    00

  • #
    Choroin

    HEADLINE: “Mathematician discovers ‘middle path’ to reach zero from a positive number”

    He really is Scotty from marketing, isn’t he?

    Why doesn’t he just come out like a parrot and join the rest of his flock in squawking “Build. Back. Better”, it would be less insulting to people’s intelligence.

    Clearly Scotty and Barnaby have seen the religious light shining from Davos, Switzerland, urging them to join the cult by selling all their [citizens’] worldly possessions to billionaires who can clearly manage them better (like the 2008 GFC).

    00