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

Here’s real Misinformation: The average Australian thinks we make an astonishing 10% of global emissions

What are they on? About twenty years of government funded propaganda and guilt.

Most Australian voters don’t have a clue — half of the nation thinks we make 10% of global emissions when the truth is more like 1%.

Climate change might be the greatest moral challenge of our lifetimes but most Australians are in the dark about what the real numbers are. They probably assumed that if we were only making one-tiny-percent, the government, the ABC, or even the education system might have told them. After all, we’re spending $13 billion dollars a year. What exactly are public universities for if not for letting Australians know this kind of data?

Where was the Government? The conservatives in charge keep throwing away their own best arguments.  Almost like they want to hang on to a few wealthy seats while they miss the chance to ignite middle Australia.

But the ignorance is no accident. All the players — the politicians, the academics, the ABC, ANU, CSIRO, Schools, Universities, et al and all sundry, all profit from Big Government. They serve the government first, and not the people, and that’s the problem.

Liberals playing politics with pretence Australia can change global climate

Chris Kenny, The Australian 

A survey this week by Compass Polling tested what percentage of global emissions people thought could be directly attributed to Australia. Astonishingly, the average answer was 10 per cent – 10 times higher than the reality. Half of all respondents put the figure at 10 per cent or higher. More than 10 per cent of respondents said Australia contributed 20 per cent or more of global emissions. And a slightly lower proportion got it right at around 1 per cent.

This level of ignorance is reprehensible when you consider the media, political and educational fixation with climate change over the past two decades.

Yet few people call it out; the major parties, most of the media, and academe, all constrain the debate within absurd boundaries of make believe – they all pretend our climate policies matter.

Wait til Chris Kenny finds out that we make 1% of human emissions which are only 4% of total emissions, so that’s 0.04% or 4 parts in ten thousand of all the CO2 emissions on Earth. And that’s assuming CO2 emissions matter in the first place, which they probably don’t given how the effect of CO2 is dwarfed by the effect of water, and the tiny warming (such as it is) is beneficial in any case.

So

But he’s spot on with the money. The only electorates where climate change matters are the ones that can afford Gucci:

It is no accident that the most prominent voices in the climate change policy debate are millionaires and billionaires, nor is it surprising that they find the most receptive audiences for their prognostications in the wealthiest postcodes.

These are not people who have lost their jobs because of the expensive transition to renewable energy – well, except for Turnbull and Rudd. Rather than fall victim to closed factories or skyrocketing power prices, these people have added to their wealth thanks to the taxpayer-subsidised renewable energy boom.

Spender’s campaign posters promise a “better climate for Wentworth”. I guess this must be what you give the voters who have everything.

How many votes would Scott Morrison win if he pointed out it was a rich man’s fantasy to change the worlds weather and the poor punters were the ones who would pay?

When the rich campaign to tax flights and fuel they are just clearing out some riff raff from the roads and airports, and lining their own pockets with government funded gravy.

Here’s a graphic that’s hard to find

Australia circled in red. New Zealand too (below Australia). Most graphs are done per capita, for obvious reasons, not per country. And of course the best graphic doesn’t exist. I want the one that shows all these countries next to “plants”, “oceans”, “animals” and “microbes”.

CO2 emissions country by country, graph.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

If CO2 mattered at all, there are only a few players that count.

10 out of 10 based on 92 ratings

197 comments to Here’s real Misinformation: The average Australian thinks we make an astonishing 10% of global emissions

  • #
    Mike

    Our imbecile leader in Canada does the same thing. We are less than 2% of global emissions and he acts like we are the biggest contributor in the world. The smooth brains in eastern Canada are happy to shut down pipelines from western Canada while they bring in tankers from Venezuela and similar bastions of human rights and environmental responsibility. It is completely insane.

    631

  • #
    John R T

    <9% of Earth's population exist in So. Hemisphere.
    Thank you, Joanne.
    Blessings continue.

    380

  • #
    Pauly

    What I don’t get is that our reported emissions have been declining, on track to achieve our agreed Paris 2025 targets, while total emissions have been increasing. Yet Australian emissions are still quoted as 1.1% of total emissions. Recently, I’ve seen politicians claiming our emissions are 1.3% of total emissions. That suggests that our emissions have been increasing, which is patently false.

    The propaganda wars have moved away from relying on data. Has anyone found a report on how countries performed on their Kyoto Stage 2 (2020) targets?

    290

    • #
      Robert Swan

      In the early 2000’s I suggested we promise to reduce our contribution from the 2% of world emissions it had been in 1990 to under 1%. I recently checked up on how we were going with it, using data from here. From 1990 to 2018 Australia’s contribution has gone from just under 1.9% to 1.2%. If we do nothing more, I’m pretty sure we’ll be below 0.5% by 2050, courtesy of growth from China and India. Given that Australia is over 5% of world landmass, I think that’d be more than doing our part.

      Just as an aside, is there anything wrong with the idea of making commitments on relative emissions like this? If CO2 matters, and China is convinced, it’ll reduce its emissions, and we’d have to too. If CO2 matters and China isn’t convinced, our reduction won’t make a damn of difference. And if CO2 doesn’t matter, who cares!

      350

    • #
      Jonesy

      What gets on my goat regarding emissions is the starting point of the conversation…percentage of world emissions. We should stress HUMAN emissions! Simple way of describing our levels. Imagine our atmosphere as the MCG. The vast majority of seats are taken up by Nitrogen followed by Oxygen. When we get to the trace gases, Carbon Dioxide takes up 40 seats of the MCG. Human contributed emissions represent 1.5 people of all the MCG and Australia takes up…ONE HAND.

      It is a question of scale. Reduce the scale to a value people understand then we can come to grips with the so-called science. Imagine one hand trying to change the temperature of the MCG by leaving the stadium

      231

      • #
        Mal

        Nature produces approx 97% of co2 emissions.
        The total human %production is the other 3%
        Australias contribution is just over 1% of the human production
        Doing the maths there are 400 parts perillion of co2 in the atmosphere. Humans generate 3 % or 12 parts per million. Australia generates approx 1 part per million of 0.12 per million of 1.2 parts per 10 million.
        This effectively has ZERO Impact on temperatures or climate. Even if the green house gas theory was true.
        The Australian public has been brainwashed by Green activists , UN , media and politicians now being pushed by rentseekers.

        230

        • #
          John in Oz

          I tend to use 1 million millimetres in a kilometre when discussing this topic as most people cannot get their heads around percentages (or large numbers). Perhaps I need to change the people I talk to.

          400mm of ‘CO2’ in the atmosphere
          3% by us humans = 12mm
          Oz = 1% of 12mm = .12mm

          There are far more important issues to spend money in Oz than CO2

          130

          • #
            Deano

            I remember a ‘vox pop’ of average people in the street being asked what percentage of the air consists of CO2. Several people thought it was up in the tens of percent. Someone said it was about 80% and most of that was caused by cars and coal. Saint Greta can even smell how much is there. I don’t believe the climate scientists have any interest in correcting this misconception either.

            40

      • #
        PeterPetrum

        Lovely Jonesy, I will use that. I have used similar comparisons before, but this is a beauty. I think in the comparison I used I had a babe-in-arms, rather than a hand, but same idea.

        61

  • #
    David Maddison

    Yesterday I was handing out election material at a pre-polling booth for a pro-freedom party, I.e not LibLabs or Greens.

    I heard the sitting Labor candidate talking to the Green candidate and after congratulating each other for swapping preferences so at least one of them would get in (this proving voting for Green or Labor is the same), they talked about how older generations had as their issue the Vietnam War but this generation had the existential “threat” of “climate change”.

    I was abused very aggresively once by a voter for believing in “freedom”. She said that was an American value not an Australian value. I said it was a universal human value. She was obviously a Labor/Green type.

    Many people took Green brochures even though it is a high socioeconomic area (a lot of high income people are Labor or Greens these days) confirming what Jo said above.

    I would say that it’s no surprise that the Sheeple think Australia is responsible for 10% of world emissions.

    They really are that stupid and uniformed.

    That’s why neither major party (Liberals or Green Labor) wants to get rid of Their ABC/SBS.

    522

    • #
      Deano

      My 93 year old mothers house has a frontage that faces a railway station and is passed by many people. For the past few elections, someone scales the front wire fence, illegally enters her property and plants a “GREENS 1” sign in her yard. I have told their office about this and at least they apologize but deny any knowledge of how it got there. I destroyed the sign because as far as I’m concerned it’s litter and I know they’ll never send anyone round to collect it!

      90

  • #
    Mooka

    What we need is Mat Canavan for PM.
    He, along with Malcolm Roberts, are the only MPs that know the truth and are prepared to speak out about the insanity of what government is doing.
    Of course the MSM try to portray him as a lunatic.

    122

  • #
    Michael

    I suspect the Liberals are going to lose this election and if they do it wont be because Labour is better. It will be simply because they don’t have the courage to stand for anything. They don’t have the courage to find out what mainstream Australia thinks, they don’t have the courage to stand up to left wing radicalism and act on what mainstream Australia wants.

    Its a tragedy and one which Australia will pay a REALLY high price for. To suggest net zero for Australia has any significance given that India and China are massively increasing their emissions and now admit they plan to do so at least out to 2040 is beyond absurd. I suspect if the Liberals had had the courage to call out the furore over global waring and net zero for the fraud it is we would not be discussing their election loss but rather their landslide victory and the near annihilation of radical green ideology.

    531

    • #
      PeterS

      Agree and well put. Then again if many Australian voters actually believe we do produce 10% of global emissions then the ALP+Greens might get a boost by said voters in the insane belief we must try harder to reduce our emissions. Not long to go to see what voters actually believe about all that. My only hope is we have a handful of really good minor parties and independents hold the balance of power in both houses of parliament to stop the rot. It might not work but at least it’s a possible way to exit from the nation destroying net zero emissions agendas pushed by both major parties, assuming it’s not already too late. Then again if ALP+Greens do win to form a majority government then the people would have had their say and they will learn the hard way sooner than under the LNP who are as you rightly say don’t have the courage to stand for anything that’s against left-wing radicalism, including the major propaganda machine, the ABC.

      61

      • #

        We won’t find out what Australians think about CO2 at the election. People will vote on other topics, and there has been zero public debate about climate change, CO2 or any policy at all.

        170

        • #
          PeterPetrum

          Agreed, Jo. I remember well how John Howard, long, long before the election, began to sellthe case for the GST. He had all the facts and figures at his fingertips and never missed a beat when prosecuting the case on radio or TV. No one, apart from Matt Canavan, has put up any argument to deflate the misinformation on Net Zero or to prosecute the case for maintaining base load power. The public has to be educated on the actual facts and, apart from Matt, no one is prepared, and or capable of doing this in the Coalition.

          132

        • #
          PeterS

          Jo, I didn’t say we will find out what Australians think about CO2 at the election. I was referring to the respective net zero emissions policies of the major parties. Huge difference.

          40

        • #
          KevJ

          True.. but I believe that Australians vote people out, rather than vote the best candidate in.. 😉

          30

    • #
      David Maddison

      Agreed. And frankly, I think Morrison is nearly as dangerous as Turnbull, if not equally so. Morrison is, after all, a Turnbull pick.

      Turnbull had a chance to disengage us from Paris like Trump did for his country but didn’t.

      He also allowed Klaus Schwab student Greg Hunt to allow our covid response be guided by the UN, not independent experts.

      And remember when Abbott was deposed. The choice was meant to between the Leftist Bishop and the more conservative Dutton but Morrison emerged out of nowhere.

      311

      • #
        David Maddison

        Correction. Dutton and Bishop were the choice after Turnbull was booted. Turnbull was of course the one who replaced Abbott. It’s easy to mix up Turnbull and Morrison, they are so similar, the only difference being that Morrison is slightly less arrogant.

        232

      • #
        Dianeh

        Morrison is more dangerous than Turnbull. Turnbull thought himself superior and he could govern by decree, after all he is the smartest person in the room. This made him an ineffectual and very unpopular PM.

        Morrison understands the voters and middle Australia a lot better. He pitches the same crap policies to the voter in a way that makes them believable. He defuses things like net zero by pushing it to the future. He plays to his audience. That makes him far more effective (he won the last election when he looked like a sure loser) and therefore more dangerous.

        160

      • #
        Michael

        Cant quite agree David; Turnbull is vindictive and obsessed by his own vanity and believed self importance not to mention being a dark green pretending to be a liberal. He will do anything to “get even” and that is a dangerous form of insanity. By contrast, Morrison is merely incompetent and lacking any backbone at all. They should have stuck with Dutton after Turnbull was ousted but the left started a smear campaign against him and the Liberals fell for it.

        61

        • #
          Ted1

          Who vandalised Peter Dutton’s electoral office the night before the leadership vote?

          It is quite possible, indeed likely, that that act made some members nervous about voting for Dutton.

          It was a professional foul, and for me raises questions at the very highest level.

          30

      • #
        PeterS

        One reason why Morrison is more dangerous than Turnbull is at least Turnbull was honest in his beliefs. Morrison is a hypocrite who has gone back on his belief on coal and instead has formulated a net zero emissions policy to displace coal.

        40

    • #
      Doctor T

      Most voters appear to abhor weakness in a leader. This is what Kirkup in W.A., Marshall in S.A. and Frecklington in Qld discovered.
      Morrison, by ceding control to Andrew and McGowan et Al, as well as his capitulation on Net Zero appears weaker than Albanese, who actually has a political philosophy, as terrifying as it is.
      What was needed from Morrison was a spine, but clearly he is an invertebrate.

      330

    • #
      Doc

      The Liberals are trapped by their move to the left with their progressives.

      That move in itself makes it impossible for the Party to do anything but follow the AGW vibe, or else bring on the big rupture. The biggest part of the trap came with the initial absolute acceptance of the non-science AGW theory.

      The only way to shedding the liberal leftists in the Parliament is to lose this election and torpedo those controlling the selection processes that have landed the Liberals in this pickle and force the opening up of debate on the entire science of climate and what led the western world into this disaster. The thing represents ideology taking over people with a big portion of greed and power to come to those politicians and western enemies alike driving the process.

      One would love to know what happened to the Chief Scientist of the day. Did he know no better? Disagreed, or ignored what he knew to be the against the scientific method for ‘proving’ anything? Or, was he pushed to agree and, in agreeing, became the fall-guy for the acceptance of the theory?
      If he was pushed, then who by and who was behind the politician/s that did the pushing?

      10

  • #
    David Maddison

    When considering some of the main sources of propaganda, don’t forget the contribution of The Conversation which pretends to be academically oriented and impartial and was founded with generous taxpayer-funded grants from State and Federal governments (and ongoing grants) and as far as I can see, they don’t even acknowledge the generous taxpayer contributions on their site.

    I was also surprised to see it partly funded by universities. Why would they do that? They constantly complain about a shortage of research funds. But then I realised that the purpose of The Conversation is to write Climate Scare Stories which then causes government to give the universities taxpayer money to “research” the non-existent problem.

    390

    • #
      max

      main sources of propaganda is government compulsory schools.

      we send our children to be told socialism nonsense and we are surprised when they ask for socialist program to be implemented.

      171

      • #
        PADRE

        This problem is not confined to Australia. I remember when we were looking after our our grandsons in Dubai several years ago that our eldest came home from school with the notion that CO2 forms 5% of the atmosphere. His grannie soon put him right! Let’s hope that he now has the facts as he is reading for a PhD in astrophysics.

        110

      • #
        Ted1

        The root of the problem is the people who teach the teachers.

        41

  • #
    Graham Richards

    If the numbers are “rubbery” it means the leader of the opposition is at work again.

    91

  • #
    Penguinite

    Talk about the tail wagging the dog! We have become subservient to UN edict and control and very soon our Government will cede control of our medical lives to a UN offshoot appropriately named WHO! When Labor take the Treasury benches we will be ushered into a Chinese orbit and carbon taxes.

    251

    • #
      Graham Richards

      I saw Albanese on TV this am proclaiming he’ll introduce a new passport, in keeping of course with the UN’ WHO medical requirements.

      Vote for him & we’ll have a Vaccine Passport inside of 12 months. Nobody can Afford a Labor Government!

      121

  • #
    Jan Smelik

    “I want the one that shows all these countries next to “plants”, “oceans”, “animals” and “microbes”.”

    Here is a nice table that shows how much CO2 is coming from different sources: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/figure-3_thumb.png?w=640&h=388.

    Note that from to total of natural emissions (323 to 487 PgC) only 8 to 9 PgC is from humans, some 2%.

    171

  • #
    David Maddison

    QUESTION: Given that purveyors of unreliable and expensive sources of electricity such as solar and wind have locked-in contracts, assuming Australia ever got a rational state or federal Government (a bizarre fantasy, I know), what is the fastest we could exit from the unreliables mess and restart proper coal and gas electricity production and also introduce nuclear (nuclear only because it might be more economical at an outback location, nothing to do with emissions)?

    201

  • #
    David Maddison

    We don’t have much time Left.

    In the unlikely event Liberals are re-elected we will have an Australian version of Biden’s controllers’ “disinformation” bureau.

    If we get Green Labor it will be an even worse version. They would want to listen to your conversation at home or on your phone (although phone conversations are likely already monitored by AI bots listening for certain key words).

    Was it “human rights commissioner” Gillian Triggs who lamented that your conversations at home couldn’t be monitored?

    Truth and evidence-based blogs like this would be banned. Your only approved media outlets will be organisations that follow the propaganda standards of ABC/SBS and The Conversation.

    51

  • #
    Muzza

    Even if you subscribe to the CO2 delusion – how about we graph emissions per hectare, a more rational metric. Aus then becomes a world leader…….

    141

  • #
    OldOzzie

    WHY GREEN ENERGY IS A RELIABLE SOURCE OF GASLIGHTING

    Eighty-five percent of human energy usage comes from burning things. Either plants or trees grown in a geologically recent past or plants or trees (and decomposed animals) from ancient times. Solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, etc.—all the things that occupy a climate-conscious citizen, activist, or politician’s dreams—are frizzles around the edges.

    Human civilization is powered by combustion; human beings are a fossil fuel–burning civilization. You can take away the civilization part, which seems to be the end goal for some environmentalists, but bar that, you can’t take away the fossil fuel part.

    If we listened only to our energy overlords’ preaching, we would get a very different impression of what the world is like. Wind turbines powering all those electrified vehicles on our roads, solar panels and batteries of immense capacities light and heat our homes. Dirty oil and polluting coal are out; green, clean, and smart machines on the way in.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. Renewables don’t power our societies, they’re not about to any time soon, and the fact that they’re not isn’t a policy choice—or “greedy capitalism” preventing this utopian (dystopian) vision.

    First, some housekeeping: Energy is not the same as electricity. Electricity is a secondary energy source, derived from primary energy sources through a conversion process—combustion or turbines spinning. The 85 percent figure above is for energy use. The bombastic figures in the press about the massive growth and expanse of renewables are for electricity, which is only a subset of all the world’s energy use (some 20 percent). Oil, coal, and gas for transport, heating, fertilizers, and construction dwarf the symbolic solar panels governments paid people to place on their roof.

    Solar panels and wind turbines produce a minor part of the electricity needs, but do nothing to address the larger energy needs. In contrast, fossil fuels are energy-dense, reliable, on-demand sources of either energy or electricity, and we have excelled both at storing and transporting them.

    Dreams of a green revolution, per the energy theorist Vaclav Smil, were always mirages:

    Gaslighting Europeans

    According to mental health site VeryWellMind, gaslighting is “a form of manipulation that often occurs in abusive relationships. It is a covert type of emotional abuse where the bully or abuser misleads the target, creating a false narrative and making them question their judgments and reality. Ultimately, the victim of gaslighting starts to feel unsure about their perceptions of the world and even wonder if they are losing their sanity.”

    Consider the following combination of expert-led gaslighting:

    191

  • #
    bobby b

    And even if we educate them as to who emits, we’re still left with their ignorance regarding how CO2 levels actually follow temperature.

    It’s dumb turtles all the way down.

    191

  • #
    David Maddison

    Good news. Supporters of free speech are starting to win. Leftists are starting to run!

    Finally Neflix worked out, get woke go broke.

    It told it’s woke employees they should leave:

    Netflix Updates Corporate Culture Memo, Adding Anti-Censorship Section and a Vow to ‘Spend Our Members’ Money Wisely’ (EXCLUSIVE)

    “If you’d find it hard to support our content breadth, Netflix may not be the best place for you.”

    https://variety.com/2022/digital/news/netflix-culture-memo-update-censorship-spending-1235264904/

    160

    • #
      Ian

      “Good news. Supporters of free speech are starting to win. Leftists are starting to run!”

      I read the blurb from the Netflix link you gave and also from the link https://jobs.netflix.com/culture that was given in the article from your initial link.

      I couldn’t find a single political reference in either article or any indeed reference that might cause you to write

      “Leftists are starting to run”.

      I would be much obliged if you would give me the source material for your comment

      315

      • #
        David Maddison

        Because most Leftists and their organisations (such as most social media including pre-Musk Twitter) support censorship.

        Most conservatives don’t. Hence blogs like this not censoring Leftists but most conservatives here would have been censored on Leftist blogs or social media platforms.

        112

      • #
        b.nice

        Again, not comprehending….. is this lack of comprehension “on purpose” ?

        It is clear that Netflix refuses to bow to being a “safe space” for leftist idea-logs.

        Actually told them.. if you don’t like it, there’s the door.

        Good onya Netflix….. maybe this will encourage other companies with get a spine and do the same thing. 🙂

        111

        • #
          Ian

          “Again, not comprehending….. is this lack of comprehension “on purpose” ?”

          There was nothing to not comprehend although you probably had difficulty in doing so, but saying that Netflix “refuses to bow to being a safe space for leftist idealogues”(not idea-logs you dummy) while unable to refer to a single phrase or saying to substantiate that claim is on a par with your ability to understand anything more complex than Hickory Dickory Dock.

          I searched the two articles for “Left and “leftists” and “climate change” but got “Not found” for all When you can come up with something to prove your claims please provide it.

          312

          • #
            b.nice

            See, you are deliberately not comprehending what was written.

            Its hilarious.

            And the petty not comprehending “idea-log”… again hilarious. 🙂

            “The Artistic Expression portion of the Netflix Culture document appears in large part a response to the controversy over Dave Chappelle’s “The Closer” that embroiled Netflix last fall over what critics said were his transphobic and homophobic comments in the stand-up special. Co-CEO Ted Sarandos defended the company’s decision to keep the Chappelle special on the service, triggering a large employee walkout in protest. “

            ““If you’d find it hard to support our content breadth, Netflix may not be the best place for you.”” ie There’s the door, petal !!

            And people “triggered” by the comments, would be overwhelmingly “left”. Its what leftists do. Its who they are. Whinging losers.

            They are not going to censor to give virtue-seeking whinging leftist employees a “safe space”. And why should they!

            Keeping burying yourself as you dig deeper and deeper…… Its fun to watch. 🙂

            122

    • #
      Ronin

      Looks like netflix and twitter might be on the skids.

      40

  • #
    OldOzzie

    Rivian Collapse, Potential Brownouts, Highlight The Danger Of Illinois Lawmakers Picking Winners And Losers

    Electric car-maker Rivian’s stock price collapse is a clear example of why Illinois politicians have no business trying to pick industry winners and losers. And so are the warnings of potential brownouts in downstate Illinois.

    Start with companies. Back in November 2021, Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed the “Reimagining Electric Vehicles in Illinois Act,” a green energy bill that provided a series of subsidies and tax breaks to electric vehicle and parts manufacturers.

    The law was quite clear in its intentions: “It is the intent of the General Assembly that Illinois should lead the nation in the production of electric vehicles. The General Assembly finds that, through investments in electric vehicle manufacturing, Illinois will be on the forefront of emerging technologies that are currently transforming the auto manufacturing industry.”

    Lawmakers were counting on Illinois becoming an EV manufacturing powerhouse emerging around the Rivian plant in Normal, Illinois, as well as improved prospects for the Ford factory in South Chicago and the Stellantis plant near Rockford.

    Rivian’s stock price grew rapidly, jumping 120% in the short time between the company going public (IPO price was $78) and the day before the bill was signed. On November 15, 2021, Rivian’s stock price hit a peak of $172.

    It’s been all downhill from there. Today the carmaker’s stock price is down to just over $20, a drop of nearly 90 percent.

    Now to industries. Pritzker and his supermajorities have also bet the ranch on renewable energy, primarily wind and solar. Goodbye to all carbon-based energy – and even nuclear.

    Under the green energy omnibus package the legislature passed last year, Illinois will have to have 50% of its electricity production from renewable sources by 2040 and 100% from clean energy sources by 2050. Sen. Don Harmon (D-Oak Park), called the bill “the most aggressive, most progressive climate bill in the nation.”

    Reaching those goals will be exceptionally difficult and expensive. And according to the industry experts Wirepoints talked to, there’s no real plan for how to get there. In fact, Wirepoints FOIA’d the governor’s office for his plan to achieve “100% from clean energy sources by 2050.” We never got one.

    The omnibus bill was simply the culmination of politicians’ long war on carbon-based energy – and coal in particular. Illinoisans may soon be dealing with the consequences of that war. Solar and wind have not kept pace with the capacity lost as fossil fuel plants have been shut down.

    In fact, Melville Nickerson with NRG Energy warned during a recent Illinois House committee hearing of “the potential for rolling blackouts in central and southern Illinois” this summer.

    Again, it’s hard to know how all this will play out. But once again, it’s Illinois bureaucrats making another bet, not only with taxpayer dollars, but with Illinoisans’ quality of life.

    150

  • #
    OldOzzie

    Speaking of Disinformation

    The Dirty Truth About Skyrocketing Electricity Bills

    May 5, 2022 Energy Matters

    We’ve seen the headlines and felt the pinch – the cost of living in Australia is truly skyrocketing. With some families struggling to afford the basics like rent, groceries and fuel, the latest report from the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) will hurt just that little bit more. According to figures, wholesale electricity prices in the National Electricity Market (NEM) have risen 141% in the first quarter compared with last year.

    What’s behind the price surge?

    Besides heatwaves driving up demand, the major culprit here is dirty fossil fuels. Coal plant outages, coal market bids and the ever-rising price of gas have all contributed to the problem. What’s worse is that this upward trend is predicted to continue, with AEMO warning that the average household electricity bill could be increasing 20 per cent this year and 20 per cent again next year.

    Regions with the most reliance on black coal power like New South Wales and Queensland were the hardest hit, while states with a greater share of renewables such as South Australia and Victoria fared considerably better. In Queensland, the average price of wholesale electricity for the quarter surged to $150/MWh, the state’s second-highest rate for any quarter since 1998.

    Managing Director of Energy Synapse, Marija Petcovich explained that coal and gas are particularly volatile markets and this puts consumers at risk.

    “As long as our electricity system remains reliant on fossil fuels, we will continue to be vulnerable to price shocks in coal and gas markets,” she said.

    131

    • #
      wal1957

      It appears that ENERGY MATTERS is flogging the green mantra and saying to hell with the peasants.
      They conveniently ignore facts to push the lie that unreliables are cheap.
      Unfortunately I believe that a high percentage of the population believes this garbage.

      170

    • #
      Lawrie

      We have had no heat waves this summer, not one. It has been the most benign summer in decades. The woman is quite mad. Since wholesale prices make up about 30% of electricity bills I find it hard to believe that consumers will pay 20% more. Anyone watching the price fluctuations know the peaks come when the wind drops and it is too early or late for solar. Why does it peak-because there is a shortage of reliable electricity. We all know when there is less of something in demand there is an increase in cost. This woman wants us to believe the opposite. These people are mad and dangerous.

      Roll on the blackouts and shut downs. Some folk need to suffer in order to change their ideas. I agree that the government has created this problem because of its reluctance to tell people the facts. Morrison just wasted a billion on “saving the reef”. Funnily enough there are other reefs around Australia that are sitting in the same “very hot” water that do not need saving. Fools. I will be voting for David Gillespie (National) in the House and six extreme right wingers in the Senate. My wife has dementia so will be voting the same.

      181

    • #
      Jonesy

      I could fix Marija Petcovich in a jiffy. I would switch her smart meter to run only when green power is available in her sector. I couldn’t stand the idea that she HAS to use unreliable, expensive fossil fuel.

      70

    • #
      Doc

      There’s the not so little matter of price, and Australia follows world pricing otherwise we would/could continue to have the cheapest energy sources anywhere.

      The other matter is the inabilty of the grid system to handle intermittent energy inputs and requiring huge transformations at huge costs, we are told, if we are to keep pushing the renewables envelope. It’s a bit like my water bill where the costs of infrastructure are the main costs of the bill. Renewables are a protected species, otherwise people would be excoriating governments for their charges. The madness is, those governments refusing to protect the fossil fuel industries by simultaneously deriding them, even as they know, no fossil fuels equals total failure of the electricity system of the nation, get away with it.

      The lying and hypocrisy in our politics currently knows no bounds. The inability of people to actually question what they are being told versus what is apparent in reality, home and abroad, in front of their eyes and reported so often, is even more scary than the politics.

      10

  • #
    Neville

    Thanks for your comments Jo and it always amazes me what some people choose to believe today.
    If I want to know something accurate about the climate data or whatever I can usually find it quickly online and yet this seems to be mission impossible for so many of our so called scientists or pollies or the MSM etc. And they’ve had 30 years to find the data, yet it only takes a few minutes. So what’s their problem?
    Bolt had Lomborg on his show a couple of nights ago and Lomborg repeated his claim that global deaths from extreme weather events for 2021 had fallen to about 7000 people and yet the number was about 200,000 a hundred years ago.
    Don’t forget population then was under 2 billion and today 7.9 billion.
    If you stood up at a meeting and repeated this fact to a group of left wing loonies you would be chased out of the room.

    Here’s an audio of Bolt talking to Tony Thomas and Rowan Dean about so much of the ABC fantasies. See at about 30 minutes to the end of his show. And Dr Karl’s fantasies as well, big surprise NOT.

    https://www.skynews.com.au/listen/the-bolt-report-podcast

    81

  • #
    Neville

    Here’s Bolt talking to Lomborg at about 41 minutes 40 seconds and great to hear someone providing some sanity and data for a change.

    https://www.skynews.com.au/listen/the-bolt-report-podcast

    40

  • #
    David Maddison

    This is fundamentally an issue of free speech.

    Because open frank discussion of alternative views about “climate change” is not permitted on mainstream legacy or social(ist) media people have no source of alternative opinions so they believe the garbage of the official narrative.

    121

  • #
    Ian

    As I subscribe to The Australian I was able to read the entire article from Chris Kenny and found this comment of his to be very interesting:

    “Mine is not an argument for doing nothing – a global push towards net zero might well make sense– but because of our size, our energy profile and our impotence when it come to global impacts, we ought to be cautious.”

    That is an argument with which I entirely agree.

    612

    • #
      David Maddison

      Oh, so the “precautionary principle” then?

      That might be a plausible response if there were genuine evidence of anthropogenic “climate change”.

      But its protagonists have not produced even ONE single validated model. Their “models” can’t even hindcast when the answer is known, let alone forecast.

      And then we have massive manipulation of historic temperature data. And massive censorship of anyone with a contrary opinion.

      There is no reasonable (or any) grounds for being cautious.

      And why isn’t the precautionary principle applied to things the Left love like poorly tested covid vaccines or their advocacy of transgenderism, especially among children? There is actual evidence to be concerned about those.

      282

      • #
        b.nice

        ” “precautionary principle” ” = the refuge of those with zero evidence, just baseless conjectures.

        Nothing to do with actual science. !

        171

        • #
          Ian

          “Nothing to do with actual science. !”

          C’mon b.nice you wouldn’t recognise actual science if it bit you on the bum,

          Regarding the precautionary principle best tell Chris Kenny that as it is his comment. I just happen to agree with him. My rationale for that is in my comment to David Maddison

          414

          • #
            b.nice

            “you wouldn’t recognise actual science if it bit you on the bum’

            Says Ian who has never presented one single bit of science to back up anything to do with his idiotic beliefs in the AGW scam.

            How deep do you want to dig, Ian? You are in well over your head already.

            Bring science, Ian.. if you can ever you figure out what it is.

            71

          • #
            b.nice

            Hilarious.

            Ian actually thinks “the Precautionary Principle” is something to do with science.

            WOW ! Cornflake box science, perhaps. Or leftist pseudo-science.

            91

            • #
              Ian

              “Hilarious.

              Ian actually thinks “the Precautionary Principle” is something to do with science.

              WOW ! Cornflake box science, perhaps. Or leftist pseudo-science.”

              b.nice. It cannot be kept hidden any longer. You are a complete ninny.

              That comment shows you have absolutely no idea whatsoever of the PP.

              I do think it has something to do with science. The reason I think that is because it does you chump

              It was not until the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development that the precautionary principle achieved broad international recognition. Since then, spread rapidly in multilateral agreements, international laws, and domestic laws and policies, dealing with climate change, biodiversity, endangered species, fisheries management, wildlife trade, food safety, pollution controls, chemicals regulation, exposure to toxins, and other environmental and public health issues.
              https://www.pc.gov.au/research/supporting/precaution/precaution.pdf

              Plenty of science in that little lot eh b.nice?

              ]

              28

              • #
                b.nice

                All of it based on models.. Not science

                You continue to expose yourself as a self-aggrandizing scientific wannabee.. !

                You know you have no real science.. that is why you continue the silly distractions.

                United Nations is a political body, you know that at least, don’t you.

                Where is that mess of political governance does it prove that CO2 causes warming.?

                By providing that link….

                You have just proven that the precautionary principle is PURELY POLITICAL.

                Thanks for doing that. 🙂

                “Despite rapid growth in adoption of
                the so-called ‘precautionary principle’, the concept remains highly controversial,
                and its success in terms of improving environmental and natural resource
                management has been questioned. This paper argues that implementation
                guidelines are essential to ensure that precautionary decision making is
                consistent with good decision making principles, and to avoid unnecessary costs
                and the potential for perverse outcomes
                .”

                So, If the precautionary principle had been applied .. There would be no wind and solar !

                Keep digging, little man. !

                50

              • #
                Geoff Sherrington

                Ian,
                Sadly, that adoption does nothing to endorse the scientific validity of the precautionary principle, which historically is not even a principle. Not any more than saying opening prayers helps the outcome of a session of parliament.
                I remember before Rio, discussing the precautionary excuse in a room of a few hundred graduates, mainly in science. Not one of them spoke in favour. Many spoke against its use, some quite horrified that it might be accepted as Science. Geoff S

                81

              • #
                Ian

                Geoff Sherrington you write

                “I remember before Rio, discussing the precautionary excuse in a room of a few hundred graduates, mainly in science. Not one of them spoke in favour. Many spoke against its use, some quite horrified that it might be accepted as Science. Geoff S”

                Would they have been horrified if they had read the following?

                Why do we need the precautionary principle now?

                A. The effects of careless and harmful activities have accumulated over the years. Humans and the rest of the natural world have a limited capacity to absorb and overcome this harm. There are plenty of warning signs:

                Chronic diseases and conditions affect more than 100 million men, women, and children in the United States—more than a third of the population. Cancer, asthma, Alzheimer’s disease, autism, birth defects, developmental disabilities, diabetes, endometriosis, infertility, multiple sclerosis, and Parkinson’s disease are becoming increasingly common.
                In laboratory animals, wildlife, and humans, considerable evidence documents a link between levels of environmental contamination and malignancies, birth defects, reproductive problems, impaired behavior, and impaired immune system function. Scientists’ growing understanding of how biological systems develop and function leads to similar conclusions.
                Other warning signs are the dying off of plant and animal species, the destruction of ecosystems, the depletion of stratospheric ozone, and the likelihood of global warming.
                Serious, evident effects such as endocrine disruption, climate change, cancer, and the disappearance of species can seldom be linked decisively to a single cause. Scientific standards of certainty may be impossible to attain when causes and outcomes are multiple; latent periods are long; timing of exposure is crucial; unexposed, “control” populations do not exist; or confounding factors are unidentified.

                https://www.sehn.org/sehn/precautionary-principle-faqs

                26

              • #
                b.nice

                Plenty of science in that little lot eh..

                Lots of blathering for sure. ! at least 97%

                Lots of political and economic stuff…

                “Scientific evidence of risk –
                ‘Before the precautionary principle is invoked, the scientific data relevant to the risks must first be evaluated. …”

                Can’t do that with unvalidated climate models, now can you.

                You can ZERO scientific evidence of risk from climate change.. period.

                21

              • #
                b.nice

                “The effects of careless and harmful activities have accumulated over the years.”

                Yep, wind and solar and the AGW is totally destroying many countries.

                You, yet again, prove the case that the PP is used when you don’t have any facts.

                Well done !

                Its not “science”….. its politics and economics and risk management and regulatory issues.

                But you are probably too clueless to comprehend the difference.

                Perhaps you could go and find an opinion survey about it, to help you.

                Oh wait.. that is what your link is.. a bunch of opinionated waffle.

                “Countries that implement the precautionary principle, such as Germany”

                LOL.. with an electricity system that could collapse at any minute.. and the highest price in the world.

                Great precautions 😉

                Find better links, little man.

                31

              • #
                b.nice

                LOL.. You really should read your own links, Ian

                Every mention of the use of precautionary Principle has the same under-rider that goes something like this…..

                “even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”

                Your own link states unequivocally, that it is used when there isn’t any solid science to back it up.

                A complete and utter failure on your behalf… yet again !!.

                And of course, the PP in climate change non-science is based on absolutely zero science.. just computer games.

                21

              • #
                b.nice

                even funnier.

                The sehn link has the following as its main definition as….

                “All statements of the Precautionary Principle contain a version of this formula: When the health of humans and the environment is at stake, it may not be necessary to wait for scientific certainty to take protective action. “

                ie, they are applying it when they don’t have the science to back it up.

                Exactly what I have been saying..

                Ian has either not read his own links, or has the comprehension skills of a 5 year old.

                Its NOT part of science.. its “instead of” actual science.

                Explicitly stated in his own links.

                20

              • #
                Ian

                b.nice in my comment at 22.1.1.1.1 regarding science and the precautionary principle I wrote “it has been employed in dealing with climate change, biodiversity, endangered species, fisheries management, wildlife trade, food safety, pollution controls, chemicals regulation, exposure to toxins, and other environmental and public health issues.
                Plenty of science in that”

                In response you wrote

                “All of it based on models.. Not science”

                You obviously do not understand that the models are the science.

                I realise your concept of models stopped at Lego and your concept of science at test tubes and Bunsen burners but models are very widely used in science.

                “Scientists start with a small amount of data and build up a better and better representation of the phenomena they are explaining or using for prediction as time goes on. These days, many models are likely to be mathematical and are run on computers, rather than being a visual representation, but the principle is the same.”

                https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/575-scientific-modelling

                01

              • #
                b.nice

                “You obviously do not understand that the models are the science. “

                LOL Models are never evidence of anything

                …. particularly not climate models.. which are barely up to the level of tetris or pacman.

                You probably don’t even understand the word “validation” as applied to models

                This describes what is done in most engineering models, time and time again, over and over..

                … but climate models FAIL spectacularly at even the most basic validation.

                Your comments expose your total lack of comprehension of real science for everyone to see.

                Stop digging.. you are drowning yourself in you own BS.

                10

              • #
                b.nice

                Sad sac Ian has to cut and paste to find out what a models is.

                Hilarious.

                I work with engineering and similar models in my job.

                Even helped write some that are actually used in industry. They are constantly being validated against what actually happens

                Your comments show that you are totally clueless about what constitutes a viable engineering or scientific model.

                But then, your comments show you are pretty much at the clueless level on most things.

                10

              • #
                b.nice

                btw.. your https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz link looks like it is aimed at junior high level understanding.

                You might get there soon… if you try really hard.

                10

              • #
                el+gordo

                ‘You obviously do not understand that the models are the science.’

                Junk in, junk out.

                10

      • #
        Ian

        “So you are saying that very first thing we should do is bump up reliability

        Nothing of the kind I’m saying I agree with what Chris Kenny wrote that’s all. Write to him as he is the originator and as he made no comment about reliability I can’t speak for him on that

        37

        • #
          b.nice

          Oh so, you don’t want reliable electricity.. OK.

          WOW.. you really are sinking deeper into your quicksand, aren’t you.

          Great to see you have to use someone else to back up your comments.. saves you the embarrassment of haven’t to try and think for yourself.

          61

        • #
          b.nice

          I guess that gets to the bottom of things.

          Ian thinks that we don’t need reliable electricity supply.

          An idea-log.. for sure. !

          71

      • #
        Ian

        “Oh, so the “precautionary principle” then?

        That might be a plausible response if there were genuine evidence of anthropogenic “climate change”.
        But its protagonists have not produced even ONE single validated model. Their “models” can’t even hindcast when the answer is known, let alone forecast.”

        The precautionary principle states “when decision-makers lack sufficient knowledge about the effects of a potentially dangerous activity, one should not proceed.”

        That argument you know is already lost as the decision makers on climate change would certainly claim they have more than sufficient knowledge about the effects of climate change to proceed as is evidenced by the actions of very many governments around the world. By the UN. By the IPCC. By Kyoto. By the Paris Agreement.

        Personally I am sceptical about some of the claims made by those supporting anthropogenic “climate change” for example I don’t subscribe to the claim humans are responsible for 100% of climate change. My views are influenced by the climate scientists Judith Curry and Jennifer Marohazy rather than by the climate scientists Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann. Who influences your views

        35

        • #
          b.nice

          “claim they have more than sufficient knowledge about the effects of climate change”

          Which, of course , THEY DON’T..

          Their claims are based in unvalidated, erroneous models. Its all just a computer game driven fantasy.

          And its not about science, no matter how much gullible people like you believe their fairy-tales.

          Its purely political.. There is no science to back up the AGW agenda.

          The IPCC is a political organisation.

          Governments around the world, who have pushed for AGW agenda memes like wind and solar, are destroying their countries.

          Many of them have electricity supply systems that teeter on a knife-edge much of the time.

          And they are starting to wake up to the fact that they need those fossil fuels to exist.

          Only the most stupid, ie leftist, governments will continue down the Net Zero road to destruction.

          81

          • #
            Simon

            but how do you know the models are erroneous? Are you a climate modeller? Could you consider, just for one instant, that you may be exhibiting a Dunning-Kruger cognitive bias?con

            48

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              I am probably one of the few people who is qualified to comment on the “models”.

              The so called Climate Models are NOT set up correctly and are simply advertising gimmicks overseen by the advertising department of the UNIPCCC.

              91

              • #
                b.nice

                Have dealt with many engineering models over my time.

                Always validate, validate .. test and validate, over and over again. As they are at basically every engineering firm in the world.

                Climate models FAIL COMPLETELY at even the simplest validation test.

                71

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              Kalm Keith
              April 25, 2021 at 7:27 am

              To create a true “model” that has meaning there needs to be a clear overview of a relevant process.

              Consider first;

              The high energy Radiation from the Sun has only ONE ENERGY PATHWAY.

              Away from the Sun and towards Earth in part.

              It must always be degraded in it’s INTENSITY and capacity to heat an object or do work.

              Inbound solar is high energy short wave.

              From there it degrades and eventually leaves Earth’s holding bays, ground, ocean and Atmosphere, as low intensity IR – Long Waves.

              The Warmer theme that you can store up low energy radiation (Ground Origin IR ) and convert it to high energy – shorter wave radiation and beam it back to ground is Scientifically NUTSO.

              That is the only way to describe it.

              Totally Impossible.

              All of this “Climate Science” has been done on PAPER or inside the bounds of a COMPUTER and there has never been any associated physical measurement or experimentation.

              The only experiment I have ever seen or heard of that closely resembles the CO2 heating meme was done by the TV Programme, The Myth Busters.

              It was in true warmer Style, a total scientific FARCE.

              There’s No model without a basic bit of measurable relationship between CO2 levels and atmospheric temperature.

              51

            • #
              b.nice

              The models are totally inaccurate.. even the modellers admit that.

              Tell me Simon.. which of many wide-spread model predictions is “accurate”. ??

              They can’t hindcast to any real temperature measurements.

              Which model shows NH temperatures in the 40s similar to now ??

              Which model matches balloon and atmospheric measurements.

              They can’t even get anywhere near the real temperature after only a few year, so they keep adjusting the starting point.

              The models are a complete and absolute farce from any scientific or engineering perspective.

              Great for propaganda, though !

              71

            • #
              el+gordo

              ‘but how do you know the models are erroneous?’

              Because of their massive failure to predict climate change.

              10

    • #
      el+gordo

      ‘ … a global push towards net zero might well make sense …’

      It makes no sense at all, we are only waiting for the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation to go negative and the AGW facade will crumble in a heap.

      172

    • #
      Neville

      Ian, here’s the countries’ co2 emissions data since 1970 AGAIN.
      There’s only one conclusion you can draw if you follow these Human emissions of co2.
      Obviously there’s nothing we can do about co2 levels now or into the future unless you have access to China or India or the developing world countries’ leaders?
      Australia should be building new coal fired power stns in every state ASAP. Just look at the graph.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#/media/File:World_fossil_carbon_dioxide_emissions_six_top_countries_and_confederations.png

      111

    • #
      b.nice

      “we ought to be cautious.””

      So you are saying that very first thing we should do is bump up reliability

      Reliability means COAL FIRED POWER, and plenty of it to spare.

      So, at least one new HELE coal station in each eastern state.

      That is by far the best precaution against blackouts and power fluctuations that we could possible have.

      And as elG says, the global push for “net zero” is probably the most moronic thing western civilisation could possibly do.

      171

  • #
    el+gordo

    Nothing will change until the Morrison government is thrown out of power and Josh loses his seat. At that point Peter Dutton will take the reigns as Opposition leader.

    151

  • #
    Neville

    Here’s Dr Roy Spencer’s latest article about our latest co2 levels and he has raised some interesting questions.
    See his quote below and the link.

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/04/explaining-mauna-loa-co2-increases-with-anthropogenic-and-natural-influences/

    “Conclusions”

    “The Mauna Loa CO2 data need to be converted to year-to-year changes before being empirically compared to other variables to ferret out possible causal mechanisms. This in effect uses the ‘master equation’ (a time differential equation) which is the basis of many physically-based treatments of physical systems. It, in effect, removes the linear trend in the dependent variable from the correlation analysis, and trends by themselves have no utility in determining cause-versus-effect from purely statistical analyses.

    When the CO2 data are analyzed in this way, the greatest correlations are found with global (or tropical) surface temperature changes and estimated yearly anthropogenic emissions. Curiously, reversing the direction of causation between surface temperature and CO2 (yearly changes in SST [dSST/dt] being caused by increasing CO2) yields a very low correlation.

    Using a regression model that has one anthropogenic source term and three natural forcing terms, a high level of agreement between model and observations is found, including during the COVID-19 year of 2020 when global CO2 emissions were reduced by about 6%”.

    80

  • #
    Ross

    If you probably asked the same people what % of Australia’a electricity supply is provided by solar and wind , my guess a majority of them would say something like greater than 50%. They would, because in the media (TV, Radio, newspapers, social media) there is a cacophony of ads promoting a multitude of companies etc. going green. Sourcing their power from renewables. It also doesn’t help when electric cars are now seen as so chic as well. In past times humans had the “The enlightenment”, we are definitely now in the period of “misinformation”. Or is it disinformation? Maybe I should check Wikipedia to find out?

    100

    • #
      David Maddison

      And how many Canberrans actually believe the BS that their city is entirely powered by “green” energy as the BS says.

      Come to think of it, since most of them are public serpents, politicians or pretend academics, probably most of them!

      111

      • #
        Broadie

        public serpents, politicians or pretend academics

        David,
        That is the top of the pyramid. There is a huge range of support workers for the indulgences of such a Temple of Thieves. For Instance, the world’s oldest profession likely thrives in such immoral swamp.

        31

      • #
        Ross

        It’s actually false advertising and should be called out. All those phone companies, supermarkets, energy suppliers, Linkt (Citylink/Transurban) bragging about their power being sourced from “renewable” sources are telling porkies. If they are hooked up to the AEMO at least 70% of their electricity is coming from the old reliables- coal and gas. Over the last week it was probably at least 80 %. Mind you, i dont think it makes much difference to the end consumer. Once, everyone starts doing it, the virtual signal advantage dissipates very quickly.

        51

  • #
    Philip

    Problem with democracy is you need informed people to make it function as intended.

    160

    • #
      David Maddison

      That’s why voting should 1) be not compulsory and 2) should be based on some qualification to suggest that you are informed and also prepared to be a net wealth producer or at least you would save money. This was done in the past with the concept of “forty shilling freeholders”. According to Wikipedia this was once practiced in England, Scotland, Ireland, the United States of America, Australia and Canada although I am not sure where and when it was practiced here.

      61

  • #
    Katzenjammer

    Most think we contribute 10% or more, and probably have no clue what 10% actually means. It’s a number, isn’t it, and as a nominee for the US Supreme Court might say “I can’t define numbers because I’m not a numerologist (oops) scientist”.

    81

    • #
      David Maddison

      And mathematics is “racist”, or so the Left are teaching in America… Best not to teach it…

      https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/09/the-folly-of-woke-math/

      In the latest episode of the EdFix Podcast, Ball complains that math is a “harbor for whiteness” and “the very nature of the knowledge and who’s produced it, and what has counted as mathematics is itself dominated by whiteness and racism.”

      SEE LINK FOR REST

      101

      • #
        b.nice

        Yet, she and her fellow wokes have no problems with living their lives totally dependent on things invented or built using maths and science.

        If they were not such monumental hypocrites they would go and live in a mud hunt somewhere with zero modern conveniences.

        91

    • #
      James Murphy

      when the GST was introduced in Australia, and, I imagine, to this day, a vast number of people are unable to calculate 10% of a given value.
      try getting the same people to calculate the price without GST, and that’s even more of a challenge.

      30

  • #
    Philip

    These are the two arguments always put forward in colloquial terms:

    Yes but our exports of coal add a lot to the emissions which make us really really bad;

    That anything the natural carbon cycle does is fine, but if man affects it in anyway it will tip it over the edge, make it “out of balance”, the underlying low level childish analysis of environmentalism.

    You will also be told humans emit more than volcanoes etc.

    101

  • #
    Neville

    AGAIN here’s Dr Finkel’s reply to Senator MacDonald at the Senate inquiry.
    Aussies could stop all co2 emissions today and it wouldn’t make any difference.
    Yet we have the Labor + Greens loonies during this campaign telling us the reverse is true.
    How do these liars get away with this fra-d and con trick and not once but many times?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJY8xKknpms

    51

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    “we make 1% of human emissions which are only 4% of total emissions, so that’s 0.04% or 4 parts in ten thousand of all the CO2 emissions on Earth”

    therefore we should do nothing.

    Here is an example which might help

    “we (Australia) have less than 1% of all the domestic violence deaths worldwide, which are only 4% of the total cases, so that’s 0.04% of all the cases worldwide“.

    therefore we should do nothing

    Mind you if the following sentence is true

    “And that’s assuming CO2 emissions matter in the first place, which they probably don’t given how the effect of CO2 is dwarfed by the effect of water, and the tiny warming (such as it is) is beneficial in any case.” (my bold)

    you don’t need the first sentence “we make 1% …

    but the basic argument is not about CO2 or its proven warming effect, but a desire to be a free rider, and allow those extractive industries to continue to make their profits, and that is a valid counterpoint to the assertion “All the players — the politicians, the academics, the ABC, ANU, CSIRO, Schools, Universities, et al and al sundry, all profit from Big Government.”

    223

    • #
      b.nice

      “therefore we should do nothing.”

      WRONG!

      We shouldn’t be “doing nothing”.. we should be boosting our coal fired power fleet !

      Again you try a petty distraction example, totally unrelated to anything. A meaningless empty attempt that ends up saying absolutely nothing..

      “CO2 or its proven warming effect,”

      More BS… CO2 does absolutely nothing to the climate, does not produce warming…

      … your continued inability of producing any evidence, shows it is just an anti-science brain-washed belief.

      There is big difference between profit taken from government largess…. and actually earning it by producing things people actually need.

      But you wouldn’t understand the difference.

      191

    • #
      el+gordo

      Mr Fitzroy, do you agree that ‘the effect of CO2 is dwarfed by the effect of water’ ?

      110

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        Yes, CO2 is often described as the thermostat in that levels of CO2 in reconstructions show a strong relationship with temperature.

        Remember that the common term is greenhouse gasses, and there are several different molecules in that group (I include water vapour as a gas here)

        25

        • #
          b.nice

          Yes warmer temperatures do cause more atmospheric CO2.

          That doesn’t mean CO2 is a thermostat..

          Seems you are totally ignorant of what a thermostat is.

          CO2 doesn’t affect temperature at all.

          It is noted you avoided answering the question.

          Of course the effect of CO2 is dwarfed by water.. CO2 has zero measured or measurable effect.

          31

        • #
          b.nice

          And CO2 is a “radiative” gas.

          Unless you are using the term “greenhouse gas” to describe gases used in greenhouses to enhance plant growth, labeling CO2 a “greenhouse gas”, is a scientific misnomer.

          In the atmosphere it has absolutely zero relationship to a greenhouse or how a greenhouse operates.

          51

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          Yes Peter, a gas is a gas is a gas.

          Just don’t stand downwind of those Koalas.

          41

        • #
          el+gordo

          ‘A thermostat is a regulating device component which senses the temperature of a physical system and performs actions so that the system’s temperature is maintained near a desired setpoint.’

          That would be ENSO.

          00

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      MaryFJohnston
      September 7, 2011 at 6:37 am

      IF

      If world atmospheric temperature rose by 0.6 C degrees over the last 150 years.

      And if Greenhouse gases are the only cause of this rise.

      And if human origin CO2 is to be taken to account.

      THEN.

      Our part of the worlds green house gas effect is 0.0009 C degrees of the temperature rise.

      The rest is nature.

      Likewise we are responsible for 0.0045 mm of the annual 3mm ocean increase.

      Over 100 years we would cause 0.45 mm sea rise.

      Holy Crap Batman.

      We’ve been had by the IPCC.

      121

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        MaryFJohnston

        August 5, 2011 at 1:58 pm

        I have been requested to debate:

        IF

        Active Carbon Dioxide Distribution is:

        a. 98% of Earths ( active ) CO2 is dissolved in the oceans.

        b. 2% of Earths ( active ) CO2 is in the atmosphere.

        c. 97% of atmospheric CO2 is of Natural Origin.

        d. 3% of atmospheric CO2 is Human attributable.

        It would seem then that if we want to control CO2 levels we need to control two systems:

        1. The oceans

        and

        2. Natural CO2 emissions.

        Logically the Atmosphere and Human CO2 emissions are rendered impotent by the shear weight of the other two factors.

        Any comment?

        131

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          The above is a simple quantitative analysis done to put everything in perspective; and that’s “IF” the actual greenhouse effect exists (and it doesn’t).
          Basically it says we are irrelevant.

          Will Janoschka and b.nice could, no doubt, elaborate on the impossibility of any absorption and retention of energy over and above the constraints imposed by the universal gas law; again, there’s nothing and even Arhenius conceded that his original idea about the greenhouse concept was not valid.
          That’s not publicised much, is it.

          81

        • #
          Geoff Sherrington

          Sheer.
          Not Shear.

          40

    • #
      Ronin

      “but the basic argument is not about CO2 or its proven warming effect, but a desire to be a free rider, ”

      A free rider on what, we produce miniscule proportions of a harmless gas, why would anyone think we need to subjugate ourselves for that.

      81

    • #
      el+gordo

      ‘But the basic argument is not about CO2 or its proven warming effect …’

      The case hasn’t been proven that CO2 causes warming.

      111

  • #
    Tel

    Most graphs are done per capita, for obvious reasons, not per country.

    Because countries are kind of arbitrary political groupings, and don’t say anything about the lifestyle of the people living in them.

    You notice a lot of people also believe that the USA and India had the worst deaths due to COVID, when actually on a per-capita basis most of Europe did worse than the USA (especially Eastern Europe) and India was amongst the lowest COVID death rates in the world.

    I also happen to believe that the CO2 “emissions” numbers are suspiciously doctored … they make Australia look very bad, while Australian people don’t use that much electricity. Most usage around the world goes to heating, cooling, and industry but the majority of Australians live in temperate climates, only need a small amount of heating and cooling, and we have almost no remaining industry. I have yet to hear anyone explain why the largest fossil fuel PRODUCERS always end up getting blamed for these things.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

    Sort by the 2018 data and ignore the micro-nations and look at the supposed worst emitters. Let me list them for you:

    Qatar
    Kuwait
    United Arab Emirates
    Bahrain
    Estonia
    Saudi Arabia
    Oman
    Australia
    Kazakhstan
    Canada
    United States
    Brunei
    Turkmenistan
    South Korea
    Iceland
    Russia
    Taiwan
    Czech Republic
    Singapore

    Almost all are heavy fossil fuel exporters … I think it’s rigged. Always willing to listen to the explanation of why this happens but I would be interested if there was a genuine measure on the consumption side.

    100

    • #
      Philip

      I would guess Australia would be high because of agriculture and mining. That is, producing actual survival stuff.

      60

    • #
      Simon

      It’s because mining and refining is extremely expensive in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. Roughly 40% of the greenhouse gas emissions from burning fuel in your car occurs before you put it in your tank.

      35

      • #
        b.nice

        And just imaging how much “carbon expense” is used in all the mining and putrid pollution required for wind turbines, solar panels and batteries.

        Far more than using petrol, gas and coal.. plus you get all the extremely nasty toxic pollutants in the refining processes for manufacturing wind and solar.

        CO2 is a radiative gas.. It does not have any “greenhouse warming effect”, (as your total lack of evidence keep showing us.)

        Calling CO2 a greenhouse gas is a total misnomer, unless you are referring to plant growth enhancement in an actual greenhouse.

        ie.. its not science.!

        51

      • #
        • #
          b.nice

          Seriously elG.. why would anyone be interested in Simon’s comments… except as comedy relief !

          31

          • #
            el+gordo

            The comedy relief is in watching them digging a deeper hole and without Simon and the other zealots this place would be dead.

            20

            • #
              b.nice

              Particularly watching Ian’s ludicrous attempt to justify “The Precautionary Principle” as being “science”

              Its hilarious, (but sad in a pitiful sort of way), to watch him sinking deeper and deeper into the putrid, fetid ooze that might once have been a functioning mind.

              20

      • #
        Philip

        There will be no mining for your green power then Simon ? You’re out of step there as all Greens now love mining. As for agriculture, try eating without oil. You’ll starve quicker than Sri Lanka did when they banned chemical fertilizer.

        40

      • #
        Tel

        Where does the 40% come from? Do you have a reference?

        I get it that a certain amount of natural gas (Methane) might leak into the atmosphere, but I can’t imagine how coal is going to leak … besides, this is supposed to be CO2 emissions, unless they apply some equivalence formula somehow.

        10

  • #

    My collection of information says that 4 percent of the 400ppm of CO2 is man-made and volcanic. Using Isotopic analysis of the Atmosphere, that was defined as 10ppm for Volcanic and 6ppm for Man-made CO2. Ice core data shows that there is a 800 year lag for natural CO2 level increase. The Medieval Warm period peaked 800 years ago, so that proves that most of the increase was natural CO2 from the deep Ocean which has a 275 ratio mixing with the Atmosphere over a period of 800 years. The upper Ocean has a 50 ratio mixing with the Atmosphere over a seven year period. This complex puzzle for me was resolved by “Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2, (1997) by Tom Segalstad” which shows up the scientific fraud for the Carbon Cycle for man-made CO2 used by the IPCC. This is because the IPCC “Cancelled” Henrys law, isotopic evidence in tree rings and Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller’s findings about Venus, which has a quarter of a million times more carbon dioxide that the Earth. That and the temperature at one bar on Venus, prove that Man-made carbon dioxide has contributed only 0.000798 Kelvin to Global Warming by molar mass. This theory produces a precise calibration of the Greenhouse effect by molar mass for the Earth. Nitrogen is the main Greenhouse gas at 100.6 Kelvin and Oxygen imparts 30.3 Kelvin. Argon is third accounting for 1.7 Kelvin, and Water vapour is fourth accounting for 0.3 Kelvin. Carbon Dioxide only produces 0.0532 Kelvin by molar mass. But then isotopic evidence says that only a maximum of four percent of CO2 in the Atmosphere could be man-made or volcanic, that’s 10ppm for Volcanic and 6ppm for Man-made CO2, so therefore in two hundred years, man-made CO2 has contributed only 0.000798 Kelvin to Global Warming. Its slightly above 400ppm, so Man-made carbon dioxide has contributed eight ten thousandths of a degree Kelvin to Global Warming. This means that most of the man-made CO2 has been absorbed by the Oceans, with the 6ppm in the Atmosphere, being the latest information obtained from scientists in Japan.

    Britain is responsible for 1.1 percent of the 0.0008 Kelvin. So Britain has contributed 0.0000088 Kelvin to Global Warming by molar mass.

    91

  • #

    Climate data clearly shows that temperature change always precedes CO2 change thus it is impossible for the later CO2 change to cause the earlier temperature change.
    The fact is that the atmospheric temperature determines the rate of generation of atmospheric CO2. All the rest is blatant lies.
    Any doubters please see my web site.

    101

  • #
    OldOzzie

    Watch out, New York: These electric-bill shocks are just a taste of what Albany has in store

    By Post Editorial Board

    New Yorkers still reeling from this past winter’s higher electric bills must now expect summer prices to be 12% higher than last year. And the pain will only keep on coming, thanks to the state’s demented energy plans.

    Con Edison just told customers in New York City and Westchester that summer-bill hikes could be “in the range” of 11% to 12%. Covering for Albany, the state Public Service Commission says the jump can “broadly be attributed to the global increase in natural gas prices.”

    Broadly, yes. But it’s state policy that guarantees endlessly soaring electric bills. Gov. Kathy Hochul has embraced her disgraced predecessor’s drive to make New York carbon-neutral long before the technology makes that affordable (or most likely even possible: Blackouts ahead!), and the Legislature is largely on board.

    After all, lawmakers wrote then-Gov. Cuomo’s ban on fracking into law, so abundant natural gas is stuck in the ground in the Marcellus and Utica shales. Plus, Cuomo forced the early shutdown of Indian Point, depriving the region of reliable, affordable, carbon-free nuclear power that used to provide much of its electricity.

    Now natural gas-fired power plants produce over a third of the electricity consumed by New York businesses and residences, so we’re more vulnerable to those global price shocks.

    Meanwhile, Con Ed needs a rate hike of a more than $1.2 billion to fund the next round of “upgrades” required by the state Climate Leadership and Climate Protection Act, which forces utilities to burn cash on expensive new wind and solar power sources, plus the transmission lines to get the power to customers and backup capacity to keep the lights on when the sun and wind aren’t cooperating.

    How many more rate hikes are ahead? Meeting the state’s climate goals will require well over $100 billion in capital investment, and utilities only have one source of income: you. (As it stands, taxes alone account for about a third of each customer’s electrical bill.)

    90

  • #
    Ian Hill

    In the 1970s there was an “official” council sign on a main road in Adelaide “Keep St Peters nuclear free”. You could just imagine the Mayor telling the Minister “St Peters has no quarrel with the USSR” – as per the Yes Minister episode!

    Now Wentworth is promised a better climate.

    81

  • #
    Tonyb

    Peter

    The point is that we are utterly irrelevant. In the case of the UK a larger emitter than oz, if we disappeared overnight the temperature would theoretically drop, in 100 years, by the equivalent of walking up two steps,

    Please reaquaint yourself with the story of sisyphus .you don’t destroy a society for these Tiny amounts unless you are a fanatic

    121

  • #
    John Hultquist

    ” The average Australian ”

    “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

    ― George Carlin

    121

    • #
      Ian Hill

      A related metric – “normal”

      I saw this on another forum earlier today – “Normal is only a setting on the washing machine.” — Naomi Judd

      30

  • #
    el+gordo

    ‘ … a rich man’s fantasy …’

    Wentworth will be lost because of weak minded women.

    82

  • #
    RoHa

    But our CO2 is much deadlier than other countries’ CO2.

    111

  • #
    Brian the Engineer

    This is the note from the source.

    Note the 1.1% are the emissions that relate to the country where CO2 is produced (i.e.production-based CO2) , not to where the goods and services that generate emissions are finally consumed.

    So this 1.1% presumably includes all production of oil, coal and gas that is exported and used by others. What miniscule % is actually due to Australian usage.

    81

    • #

      Brian the Engineer
      May 14, 2022 at 3:50 pm ·
      This is the note from the source.

      Note the 1.1% are the emissions that relate to the country where CO2 is produced (i.e.production-based CO2) , not to where the goods and services that generate emissions are finally consumed.

      So this 1.1% presumably includes all production of oil, coal and gas that is exported and used by others

      No !… CO2 emissions are “attributed to the country where the CO2 is produced” ,…
      …..IE,- where the fuel is burned/ consumed. …not where it is exported from !

      00

  • #
    Ando

    When at bbqs etc and someone brings up climate change, I like to play the co2 guessing game…’how much co2 is in tbe atmosphere, 1%, 5%, 20%’? For people who think co2 is a problem, the answers are astonishing and then you see the jaws drop when you let them know the answer and how much of that is mans contribution. Brainwashed sheep cant research or think for themselves.

    81

  • #
    2dogs

    If the only thing Australia can do that actually matters is “leading by example”, the best way to do that is to adopt nuclear.

    It would be influential in prompting India to follow our lead.

    62

    • #
      el+gordo

      Nuclear power is out of the question.

      https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/nuclear-power-stations-are-not-appropriate-for-australia-and-probably-never-will-be/

      Besides, CO2 doesn’t cause global warming so we’ll wait for fusion power.

      42

      • #
        Serp

        A Climate Council authorised opinion is high authority indeed; well spotted el gordo although I fear for your wits should you continue trawling those waters.

        61

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          Thanks for the prompt to read that link; speechless.

          30

          • #
            b.nice

            It really is a load of anti-science BS, isn’t it !

            1. Nuclear could easily be built in Austrlia.. just change the political wil.

            2. SMR’s are by far the best solution for nuclear in Australia, once they come into full production , they will probably not be all that expensive.

            3. There are vast areas in Australia where SMRs could be located that would have basically zero risk to anyone.

            4. We have enough nuclear fuel in Australia to last thousands of years…. how many times will “renewables” need to be renewed by that time.!

            The whole link is base, as is usual for the climatecouncil, on complete and abject ignorance from the very first word to the last.

            This statement is totally priceless and moronic. Did they even think before the wrote it.. Look in a mirror first, clowns.

            However, all other steps involved in producing nuclear power – from mining, to construction, decommissioning and waste management – result in greenhouse gas pollution.

            It applies far more to so-called renewables like wind and solar, which have horrendous mining, manufacturing, decommissioning and waste management issues.

            61

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              Good comment, made more relevant now that Bill Gates has come out in favour of Nuclear power plants provided they don’t come online before March 2023.

              40

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              My apologies for being immoderate.

              “Good comment, made more relevant now that B G has come out in favour of Nuclear power plants provided they don’t come online before March 2023.

              40

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                BG says that as of March ’23 it will be safe to use nuclear because his new VaXXine under development will be approved and ready to go.

                Trials are promising.

                It’s expected that NucleoVax will be available free for all residents living within thirty km of nuclear plants from 31st February.

                00

              • #
                another ian

                Expect an endless string of “security upgrade patches” like Windows

                Chiefio reckons that is “the original computer virus”

                00

          • #
            b.nice

            But, of course, the main reason we won’t be going to nuclear in the foreseeable future, is because we still have large quantities of high quality coal.

            I am convinced that sanity and rational thought will eventually win out. Am I being too optimistic ?

            61

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              It seems that a lot of countries are being forced to light up their coal plants again.

              It seems that the Ukraine crisis has gotten rid of the threat of Global Warming.

              61

            • #
              el+gordo

              The build cost and time line for completion of a nuclear power plant is still formidable. Imagine trying to convince politicians, its a bipartisan issue that will never get up.

              I’m excited by the coal mining venture near Lithgow, ordinary local folk giving the finger to the green left alliance.

              61

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                It’s understood that nuclear is currently much more expensive than coal but even so, it’s still way cheaper and more “environmentally friendly” than the renewables being push on us.

                30

              • #
                el+gordo

                Yeah but we need to stay strong and not pander to ignorance. Going nuclear is the equivalent to raising the white flag.

                20

              • #
                b.nice

                “Going nuclear is the equivalent to raising the white flag.”

                Not sure about that.

                There are places where the transmission line are long and somewhat tenuous. Hard to maintain and those long distances can set up frequency resonances in the lines

                I would like to see a couple of trails using SMRs (small modular reactors) in these places, rather than chopping down forests for wind turbines and occupying farmland for solar panels etc.

                The area of land needed is probably a magnitude or two less than wind and solar, plus you get consistent reliable supply

                10

              • #
                el+gordo

                Nevertheless, as we are so close to the end game this is not the time to pander.

                10

              • #
                b.nice

                So true.. The push should be absolutely for expanded coal fired capacity.

                Just saying it would be interesting to “experiment” with SMRs. 🙂

                Some of the more remote parts of Australia would be the ideal place for them.

                10

            • #
              Serp

              I also think coal will prevail, that within the next few years thermodynamic efficiency will become the watchword and the whole sorry history of emissions will be quietly forgotten.

              10

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    “Yeah but we need to ……” etc etc etc.

    I never said or implied that;

    six weeks ago;

    https://joannenova.com.au/2022/04/japan-flips-on-nuclear-it-tried-to-go-green-without-it-but-now-wants-to-reopen-closed-plants/#comment-2534155
    Kalm Keith

    April 2, 2022 at 10:47 am

    We have the luxury of having great coal to use for a while and can use that period to test and prepare for nuclear powered electricity generation when the cost benefit ratio is better.

    At the moment, coal is clean and lowest cost option.

    KK

    40

  • #
    OldOzzie

    Zali Steggall? No – Do as we say, not as we do.

    Unless I’m mistaken, that’s not Zali in the pic so the car belongs to a hypocritical supporter

    Sunday, 15 May 2022

    An intense adrenaline rush and continuous moments of joy – driven by our most powerful eight-cylinder engine. Yet the best thing about the Cayenne Turbo remains its superior sports car feel.

    With 541 hp, the 4.0-liter twin-turbo V8 engine with twin-scroll turbocharger proves to be particularly powerful. The maximum torque of 6,800 rpm is reached between 1,960 and 4,500 rpm. Acceleration from 0 to 60 mph takes just 3.9 seconds.

    From the Comments

    Zali is not for the battler when you check out the details disclosed in her Register of Members’ Interests, eg private companies, family trusts, investment properties

    just click on her name in the attached link –

    https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Members/Register#sz

    3 December 2021 Steggall, Ms Zali, Member for Warringah, NSW PDF format

    20

    • #
      b.nice

      “just click on her name in the attached link”

      Sorry.. but no thanks 😉 …

      I get a sort of “spew” feeling even considering it.

      She is a most vile, irksome creature.

      00

  • #
    • #
      b.nice

      Sorry, but what exactly is “denialism”

      I don’t know of anything scientifically proven in regard to climate, that anyone here, (except Simon, Ian, PF) actually denies.

      30

  • #
    Daffy

    Is there a ‘tip’ sheet anywhere that summarises the reality of our climate, its drivers, costs of renewables, batteries and grid investment and key points of rebuttal for the Hanrahans? One that is updated so it can be handed to the Holmes a Court investment spruikers?

    00

  • #
    Gbees

    Can you update that nice graph with nature’s CO2 emissions contribution?

    00

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>