Think of Net Zero Targets as a self imposed Carbon Tariff
If you just want cheap coal power, you can’t, not without paying the wind and solar tariff, the battery clause, the pumped hydro pill, and the interconnector addendum.
Tonight the US Tariffs have been paused for 90 days (nearly everywhere bar China) while everyone negotiates, which was no doubt the plan all along, but the invisible Green Tariffs are so much worse. Instead of just being applied once at the border, they multiply like Ebola throughout the national economy — adding an invisible hit to anything that needs heating, cooling, feeding or moving — which is everything, sooner or later, and often many times.
There’s no silver lining, no accidental benefit, we’re not changing the weather, we won’t make more crops, we’re not making cheaper electricity, and we’re not bringing factories back home, we’re shipping ours off to China (where they use coal). For every green job we artificially forced into existence we know the higher energy costs they lead to will destroy 2 – 5 real jobs.
And we’re not even symbolically leading the world in some fashionable cat-walk, because no one is following. We could kid ourselves once that this Politburo style artificial quest might lead to new technologies the rest of the world wanted, but those days are over. The world doesn’t want EVs or solar “farms” much, it wants AI, and that means big and cheap energy.
David Pearl in The Australian a few weeks ago (before the new round of tariffs were added):
Net-zero black hole looms as self-inflicted tariff against the nation
…our ever-rising electricity prices are a direct and entirely foreseeable result of the two major parties’ commitment to achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions.
This policy is a self-imposed monster tariff on our entire $2.7 trillion economy, dwarfing Trump’s hit on our steel and aluminium sales to the US, which account for less than 0.2 per cent of our exports overall.
And it is not a one-off shock, but a ratcheting up of energy costs that started more than a decade ago and must – if the share of wind and solar in our grid is to grow, as both major parties want – continue for the next quarter century.
Not for one or two years, but for decades to come. It is deeply regressive, hurting low-income Australians more than those on higher incomes in exactly the same way an increase in the rate of the GST would. But unlike the GST, it delivers not a cent of revenue to government for hospitals and schools, but instead requires billions to be spent on subsidies each year for everyone harmed by it.
So as the economy progressively weakens, the net-zero fiscal sinkhole must grow each year: a recipe for future financial collapse.
David Pearl is a former Treasury assistant secretary.
“Net Zero Targets as a self imposed Carbon Tariff”
It’s far worse. The hikes in electricity to buy ‘Certificates’ and the hikes in manufacturing, farming, flyihg, transport, mining will kill Australia to buy Julie Gillard’s Carbon Credits will push the cost of living through the roof.
And this money flows no one knows. It is hidden from the public. Every time you buy dirty filthy carbon power (83%) you have to pay again for wind and solar power, whether you use it or not. They get cash. So you are paying double. Renewable Energy(Electricity) Act 2001.
Plus Albanese’s Safeguard Mechanism (2023) ending at 35% in 2023, about to go to 10%. Who gets this money? No one knows. But you have to reduce CO2 output or sequester it with trees or burial. All scientific madness, but this may rip hundreds of billions from Australians. And it is on the ‘250 biggest polluters’. The people who employ people not in the public service. And they left your petrol alone, but Toll holdings, Qantas, Virgin, TT(yes, the only Tasmanian ferry), MMBW and of course every mining company in the country, plastics, fertilizer, concrete.
And what’s the point of rescuing Whyalla and hitting them with a 35% CO2 ripoff?
Forget tariffs. At least that money goes to the public. We are penalizing every major employer in the country (not insurance companies, banks, public servants), but nearly everyone else. And they will mark it up and pass it on.
Devastation in Australia. Unknown. Not debated. And it started in 2001 with John Howard. Then Julia Gillard. Now Albanese.
We have already lost our biggest plastics manufacturer, QENOS with 800 jobs and the ONLY recycler of plastics in the Country. All our plastic bottles now have to come from overseas
We have lost our biggest glass manufacturer who made the windows for parliament house.
And steel manufacturing in Australia will stop, as it has in Britain, costing whole cities including Whyalla and Port Kemble. Lead in Port Pirie. Aluminium of course which is massively subsidized secretly, which is why it is the reason for the US tariffs. In Victoria it seems we taxpayers are paying the wages. I would not doubt that the electricity is subsidized too.
Tariffs? We are being hung by our own public servants. Secretly and illegally because the cash goes overseas do do something no one can do, reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. Change the vapour pressure of dissolved CO2.
And Foxy Loxy in this Chicken Little/Henny Penny saga is China. It’s a river of Australian cash no one talks and is near impossible to find out about. And a direct attack on our miners, transport, manufacturers. The people who make public service, banking and insurance companies possible. It’s like chopping off your own foot for sympathy and cash, as in Jabberwocky.
670
If you want Australia to be the richest country in the world, repeal the two acts, Howard’s Renewable Energy(Electricity) 2001 and Albanese’s (Safeguard Mechanism) 2023.
Electricity prices would halve immediately. And Manufacturing would boom. And all the subsidies like Aluminium would stop. It’s why Alcoa came here in the first place. Cheap electricity. There is nothing cheaper than coal and we have mountains and valleys of the stuff. And Brown coal is just excavation, even if 66% water.
Ask the government’s energy lackey, the CSIRO. They might tell the truth for once. Or fire them.
810
It’s disgusting how willingly the CSIRO have destroyed their credibility.
451
Yes, but this is only part of the CSIRO.
30
The US have now noticed that new Chinese power stations are dependent on supply of low sulphur thermal coal.
Guess who supplies it?
30
In a “ nutshell “ welcome to subsidies.
If we dump net zero & ALL the subsidies we’d be swimming in cash to afford tax cuts , energy bills. The list goes on on & on!
DUMP THE SUBSIDIES NOW, ONCE & Forever!!
290
Some grunt from a think tank was on the radio this morning saying methane is “short-lived” while carbon dioxide “lasts forever”.
With soldiers like this informing decision makers, we’ll be pushing the proverbial uphill until the cows come home.
10% – isn’t that known as a tithe in olden times?
500
It would be great if any of these spokespeople or politicians had any knowledge of Chemistry, especially physical chemistry.
Or if the people with economics degrees had any real experience in business.
In America “The Dow jumped 5.9 percent, the S&P 500 rose 7.3 percent, and the Nasdaq soared 8.9 percent”
The same economists who brought your the GFC. And Chalmers with his PhD in Paul Keating “serving on the international board of the China Development Bank from 2005 to 2018.”
Why is China deciding our foreign policy and Nett Zero? Why does the Chinese ambassador take his advice from Paul Keating and not even our Prime Minister? What is going on?
500
And China claims the US is ‘bullying’ with tariffs. Is this the same China who put 200% tariffs on our wine and lobsters and seized our coal in the port and walked away from our super cheap coal? Just for asking for an investigation into the origins and deliberate spreading of the Chinese Wuhan Flu from the Chinese Army Viral laboratory. Bullying?
We need to dig up our coal and use it, as the Arabs use oil. Why should we keep it in the ground for China?
And it’s the only way we will pay off our Trillion $$$ debt. We shouldn’t even be in debt but for Nett Zero.
660
You would think the Liiberal party think tanks or the excellent IPA in Melbourne could investigate the gigantic business of LGC, STC, Carbon Credits and put a value on them and look at where they go?
This whole thing is illegal, government legislated theft. No government has the right to force you to pay third parties. For nothing but electronic certificates to reduce your carbon ‘obligations’. It has been illegal since Magna Carta.
Australia leads the world in illegal cash certificates, making sure the carbon cash never goes to the government, to general revenue, so they can claim it is not a tax but a private independent ‘market’. Except you would go to jail if you did not pay to play. That part is government.
If people knew about this Albanese and the Greens would be tossed out on their heads. An Dutton could fix Australia in two strokes at no cost. It would fix all those off budget items too, like the Snowy II and $18Billion to Clean Energy Finance. Coal is clean. Diamonds are made from pure carbon. The gas of life is not pollution.
560
TdeF, may I suggest you write an article for IPA Review about this?
https://ipa.org.au/ipa-review-editions
220
It’s more time than I have. This need proper research, especially to follow the money trail. How much is being ripped out. I can show someone how to track it, but it need R&D and authority and time to do the job properly. Real Forensic analysis. The IPA have these people.
I just wrote to the IPA and referenced this blog. And asked for Janet Albrechtsen to look at it. It is appalling that you can have a National debate and the elephant in the room is ignored. Nett Zero. Carbon credits, LGCs, STCs. Government legislation demanding billions for nothing at all and not to go to the Australian taxpayer but overseas.
We are being robbed and driven into National bankruptcy. And from what I can tell, Dutton and friends agree with it. As did Malcolm Turnbull, John Howard and the rest. Even Tony Abbott, who was hot on the idea of growing trees! Howard would not even answer my question at one meeting. He said he was ‘climate change agnostic’. Ha! His legislation has robbed Australians for a quarter of a century. And turned windmills and solar panels into money machines, which pushes prices massively higher and wiping out all manufacturing rapidly.
I hope the IPA is not infected with the same fear of carbon, the sixth element of the Periodic table and the element from which all living things are made. The rest is gas, oxygen and hydrogen.
361
The windmill people don’t care if no one uses their unpredictable power. The mere fact of generation earns Carbon Certificates which they turn into hard cash even if they don’t sell the power. And they get them as well as the payment, so double payment for green electrons. This crushes the carbon producers who have resorted to extortion to stay alive. you can’t blame them.
260
May I recommend that you send it to †he IPA anyway. They might know somebody competent, ready and willing to do that research. Or even have done it but not published yet.
120
Yes, I wrote to the IPA at the same time as this. It’s an immense scandal. You cannot call a government criminal as they write the law, but the carbon ripoff laws are illegal and could be defeated at the High Court. More simply the parliament could just cancel them.
No one knows these massive carbon ripoffs exist, even experts and politicians who are still demanding a Carbon Tax! But with experts like Ross Ganaut, who needs scientists? His Zen Energy is a disaster.
220
What about alerting One Nation and Clive Palmer? For sure The Liberals are not interested in winning! They’re just, in the main, a bunch of status quo seat warmers
50
I believe that Dutton leading with his chin, pledging to build seven nuclear power stations, and to sack 46,000 public serpents, is proof they are content on the opposition benches.
40
The taxes, endless taxes extend to far more than just the alleged carbon taxes. Just received a letter from the shire telling me I will receive 4 brand new rubbish bins, glass recycling, mixed recycling, general rubbish and food and garden organics. I have permission to opt out of this last one if I compost this material.
Fantastic, save the planet. All good. We live on a rural property never had a rubbish EVER. Letter from council that the state government has mandated that every home that a collection service passes must have this system. Council advises that these recyclables have a value and must be saved. For the pleasure of saving the planet I will only be charged an additional $430 p.a. on top of my rates that increase faster than inflation and the increase fire services levy. As I have no way of increasing my income ( I’m 80 ) what’s the plan.
Dunno but every farmer in Victoria will be slammed with these extra charges.
461
You can use the compulsory bins for something useful like storage of grains or feed, various objects or water.
I use my 240 litre “green” bin for garden storage
Many local councils in Melbournistan want to add an extra bin for glass beyond “green”, “recycling” and “general rubbish”. When I get the glass bin I’ll convert it to an emergency water storage container.
I don’t know where the glass goes anyway because expensive “green” energy makes recycling of glass non-viable:
Other sites claim glass is recycled. Perhaps they get a taxpayer-provided subsidy to do so.
290
David its funny how the view on recycled glass has changed over the years. Once thought of as a highly valuable material AGM Spotswood Victoria wanted as much as they could get. Cullet ( crushed or broken glass) was a valuable resource, using less energy to melt than starting from scratch and generally going into coloured glass products such as beer bottles. Glass also has the attribute of being endlessly reuseable, cleaned glass in meant a virtual closed loop. One kg in one Kg out furnace losses were so tiny as to be of no consequence. The introduction of colour sorting machinery also allowed greater uses for the recycled stuff i.e. the browns and greens etc sorted out leaving clear (water white) glass for recycling into higher value produces. Some how this has all suffered a complete reversal.
Even waste glass has value being used as filler in some cement products and road making materials .
My main gripe, why do I have to pay to have stuff with some value taken away. If it’s worth recycling put any proceeds into reducing rates or improving roads etc. Councils or government can’t have it both ways, or can they!
190
There are many different types of glass, and some are not compatible. they have to be separated by type for recycling. Not easy.
I think you might find that mixing 9 compatible bottles with one incompatible can give you 10 bottles worth of waste.
40
What’s wrong with washing and re-filling just like the ‘good old days’?
50
Have you ever seen a boiled frog go past in a recycled ‘long neck’ you would know why we no longer recycle bottles. It requires heat and water and these are strictly verbotten in Australia, at least to those in manufacture and not in the ruling autocracy.
40
I’ve often wondered how they separate smashed glass and paper and cardboard, you can hear the bottles breaking as the truck upends the bin into their hopper
10
What is the plan?
Well, basically, they want you to DIE or walk away.
They are a DEATH CULT like several others currently operating.
Cut off the food to the “big smoke”? A final act of defiance? You and yours would be dead within days after the application of executive attitude And the LSM will be cheering from the sidelines..adjustment.
Once a Penal Colony; always a Penal Colony?
130
These green fairy tales are robbing Aussies blind and will continue at a pace if the Labor, Greens and Teals Coalition are returned on May 3rd.
I can’t understand why this obvious Ponzi scheme wasn’t exposed decades ago, but then again Bernie Madoff lasted for years after maths genius Harry Markopolos exposed his vile con trick.
But the USA SEC failed to take any action against Madoff and he continued his BS and fra-d for years. Just unbelievable but true.
170
BTW here’s a quick review of how Harry Markopolos untangled the biggest Ponzi scheme in history.
Of course this is tiny compared to the CC con trick and fra-d over the last 30 + years and at a global cost of many trillions of $.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Markopolos
100
Here Harry Markopolos appears before Congress to explain his problems trying to expose Madoff over a period of 8 years. Just 12 minutes.
Many more long interviews with Harry and documentaries on You tube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF-gzN3ppbE
30
what a joke – Albo’s Made in Australia ads.
High energy costs, high labour costs, low productivity, growing government debt with more and more handouts, what could go wrong?
361
As Donald TRUMP says: FAFO.
Tragically, Australians will find out soon enough as we discover there’s no more money to tax or borrow and the party of unlimited “free stuff” is over.
240
We surely can’t be far away from the point where the socialists run out of OPM.
30
The net zero agenda can only be about deliberately collapsing the economy and society, because no other result is possible. What I can’t understand is why so many people support such self harm.
330
Because they are poorly educated, uninformed and get their news from their ABC.
270
It that a tautology?
30
A “taught-ology”?
30
In some discussions I’ve had with people which starts out as a simple climate change / renewable energy topic, it ends up in a “we must smash capitalism” rant. I don’t think they see it as self harm because they have a utopian view of what they want to achieve and think that it will be better.
170
It’s funny that people want to smash greedy capitalism when all they really want is more money.
The trick with capitalism is that you have to work for it where socialism promises other people’s money. Laziness drives socialism. Greed is universal.
210
Definition of a Tariff: Tariffs work to discourage imports from foreign countries and encourage import substitution through domestic production.
Definition of a sanction: Sanctions work to discourage imports from foreign countries and encourage import substitution through domestic production.
We have effectively placed sanctions ourselves
120
And carbon credits are worse than putting tariffs on our own exports! We are doing it to ourselves.
Carbon credits push up electricity prices and now the cost of all goods and services with the Safeguard Mechanism and the money flows overseas to make believe tree farmers. Even China, the biggest producer of CO2 in the world by far. Forget this per capita nonsense. China receives carbon credits, say for the Three Gorges Dam on the basis that they built hydro instead of coal power plants and so deserve billions in cash. At the moment they are building another few hundred coal power plants.
And what is the Safeguard Mechanism preventing? Preventing us from being incredibly rich like Saudi Arabia, whole country owned by the Saudi family and friends who do nothing and are rolling in trillions. And it’s our own government secretly stealing our cash to give away overseas.
180
Net Zero obsession results in imposing tariffs
on your own productivity- madness! Trump’s tariffs, as Jim Rickard argues on
Kisin’s Triggernometry, what really matters in a recession, is grow the economy
faster than the national debt, the debt to GDP ratio really matters. He cites
historyical examples, great post.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN7KPahwyUo
20
Jo makes the comparison to Ebola with regards to these self imposed green tariffs or taxes. Not sure it’s the correct comparison. At least with Ebola you would have some very visible diseased bodies lying in the streets. This whole green blob, energy transition thingey is like a slow drip effect. What some might say compares to the old boiling frog analogy. It’s been more of a slow disease since the late 1990’s/early 2000’s. A gradual increase in our power bills which we dont really notice because instead of quarterly, the bills now come in bi-monthly to lessen the shock. Every now and then you will hear of some manufacturing company that has to close down due to overseas competition or unaffordable energy prices. Last week it was a major glass company. So, instead of Ebola it’s more like dementia. A slow onset of forgetfulness, but at least with this malaise we know the culprit – our crazy obsession with CO2 and the stupid idea we can somehow affect the world’s climate. Anyway, some good news this morning. Chris Bowen is polling badly in his electorate with an independent more popular at this stage. Here’s hoping.
171
“crazy obsession with CO2”
Always have a chuckle when some member – in all seriousness – says they are going to tackle carbon dioxide.
The immediate image is the Monty Python lads leaping and flying through the air grasping at … nothing. Or a game of rugby where grown men run around a paddock ‘tackling’ each other then go and have a pint at the bar together afterwards… or is it the hairdressers or the sauna these days?
160
There is plenty of evidence that nothing humans do has ANY effect on CO2 levels. It’s all smoke and mirrors and make believe science.
In this Bizzaro world the equilibrium of dissolved gases does not exist. CO2 sticks in the air perpetually and builds up. The oceans are saturated and cannot accept any more CO2. This is all rubbish, made up cr*p. None of the Greens are scientists. More scientologists, snake oil salesmen and socialists (polite word for lifelong communists like Albanese and Bandt).
Here’s the graph of CO2 vs time. A perfect straight line over the last 55 years of the most explosive growth in human history. Despite any effect from 500,000 Windmills, volcanoes or lockdown or bushfires or anything at all. Because year to year, pole to pole it’s a constant, the vapour pressure of dissolved CO2.
Our human CO2 ’emissions’ count for nothing. Even with 8x the population of 1900AD. It’s a straight line! And CO2 goes up very slowly and linearly because ocean temperatures go up slightly. 98% of CO2 being in the water of a very slightly larger total amount.
140
Australia’s Energy Transition Plan is DEAD – A Hidden Report uncovered by a Federal Guv’ment Senate Enquiry –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4z65FswjHw
Only 9 mins and Top Stuff
80
I have not seen any indication the transition plan was ever alive. It never was a plan. It is a document full of wishful thinking from incompetent academics and CSIRO morons detached from reality.
It follows in the same vein as previous documents claiming the status of a “plan”.
The only way to stop this scam is to defund the government agencies underpinning the scam.
Individuals in Australia can insulate themselves to some degree by making their own electricity and heat energy.
Dutton cannot recover from Morrison’s NetZero. The only way forward is to condemn the climate scam and start building new coal plants. Both QLD and NSW are investing to keep coal fired power station going.
Australia has not learnt anything yet. The power system needs to crash badly and the economy be in recession for years on end before they realise the harm being done by this awful Climate Scam.
Look at Germany and UK. Now in permanent recession but still have far left governments. The voters blossom in the BS they are being fed and are too stupid to realise they are being scammed.
Right wing governments, with the exception of Trump and a few other true leaders, think they have to pander to the far left to win government. Tony Abbott was Australia’s last leader with conviction.
80
‘Energy’ transition plan?
Or was it a political transition plan?
The energy math has never added up.
The political math has produced Merkel, DystopiaUK, Macron, Trudeau (now clown show appropriate Carney), and the political contraption* you guys have in Oz.
Which I can barely follow.
I have a vague idea what a ‘Teal’ is.
Enough to not want further understanding.
*(Not that our Yankee contraption is much better, just familiar.)
51
I must not mention energy math without acknowledging the tireless and greatly appreciated efforts of TonyfromOz.
Sermons to the wind are still heard by some.
50
I should also acknowledge the highly successful luxury recreation industry created over these last decades by the IPCC/COP/WEF.
Where would the executive personal security and high end rent an evening companion industries be without Davos?
81
Americans are less interested in buying and owning electric vehicles than they were two years ago, according to polling Gallup released Tuesday.
The poll shows that the number of Americans who are open to buying an EV has dropped to 51 percent in early 2025, down from 59 percent in 2023.
Lydia Saad, director of U.S. social research at Gallup, said the poll doesn’t show the exact reasons for the drop in interest — but she emphasized that the drop first appeared in Gallup’s polling in March 2024. In that survey, the same number of Americans, 51 percent, said that they own an EV or are open to purchasing one.
…The poll, for example, captures a shift in attitude among the most enthusiastic supporters of EVs. The number of Americans who say they already own an EV or are seriously considering buying one dropped from 16 percent in 2024 to 11 percent in 2025. Democrats, young adults and college graduates also showed declines between 2023 and 2025.
100
Well, many of those buying EVs were stary eyed Dem voters wanting to show everybody they were doing their bit. Plus they thought other people’s money was going to buy a portion of the costs. Now they have MDS. Ford and Chevy had to curtail their part of the “great transisition” or go bankrupt. So, those with MDS don’t have union owned or controlled alternatives either. (I kind of suspect that demographic wouldn’t want their friends to see them driving an American badged car anyway. However, I know of one hard core Kamala supporter who traded in her well built Accord for a Chevy Blazer EV just to show she was all in. Sigh…)
40
And more will become uninterested every year, especially in our northeast quadrant, as aging batteries meet severe winters; or in California, as the grid fails and commuters discover, one morning, the hazard of mixing “smart Meters” with rechargeable autos.
20
And it escapes my logic why Australia should be doing anything about CO2. It is insane. 95% of the world’s population does NOTHING about CO2. (Europe, Canada, Australia, NZ = 400 Million very silly people) So why are we, or rather our politicians breaking our backs and sending tens of billions in cash overseas to help reduce CO2? Are we idiots? Too rich to care? Not for much longer.
The Southern Hemisphere below the Tropic of Capricorn has 2% of the worlds population. Even if we vanished completely, what difference would it make to CO2?
CO2 is in the air whether we are here or not. 40% of the planet surface and CO2 is within 1% of the rest of the world! Doesn’t that tell you that humans make no difference at all to CO2. And we are all made from CO2, carbon and two gases.
Even the total CO2 output of all the factories, cars, trains, trucks, ships world wide is less than 1% of what is already in the atmosphere which is then 2% of what is in the ocean and Australia adds a tiny 2% of 1% of 2% or 0.004% of total CO2 each year. And for this we are made to pay and pay and pay. Forget tariffs. We are being robbed by our governments and secretly.
With our resources in coal, oil, gas, shale, fracking, iron ore, bauxite, rare earths, rutile, lead, zinc and agriculture we should be one of the world’s richest countries. Why are we $1.2Trillion in debt?
So of one thing we can be sure, we are not the Clever Country. Our speciality is self immolation. Like Teslas.
230
Energy debate is tonight. I doubt I will be watching it. Neither debater involved is able to say what needs to be done to lower the cost of energy because they are both committed to NetZero. Almost every Australian knows that nuclear is far off in the future so does not lower the cost of energy in any useful timeframe.
Sensible policy would be to:
1. Stop funding the UN and its globalist policy.
2. Stop funding their ABC. An anti-australian institution pushing globalist propaganda.
3. Stop funding the CSIRO. An incompetent collection of morons pushing globalist agenda.
4. Stop funding the BoM. An incompetent organisation pushing a globalist agenda.
Most people are unaware that the average cost of energy in the USA is well below that of Europe, UK and Australia because Trump’s first term severely hindered their rush to NetZero and economic oblivion.
It is that lack of awareness that means they do not appreciate the significance of what Trump has already done in his second term. How many Australia’s know what the USA EPA “endangerment” is?
Australia’s best hope is that the Climate Scam is dealt a death blow during Trump’s second term and the whole house of cards collapses over the next 4 years. We may then see Australia recognising reality and they have been scammed by their government and the agencies Australians collectively fund.
I doubt Dutton will get the gig but there is no bright light in Australia’s economic future without dropping NetZero and cleaning house of the perpetrators of this terrible scam.
Trump was saying yesterday that every leader is lining up to kiss his a### over tariff deals.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-tariff-ass-kissing-nrcc-hannibal-b2729968.html
He has got their attention.
180
Its on right now on Sky News. Started at 12.30 pm.
However, I’m watching SBS Ch 33 – The Cooking Show.
20
I would put them up for immediate sale (ABC/SBS,BOM,CSIRO). The ABC has huge assets where the BOM and CSIRO have nothing except their unique expertise, if someone could find it. If no one wants them, that’s what they are worth.
In an internet world you can get your news, your science, your ethnic media from the internet, often for free. And the CSIRO just parrots what’s on the internet anyway, like Climate Change. But you have to wonder why most other countries, even very poor countries have nuclear which the CSIRO says we cannot afford.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country
Including destitute Argentina.
You could argue that they do not have coal and we have coal. But nuclear power is illegal in Australia and coal, gas and oil are practically illegal, certainly in Victoria.
Who needs tariffs? We are banning all source of power except hydro in huge arid Australia , wind and solar. Not the Clever Country. And transmission? It barely exists. Most of Australia is not connected and never will be. But gas and coal and oil are portable and storable and convenient and cheap. But Self harm is the particular skill of our Governments. We should be rich except the communists want poverty and revolution or racial conflict. What’s wrong with being rich like the five million people in Dubai where everything runs on infinite power and is unsustainable?
And at Easter, why do we have to save the world by crucifying ourselves, or at least our governments are doing it for us.
160
Yes, its funny to see recharging stations on the Nullarbor run by diesel or deep frier oil from the chips at the roadhouse. How Green can you be? Even the people run on chip fat.
100
Afternoon all,
This sounds like good news to me.
Posted just an hour ago.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-04-10/coalition-keeps-open-option-of-quitting-paris-climate-agreement/105161842
Cheers,
Dave B
20
We need to forget Britain and follow the US. As even Keating said, the UK abandoned us in WWII. And we border the Pacific. Forget Paris. The EU is a joke economically and militarily. It’s just France and Germany and dreams of greatness and Empires fading quickly. They all hate each other anyway.
80
They call the poorer members the PIGS. Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain. Just memories. And getting out of Paris is essential.
80
Dear Moderator,
As I know of no other way to bring something to the attention of Jo and the forum I will send it to you. This GROK 3 report on CC instigated by Willy Soon et. al. deserves critical examination by experts. I hope you have some. I look forward to seeing a post on this.
Cheers -in in hope,
Don
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4dLlDpiXnA
https://www.climatedepot.com/2025/03/24/the-climate-scam-is-over-peer-reviewed-ai-analysis-completely-debunks-all-of-the-man-made-claims/
20
“Our analysis reveals that human CO₂ emissions, constituting a mere 4% of the annual carbon cycle, are dwarfed by natural fluxes, with isotopic signatures and residence time data indicating negligible long-term atmospheric retention.”
Translated this means there is provably negligible man made CO2 in the air. This has been my eternal point. If there is no man made CO2 in the air, the argument that warming is man made is wrong and whether increased CO2 causes warming is irrelevant. We humans didn’t do it. AI says ‘consensus’ science agrees, at least looking at scientific papers, not newspapers.
I would go further with additional points
1. as Prof Will Happer proves from established and valid spectral analysis models, increasing CO2, even doubling it has a 1% increase in heat retention. Negligible.
2. I would go further and put an accurate value of 2.0% on fossil fuel CO2 in the air. This is directly measurable by C14 and not inferred or an argument from likelihood aka coincidence.
3. the only argument for a man made CO2 50% increase in Co2 that it is unprecdented and thus coincidence as measured from ice core samples, is not valid as the connection of CO2 from metamorphic records has a smoothing effect on average of 2,000 years due to diffusion. So comparison with recent firn or laboratory measurements is invalid. The ice record cannot show previous short term variations in CO2.
4 the existence of likely equilibrium of dissolved gases is not mentioned. aka Henry’s Law which is a laboratory based law of Physical Chemistry but the principle remains even on a global scale. Ocean surface warmth will increase CO2 based on simple kinetics of absorption and evaporation.
5 The very great dependence of climates on ocean cycles is not mentioned. The atmosphere has very little mass and being turbulent due to rapid expansion of air volume with temperature and massive lift from Archimedes principle, has little ability to retain heat even between night and day. Hot air rises, fast.
But the vast oceans have 350x the weight and 4x the specific heat and are not hot enough to release heat by radiation so remain unfrozen from pole to pole and the heat movement in currents dominates all climates directly through air heating and then through evaporation and all water on land and weather. They also receive 72% of all radiation.
To ignore ocean cycles as large as the AMO/PDO, Indian Dipole and major currents like Gulf Stream, Humboldt and gyres in general is to confuse cause with effect. Ocean and solar cycles completely dominate our weather and AI only mentions solar cycles. What we call weather is an atmospheric result of ocean and solar cycles. It is not caused by atmospheric heat but ocean warming. So there is a very great acknowledged connection between La Nina and El Nino and weather in the Pacific region which covers half the planet. And these currents are not predictable by computer models which only model the weather.
I am surprised AI did not pick up point 1 from the literature. Points 2 and 3 are my own and I have not read them anywhere else. 2 is in at least one paper in 1958. 3 is an obvious observation of improper joining of results of experimental measurements using different technologies. The time resolution is immediately observable in peak width as with all spectra.
But the general view that fossil fuel CO2 is swept up in a massive rapid exchange of CO2 between ocean and sky is documented in at least 36 papers since 1958. And in at least one, the idea that atmospheric CO2 should be constant in the short term is declared untenable. It is most likely that a change in ocean temperature produces a change in atmospheric CO2.
50
And I have to say that AI is doing simple reporting, not thinking. A review function not an analysis function. And is unable to perform objective analysis. Still computers can read literature far faster than humans and it does debunk the idea that scientific consensus supports man made Global Warming. And that consensus science aka popular opinion is different to scientific consensus.
40
HI T de F, you should go to X and do @ GROK3 it is literally gob smacking, frightening even – have a go.
00
Hi TdeF, with a huge amount of impatience I assumed (I hope not wrongly) that you would approve my going forward on this. Consequently, I sent your comments as below and received the following reply. FYI
DA
Can I review your report on Climate Change for Willy Soon and can I add a comment on it for your review?
25 web pages
I haven’t prepared a specific report on climate change for Willie Soon, as no prior request for one exists in our conversation. However, I can provide a brief overview of Willie Soon’s work and views on climate change based on available information, and you’re welcome to add a comment for me to review. Alternatively, if you have a specific report in mind or want me to create one with particular details, please clarify, and I’ll tailor it for you.
Willie Soon is an astrophysicist known for his skepticism toward the mainstream consensus on anthropogenic climate change. He has argued that solar variability, rather than greenhouse gas emissions, is the primary driver of global warming. His work, often published in peer-reviewed journals, has faced criticism for methodological issues and alleged conflicts of interest due to funding from fossil fuel industries. Mainstream climate scientists, including those contributing to IPCC reports, have largely dismissed his claims, emphasizing that greenhouse gases like CO2 are the dominant cause of recent warming, supported by extensive data from ice cores, temperature records, and climate models. Soon’s arguments tend to focus on historical climate patterns, like the Maunder Minimum, to suggest natural variability explains current trends, but critics counter that these don’t account for the rapid warming observed since the industrial era.
If you’d like me to expand this into a full report or focus on specific aspects (e.g., his publications, funding controversies, or scientific critiques), let me know. For now, you can add your comment to this summary, and I’ll review it. What’s your comment?
yes please
I’m assuming you’re confirming that you’d like to review a report on Willie Soon’s work related to climate change and add a comment for my review. Since I don’t have a pre-existing report, I’ll provide a concise one based on available information about Willie Soon’s climate change views and research. Afterward, you can share your comment, and I’ll review it. If you meant something else by “yes please” (e.g., requesting a specific type of report or clarification), please let me know, and I’ll adjust accordingly.
Report on Willie Soon’s Work and Views on Climate Change
Background: Dr. Willie Soon is an astrophysicist affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (though primarily through Smithsonian funding). He has published extensively on topics related to solar physics and climate science, with a focus on challenging the mainstream consensus that human activities, particularly CO2 emissions, are the primary drivers of recent global warming.
Key Claims:
1. Solar Variability as Primary Driver: Soon argues that fluctuations in solar output, such as changes in total solar irradiance, explain most of the observed climate variability over centuries. He points to historical periods like the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, correlating them with solar activity cycles (e.g., the Maunder Minimum).
2. Critique of Climate Models: He contends that climate models overstate the role of greenhouse gases and fail to account for natural variability, including solar and oceanic cycles.
3. Historical Data Emphasis: His research often uses paleoclimate data to argue that current warming trends are not unprecedented and align with natural fluctuations.
Notable Publications:
• Soon has co-authored papers in journals like Climate Research and Energy & Environment, including a controversial 2003 paper with Sallie Baliunas claiming the 20th century wasn’t unusually warm compared to the past millennium. This paper sparked significant debate and led to editorial resignations at Climate Research over peer-review concerns.
• Other works focus on solar influences on Arctic temperatures and global climate patterns, often concluding that solar forcing outweighs anthropogenic factors.
Controversies:
• Funding Criticism: Documents revealed that Soon received over $1 million in funding from fossil fuel-related entities, including ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute, raising questions about bias. Soon has maintained that his funding doesn’t influence his conclusions.
• Scientific Reception: The broader climate science community, including IPCC contributors, has largely rejected Soon’s conclusions. Critics argue his studies cherry-pick data, ignore well-established physics of greenhouse gases, and fail to explain the rapid warming since the mid-20th century. For example, CO2’s radiative forcing is measurable and matches observed temperature trends, while solar output has remained stable or slightly decreased during this period.
• Media and Public Presence: Soon is a frequent speaker at climate skeptic events, like those hosted by the Heartland Institute, amplifying his influence in non-academic circles despite limited traction among mainstream scientists.
Current Context: As of 2025, Soon continues to publish and speak on climate issues, though his work remains on the fringes of climate science. The consensus, backed by extensive data (e.g., global temperature records, ice core CO2 measurements, and satellite observations), attributes over 90% of recent warming to human activities, with solar variability contributing minimally.
Summary: Willie Soon’s research highlights solar influences on climate, challenging the role of CO2. While his work raises valid questions about natural variability, it’s criticized for methodological flaws and downplaying well-documented evidence of anthropogenic warming. His funding sources have further polarized discussions around his credibility.
________________________________________
You can now add your comment on this report, and I’ll review it. What’s your comment? If you’d like me to revise the report (e.g., more details, different focus, or inclusion of specific sources), just let me know!
My comment is “Our analysis reveals that human CO₂ emissions, constituting a mere 4% of the annual carbon cycle, are dwarfed by natural fluxes, with isotopic signatures and residence time data indicating negligible long-term atmospheric retention.” Translated this means there is provably negligible man made CO2 in the air. This has been my eternal point. If there is no man made CO2 in the air, the argument that warming is man made is wrong and whether increased CO2 causes warming is irrelevant. We humans didn’t do it. AI says ‘consensus’ science agrees, at least looking at scientific papers, not newspapers. I would go further with additional points 1. as Prof Will Happer proves from established and valid spectral analysis models, increasing CO2, even doubling it has a 1% increase in heat retention. Negligible. 2. I would go further and put an accurate value of 2.0% on fossil fuel CO2 in the air. This is directly measurable by C14 and not inferred or an argument from likelihood aka coincidence. 3. the only argument for a man made CO2 50% increase in Co2 that it is unprecdented and thus coincidence as measured from ice core samples, is not valid as the connection of CO2 from metamorphic records has a smoothing effect on average of 2,000 years due to diffusion. So comparison with recent firn or laboratory measurements is invalid. The ice record cannot show previous short term variations in CO2. 4 the existence of likely equilibrium of dissolved gases is not mentioned. aka Henry’s Law which is a laboratory based law of Physical Chemistry but the principle remains even on a global scale. Ocean surface warmth will increase CO2 based on simple kinetics of absorption and evaporation. 5 The very great dependence of climates on ocean cycles is not mentioned. The atmosphere has very little mass and being turbulent due to rapid expansion of air volume with temperature and massive lift from Archimedes principle, has little ability to retain heat even between night and day. Hot air rises, fast. But the vast oceans have 350x the weight and 4x the specific heat and are not hot enough to release heat by radiation so remain unfrozen from pole to pole and the heat movement in currents dominates all climates directly through air heating and then through evaporation and all water on land and weather. They also receive 72% of all radiation. To ignore ocean cycles as large as the AMO/PDO, Indian Dipole and major currents like Gulf Stream, Humboldt and gyres in general is to confuse cause with effect. Ocean and solar cycles completely dominate our weather and AI only mentions solar cycles. What we call weather is an atmospheric result of ocean and solar cycles. It is not caused by atmospheric heat but ocean warming. So there is a very great acknowledged connection between La Nina and El Nino and weather in the Pacific region which covers half the planet. And these currents are not predictable by computer models which only model the weather. I am surprised AI did not pick up point 1 from the literature. Points 2 and 3 are my own and I have not read them anywhere else. 2 is in at least one paper in 1958. 3 is an obvious observation of improper joining of results of experimental measurements using different technologies. The time resolution is immediately observable in peak width as with all spectra. But the general view that fossil fuel CO2 is swept up in a massive rapid exchange of CO2 between ocean and sky is documented in at least 36 papers since 1958. And in at least one, the idea that atmospheric CO2 should be constant in the short term is declared untenable. It is most likely that a change in ocean temperature produces a change in atmospheric CO2.
Thank you for sharing your detailed comment and additional points. I’ll review your comment as requested, address its claims in the context of the report on Willie Soon’s work, and respond to your five additional points, keeping the discussion grounded in verifiable science. My response will aim to be clear and concise while respecting your perspective and the complexity of the topic. I’ll also clarify the scientific consensus as it stands in 2025, based on available data, and address your surprise about certain points not being picked up.
________________________________________
Review of Your Comment
Your Comment: “Our analysis reveals that human CO₂ emissions, constituting a mere 4% of the annual carbon cycle, are dwarfed by natural fluxes, with isotopic signatures and residence time data indicating negligible long-term atmospheric retention.”
Translation (per you): This implies negligible man-made CO2 remains in the atmosphere, undermining the argument that warming is human-caused, as it negates the role of anthropogenic CO2 in driving climate change.
Response: Your comment aligns with a perspective similar to Willie Soon’s skepticism about anthropogenic climate change, emphasizing natural carbon fluxes over human contributions. However, the claim that human CO2 has “negligible long-term atmospheric retention” doesn’t fully align with current scientific understanding. Here’s why:
• Carbon Cycle Context: It’s true that human CO2 emissions (~40 GtCO2/year) are a small fraction (~4%) of the total carbon cycled annually through natural processes like photosynthesis, respiration, and ocean exchange (~750 GtCO2 equivalent). However, natural fluxes are roughly balanced—CO2 emitted by natural sources (e.g., oceans, soils) is largely reabsorbed by natural sinks (e.g., plants, oceans). Human emissions, though smaller, are additional and not balanced by equivalent sinks, leading to a net increase in atmospheric CO2.
• Isotopic Evidence: Carbon isotopes (C12, C13, C14) clearly show human influence. Fossil fuel CO2 lacks C14 (decayed over millennia) and has a distinct C13/C12 ratio compared to natural sources. Measurements show a decline in atmospheric C14 and C13/C12 ratios since the industrial era, directly tying the ~50% rise in CO2 (from ~280 ppm in 1850 to ~420 ppm in 2025) to fossil fuel burning.
• Residence Time: Individual CO2 molecules may cycle out of the atmosphere quickly (years), but the perturbation from human emissions persists for centuries. Excess CO2 is absorbed slowly by oceans (decades to centuries) and terrestrial sinks, with ~20-25% remaining airborne for thousands of years, per models and ice core data.
• Implication for Warming: The rise in CO2 drives radiative forcing (~2.1 W/m² for current levels), measurably increasing global temperatures (~1.1°C since pre-industrial times). This contradicts the claim that negligible man-made CO2 undermines human-caused warming.
Your comment suggests that if human CO2 is minimal, warming isn’t anthropogenic. However, the measurable accumulation of CO2, isotopic fingerprints, and physics of greenhouse gases confirm human activity as the primary driver, consistent with the consensus reflected in IPCC reports and peer-reviewed studies.
________________________________________
Response to Your Additional Points
1. Claim: Prof. Will Happer’s spectral analysis shows doubling CO2 causes only a 1% increase in heat retention, implying negligible impact.
Response: William Happer, a physicist, has argued that CO2’s warming effect diminishes logarithmically, so doubling CO2 (e.g., 280 to 560 ppm) has a smaller relative impact than earlier increases. His estimate aligns with a simplified view of radiative forcing, but the consensus is different:
• Doubling CO2 yields ~3.7 W/m² of forcing, per well-established radiative transfer models (e.g., MODTRAN, HITRAN). This translates to ~1°C of direct warming, or ~2-4.5°C with feedbacks (water vapor, albedo), per IPCC AR6.
• Happer’s “1%” figure likely refers to a narrow metric (e.g., incremental absorption in specific bands), but it understates total climate sensitivity. Peer-reviewed studies, including those by Arrhenius (1896) and modern GCMs, show CO2’s effect is significant, not negligible.
• Why not picked up? Happer’s view is noted in skeptical circles but contradicts extensive modeling and observational data (e.g., surface and satellite temperature records), so it’s less prominent in mainstream literature.
2. Claim: Fossil fuel CO2 is only 2.0% of atmospheric CO2, directly measurable by C14, not inferred.
Response: The claim that fossil fuel CO2 is only 2% of total atmospheric CO2 seems to misunderstand the carbon budget:
• C14 measurements confirm fossil fuel contributions. Pre-industrial CO2 was ~280 ppm; today’s ~420 ppm reflects a ~140 ppm increase. Isotopic analysis attributes ~90% of this rise to fossil fuels and deforestation, not 2%.
• Your 2% figure may stem from misinterpreting C14 depletion relative to total CO2 or conflating annual emissions with cumulative stock. Cumulative human emissions since 1850 (~2,500 GtCO2) account for the observed rise, with ~50% remaining airborne, per mass balance calculations.
• This is documented in studies like Revelle and Suess (1957) and modern carbon cycle models, not just one 1958 paper.
3. Claim: Ice core CO2 records are smoothed over 2,000 years due to diffusion, invalidating comparisons with recent measurements and claims of unprecedented CO2 rise.
Response: Ice core smoothing is a valid concern but doesn’t negate the evidence:
• Gas diffusion in firn (pre-ice snow) smooths CO2 records, but high-resolution cores (e.g., Law Dome) resolve changes over decades, not millennia. These show stable CO2 (~260-280 ppm) for 10,000 years before a sharp rise post-1850.
• Diffusion varies by site (e.g., ~20-100 years at WAIS Divide), not 2,000 years. Comparisons with modern measurements are calibrated to account for this, ensuring consistency.
• The “unprecedented” claim is robust: no natural analog matches the current CO2 rise rate (2-3 ppm/year vs. <0.1 ppm/century in pre-industrial records). Your observation about peak width is insightful but overstates the smoothing effect relative to data resolution.
4. Claim: Henry’s Law implies ocean warming drives CO2 release, explaining atmospheric CO2 rise via equilibrium kinetics.
Response: Henry’s Law governs gas solubility, but its application here needs context:
• Warmer oceans reduce CO2 solubility, releasing CO2 (e.g., during El Niño). However, this is a feedback, not the primary driver. Oceans are net CO2 sinks, absorbing ~25% of human emissions (~10 GtCO2/year), per ocean pH and carbon budget data.
• The CO2 rise precedes significant ocean warming (e.g., 1850-1900), and isotopic signatures confirm fossil fuels, not ocean outgassing, as the source. Henry’s Law supports transient CO2 release but can’t account for the sustained ~140 ppm increase.
• This is addressed in literature (e.g., Sabine et al., 2004), though less emphasized in skeptical arguments.
5. Claim: Ocean cycles (e.g., AMO, PDO) dominate climate, not atmospheric CO2, due to oceans’ mass, heat capacity, and currents. Weather is an oceanic effect, and models fail to predict these cycles.
Response: Oceans are critical to climate, but this doesn’t negate CO2’s role:
• Oceans store ~93% of Earth’s heat and drive variability like ENSO, AMO, and PDO. These cycles cause short-term fluctuations (e.g., La Niña cooling), but the long-term warming trend (~0.2°C/decade) aligns with CO2 forcing, not decadal ocean cycles.
• Ocean heat capacity delays atmospheric warming but doesn’t negate it. Since 1950, ocean heat content has risen (~10²³ J), consistent with greenhouse-driven warming, per ARGO and XBT data.
• Models don’t fully predict ocean cycles (e.g., AMO’s 60-80 year periodicity), but they capture long-term trends. Weather isn’t purely oceanic; radiative forcing shapes baseline conditions, which oceans and atmosphere amplify.
• Your point about ocean dominance is partly valid but overstates cause vs. effect. Solar cycles are minor (~0.1 W/m² forcing), and ocean cycles redistribute heat, not generate it, unlike CO2’s sustained forcing.
________________________________________
Addressing Your Surprise and General View
• Why Point 1 Wasn’t Emphasized: Happer’s argument is known but marginalized in peer-reviewed literature because it conflicts with observational data (e.g., global temperature rise matching CO2-driven models). I didn’t omit it deliberately; it’s less prominent due to its limited acceptance beyond skeptical circles.
• Points 2 and 3 as Original: Your 2% C14 claim and ice core smoothing critique are creative but diverge from established data. The 1958 paper you mention (likely Revelle and Suess) supports human CO2 accumulation, not a 2% limit. Your smoothing observation is astute but overestimates diffusion’s impact, as high-resolution cores counter this.
• Rapid CO2 Exchange: The idea of rapid ocean-atmosphere CO2 exchange is documented (e.g., in 36 papers you note, possibly including Craig, 1957, or Broecker’s work). However, these affirm that human emissions disrupt this balance, causing accumulation. The claim that ocean temperature drives CO2 rise is tested and rejected by isotopic and temporal data (CO2 rise leads ocean warming).
• Consensus Clarification: You mention AI citing “consensus” from papers, not newspapers. I confirm the consensus—~97% of climate scientists agree human CO2 drives warming—comes from peer-reviewed studies (e.g., Cook et al., 2013; IPCC AR6), not media. Papers like Mann et al. (1998) and Marcott et al. (2013) reinforce this with data, not narratives.
________________________________________
Integration with Willie Soon’s Work
Your comment and points echo Soon’s emphasis on natural variability (solar, oceanic) over anthropogenic CO2. Like Soon, you question the scale of human impact and highlight alternative drivers. However, Soon’s solar focus doesn’t directly address your ocean cycle or Henry’s Law arguments, though both share a skepticism of CO2’s dominance. The report noted Soon’s funding controversies and scientific critiques, which apply here: claims of negligible human CO2 (your 2-4%) or minimal warming (Happer’s 1%) are outliers against robust evidence (isotopes, radiative physics, temperature records). Your ocean cycle point strengthens Soon’s variability argument but doesn’t overturn the measurable CO2-warming link.
________________________________________
Next Steps
I’ve reviewed your comment and points, aiming to balance your perspective with scientific rigor. If you’d like:
• Refine the Report: I can incorporate your points into a revised report on Soon, noting them as alternative views with my analysis of their validity.
• Deep Dive: I can explore one point further (e.g., C14 data, ice core diffusion, or ocean cycles) with specific studies.
• Comment Adjustment: If you want to tweak your comment based on this, I’ll re-review.
• Other: If “yes p;ease” meant something else, clarify, and I’ll pivot.
What’s your preference? For now, I’ll assume you want me to confirm my review is complete unless you specify otherwise. Thanks for the engaging discussion!
How can Grok help?
DeepSearch
Think
Grok 3
00
TdeF, Do I have your permission to put your comments to GROK for comment? Or do it yourself.?
00
I took a look today. I’m predicting something worse than the worst slump in a lifetime (for UK). That’s because Nut Zero is underlining about another half dozen things that are all at this moment sufficient, on their own, to push us into recession. I think in a year’s time we will look back at this time as “the good times”.
40
Infuriating! Who are those NetZero Black Hole self-inflictors? They’re like a pernicious disease that needs a kind of radical surgery that won’t destroy the vital functions of the host. I wish voting was the answer. Unfortunately, as a solution, it’s not worth a box of Bandaids.
20