Greens are best friends of the Bankers
By Jo Nova
It hurts the Greens when skepticism rises in polls and they have no good answers
It must drive them wild when backward redneck farmers refuse to see the bat killing wind turbines as the shiny totems against bad weather. The ingratitude! (How could they not like high voltage lines!)
So The Greens set up a Senate Inquiry on “Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy” convinced that there are buckets of money washing around for astroturfing farmers and paid jobs for bloggers and commentators to spread climate misinformation.
It’s as if they think they’re only losing the battle because voters are too stupid to figure out the truth if they accidentally hear both sides of the argument. They have to be fed a pure stream of “the green information”. And thus the caring compassionate Greens turn out to be arrogant, condescending and profoundly undemocratic status seekers yet again.
The Greens recite their own religious hymn:
“For decades, vested interests have been waging a global war of disinformation against the clean energy transition, including environmental and climate legislation, and these vested interests have recently achieved significant political success in nations such as the US.
The craziest thing is that after “climate change” approved agitprop has been shoveled out through every media outlet and school for twenty years, the Greens can still pretend that somehow a few dissenting voices can confuse half the country.
They fool themselves that they are the little guys bravely fighting the Big-Oil powers of the world, while they hold hands with Big Bankers and One World Government wannabees. If it’s honest, this inquiry to follow the money will lead right back to their own team. Nearly all the vested interests in this debate are stacked 6 feet high on the side of the Greens. They stand with The United Nations, global academia, the media, the bankers, the pension funds, industrial wind and solar power, the battery manufacturers, the climate modelers, the Bureaus of Meteorology, and to round it all off, the Chinese Communist Party too.
Speaking of bankers, at one point GFANZ — the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero had 500 members which controlled some $130 trillion dollars of assets. There is no bigger “vested interest” in the world than 500 financial houses, insurance groups and asset managers. They were managing funds six times larger than the GDP of the most powerful nation on Earth. They openly colluded to change energy policy around the world, despite the wishes of voters, and to undermine the free market. It looked, acted, and smelled like a cartel. So much so, that 19 Republican states in the US launched legal proceedings on antitrust and fiduciary duty. At that point many of the banking houses backed away obviously recognizing the legal danger they were in.
UPDATE: My submission has been accepted and published at #155.
Submissions close today, (Friday 12th September.) My draft follows with rough edges. I will polish later, thanks for suggestions…
______________________________________________________________________________________
Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy
A Draft submission from Jo Nova
1.a. “the prevalence of, motivations behind and impacts of misinformation and disinformation related to climate change and energy;“
The Prevalence of misinformation is rife — mostly through lies-by-omission
The most powerful and pervasive misinformation is that of the lie of omission. Australian people have been subject to misinformation in the form of half-truths and the suppression of relevant facts, without the context that renders the point irrelevant, minor or not so frightening.
- Water is the most powerful greenhouse gas — absorbing across a broader range, and 10 to 100 times more abundant. The word games pleading that it is “not a driver” are mere assertion based on climate models that we know don’t work.
- The world was hotter 5 to 10,000 years ago in the Holocene, and 120,000 years ago during the Eemian, and for most of the last 500 million years. Life on Earth evolved during hotter periods that lasted hundreds of millions of years.
- Seas have been falling for 7,000 years since the Holocene optimum. Australian seas were 1 to 1.5m higher. (Lewis et al)
- Temperatures of 50°C were recorded all over Australia in the 1800s. (Trove, NLA) The BOM would say these were not done on certified official equipment (because there was none at the time) but this is Australian history, and some of these temperatures were recorded at observatories by trained staff. Shouldn’t Australians at least know this?
- Most Pacific Islands have grown in size in the last 50 years. 89% of 709 Pacific Islands were found to be the same in size or growing (Duvat et al). There are no inhabited islands, not one, that is smaller now than it was in 1970. (Kench et al).
- Nobel Prize winners and astronauts are silenced? While the media will tell us a high school activist’s opinion on climate change they would not phone up and interview Nobel Prize winners who were skeptics — like Ivar Gievar (now deceased), Robert Laughlin, or John Clauser. They would not talk to men who walked on the moon and ask them why they were skeptical. Isn’t the opinion of Buzz Aldrin, Harrison Schmidt, and Charles Duke worthy of reporting?
For thirty years all media outlets have misinformed Australians about what science is:
The media have given Australians the impression that science is done by a kind of religious “expert” decree which must not be questioned, when the truth is the exact opposite. Tragically, the CSIRO, and most of our universities have sat quietly by allowing this (they have a vested interest and motivation in doing so, don’t they?)
- Science is not done by consensus. Professors of Science don’t vote for gravity. The truth is revealed through observations and measurements, not via opinion polls.
- The science is not “settled” — if it was, we’d know if next year would have a barbecue summer, or wet winter. We’d be able to predict El Niños & La Niñas. There would be only one Climate model, and expert modelers would not be “surprised” that the Antarctic sea ice is suddenly melting, while the Arctic hasn’t shrunk in the last 20 years. They wouldn’t have said that warming in the upper troposphere was a “fingerprint” of man-made climate change only to find that 28 million weather balloons showed the fingerprint wasn’t there.
- All scientific theories must be falsifiable. If a theory can never be proven wrong, it isn’t science but religion. Both warm and cold extremes “prove” climate change, as does both droughts and floods, more cyclones, less cyclones, faster and slower winds, more sea ice, less sea ice, and also completely stable sea ice for twenty years.
- Peer Review is neither essential for science nor proof of anything. Einstein’s great works were not peer reviewed.
- It’s not science unless all methods, and all data are published in full. The Bureau of Meteorology homogenizes temperatures by an in-house subjective process that they admit they cannot explain to outsiders. (The BOM Technical Advisory Forum report. 2015) This is more like a medieval guild than a scientific institute. They will not publish the side-by-side temperatures recorded with two different types of thermometers (electronic sensors versus liquid in glass) even under FOI, and it shouldn’t require an FOI in the first place.
- Wind and solar power are not cheap in any meaningful sense — there are few uses of intermittent or random electricity, so it is misinformation to report short term prices for wind and solar as if they are comparable to prices for reliable stable supply. Australians need to know the cost of 24 hour reliable electricity, which is what they have been paying for, for decades. This includes storage, back-up, frequency stability, transmission, and network costs. Since intermittent supply
The motivations are obvious (but unreported)
There are many vested interests in the climate debate and most of them profit from promoting Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change.
Bankers can act as brokers in buying and selling carbon credits (but only if the governments force people to buy them). If they are also heavily invested in renewables, or EVs, or insurance, or want to do business in China, they have many ways to profit from climate change fears and the quest for Net Zero.
-
Global finance: GFANZ (Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero) claimed in 2021 to represent 500 firms with US $130 trillion in assets under management — six times larger than the GDP of the USA. While these funds were not invested in “climate change” per se, the point of the GFANZ group was to use their market power to advance Net Zero policies and industries. This dwarfs any fossil fuel lobby. As I reported at the time, Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg admitted they pushed through a Net Zero Target for Australia in November 2021, not because Australians voted for it, but because the bankers threatened to raise interest rates by 1.5% which would cause market chaos, and raise payments on national debt.
- The Global Carbon Market was worth $909 billion USD two years ago. Several forecasts (e.g. in the carbon credit market) project values of ~US$2 trillion by 2030 under current growth trajectories.(Fairfield )
-
The Australian government: The Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) has committed over $18 billion in taxpayer-backed funds, heavily tilted to wind, solar, and storage. ARENA (Australian Renewable Energy Agency) has provided over $2 billion in grants. If it turned out that there was no catastrophe, many careers would be lost, and politicians reputations ruined.
-
Universities: Billions in research grants flow to projects aligned with catastrophic climate messaging, while skeptical proposals receive effectively zero support. Skeptical researchers are often sacked for speaking out (see Peter Ridd or exiled like Prof Bob Carter and Murry Salby). In addition, University superannuation funds are often invested in renewable or green funds, and thus, benefit from promoting climate fears. This is a direct conflict of interest.
- Unisuper — is the dedicated super fund for the higher education and research sector in Australia.It manages over $135 billion (as of 2024) for ~600,000 members (university staff, researchers, etc.). UniSuper publicly states its commitment to net zero emissions by 2050 across its portfolio, with interim 2030 targets. It has invested in renewable energy developers, infrastructure, and green bonds. Example: In 2021 UniSuper joined other big funds in Climate Action 100+, a global investor initiative pressuring companies to decarbonise.
- And there is also AustralianSuper, HESTA, and AwareSuper all who have made NetZero pledges.
-
Subsidies: In the last ten years renewable subsidies are estimated to add up to $29 billion (CIS). But the total burden on households is much larger. Dr Alan Moran’s broader estimate is $1,300 per household or $13 billion a year.
- China is also a supermassive vested interest that benefits from the climate fear campaign — selling 80% of the worlds solar PV, much of the wind power, and more than half of the EVs. It is not surprising that China has funded eco-lawfare suits in the USA which would impose burdens on US Energy companies, making them less competitive and indirectly making US manufacturing less competitive due to it’s reliance on energy that is not so cheap. Chinese money found it’s way into New York activist groups in the US to push for the climate “SuperFund Law” which may force US Companies to pay $75 billion in climate damages to New York. Meanwhile the Chinese branch of the Energy Foundation has funnelled $12 million to US universities and non-profits to promote green energy and tax reform since 2020.
There is a large asymmetry in motivation — while fossil fuels are in high long term demand which is remarkably inelastic, there is only a small voluntary market for carbon credits, wind power, solar power, or green steel as a fashion item. Without the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change the subsidies, entire profit margin, even industry would evaporate overnight. Hence the motivation of people 100% dependent on the theory is a life or death type of commitment. Despite twenty years of subsidies, global coal production and use is still rising. Coal companies don’t need to advertise to find customers.
The United Nations gains power, funding, and status with annual giant Olympic size junckets. Every year between 10,000 and 100,000 people fly to meetings that last as long as two weeks. The UN wrings money and favours out of states by threatening to rate their wilderness or reefs as “endangered” and demanding they sacrifice part of their economic advantage to satisfy the
Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy
On 30 July 2025, the Senate appointed a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy, to inquire into the prevalence and impacts of misinformation and disinformation which relates to climate change and energy.
The committee is due to present its final report by Wednesday, 4 February 2026.
The closing date for submissions is Friday, 12 September 2025.
Committee Secretariat contact:
Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy
Department of the Senate
PO Box 6100
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Phone: +61 2 6277 3024
[email protected]
REFERENCES
BOM Technical Advisory Forum report. 2015 — http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/2015_TAF_report.pdf
Duvat, V. K. E. (2018). A global assessment of atoll island planform changes over the past decades. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, e557. doi:10.1002/wcc.557
FairField Market Research, https://www.fairfieldmarketresearch.com/report/carbon-credit-market, August 2023.
Kench, P.S., Liang, C., Ford, M.R. et al. (2023) Reef islands have continually adjusted to environmental change over the past two millennia. Nat Commun 14, 508 doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-36171-2
Lewis, S.E., et al., Post-glacial sea-level changes around the Australian margin: a review, Quaternary Science Reviews (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2012.09.006 [abstract].
Trove (NLA) — For exact references to the many 50C recorded days and locations see the list at https://joannenova.com.au/2019/01/forgotten-history-50-degrees-everywhere-right-across-australia-in-the-1800s/
Wu, Michael (2024) Counting the cost: Subsidies for Renewable Energy, Analysis Paper 70, Centre for Independent Studies (CIS)
Complete arrogance, cluelessness, and lack of self-awareness, dare I say awareness of reality itself.
I’m surprised they didn’t blame Joe Rogan.
Wait … no, it’s entirely ruthless sociopathic lust for power masquerading as humanitarian idealism.
They know the facts on your list as well as you do.
410
For which, they have no one to blame but themselves.
As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. When they made the decision to ostracize and ban skeptics from their little club, they lost the ability to win arguments, understand their opponents, or even fully understand their own arguments. Instead of steelmanning their arguments to defeat skeptics, they turned to strawman arguments that lacked intellectual coherence in order to banish all dissent. Meanwhile, their ‘climate denier’ opposition went underground, got nimble, sharpened their arguments, and set to the business of convincing people they were right. And succeed they did, because their well-heeled and luxuriously funded opposition hadn’t had to defend their nonsensical positions for decades and usually won by stamping their feet, pointing their finger, and screaming HERETIC, which had left their argumentation skills duller than a butter knife. In a battle between 1000 butter knifes versus 10 razor sharp machetes, bet on the machetes.
311
They only do it so they can get paid more.
201
Good Luck with your submission Jo although methinks you may well be in a minority.
The Blob activists will have a completely opposite view and will likely try to swamp (no pun intended – drain the swamp) the Enquiry with their submissions.
280
Great submission Jo
10
May I cite an example of a brave researcher in Australia who works tirelessly to analise the reliability of our national weather bureau’s historic weather station data. He goes back into the metedata – that is the data-about-the-data and finds there are grave flaws in the conclusions the Bureau has reached about past temperatures etc.
The point I want to make is that he does this entirely at his own expense. There is no vast conglomerate of financial backers behind him. His name, Dr. Bill Johnston, a former senor Research Scientist in a NSW government and an official weather observer for decades. A scientist of true integrity, his work can be accessed on http://www.Bomwatch.com.au
500
It’s only a matter of time before supposed “misinformation” about “climate change” that doesn’t conform with the Official Narrative is censored by the e Safety Kommissar.
And with the ban on social media for under 16’s, including the non-kids version of YouTube, how will under 16’s get access to alternative pro-science points of view on the matter?
321
So the question becomes, would she ban the following: –
“I don’t believe in man made climate change /s”
Or how about.
“I don’t think that man made climate change is false.”
(Implied that I know it’s false, I stopped thinking about a long time ago).
One thing for sure, anyone who reads this blog has been traced and there will be a knock on the door. I can spell Gulag, I wonder which one I’ll be sent to. Hopefully I’ll have a whole group of like minded friends to talk to, well at least before the revolution kicks in.
261
I hope we are allowed a little grog, the conversations will be fascinating. Best part, they will cover every imagined topic, from engineering to some old bloke that knows how to trap a rabbit, and I will bet, all with good humour and even respect for dissenting views!
170
That sounds like a nice scenario but it’d probably end up being an Orwellian maths lesson.
The semantics these days are fascinating- CO2 is now “carbon”, anthropogenic global warming becomes “climate change” and consensus becomes “science”.
181
An excellent summation John! “Carbon”, “Climate Change“, & “Science”! Or perhaps “The Science”?
Can you imagine what the late Herr Doktor Josef Goebbels would have been able to do with these going back almost a century now? But then: Human nature has not changed in the interim …..
90
The inquiry is merely running cover for the stinking propaganda machine run by the tax trough feeders. We are fully aware of this little show trial.
I’m a farmer and part of the fight against transmission lines and turbine. Our groups have no money donated from outside sources and we rely totally on our own funds, little as they are.
The pro renewable groups are funded by big companies and government. Farmers For Climate Action are a Trojan horse for propaganda and have a “donation” based funding. You can see the amounts but not the donors, handy that!
Not a single green will stand up for our bush. These people live in a bubble, far away from the monstrous damage they are endorsing for the environment, agriculture and industry.
BTW – We were the people giving Albo & Jacinta the hard time at the Bush Summit in Ballarat. No outside funding for that protest either. We just piggy back off the multiple pro events and give them the shits.
490
Committee members are from a range of the political spectrum:
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Information_Integrity_on_Climate_Change_and_Energy/Committee_Membership
It would have been nice to see PHON represented.
80
Yes, from the far left, right through to the extreme far left, with a single token dissenter.
50
Rock ‘n’ roll, Jo, give ‘em heaps!
However, as others have noted, you’ll probably be called all sorts of childish names while your submission is nudged into the Disappeared File 💨 with all the other heathen unbelievers [sic].
Minor grammaticals: #2, drop the apostrophes out of El Niños & La Niñas and put one in #4’s Einstein’s.
As for your header artwork – beguiling Gaia parting the way for the Bankster Boys’ latest heist – brilliant! Of all the people who should be funded, it’s you – good luck.
380
Nobody’s perfect!
40
Greg in NZ, thanks. All proof reading welcome. The thing that makes putting in a submission worthwhile is that there will be two people appointed by the Opposition, including the Hon. Matthew Canavan.
Effectively I am offering some perspectives and references for them to push back with.
210
Jo, your submission looks ok- but after Jacinta Price’s recent experience with telling the truth, I’m not sure if the honourable Select committee could handle the truth anyway. I could nitpick and say you shouldn’t describe water as a greenhouse gas ( the world’s atmosphere works nothing like a greenhouse), but that would only confuse the good senators. Also, maybe substitute the word “profit” for another term? References to Peter Ridd, Bob Carter and Murray Salby might also fall on deaf ears, but worth a shot. (they’ve probably never heard of them) The whole process is probably predestined anyway. If there is a verdict I would probably wager that the committee will find a significant effect of mis/dis/mal information is hurting Australia’s carbon transition- because that’s so important isn’t it? TBH, I didn’t even know there was an enquiry going on, so well done in informing all of us. Go for it, can’t do any harm.
240
Also, your submission ends in “satisfy the”. Did you mean to add something there?
90
Strange world when you have two such diametrically opposed Jacintas. One one hand Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan is introducing a vague concept called ‘Indigenous Truth – telling’ into the school curriculum from, wait for it, prep grade, while the REAL Jacinta, Price that is, has been ostracised by her own so – called leader for the sin of, wait for it, TELLING THE TRUTH. Sanity – wait for it.
220
The data easily proves that there is no CC emergency at all and anyone who believes that there’s some unprecedented existential threat is delusional.
I think that Dr Koonin, Dr Curry, Dr Spencer, Dr Christy and Dr McKitrick etc are on the right track and they understand the scientific data.
And I’d always follow the advice of the Co2 Coalition Scientists before I’d follow the stupid Greens.
211
But! But! “Scientists say …” at The Climate Council. So there!
60
Perhaps the wording needs to be a touch stronger?
Certainly, the IPCC’s sixth assessment report WG1 confirmed that 50 years of data and 33 years of intensive research into climate was unable to show any increasing trends in frequency or intensity of any form of extreme weather. But then, climate change researchers use these results to justify further research on climate models, ignoring the previous two decades of model “improvements” that have persistently tried to get those same models closer to matching historical observations.
What is completely ignored is the lack of physical evidence to support the fundamental theory that all the models are built to. Disregard the fact that none of the models accurately represents the behaviour of the major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere – H2O! Disregard the fact that none of these climate models have ever been independently verified and validated – a first step before any model is relied upon!
The fundamental theory that is never questioned is Anthropogenic Global Warming! Yet no one has ever published a peer reviewed paper that established the frequently repeated claim that increased atmospheric CO2 levels results in increased surface temperatures, based on readily available instrument data, which now extends more that 65 years now!
Similarly, no one has ever identified the positive feedback processes in the atmosphere required to increase the slight warming provided by additional CO2 by 300%. Yet all the climate models depend on these positive feedback atmospheric effects!
In simple words, the lack of physical evidence to support their fundamental theory is the science problem that has yet to be solved. And without physical evidence, it simply isn’t science!
60
The Greens should try and educate themselves and read through the facts and even try and answer the Co2 Coalition Scientists’ quiz.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/
90
My submission in the form of an email:
Senators
Australians are poorly informed on climate change. Government funded institutions. specifically ABC and CSIRO, have done considerable damage to Australia’s economy by presenting a highly inaccurate view of climate change and energy.
Climate Change
The climate has always changed and always will. It is an inevitable consequence of Earth’s constantly changing relationship with the sun. The most concerning aspect of the current state of Earth’s climate is the little known fact that Greenland is gaining in altitude. Glaciers grow from the top and flow down and out. Most of Greenland’s glaciers are still receeding at the edges but some have already began expanding seaward.
The ACCESS climate modelling undertaken by CSIRO is inept. The models show tropical oceans sustaining more than 30C. This is a physical impossibility for the open oceans on Earth with the present atmospheric mass because convective overshooting limits the sustainable temperature to 30C as evidence by monsoon setting in once this temperature is briefly exceeded. Addition of carbon to the atmosphere makes immeasurable difference to the total mass.
Energy Policy
Coal is by far the lowest cost fuel source fort generating electricity in Australia. The CSIRO have painted a false picture of weather dependent generators being the lowest cost source of electricity.
Many middle income Australians have taken electricity supply into their own hands using rooftop solar and now batteries. The result is that the wholesale market in Australia has recorded declining volume since 2008. The only source of generation that is rising strongly is rooftops because owners of rooftops have first option over their demand. No matter how much grid scale wind and solar is connected, it has little impact on the penetration because rooftops have first access to their demand and displace grid scale wind and solar. There can be no reduction in dispatchable generation because all wind and solar can go MIA when demand is highest.
The wholesale market is in the economic trap of rising costs with falling volume resulting in ever upward spiralling unit costs.
The high unit costs makes all energy intensive industry uncompetitive so they are shutting down. It means new energy intensive industries like Artificial Intelligence will never be viable in Australia while electricity is being sourced from weather dependent sources.
The electricity market can be easily fixed by moving to monthly bidding and penalising any generator failing to meet bid capacity when scheduled. The current 5-minute bidding is ridiculous for an essential, life supporting service.
Integrity in Science and Reporting
The government funded institutions, ABC and CSIRO, must restore integrity intio their work processes. Sacking those with integrity and favouring the side of politics that increases their funding is very bad for Australia’s economy and guarantees the demise of productivity and living standards.
The easy fix is to sell off the government funded organisations, ABC and CSIRO, that are collectively far more concerned about their income than their integrity. Thi is very bad for Australia.
Rick Willoughby
12 September 2025
360
That’s great RickWill. All makes perfect sense to me, but I’m not a Green politician.
150
Government never mentions ANSTO – Australia Nuclear Science Technology Organisation
120
I made a brief formal submission in addition to the email:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pD4Z310rnteBKbCLDUcqBCCas5XWn66l/view?usp=sharing
It has a few images that support my points.
I have the same conclusion that the easy way tio restore information integrity is to sell the organisations that promote scams and falsehoods.
I have also made it clear that I would like my submission to be publicly available and indicated I am willing to give verbal evidence if called upon.
60
My formal submission has been acknowledged:
It will be interesting to see if the submission besoms a visible document.
100
The funds for misinformation in climate change are stolen from the taxpayer. Carbon Dioxide induced Climate Change is the misinformation.
I have always known that there are ‘Zero’ results of warming from an ‘Atmospheric Chamber’ using concentrated CO2. James Clerk Maxwell, produced the lapse rate, and the use of the Poisson curve in 1871. But Maxwell only had data for the Earth, so the full answer came 140 years later when Ned Nikolov & Karl Zeller used NASA data to produce the “Unified Theory of Climate (2011)” using observations (not assumptions) to produce evidence that Venus with a quarter of a million times more carbon dioxide than the Earth provides the best answer to the problem, by showing that carbon dioxide produces ‘zero’ warming above the lapse rate.
160
On the question of disinformation, something happened in 2012 and the MSM ran with it. Serious propaganda, subtle yet significant.
https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/charts/climate-change/
60
“Water (Vapour) is the most powerful greenhouse gas.” 100x to 400x the concentration across the planet with a much wider absorption spectrum.
Water vapour is 1% to 4% of the atmosphere across most of the planet where CO2 is a near constant 0.042% from pole to pole and year to year.
There are few places with zero humidity.
This is invisible vapour, not clouds. Humidity. There are few places with zero humidity and not the oceans which cover 72% of the planet, 74% if you include Antarctica.
In fact even if you doubled CO2, the change in emissivity is only 1%, therefore a maximum temperature rise of only 1.7C from doubling CO2. This is known atmospheric science.
170
good luck with your submission. Non so blind as those who refuse to see
140
every debunked talking point, every strawman, embedded in logical fallacies. Should go down a treat
136
Would you please indicate and explain just the five easiest of the debunked talking points, strawmen, and logical fallacies for you to explain?
I won’t be so bold as to ask you to explain every one. Your comment suggests there are many.
Thanks.
210
Any AI will do that for you. This is what Copilot makes of Jo’s arguments:
🔍 1. Water Vapor as a Greenhouse Gas
Claim: Water is the most powerful greenhouse gas.
Reality:
✅ True but misleading. Water vapor is indeed the most abundant greenhouse gas and contributes significantly to the greenhouse effect.
❌ However, it acts as a feedback, not a driver. Human activities increase CO₂, which warms the atmosphere, leading to more water vapor. Water vapor amplifies warming but doesn’t initiate it.
🔍 2. Past Climate Conditions
Claim: The Earth was hotter during the Holocene and Eemian, and life thrived.
Reality:
✅ Yes, there were warmer periods in Earth’s history.
❌ But this ignores rate and cause. Current warming is rapid and driven by human activity, not natural cycles. Past warm periods occurred over thousands to millions of years, allowing ecosystems to adapt. Today’s warming is happening over decades.
🔍 3. Sea Level Trends
Claim: Seas have been falling for 7,000 years; Pacific Islands are growing.
Reality:
❌ Misleading. Global sea levels have risen by ~20 cm since 1900 due to thermal expansion and melting ice.
✅ Some Pacific islands have grown due to sediment deposition and reef dynamics (Kench et al.), but this doesn’t mean sea level rise isn’t a threat. Many islands face groundwater salinization, storm surge risks, and infrastructure vulnerability.
🔍 4. Historical Temperature Records
Claim: 50°C temperatures were recorded in the 1800s.
Reality:
✅ Some extreme temperatures were reported historically.
❌ But they were not measured with standardized equipment or methods. Modern records are more reliable. BOM’s caution is scientifically justified.
🔍 5. Silencing of Nobel Laureates and Astronauts
Claim: Skeptical Nobel winners and astronauts are ignored.
Reality:
✅ Everyone has the right to speak.
❌ But expertise matters. Nobel laureates in physics or astronauts are not necessarily climate experts. Climate science is a specialized field. Media prioritizes voices with relevant expertise.
🔍 6. Science and Consensus
Claim: Science isn’t done by consensus.
Reality:
✅ Science is based on evidence, not votes.
❌ But consensus reflects converging evidence. The 97%+ consensus among climate scientists is based on thousands of peer-reviewed studies. It’s not a decree—it’s a reflection of robust, reproducible findings.
🔍 7. Climate Models and Uncertainty
Claim: Models are unreliable; Antarctic ice surprises scientists.
Reality:
✅ Models have uncertainties.
❌ But they are valuable tools that improve over time. Climate models have successfully predicted many trends (e.g., global temperature rise, Arctic ice decline). Surprises lead to refinements, not invalidation.
🔍 8. Peer Review and Data Transparency
Claim: Peer review isn’t essential; BOM hides data.
Reality:
✅ Peer review isn’t perfect, but it’s a quality control mechanism.
❌ BOM and other agencies publish vast amounts of data. Homogenization is a standard method to correct for station moves, equipment changes, etc. FOI requests are used when data is sensitive or misused.
🔍 9. Renewables and Cost
Claim: Wind and solar are not cheap due to intermittency.
Reality:
✅ Intermittency is a challenge.
❌ But costs of renewables have plummeted, and storage solutions (batteries, pumped hydro) are improving. Studies show that renewables are now cheaper than fossil fuels in many contexts, especially when full lifecycle costs are considered.
🔍 10. Motivations and Vested Interests
Claim: Climate action is driven by financial interests.
Reality:
✅ Financial interests exist on both sides—fossil fuel and renewables.
❌ But the scientific case for climate action is independent of financial motives. The fossil fuel industry has historically spent billions on misinformation campaigns (e.g., ExxonMobil’s internal memos vs public messaging).
✅ Summary: What’s Misinformation Here?
Cherry-picking data (e.g., historical temperatures without context).
Misleading framing (e.g., water vapor as a driver).
False equivalence (e.g., astronauts vs climate scientists).
Ignoring rate and scale of change.
Conflating uncertainty with ignorance.
233
AI tends to repeat any “consensus” among its data, it doesn’t have the ability to evaluate the various claims.
For example … if water vapour isn’t the major (poorly named) greenhouse gas, then how did people live on this planet before the amount of CO2 increases (i.e. prior to about the 950s)? Why didn’t they freeze at night?
210
Lazy answer about AI John. It provides citations and you wont find data to the contrary.
Also,
Seriously? CO2 was not absent from the atmosphere and was fluctuating around 280ppm, never too low to destroy plant life and always contributing to the “greenhouse”.
023
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-Vol5.3-Grabyan.pdf. “Global Atmospheric CO2 Lags Temperature by 150 yrs. CO2 Does Not Precede Temperature, Nor Does It Control Temperature”. Won’t find data to the contrary? No, you never will if you don’t go looking for it because the Blob controls the narrative and feeds the gullible and scientifically illiterate with the authorised BS.
170
never too low to destroy plant life
280ppm is borderline.
Previous records which can’t be trusted show it dropping below 200ppm at which time plant life is definitely affected. CO2’s influence on the ‘greenhouse’ effectively ceases at about 100 ppm due to the logarithmic effect.
Still peddling rubbish I see.
30
Water vapour doesn’t initiate warming – Carbon dioxide doesn’t initiate warming. It is the result of the warming which the pretend scientists and the pretend artificial intelligence can’t explain.
110
I asked you to explain. AI is limited in it’s information and reasoning and is not an authority. It just saves you effort. These responses from AI are predicated on the notion that CO2 is the driver and caused by human activity.
You can’t make an argument against the opposite view by using the premise that CO2 is the driver in order to prove that CO2 is the driver. That is a logical fallacy.
1 Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas.
Your AI supports this but pretends it is misleading based on the unproved notion that CO2 is the driver.
2 The Earth was hotter during the Holocene and Eemian, and life thrived.
Shock horror, another true. This point was made to negate the often told lie that we are currently in the hottest period ever. Not just since records are kept, but ever is the often told claim. Your AI supports Jo.
3. Seas have been falling for 7,000 years; Pacific Islands are growing.
I see your AI can’t say that is false. Because falling is the long term trend regardless of the last 200 years. I note that your AI points to a short period of rise since 1900 and attributes ice melt and thermal expansion. Remember Jo’s post from a couple of months ago about current sea level rise starting back at least 1800, before human activity could be a factor?
4. 50°C temperatures were recorded in the 1800s.
Surprise surprise, another true. The explainer that the BOM uses standardised recording equipment and methods now does not mean the old records are innacurate. Any caution by the BOM is shown to be invalid given the proven BOM lack of care with siting stations and accounting for changing locations without running the old and new locations simultaneously for a period. Plus, the BOM even has different sized screens amongst stations and changed the recording equipment to be reactive to 1 sec variations instead of the more cautious longer timeframes to average a peak temperature. The BOM exercises little scientific caution in this case and the AI’s defence is wrong.
5. Skeptical Nobel winners and astronauts are ignored.
AI doesn’t say this is wrong. In fact it supports it and tries to justify ignoring them by falsely claiming the media prioritises voices with relevant expertise. That is not true in so many cases. It prioritises the voice that suits the narrative. There are many examples of the ABC taking a short comment from an expert and giving an activist many minutes to push the ABC’s narrative.
The AI response claims clime science is a specialised field. But the response ignores the fact that there is no “climate science” specialist and it is made up of many fields, including physicists.
6. Science isn’t done by consensus.
Ooh, another correct according to AI. Then it quotes the proven to be false 97% claim, as if consensus does meet some sort of scientific proof. Irrelevant.
7. Models are unreliable; Antarctic ice surprises scientists.
Another true. The AI explanation doesn’t cut it given almost all the many models are running hot and they can not be used to guide policy. Rubbish in, rubbish out. Similar to the basis for these AI responses.
8. Peer review isn’t essential; BOM hides data.
Another tick. As for the BOM and other agencies publishing a lot of data. Obviously they don’t publish what they don’t publish. Publishing a lot is not the same as not hiding data. The BOM has refused to disclose how they modified the data they do publish.
9 Wind and solar are not cheap due to intermittency.
Yes, intermittency is a problem.
The studies showing renewables are cheaper do not show the correct life cycle and do not include the necessary storage to overcome intermittency, or all the necessary transmission costs. They include fossil fuel or nuclear back-up in addition to storage, and there is no way two systems are cheaper.
What happened to the study that showed we’d save $275 per year by 2025, only for reality to be an increase of $1,300?
10. Climate action is driven by financial interests.
Another tick. The argument that financial interests influence both sides does not negate the claim. It actually reinforces it.
.
You have not supported your claim of every debunked talking point, strawman, and logical fallacy. Even with the help of AI.
220
The AI response reminds me of 1984. I suspect if history is rewritten AI would respond with the history most recently written and then argue that this history is more accurate because of improvements to technology and homogenisation!
AI will become a consensus regurgitator and nothing more in many of its potential uses.
140
Simon
The verbal trickery that says water vapor is a feedback is based on what? Broken climate models? If solar magnetic-electric-spectrum-wind factors affected water vapor then that would drive the climate. What drives the PDO cycles Simon, don’t know? No idea? Whatever drives the Pacific currents and winds will affect water vapor. If only you or your 4,000 favoured experts had some idea?
The Rate Simon — you have no idea what the decadal rate of warming was from say, 8100 to 8090 do you? How could anyone? Yet you have the gall, the presumption to pretend you *know* it was lower than today. Your experts are lying to you and you fall for their preschooler tales that they know the rate of warming during all spikes in the last 100,000 years. How? because cavemen set up a satellite system?
1000 tide guages show sea level rise is about 1-1.5mm a year. All the media stories about people being washed away are a horror show of fiction. Seas rose as fast or even faster in the period 12,000 years ago. It was natural then, and the rise is probably natural now. The models are skillless, but the media advertising is expert.
.
The BOM could recreate some past measurements and set up side by side comparisons but they don’t want to because They Really Don’t Want to USE 1800s data because it won’t show what they want it to show. Life on Earth faces extinction due to “Climate Change” but they don’t care about the longest best data we have because *crickets*. Make it make sense. If the 1800s were colder, they’d be all over it.
Exactly my point. They do a Psy-Op on you by lauding Ms Thunberg as a climate expert and you fall for it. But when the bravest, and best physicists and engineers say they are skeptical you pretend they shouldnt get as much airtime on the national news as Greta because they only got a nobel prize in electron tunnelling or something, or risked their life for science…
The 97% “consensus” in an immature field unable to predict arctic ice, antarctic ice, antarctic temperatures, rainfall, snowfall, hot summers, tropical humidity, cloud cover, or any historic temperature shifts, is Ipso Facto, an artificial construct. Anyone can make a 97% consensus by sacking dissenters and pouring another billion into B grade climate sycophants with a geography degree.
Through random chance with 23 GCMs and 100 variables, some will be right. “Congrats”. Which model is The Right One Simon? Which model predicts the turning points in Antarctic sea ice in 2015, or the lack of a hot spot since 1959, or the the pause that lasted 15 years?
If the data and methods isn’t published it isn’t science. End of Story. There is no excuse. Secret thermometer data? Give us a break. The only reason for secrets is to cover up their incompetence.
But not in the only “Context” that matters — retail electricity costs. Not one system on Earth is cheaper with lots of renewables. Intermittency in electricity is not a challenge, it’s a fatal flaw. All the studies are carefully cherry picked contrivances that ignore the full system costs. Wind and solar power make the cheap reliable parts of the system more expensive. (Stacy and Taylor, 2015, and doh, common sense).
So you have nothing. No references, no quotes, no figures. No big numbers that compare with mine, apart from ones you fantasize? The Exxon stuff is how old and how small and it’s all you have, nearly twenty years later.
–Your team cherry picks the last 100 years and ignores the last 500 million.
–Your witchdoctors make decrees about “water vapor” but their models predicted a hot spot which 28 million weather balloons can’t find and they don’t have the honesty to admit they were wrong. They lie… and we’ve known that since 2005.
–False equivalence — that surfing oceanographers know more about radiative physics than Nobel Prize Physicist do. “Climate Science” is supposed to use the same physics that rockets-electronics-chips-mining-everything does, yet only “climate scientists TM” believe their own models.
–What proxy are you using to pretend you know the rate and scale of change, 10,000, 100,000 or 100 million years ago compared to a satellite system that covers the Earth 24 hours a day?
— Your team is the one that says “we don’t know what else could have caused the warming, therefore it was CO2.” Argument from ignorance is not just a sideline, it’s a total fallacy the underlies the trillion dollar spend.
350
A “God of the Gaps” argument interlaced with a dash of conspiracy theory will not work. James Hansen’s crude 1988 IBM PC GCM has proved to be a far more accurate predictor of future climate than Lindzen, Curry, Evans, Spencer, Pielke and Soon. The science is now far more advanced than you realise. Weather is stochastic, but climate is predictable. The most significant variable now, barring a massive volcanic eruption, is what humans are doing to the atmosphere.
023
.
>climate is predictable
Evidently not.
100
Simon, it doesn’t require “God of Gaps” argument to prove you know absolutely nothing about this topic.
Try finding the first modern peer reviewed paper that established the frequently repeated claim that increases in atmospheric CO2 levels results in increases in surface temperature, using the readily available instrument data.
Use AI to find that citation, if you can. Although, to be fair, there could be hundreds of subsequent papers published after that first, ground breaking study! Any one of those will do, as they should all reference that first critical work. Anyone of those will do, as long as they rely on observations for their analysis.
Perhaps it might be easier to find the authors of that seminal work. Were they Nobel laureates? Were they nominated but missed out? Even if their published work predated the internet, surely their names are immortalised in Wikipedia, just like the scientists who first identified the problems of CFCs with the ozone layer back in the 70s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol?wprov=sfti1#History
Except you won’t find any names identified under any link to the Kyoto Protocol! But then, you’ve probably never looked there!
Try the Wikipedia link detailing the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory instead! See if that is more helpful.
70
Serious tripe simon.
I’ll just do water because everything else is equally junk and it’s a water world.
Water is NOT just feedback.
https://www.academia.edu/74322086/About_the_role_of_water_vapor_in_greenhouse_effect
https://www.jstor.org/stable/i40150492
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007JD008431
in addition In a 2007 paper Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell undertook empirical measurements of cloud radiative forcings which are a net result of blockage by clouds of solar radiation coming in to the atmosphere [cooling] and blockage by clouds of long-wave radiation leaving the atmosphere [warming]; they concluded that
“the net radiative effect of clouds…is to cool the ocean atmosphere system during its tropospheric warm phase and warm it during its cool phase.”
That is, clouds moderate or dampen temperature movement in either direction.
Spencer & Braswell’s papers in 2008 and 2010 took a different approach to Lindzen & Choi [2009]. Spencer & Braswell looked more closely at the nature of feedbacks and forcings and the difficulty of putting a value on feedbacks. The IPCC models assume that clouds change in response to temperature, so they are a “feedback” [AR4, WG1, 8.6.3.2]. But as Spencer & Braswell show in their 2008 and 2010 papers clouds can be a forcing factor as well. This means that if something other than temperature affects cloud cover (like changes in ocean currents or air circulation) the change in clouds would then force the temperature to change.
The latest IPCC report acknowledges that the models don’t simulate clouds well and that’s where the main uncertainties lie. If clouds are not just a forcing in their own right, and provide negative feedback [by shading the earth] that would seriously undermine the premise of global warming. This point is illustrated by two other recent papers.
The first is a report by The Climate Process Team on Low Latitude Cloud Feedbacks on Climate Sensitivity [CPT]. CPT found “strongly negative net cloud feedback” in a warming world. Utilizing the climate models from NCAR, GFDL and NASA, CPT found this negative feedback concentrated in the Tropics.
Similarly Allan 2011 based his study on cloud “radiative effect” in the Tropics and concluded a “net cooling of the climate system” from clouds because solar blocking, cooling, was greater than long-wave blocking, warming. However unlike CPT, Allan did not regard this cooling as a feedback since the cloud cooling was not a response to temperature.
Spencer & Braswell provide proof that it’s very difficult to find definitive feedback signals in a dynamic system that is never at equilibrium. The only feedback they can calculate in their 2008 and 2010 papers is negative and means a climate sensitivity of about 0.6 °C for a doubling of CO2, though it’s only applicable over short time-frames. They show the near impossibility of establishing climate sensitivity over long time frames. But if climate sensitivity to CO2 is as low as they find, and dwarfed by potential cloud forcing, it would mean no postponed effect from CO2. We have had all the effect there is and there will be no stored heat lying dormant to cause future climate change. This would explain Trenberth’s concern, expressed in the CRU e-mails that the pro-global warming scientists “can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”.
Spencer & Braswell’s 2011 paper confirms the difficulty in distinguishing cloud feedback and forcing. They also find the global warming models have substantially overestimated the climate sensitivity due to their lack of understanding of this distinction. One of the reasons that the models have failed to distinguish the effect of clouds on temperature is the difference in time it takes for the radiative effects of temperature and clouds to occur in the system; temperature effects are immediate while those of clouds take some months as Figure 3 from Spencer & Braswell 2011 shows.
20
Yes, perfectly describes the greens and the man made climate change narrative Peter. Well done on joining the enlightened and leaving the dark side.
90
Peter!
Perhaps you might be able to explain why it is that ‘anthropogenic’ CO2 ‘floats up there in the atmosphere’ to trap heat (thus causing ‘global warming/climate change’) when the REALITY is that CO2 is HEAVIER-THAN-AIR? (CO2 = 44.1g/mol & Air = 28.96g/mol)
What CO2 does in reality is to go DOWN to feed the greenery – the garden needs it to grow!
Could it be that there are TWO types of CO2? A natural ‘heavier-than-air’ type, and a climate-changing lighter-than-air type that ‘floats up there’ to trap heat, thus causing runaway global warming? Oh dear!
But wait! “Lighter-than-air?” That sounds like it could be hydrogen – so don’t light a match! (A repeat of the ‘Hindenberg’ airship disaster perhaps?)
Perhaps I shouldn’t have raised that point? Someone might be offended …..
90
Jo – for your submission,
You can contact me and I’ll give you the names of our groups and the fact that they are in no way funded. We are well known to the Victorian government, AEMO and politicians.
170
Thanks Farmer. I may well do that. I am so impressed with what you have achieved.
The whole “Inquiry” is mostly just a theatre so they can launch headlines talking about “investigating the astroturf money” even if they don’t find any. They only need to find some tiny irrelevant amount to write headlines in 120pt bold black font. And in the last money, they didn’t even have to find any at all. They just seed the idea (for the millionth time) that it exists.
Even if Matt Canavan gets some big numbers on Chinese or banker influence, the media can still pretend it never happened. “Iryna Zarutska”
130
Let’s have a Senate Inquiry into funding of the Greens and the entire green and renewable energy movement, including funding of University research related to climate and renewable energy. China may feature large.
150
A lot of Green funding actually comes from the Unions. Well, it does in Victoria at least.
110
Oh no. Garry! We can’t have that! Someone might be offended …..
100
The most obvious sign of a warmer climate is SLR, yet today there has been little change since 1914 according to the BOM data and measured at Fort Denison NSW.
Yet the ABC tells us that the SL at Sydney was 1.5 metres higher just 4,000 years ago at the end of the Holocene optimum. See ABC Catalyst program I’ve linked to before.
And our previous Eemian I.G ( 130K to 115K years BP) was 8 C hotter than today and SLs then were 6 to 9 metres higher than today and that’s 20 to 30 feet higher.
So why would we listen to delusional fools, when the data proves they are wrong?
130
Is it so difficult to understand that electricity supply is to more than dwellings and light commercial premises, and that baseload is constantly needed, meanwhile wind and solar fanatics claim dispatchable as needed is the future.
Or that a concept system of so called renewables if ever completed will need controllable generators for back up and most of the time. So why have two systems?
As for land areas needed, there are coal fired power station locations already approved for use and used, water supply and existing transmission lines nearby, so replace the existing power stations as time arrives for replacement and upgraded low emissions (HELE) technology, and/or nuclear technology.
80
We know that the Labor, Greens and Teals parties couldn’t pass the Co2 Coalition Scientist’s quiz, so why do Aussies vote for them?
Yet they want to WASTE trillions of $ for ZERO change to our weather or climate. Then repeat again every 15 to 20 years.
I’m an uneducated person but I tried and passed with a perfect score at my first attempt. And I’m sure most of Jo’s bloggers would achieve the same result.
https://co2coalition.org/climate-quiz/
110
But! But! Someone might be offended!
Oh dear!
60
Brilliant submission Jo! Thank you for your common sense, critical thinking and facts. I’m grateful to have an informed, no nonsense voice like yours speak on my behalf.
110
FWIW – read it all!
“The Banksy Robbers”
Achievement beyond their wildest dreams!
https://hotair.com/tree-hugging-sister/2025/09/11/the-banksy-robbers-n3806711
50
FWIW
“The creator of Wired magazine, before he cashed in his chips and sold the magazine to the establishment left Conde Nast in 1998, was libertarian-leaning Louis Rossetto. As the late P.J. O’Rourke, an even more famous libertarian, said in a speech to the Cato Institute in 1993, “There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.” ”
In here with other things – https://instapundit.com/744068/#disqus_thread
40
And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.” ”
Unless you are a machete wielding thug in Victoria. Then there are no consequences. just continue doing what you are doing.
40
Thank you Jo for your efforts and persistance. I wish I still had faith in the efficacy of Senate Inquiries.
90
The foundation claim is demonstrably wrong. Fossil fuel CO2 is not radioactive. Normal biosphere CO2 is radioactive.
This has been a constant for millions of years due to constant cosmic rays and is measured as C14/C12.
If the 50% increase was from fossil fuel CO2, radioactivity would have dropped 33%.
This has been known since 1958, after two world wars. It was published in the Royal Society journal.
So the whole unproven theory of Al Gore and James Hansen in 1988 is proven categorically wrong by direct absolute measurement, not coincidence or suggestion.
Radio carbon dating is a proven technology and its discovery was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1961
Today the decrease in radioactivity in 2025 is 0.0%.
QED
110
And over the last few years I have realised something even more profound, that fossil fuel CO2 is tiny compared with the ocean exchange of CO2 over the water which covers 3/4 of the planet.
So 98% of fossil fuel CO2 ends up within two years in the ocean. Nothing mankind can do or has done has affected total atmospheric CO2.
Carbon credits, sequestration, net zero are absurd. Humans do not control CO2.
90
And yet atmospheric CO2 increases at roughly the same rate as humans push it into the atmosphere. What you are looking for is a negative feedback where oceans absorb more CO2 as temperature warms. Unfortunately, it’s the other way around, warming oceans absorb less and are a net emitter of CO2.
014
Warmed Oceans being a net emitter fits with CO2 lagging temperature rise in the historic proxies.
The CO2 being the driver of warming never fits with this lag or why the increased CO2 allows the cooling that follows. So clearly there is another influence other than CO2.
But no. In this day and age it has to be fossil fuels and only fossil fuels. Right when capitalism and the world’s prosperity needs to be smashed.
The latter is a better correlation that any CO2 and temperature correlation you can point to. Not that correlation is causation, of course.
100
Simon,
I have no idea where you get your “facts” from, but you clearly don’t do much research, and you have very little understanding of science at all.
Atmospheric CO2 is not increasing at “roughly the same rate that humans push it into the atmosphere”. It doesn’t even increase at a rate of 50% of what humans emit every year.
Perhaps surprisingly to you, there is an actual measure for this atmospheric property. It is called the CO2 airborne fraction:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_fraction?wprov=sfti1#
What that Wikipedia article fails to mention is that detailed measurements of the CO2 airborne fraction show that it has been consistently declining over decades, so its current level of 45% is going down.
A pity that climate scientists can’t explain why this is happening!
70
As per the COVID ‘inquiry’ any submissions by dissenters will not be published. Oversight is broken.
If submissions are selectively published, why bother?
50
“. , why bother?”
When Jo and her ilk stop trying they have won.
Don’t stop Jo. Some of us hangers on might not be much help but we are on your side.
Doug
30
The one thing you didn’t point out is the utter failure of climate policy as revealed in annual global CO2 emissions.
The world is going on 30 years of COP meetings and annual CO2 emissions have gone up half billion tons per year from 23 billion tons in 1995 to 37.5 billion tons in 2024.
Politicians are telling people they can control the climate when it’s clear they can’t control emissions. It’s a farce.
40
Horrendous climate misinformation at the BBC.
Annual weather events are now climate change apparently. Some of the real issues are mentioned in passing. But it’s all climate change. Of course that justifies demanding we send them our cash, or rather our grand children’s cash, as it has to be borrowed.
https://youtu.be/xrGuZ4V8h2E
40
It’s all about power and money. Hundreds of trillions of it, 100% tax money.
This will go on until economies collapse like they’re doing in Britain and France. The USA may have been saved in the nick of time.
70
Wind and solar power are not cheap in any meaningful sense — there are few uses of intermittent or random electricity, so it is misinformation to report short term prices for wind and solar as if they are comparable to prices for reliable stable supply. Australians need to know the cost of 24 hour reliable electricity, which is what they have been paying for, for decades. This includes storage, back-up, frequency stability, transmission, and network costs. Since intermittent supply
That last sentence is unfinished. Good luck with your submission..
30
The problem with the clean energy transition is that it isn’t happening!
Several reasons why:
1. Renewable energy growth has never matched global energy growth. That means some other form of energy generation has filled that gap. Absolute numbers show that the amount of fossil fuels being consumed globally has increased every year for the last two decades. At that rate, no transition will ever happen!
2. Renewables require vast amounts of infrastructure. Experts have identified that there are not enough critical minerals in the world to produce all the infrastructure needed to achieve the first circle of this clean energy transition. And it all needs to be replaced every 25 years!
3. This is reflected in the very low EROEI numbers for renewables. Simply put, energy sources with lower EROEI numbers require more of the total energy of a state, country or civilisation. That means more investment, more effort and more resources must be devoted to renewable energy. That means less investment, effort and resources are available to do everything else. That’s why, historically, thriving civilisations have always sought higher energy density solutions.
4. Despite claims of lower electricity generation costs for renewables, it appears that installing renewables always requires government subsidies. Those subsidies are always drawn from the public, whether through increased taxation or increased charges on electricity bills. The net result is that increasing renewables always results in increasing retail costs for industry, businesses and consumers. Global data suggests an almost linear increase as the percentage of renewable generation increases. And no one can point to a single example where renewables have actually reduced electricity costs! Worse still, those subsidies will never cease, because no renewable project has ever been able to present a positive business case! So the more renewables that are installed, the more subsidies are required. Forever!
5. And perhaps the worst is that there is no “target” for this clean energy transition to aim at. No one anywhere in the world, has ever demonstrated a prototype grid running entirely from energy generated by wind and solar. Because no engineering solution has ever been achieved, there is no functional design for a future grid for Australia. Without a functional design, no one knows how much wind, how much solar, or how much storage will be needed to achieve this clean energy solution.
The cause is becoming more apparent. Inverter based energy resources are incapable of inherently maintaining grid voltage or frequency. The more inverter based resources added, the greater the instability of the grid. Which is why globally, most countries have stalled at about 30%-40% wind and solar. The lack of a demonstrated prototype renewables grid points to the fact that no technology exists today to solve this problem. What is unclear, because of the lack of research in this area, is whether some future technology might solve this problem, or whether the proponents of this clean energy transition are bumping up against a fundamental limit of physics.
But then, I never expect politicians to understand science, technology, engineering or mathematics!
60
Again, here’s the countries’ co2 emissions since 1990 or the last 33 (up to 2023) years and note the wealthy countries’ co2 emissions are now lower and the NON OECD countries emissions are 15.4 billion tons per year higher since 1990.
And Aussie’s co2 emissions are the near horizontal straight line at the bottom of the graph.
Please Labor, Greens and Teals THINK about this data and WAKE UP?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?country=OWID_WRL~AUS~Non-OECD+%28GCP%29~OECD+%28GCP%29
30
Hi, Jo
This is one of your very best posts. Your command of the issues and the numbers is extraordinary, and I trust you are working somewhere with a database that you have constructed for the purpose. It is a little bit unfortunate that it is just one of many posts that you make on this blog and may escape the attention it deserves. Your words are always full of information, and generally very well constructed, but in this format they can be lost amid the welter of lightweight supportive comments (let us be honest about this) that you receive and which detract from the real importance of the post itself.
We are presently hosting, here in UK, a very intelligent, well-read and climate-neutral Australian who was not even aware of the existence of your blog.
I’d love to see the present post expanded, sharpened, and put together with a little bit more format ‘gravitas’ for submission to publication elsewhere – although please don’t ask me to suggest where! – because it deserves a wider readership. I understand that you are pretty well known in Aus, and must have sympathetic contacts high up, and I’m totally unfamiliar with the Aus media, so I’m not going to be much help.
Congrats and good luck
40
As much as Australia’s climate action is an exercise in futility due to lack of action by the largest emitters submitting sceptical views to this senate enquiry is also an exercise in futility. There is no doubt their first determination about what is misinformation will be all the sceptical submissions they receive. They have these enquiries only to give the pretence that due diligence is occurring when in fact the opposite is happening. The future of all sceptical web sites will be at risk. It is incredible that even with close to 100% of our students subject to a 24/7 indoctrination program they feel so insecure about there position that they must elimate any source of information that has not been sanitised by those who wish to control us. Fortunately the rest of the world is not as hoodwinked and compliant as here and eventually those foreign developments will bring the whole climate cabal crashing down. That will impact Australia but in time to avoid this government making us an economic basket case.
40
This has to be stopped. This climate issue is corrupting everything in society.
This Video highlights the fight that the world is in and is a celebration of the voices that speak truth to power. These climate scientists have put everything on the line to fight for what is right.
https://app.screencast.com/jwCizhbKhiVVH
10
They can GFTs
10