Issues and outcomes

By September 2, 2020Other

Election time is approaching in the ACT and in Queensland, with Western Australia early in 2021. We’ve just had an election in the Northern Territory, where Labor won comfortably. One of my interests, as an ageing political scientist, is what will happen as a result, and what they might tell us about ‘the mood of the people’. A second element is the effect that Covid -19 will have on the outcomes, which are likely to be different from State to Territory. A third is the difference in political acceptability between climate change and the pandemic as items in public discussion. A fourth, of course, is how much longer the pandemic is likely to last. A fifth is the approaching Presidential election in the USA, and another election in New Zealand. That’s probably enough for one essay, and they are all intermingled.

Let’s start with the virus, which has caused a terrific blow to our way of life, to our general apprehension about the future, and of course to our economy. We are in September, and the pandemic’s seriousness began to be evident in February. That’s a good six months. What has happened politically in that time? Well, governments began to rely on expert medical opinion, and we began to hear of the warnings of the most senior health officers, along with almost daily television addresses by the Prime Minister and premiers. We learned about and experienced lock-downs, and how to work from home (the lucky ones). We learned that borders could be closed, and were. The unemployment rate shot up as businesses closed. Government introduced forms of unemployment relief. The expectation seemed to be that we needed to get through the pandemic and then return to normal.

Let’s go forward a further six months. Are we likely to be out of it in early February 2021? And will we return to ‘normal’, whenever the episode is over? My gloomy guesses are No in each case, and I hasten to add that I have no standing in medical research. So the coming elections, wherever and whenever they are, are some guide as to how we the people are managing with an event that has no real equivalent in the past do. If the virus is a major element in our politics, then it turns on how governments have acted in trying to deal with it, and how successful they have been in persuading us that what they done has been successful, or at least the better alternative to others.

Australia’s being an island was a great help in closing borders, so once that was done attention turned to how the various states and territories dealt with their problems. Closing borders isolated the populations, and the stand-out failure was Victoria. Why there? No one seems to be sure, and there are many explanations, none of which explains why Melbourne was so much worse than Sydney. The ACT has had no cases for weeks, and it is in regional NSW, with an elastic border. How did that happen? Okay, people are restive in Victoria, where the lockdown is tighter, but there are restrictions everywhere. It is a continuing puzzle.

Its effect is most obvious in the standing of Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews, who seems to have gone downhill in public esteem. Why? Perhaps because the numbers in Victoria hadn’t declined (though they have now started to), and perhaps because there comes a time when the Premier ceases to be the father of the state and begins to look like someone out of his depth, a failure. It can happen overnight. In the ACT and Queensland Covid -19 does not seem to be a likely cause of a big voter shift, and I feel that at the moment the same will prove to be true next year in WA. It may be a real cause in the USA, but it is unlikely to be one in New Zealand. All these prognostications on my part come from reading and thinking, little more. But note that with any issue that causes a shift, the shift is a net one, not  gross one. That is to say, there will be people moving each way, and it is the subtraction of one number from the other that gives you the real shift.

That turns me to the sorts of public discussion we have had about the virus and how to deal with it, and the comparable discussion we have not had about climate change. In the case of the virus we have had ‘official opinion’, which the governments and the electorate seem to have taken reasonably seriously, and a continuing argument that the management of the pandemic has been far too strong-handed, and that the lockdowns have been far too stringent. Those contrary opinions have had plenty of airtime, and governments have had to respond to them. In the case of climate change, now far down the list of people’s worries, there was an official opinion, and no contrary possibility would be entered into by government, the MSM or the NGOs. The focus on the virus has ended, at least for the moment, any clamant push to do anything of consequence about the climate emergency, whatever that is.

I think that tells us something about the nature of ‘crises’ and the avidity of the media for bad stories. We have a good scary one going at the moment — why contaminate the news with a different one, one that had its own run a while back anyway? Yes, the Climate Council gets an occasional run from the ABC, and we read of occasional urgings from the green lobby that the climb back from the virus must be on the strategy of an end to fossil fuels etc. But I don’t think anyone much is listening. In the USA climate change and its various verbal equivalents are way down the list of what seems to worry the American citizenry. What about the virus? President Trump has not had a good run with this issue, first of all dismissing it as a hoax, then playing down the issue in other ways, then claiming that the USA was doing better than other countries. His challenger, Joe Biden, has argued the opposite, but is saddled with a lot of notions rather far-Left for the USA of what has to be done economically. I wait to see if there will be three debates between the rivals. I hear that Biden will not participate. My guess is that Trump would eat him alive, but I may be wrong on both counts.

So there it is: coming elections, an issue that is far from anyone’s experience, and a test of governments’ capacity to deal with the issue. It’s going to be a most interesting few months ahead.

I go back to hospital today for Phase two in my encounter with the ureteric stone. A report next week, all being well.

Join the discussion 92 Comments

  • John says:

    There are many reasons for the second wave of covid-19 in Victoria. Here’s just three major ones.

    (1) Poor communication from the state government. Try explaining the slogan “staying apart keeps us together” to someone with English as a second language. Also too often government instructions have been verbal – easily forgotten and no way to check – or buried deep on web pages or on smart phone apps when not everyone has the ability to access those sources. It needed letters to all household. Relying on the mainstream media to spread the word was ridiculous.

    (2) Mismanagement of hotel quarantine. It looks like each level of management assumed it was operating well and that other people would check. Mind you people in quarantine might have behaved better if they’d been properly informed about what was happening and why, again putting it in writing. Yes, giving the task to the untrained private sector was dumb, not only from the security guard aspect but the food supplied by external private sources was appalling too.

    (3) Relaxation of the first lockdown was mishandled. From June 1st a household could have up to 20 visitors. About six lines later in the media release announcing that relaxation was a comment that social distancing should still be followed. Twenty visitors in a house and each keeping 1.5 metres from everyone else? This was ridiculous because it gave the virus huge opportunities to spread.

  • Aynsley Kellow says:

    I think we can add the tacit approval of the BLM demonstration to the list of failings. Regardless of whether it spread the virus, it undermined Andrews’ authority. Effectively cancelling Mothers’ Day and fining citizens for trivial infractions, but waving through protestors ha da pernicious effect on the standing of the government.

    And it wasn’t just using private security – it was having that administered by a Department of Jobs, etc and then engaging a ‘diverse’ provider not even on the approved list and giving cursory training (but lot’s of ‘diversity training’).

    But the situation is not as bad as it seems. CMO Sutton has also admitted they have been counting ‘with Covid’ deaths as ‘from Covid’ deaths – as in the US, where the CDC has now admitted that only 6% of deaths there were from Covid solely. The remaining 94% had an average of 2.6 comorbidities.

    Note also that a group of dissident Victorian doctors have criticised the lockdown and pointed out that flu deaths in Victoria in July alone are down by an number about equal to all Covid deaths since March.

    The risks have been hugely oversold – at enormous expense in terms of both money and lives (through suicides and procedures foregone).

    All the best for your battle with the kidney stone, Don.

    • Aynsley Kellow says:

      I should add that Stage Four Lockdown was introduced on 2 August and the increase in infections peaked on 5 August; they have declined quite steeply since. Andrews is already claiming that the measures are working, but this is not what the data say.

      The decline started well before they could have worked, given the 14-day lag that is accepted science (and the very basis for quarantine – should that be ‘quatorzine’?). There is plenty of evidence internationally that lockdowns do not work, with the same normal distribution evident in jurisdictions with and without lockdowns.

      This policy disaster has cost us 7% of GDP for something that has been less dangerous than a seasonal flu.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Don, good luck with your treatment and thanks for a very pertinent article.

    Here’s more on this very worrying and huge subject:

    With a great link in Rod Stuart’s comment:

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    It was clear from the start that the coronavirus posed a threat mainly to the frail elderly. The medical officers chose to promote the fantasy that we were all going to die, and this was avidly lapped up by the media. The worst episode of mass hysteria in the history of Australia.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Another heat record set – if you adjust for el nino years.

    Spencers August global LT data is the highest on record for non el nino years.

    And of course this rise in heat will continue.

    • Boambee John says:


      Change tge record. You are stuck on a very boring track.

      Also, go outside occasionally.

      • Neville says:

        BJ let the silly donkey retreat to his delusional existence. Meanwhile EV sales have collapsed in the UK, and I’m sure even the dumbest fools around the world will now think twice before they waste money on fra-dulent rubbish like their super expensive EVs.
        I hope thinks are looking up for you Don, all the best.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    “The former head of America’s overarching counter-terrorism body is warning political violence could “spin out of control” in the days leading up to the US Presidential election. He’s told the ABC that Donald Trump’s ongoing rhetoric about the potential for a “rigged” election could lead to mass casualties, should the President lose”.
    Did it occur to this ‘expert’ that the chances of violence will be far, far, greater if Trump wins?

    • stu says:

      You have to be kidding surely. In answer to your question I would simply ask, which side of that argument do you think is most prone to carrying weapons and is most hyped by belligerent rhetoric on social media and of course the Fox empire. And following on please enlighten us as to your main source of information regarding the scene in America. This is not something to trifle with. The future of the western world is at stake.

      • Bryan Roberts says:

        OK. My prediction is that, if Biden wins, the right will be grumpy, but accepting. If Trump wins, there will be weeks of fury. We only have to wait two months to find out.

      • Bryan Roberts says:

        Do note that Hillary is STILL complaining that she was cheated of the Presidency, and advocating that the result of the elections, if unfavourable to the Democrats, should not be accepted.

      • Boambee John says:


        “which side of that argument do you think is most prone to carrying weapons and is most hyped by belligerent rhetoric on social media”

        Perhaps you might take a moment to observe the “mostly peaceful” riots currently underway, and ask yourself which side is engaging in them. Also, which side while engaging in those riots has killed multipke innocent bystanders.

        But you won’t. Is that because you support that side, and regard the innocent deaths as a worthwhile price of victory in November?

        • Boambee John says:


          A follow up from Instapundit.

          “1. Javar Harrell
          2. Dave Patrick Underwood
          3. Chris Beaty
          4. Dorian Murrell
          5. Italia Kelly
          6. Marquis M. Tousant
          7. Marvin Francois
          8. John Tiggs
          9. Jose Gutierrez
          10. Victor Cazares Jr.
          11. David Dorn
          12. Horace Lorenzo Anderson
          13. Tyler Gerth
          14. Antonio Mays Jr.
          15. Secoriea Turner
          16. Jessica Doty Whitaker
          17. Aaron Danielson

          They are all people murdered by rioters and looters since the anti-police protests began in late May.”

          But I’m sure that they were all killed in a non-violent manner, without using weapons.

          That’s sarcasm, in case you can’t work it out!

  • beththeserf says:

    Anti-fa, Anti- fa,
    Pants, (well, leg,) on fire!
    Who put it out?
    Well police put it out.

  • beththeserf says:

    Police to the rescue, another image. Antifa guy hit by Antifa molotov cocktail …
    Antifa mate to the rescue with a dustbin lid, oh my!

  • Stu says:

    Have no fear guys about those terrible protesters in USA, Donald Trump has made it very clear he will fix that problem and the economy as well as Covid as soon as he is elected President. Oh, hang on a minute, he is already president. There is something wrong with his claim. All the crap is happening three and a half years into his presidency.

    • Boambee John says:


      Again (still?) you demonstrate your total ignorance of US constitutional arrangements.

      Strangely, however, you also show marked reluctance to condemn the almost four years long temper tantrum being thrown by the political left in the US. Is that because, despite your pretensions, you support that tantrum?

      PS, do you ever feel disappointment at the lack of progress made to improve race relations in the US while Obama was president? After all, he had 8 years to do that, and failed miserably!

      • Stu says:

        Mate, the relationship of white on black has taken 400 years to totally screw up. No one can fix it in 8 years or maybe even 80, but Obama made further progress. On the other hand Trump is reversing the process and if you cannot see that, it means either you are a total racist (I think we have been down this road before and I acknowledge you may not even realise your biases – such is the nature of ingrained and learned racism) or you have simply been totally taken in by the right wing media. Good for you.

        • Boambee John says:


          Three points.

          First, you demonstrate your total inability to hold a reasonable, civilised discussion by your evidence free accusation that I am a racist.

          Second, with apologies to Don, I suggest that you proceed to have intercourse with your footwear. To put it in the simple terms that even you might be able to understand, go r00t your boot.

          And take your odious religious bigotry (openly demonstrated in one of your two posts), with you.

      • Stu says:

        BJ, presumably you are a total supporter of the racist and pro-christian ramblings of Russell Vought. To refresh your memory he is the director of the office of management and budget at the White House and is on record condemning muslims because the deny his fantasy of life based on someone called Jesus. He is the author of the new rule (signed by Trump) cancelling any further diversity and racial sensitivity training by every federal agency because it is devisive and unamerican. It is all short hand for the new Trump mantra of “Make America White Again”.

  • Neville says:

    The so called climate change mitigation nonsense is still getting a prominent run on their ABC.
    On the Vic Conversation hour this morning we were told that we must have a Green led recovery out of this CV-19 recession and the Climate council’s ideas must be followed and this would lead to thousands of new Green jobs.
    So even more of the ruinous S&W idiocy that will wreck our electricity grids and will cause many more ongoing blackouts, just like SA and California etc.
    One donkey even told us we must respond to the climate crisis and the panel said nothing about his claims or ask “what crisis” and why he thought “we could fix it”.
    These fools are barking mad and you have to wonder if they can even read and understand very simple first grade sums. Apparently they can’t.

  • Stu says:

    No I was pointing to the religious bigotry of Vought and others in the White House administration of Trump. Check out his views. And by extension you say it is ok for him to condemn all muslims, and presumably he includes anyone not christian, but not ok for someone else to draw attention to that by expressing a counter view that all religions are man made. Think about it, they can’t all be right, because they are contradictory. Most people reject all the 2,000 plus gods of the past, some folk go just one more. Peace brother.

    And seeing you have a reluctance to check facts BJ, the NSW report found no incidence of arson in any serious fires and also found that climate change was a factor in the events.

    • Neville says:

      Perhaps D 2 can tell us how CC is involved in our bushfires or any other of their so called CAGW issues?I’ve shown the data on so many, like tornadoes lower trends, like ZIP SLR in the islands, like less OZ hurricanes, like the so called HOT spot, like Antarctica lowest temp, like the stat sig temp reduction of Antarctic pen since 1998, like the increase in polar bears since the 1960s, like nearly 1 billion increase in African pop since 1970 and much higher life exp of 64 and much better nutrition, schooling, higher urban living and in the world’s poorest continent etc, etc. THINK ABOUT IT. Don’t forget the world only reached 1 bn people in 1800 and then the life expectancy of humans was under 40. Again, THINK ABOUT IT.
      Tell us how you can explain the points above and then tell us what we can do about your delusional nonsense? I’ve given you the co2 data from NOAA, WIKI , Lomborg, IEA, EIA and this proves I’m right and you’re wrong.
      Now from our SH NET ZERO ( CSIRO) position tell us how you will stop China and all the developing countries from developing even further?

      • Boambee John says:


        Stu-pid keeps changing the parameters of the argument, probably because he doesn’t understand logic. I never mentiined arson, suddenly he does. He ignores referencees to hazard reduction, probably because he has no response, even an irrational one, to the point.

        Then he introduces religion as a diversion.

        And sprays around accusations of waacissm when he lacks any point of substance.

        Pathetic, mindless, fool.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu defends his bigotry against religion by pointing out that he is an equal opportunity bigot, he is against all religions.

      Sorry Stu, seems that you are an athiest bigot, not a religious bigot. My apologies.

      PS, your “Peace brother” hypocrisy would have more impact if you gave any even some slight indication that it is sincere.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Stu, as I have been encouraging you to do for many years but you seem determined to ignore, please go outside for some pertinent observation.

    But it does need to be ongoing in order to make comparisons.

    Just as you are completely ignorant of the observable evidence of no SLR during your lifetime you are also in denial of the huge increase of combustible fuel in our forests. While the extra and welcome CO2 in our atmosphere does wonderful things for food production it also produces a hugely visible increase of woody undergrowth in all but the thickest rainforests. Not to mention the increase in these forests due to the reduction in small farms awa the inclination of tree-changers to encourage ever more trees.

    When you also have a similar huge increase in these tree-changers who are often green, city elites with little experience of living in fire-prone areas, moving to these high-risk places, you don’t have to be too bright to work out the resulting fire-bomb that awaits.

    It’s all very obvious to anyone who cares to look.

    • Stu says:

      Does all that also apply to California? Is that just mismanagement again? They don’t seem to think so, even the Trump stacked EPA. Oh yes, I forgot again you are not into that science stuff are you.

      • Boambee John says:


        The green opposition to hazard reduction certainly does.

        And fuel load is the only factor over which people have any significant influence.

      • spangled drongo says:

        “Does all that also apply to California?”

        With a recent increase of 20 million people and a mad lefty/green govt, what do you think stueyluv?

        When your “science stuff” is in complete denial of evidence, yes, I’m not into that GIGO.

  • Neville says:

    Just for silly stu and Dr Christy has appeared before Congress with the data and they still won’t listen. Here’s his quote for global fires since 1900 and as co2 levels go up wildfires have gone down. See the graph. And see his graph for USA fires since 1600 and once again fires have dropped since the 1870s. Read it and learn.

    “Globally, guess what, people all around the world are putting fires out. This is the amount of fire acreage covered since 1900 around the world. And you see it here, it has declined. And if someone tells you ‘Wildfires! They’re terrible!’, as I have seen in Congress before Representatives and Senators – they will say ‘the fires are getting worse’. I will say: Congressmen – the evidence is here, the fires have gone way down in their current occurrence and frequency. ‘The fires are getting worse!’ – And I don’t know how to get through to their minds here, as to what evidence tells us about that simple statement. But the Congressman or woman will not change their mind – they just yell louder”


    • Stu says:

      What a load of cobblers. Don’t you ever follow credible sources?

      • spangled drongo says:

        Stu, please read what Jo Nova is saying this morning:

        “The situation in California is just like the one in Australia

        Tim Ingalsbee has been fighting fires or trying to prevent them since 1980. He founded Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology.

        There’s only one solution, the one we know yet still avoid. “We need to get good fire on the ground and whittle down some of that fuel load.”

        And as Neville is trying to tell you:

        “Modern Californians are burning 0.1% of what indigenous California’s used to do:”

        • Stu says:

          Like I said, don’t you follow credible sources. Nova is not a climate scientist. At last check she is a micro-biologist. All the credible sources are describing current northern hemisphere weather events (2020) as extreme and almost certainly unlikely to occur simultaneously without climate change. And yes, the last time CO2 was as prolific in the atmosphere as now there were trees growing in the Antarctic. But no point going down this road again, you mind continues to be closed to science.

          • Boambee John says:

            Stu’s closed mind leads him to automatic rejection of the Jo Nova article, but if he had bothered to check, he would have found that it is a straight re-post of work by someone with great practical knowledge of wildfires.

            The “progressive” left, closed minds since 1917! And bigoted as well.

      • Boambee John says:


        “Credible sources”, are they defined as “sources that support your pre-conceived prejudices”?

        What will be your evidence free “Insult of the day” today?Yesterday ir was racist. Today? Maybe sexist? Misogynist? White supremacist? Transphobe? Homophobe?

        Or, given your athiest bigotry, could you be daring and go for Islamaphobe?

        Come on Stu, your audience awaits your choice!

  • spangled drongo says:

    I have been holding the fort maintaining fire trails and preventing fires here for thirty years but the risk is visibly increasing.

    Why? because cool burns are much more heavily restricted, seemingly because the bureaucrats cannot sufficiently cover their backsides against any possibility of risk, even though the potential victims are increasing at a great rate also.

    You don’t have to be a genius to see the eventual result.

    • Stu says:

      Page iv of the NSW Bushfire Inquiry report “Previous prescribed burning and hazard reduction activity appears to have reduced fire severity in some instances, but in others it appears to have had no effect on the severity and spread of the fires”.

      Also “it appears that the extreme dryness of forested regions over large continuous areas was the determining factor in the size of the fires”.

      “Climate change as a result of increased greenhouse gas emissions clearly played a role…..”

      • Boambee John says:


        “Also “it appears that the extreme dryness of forested regions over large continuous areas was the determining factor in the size of the fires”.”

        So, your “credible sources” claim that, even with a low fuel load, the fires would have been extreme because of the dryness.

        Beyond parody!

      • spangled drongo says:

        “Climate change as a result of increased greenhouse gas emissions clearly played a role…..”

        Stu, you, like all your climate enuresistic mates, are much more concerned with the tick in the paddock [which is doing much more good than harm] than the elephant in the lounge.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s that graph from Swetnam et al 2016 as used by Dr Christy to show 400 years of fire history in the USA.
    This is from the Royal Society site, so I hope clueless stu might rethink his stupid attack on Dr Christy.
    Like Jo Nova Dr Christy only uses the best and latest PR science studies. The trouble is our embarrassing donkeys never bother to think, but instead they tighten their grip on their stupid and dangerous religious cult.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the 2014 Yang et al study linked by Dr Christy for Global wildfires since 1900.
    The global graph as shown by Christy is the FIG 6 of this global study and you’ll note the trend is well down to the present day. Dr Spencer recently looked at Aussie fires and came to the same conclusion.
    It’s best to leave silly stu to his fantasy planet and his dopey religious cult.
    Oh and co2 levels in 1900 were about 295 ppm and today about 414 ppm. THINK ABOUT IT.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Stu sez:

    “Like I said, don’t you follow credible sources.”

    Are 49 NASA scientists credible enough for you, stueyluv?

    Forty-nine former NASA scientists have just written an open letter to NASA pointing out that NASA is hyping unsubstantiated and unverified claims about climate.

    Probably most of the current ones would do likewise if they didn’t want their jobs:

    “We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.”

    Isn’t this precisely what I have been telling you for yonks?

  • Stu says:

    So you guys know better than the collective wisdom of the evidence presented to and accepted by the bush fire inquiry. Good for you. It must be great to consider yourself omniscient in all things. Almost Trumpian, which does not surprise.

    • Boambee John says:

      Bit like you really. Admit to no, or only limited, knowledge of science, but pontificate (Oooops, sorry, did I use a religious expression there? So sorry.) incessantly on the subject, while routinely demonstrating your inability to discriminate between actual science and polemics.

      Go away and accuse someone of racism because they don’t agree with you on some aspect of US politics. That is the limit of your intellectual capacity.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Ever been involved in bushfire fighting, stu? Or even just studied and observed bushfire-prone areas in varying seasons to give you some idea of the real world that has always been Australia?

      Your ignorance, like that of so many others, is palpable.

      Read and learn:

  • Stu says:

    And regarding your 49 Nasa dudes, how many have credible climate science knowledge? Seven were astronauts, big deal. They are very bright people with widely varying backgrounds and lots of training relevant to rockets and space craft, some even have science backgrounds. But it is a big jump from there to putting down the climate experts working elsewhere in NASA.

  • Stu says:

    The lengths of science denial you guys go to is hilarious. I know in this space everyone tips their hats to you but you really should look outside occasionally. And BTW I only refer to actual science and real researchers in the climate field, while you keep trotting out dodgy stats from bit players that have no standing in the climate space. Your total dismissal of the findings of the fires inquiries bears testament to that. Weather events around the world, particularly in the northern hemisphere have intensified action to recognise the problem and take action. Even if you were right, which you are not, your side of the argument is losing and shrinking in size and support rapidly. Enjoy the ride.

    On NASA, they employ over 10,000 scientists and engineers so it would appear that 49 disaffected former employees are probably a drop in the ocean of the total number.

    • Boambee John says:


      “And BTW I only refer to actual science and real researchers in the climate field,”

      ROFLMAO. You still cling to those charlatans after 30 or more years of failed predictions. Arctic ice gone by several dates long past. Fifty million climate “refugees” by 2010, and many other failed predictions.

      “Even if you were right, which you are not, your side of the argument is losing and shrinking in size and support rapidly.”

      Still doing the bogus “science by consensus” thing? How quaint. Your problem is your ignorance of both science and the scientific method. Hint: computer models reflect the inputs of their sponsors, whuch is not necessarily the same as reality.

      But you keep the faith, Stu. It keeps you happy.

      Still, I do admire your long term religious commitment to conducting missionary outreach to the heathens here, when you could have your back scratched by fellow alarmists at any number of websites. You are a genuine martyr to the cause.

    • spangled drongo says:

      “….you really should look outside occasionally.”

      Stop stealing other people’s arguments, stueyluv. Meet me at my place and I will improve your education no end with evidence of unbelievable fuel loads in adjoining Nat Parks.

      “And BTW I only refer to actual science and real researchers in the climate field”

      So why is it you can never come up with any measurable evidence to support your argument?

      But c’mon, give it a try.

      Just this once?

      Instead of just milking your “actual science and real researchers'” consensus and groupthink.

      • Stu says:

        Go and peddle your bullshit in a main line forum, then come back and tell us how well that is going. I suspect you wont because it would not travel well. I acknowledge that here, we are deep in the well of non science.

        Meantime there is no point in my supplying “evidence” as you would not recognise it if you tripped over it. Go and check mainstream science journals for a start, no need for me to republish.

        • spangled drongo says:

          If you can’t supply any evidence yourself, stueyluv, please quote me a link to one of your “mainstream science journals” that has this “evidence”.

          And specify exactly what it is.

          It has us all baffled here how you have never been able to do this in spite of your never-ending claims.

          But if and when you can’t do this, please have the integrity to admit it.

        • Boambee John says:


          ” I acknowledge that here, we are deep in the well of non science.”

          The correct place for you, given your general ignorance of the subject.

          “Meantime there is no point in my supplying “evidence” as you would not recognise it if you tripped over it.”

          Mirror, mirror on the wall, who here is the most unscientisty of all. Why, it’s Stu, as usual.

          Keep up the missionary work, one day you might even get a convert.

        • spangled drongo says:

          Stu sez: “Go and peddle your bullshit in a main line forum…”

          I used to do it regularly, stueyluv, but their standard reaction to any comment that questioned their “science” and asked for evidence or explanation was to close you down and remove your account.

          Not just wrt climate but in all aspects of their “science”.

          As far as they are concerned, scepticism, like evidence, is not a part of the scientific process.

          It’s not hard to see where your logic comes from or surprising that you are similarly brainwashed.

          But keep your eyes and mind open.

          There may be hope for you yet.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Stu sez:

    “On NASA, they employ over 10,000 scientists and engineers so it would appear that 49 disaffected former employees are probably a drop in the ocean of the total number.”

    But check the qualifications needed:

    “Unlike astronomers and physicists, atmospheric scientists can qualify for employment with NASA with just a bachelor’s degree.”

  • Neville says:

    Here’s another FACT sheet from the GWPF. This is about heatwaves in the UK and some other countries, see graph at link. Here’s a quote and only the best recent data is used from the best sources, see list at the end. Please note the 20/1 overwhelming cold deaths. See The Lancet and other top references from the USA etc.
    And clueless stu has been belted around the ears with evidence for years and he still doesn’t understand.
    Like our world’s poorest continent increasing its pop by 977 million since 1970 and today they have much higher life exp, better nutrition, better education etc and much higher urban living as well. But this clueless fool still doesn’t understand?
    And the world had terrible famines up to the start of the Ind Rev and the entire pop then was just 1 billion. Fair dinkum, how can I dumb it down any further for him? IOW stu-pid is embarrassing himself and can’t be helped. Best to leave this religious fanatic to stew in his appalling lack of logic and reason.

    Heat-related mortality
    An influential paper has suggested that rising temperatures
    would result in annual heat-related deaths of
    7,000 in the UK annually by the 2050s.3 This compares
    to fewer than 2,000 heat-related deaths per year on
    average in recent years.
    However, the study made the assumption that no adaptation
    would take place and so this cannot be taken as
    a credible prediction.

    Cold-related mortality remains a more significant and
    persistent problem, both in the UK and internationally.
    6 There are 20 times as many cold-related deaths
    as heat-related deaths worldwide, and the UK has had
    35,000 cold-related deaths a year on average over the
    past 5 years.7
    The observational data show mixed heatwave trends
    across the UK. Large-scale natural climate cycles do
    appear to play an important role in influencing spatial
    and temporal trends, and these could moderate the
    influence of rising temperatures on heatwaves for the
    immediate future.
    Further temperature rises could eventually lead to
    heatwaves becoming more frequent and severe. However,
    if suitable adaptive measures are introduced, then
    these potential changes should not lead to any increase
    in heat-related mortality.
    1. McCarthy, M., Armstrong, L. and Armstrong, N. (2019), A new heatwave
    definition for the UK. Weather, 74: 382-387
    2. Sanderson MG, Economou T, Salmon KH et al. (2017), Historical trends and
    variability in heat waves in the United Kingdom. Atmosphere 8: 191.
    3. Hajat, Shakoor, et al. (2014) Climate change effects on human health: projections
    of temperature-related mortality for the UK during the 2020s, 2050s
    and 2080s. J Epidemiol Community Health 68.7: 641-648.
    4. Vicedo-Cabrera AM, et al. (2018) A multi-country analysis on potential
    adaptive mechanisms to cold and heat in a changing climate. Environment
    International 111: 239–246. See also: Åström et al., 2013, Barreca et al., 2016,
    Bobb et al., 2014, Carson et al., 2006, Coates, 2014, Ekamper et al., 2009, Guo
    et al., 2012, Heo et al., 2016, Nordio et al., 2015, Petkova et al., 2014.
    5. Carson C, et al. (2006) Declining vulnerability to temperature-related
    mortality in London over the 20th century, American Journal of Epidemiology,
    164(1): 77.
    6. Gasparrini, A et al. (2015) Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient
    temperature: a multicountry observational study. The Lancet 386.9991:
    7. Office of National Statistics (2020) Excess winter mortality in England and
    Wales: 2018 to 2019 (provisional) and 2017 to 2018 (final). https://www.ons.

  • Boambee John says:


    Are you ever amazed by Stu’s absolute (almost religious) faith in “experts”?

    Even after years of failed predictions by climate “scientists”, he still believes that they (and their computer models) are infallible.

    Yet we are living through a live experiment in models and “expert” advice, with the Kung Flu. Forecasts by “expert” epidemiologists have been off the planet when compared to reality.

    However, because Stu supports the destruction of modern society to save the planet, I suspect that he is happy with the result of the Kung Flu lockdowns, even if the path to them was faulty.

    Bit like climate “science”, really.

    • Boambee John says:

      PS, he has often accused me of being indifferent to the future of my grandchildren because I do not follow his line on climate “science”. I wonder what kind of world he expects his grandchildren to have in the aftermath of the government reactions to the Kung Flu.

      • spangled drongo says:

        Yes, BJ, it does make you wonder how long the stus of this world can ride this CAGW camel.

        Especially now that they have a foot straddling the Covid camel as well.

        Think of the groin-pain that must inevitably produce!

        Let’s hope our grandchildren are smart enough to see through it all.

  • Neville says:

    Jo Nova continues her quest to keep up with the latest studies on CV-19 deaths and levels of vitamin D in older people and also people who have darker skin.
    Anyone who is 60+ years of age or have darker skin tones should be tested and then decide whether they might consider taking extra vit D to help build up their immunity.
    So far the early studies seem to show that these people would benefit greatly by increasing their levels of vit D.

  • Neville says:

    A number of recent studies seem to show more sea ice today in the Arctic and cooler temps than many thousands of years BP.
    In the case of Stein et al 2017 the only time sea ice was more abundant than today was during the LIA. And this study was over the last 10,000 years.
    And Dr Christy quoted Stein et al 2017 at his talk for the GWPF in London.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes Neville, that’s also supported by the fact that when the early explorers such as Frobisher, Davis, Baffin, Hudson etc covered so much territory in those icy waters in ships that would go “narry an inch to windward” while looking for the N/W Passage, those areas had to be very ice-free.

      Or they would never have been seen again.

  • Neville says:

    Interesting Yan et al 2017 study in the Bohal sea area 1988 to 2015 found more ice and slightly lower temp over this period. See graph at the link.

  • Boambee John says:

    Stu claims to gain his knowledge from mainline science fora, but none of them have been able to teach him the scientific method!

    Stu-pid is as stu-pid does!

  • Neville says:

    Of course all the BS merchants refused Steve McIntyre’s requests to include Law Dome Antarctic data in their studies. Like Gergis , Karoly etc and this data wasn’t included in AR5 report in 2013.
    If you have a look at Steve’s link here you’ll see why in the Law Dome graph.

    And the Calvo et al study of the Holocene SST off south OZ also shows a steady drop in temp over the last 6,500 years. In fact they claim this temp is similar to the Antarctic temp over a very long period.

    Here is how they describe it at the end of their study.

    “Finally, the SST evolution during the Holocene compares well with information on hydrological and vegetation changes from southeastern Australia showing a warm early Holocene at a time of generally wetter conditions and a subsequent decrease in temperature at a time of increasing aridity after 6.5 ka”.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Good one Neville.

      The true believers not only cannot provide empirical evidence to support their groupthink, they also totally ignore any inconvenient evidence to the contrary.

      And they call themselves scientists.

    • Stu says:

      You quote a very technical paper and gallop off claiming support for your non science based views. Do you really understand that paper, the embedded science and what the conclusions really are? As for Mcintyre, as I said previously why not quote credible science people for a change.

      • spangled drongo says:

        And stu not only fails to provide any supporting evidence for the opinions of his groupthinky heroes but he shoots any messenger who points out their abject failings.

        How woke can you get?

      • Boambee John says:


        “Do you really understand that paper, the embedded science and what the conclusions really are?”

        From your question, it is clear that you don’t. Some advice, best to say nothing and be thought a fool, than to say something and remove all doubt.


  • spangled drongo says:

    And stu, please get some facts instead of just blithering about the Californian wildfires.

    In California, there is evidence massive wildfires regularly swept through the region in the past. A 2007 paper in the journal Forest Ecology and Management found prior to European colonization in the 1800s, more than 4.4 million acres of California forest and shrub-land burned annually, far more than the area of California that has burned since 2000, which ranges from 90,000 acres to 1,590,000 acres per year:

  • Neville says:

    As I said stu is really clueless. But here’s another thing that is fascinating about HOT and COLD deaths from the huge Lancet study of 2015.
    Why are moderate cold deaths so severe and in most cases severe HOT deaths don’t seem to be as severe? In fact very low in most countries.
    Anyway you can find a good graph down page at this link and includes Australia and 12 other countries around the globe.
    Certainly moderate cold is the big killer ( about 17 to 1) and to a much lesser extent severe cold.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Yes Neville, just more evidence that we can cope with this non-problem and that the stus of this world need to get honest and aware of what’s really going on in the real world.

      • Boambee John says:


        “the stus of this world need to get honest and aware of what’s really going on in the real world.”

        Never going to happen. Some are on a power trip, the Stus of this world are too silly to understand.

        • spangled drongo says:

          “the Stus of this world are too silly to understand.”

          Or they’re very cunning, BJ, and make it up as they go:

          I wonder what Don’s take on this is?

          • Stu says:

            But we are the huge majority and winning the argument, meantime the global climate changes keep marching on, so get used to it. Better still become part of the solution rather than continuing to be the noisy but ineffective problem. Not in this narrow forum of course where you have created the illusion of superiority. Next you will be referring to your little group as Galileans. And remember practically all if not in fact all, the people you quote have or have had links with major mining and fossil fuel funded front organisations. Questionable.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “But we are the huge majority and winning the argument”

            Just not the elections, hey, stueyluv.

            But you might have a better chance when all those kiddies you lot brainwashed reach voting age.

            Except for the ones who are smart enough to realise that you lot are all evidence-free and fullovit.

            And you actually believe that your paymaster influences your [claimed] belief?

            Does that mean we have to wait for you to retire before you can think for yourself?

            Just think, you’ll have evidence on your side then as well.

          • Boambee John says:

            “But we are the huge majority and winning the argument,”

            Stu, utterly ignorant of science, returns to his favouritrle “science by voting” process.

            Poor Stu, still wallowing in his ignorance, but it gives him comfirt in the dark nights.

            “global climate changes keep marching on”

            Got some empirical evidence, or just the latrst models?

            Used car and insurance salesmen must love Stu!

            “practically all if not in fact all, the people you quote have or have had links with major mining and fossil fuel funded front organisations. Questionable.”

            And the usual argument ad hominem. Sad!

  • Neville says:

    The Morrison has given the private sector 7 months to extend Liddell power stn use, or they will build a new gas plant to provide cheap,reliable, dispatchable BASE-LOAD power.
    If they explain this properly to the average voter it will be a sure winner and most people will thank them for it. Of course the clueless Labor + Green idiots will tell the voters a pack of lies and with the help of our moronic MSM.

  • Neville says:

    Sorry should be Morrison “GOVT” above, just too many irons in the fire this morning.

  • Neville says:

    The best solution for OZ’s future is to build ONLY gas power stns from now on.
    The S&W idiocy should be stopped ASAP and all of their subsidies should be transferred to providing cheap gas for new vehicles/transport + industries+domestic use+ new reliable, base-load power etc.
    And the key ingredient is the need for domestic gas prices to come down to the level of the export market price.
    And we need several big gas hub facilities to be built down our east coast, to cater for future growth and safety in case of unrest in our region.

  • Neville says:

    Fire expert Jim Steele takes California’s Gov Newsom to task and shows where he is wrong about temp and fires over many decades.
    And Trump is correct and they and we Aussies must do more by employing hazard reduction burning every year until we have a much clearer forest/bush floor.
    Yapping about so called higher temps and so called CC ( like Biden does) is fra-dulent nonsense and the waste of trillions $ on this witches brew will have no impact at all.
    Just think about it , these clueless fools actually believe they can fight so called CAGW by employing more of the S&W idiocy.
    But Europe has shown over decades that wasting 100s of billions $ achieves nothing and of course they also transfer a lot of their wealth to China and world co2 emissions data since 1990 proves the case.
    See Wiki graphs and NOAA data/graphs decade by decade over the last 60 years.

  • Neville says:

    Recently Gov Newsom admitted that California must do more hazard reduction burning and effectively agreed with Trump’s message today.
    But he has now resorted to yapping about so called CAGW and supporting the hapless Biden donkey.
    IOW he agrees they must waste trillions $ for a zero return and of course no difference to co2 emissions or levels or temp or climate by 2100 and beyond.
    Meanwhile China, India and the developing countries are building hundreds of new coal power stns and for decades into the future.

  • Neville says:

    AGAIN just for our donkeys, two links to the co2 data from Wiki and from NOAA.

    From NOAA, co2 growth rate since 1960 to 2019.

    From Wikipedia showing countries’ co2 emissions graph from 1970 or 1990 to 2018, see graph top right.

    • Boambee John says:


      What has happened to CO2 emissions and atmospheric levels this year? Did the great lockdown have any effect?

  • Neville says:

    BJ here’s Dr Spencer’s data up to June, also the RS and NAS study also found that we could stop all co2 emissions today and we wouldn’t see a difference in co2 levels for at least 1,000 years. That’s after stopping all human co2 emissions today. And maths guru Nic Lewis found that there should be a downturn after a few hundred years.

    And they all used Zickfeld et al study. See link below. But never mind, Newsom and Biden and Labor and Greens and the world’s MSM and nearly every country believe we can make a difference. Fair dinkum this has to be the greatest load of idiocy in human history and yet they want to waste endless trillions $ on this non problem for ZERO change.
    Remember we haven’t reduced co2 levels at all and after wasting endless billions of $ since 1990. In fact co2 has increased by about another 65 ppm since 1988.

Leave a Reply