Meanwhile, back at climate change…

By October 28, 2020Climate Change, Politics

I keep seeing suggestions that now we know how to deal with Covid-19 (do we?) it’s time to deal with the biggest threat of all, climate change. Greenpeace and other climate-action voices are arguing, for example, that since New Zealand’s Jacinta Ardern no longer needs populist support to govern, there are no more excuses for inaction on climate change in that nation. The same source alleges that New Zealand’s agricultural sector is its main source of greenhouse gas emissions (GGE), ‘as large sheep and cattle herds belch methane…’ I’ve visited the land of the long white cloud many times, but I’ve never heard these belches.

Much the same is being said about the US Presidential election. When Joe Biden wins, the Democrats say, it will be time to ratchet up the US attack on fossil fuels, which Kamala Harris has called ‘an existential threat’. Mr Biden says that climate change will ‘bake the planet’. It’s his number one priority. He does use an awful lot of fossil fuels himself, but maybe there’ll be an exception for leading climate activists, and he is one.

Indeed, throughout the pandemic there have been strong suggestions from the climate warriors that we are all missing the really important threat, that of climate change. I don’t know how much of this rhetoric is sensible. In the first place, the coronavirus has been a difficult issue for all governments everywhere. The possibility that we might have a global epidemic of the kind the world experienced just after the end of the Great War brought out medical, political and economic responses from government that have had no real counterparts in the last fifty years. The threat of death was not just in the future. It was right now, and people were dying, lots of them. They still are. Yes, some of them were elderly, and some of them may have lost their lives from some other cause anyway. The jury is still out on this one. But Covid-19 was an unmistakeable threat across the globe, and governments generally have abandoned their interest in dealing with greenhouse gas emissions to be able to concentrate their energies on something they can deal with, a health issue.

In the second place, no one has yet died from climate change, and the day of reckoning, so to speak, has been pushed well into the future. When the climate scare first erupted we were told we only had a few years to deal with the problem. The wiser heads no doubt meant ‘a few years’ to get policies in place that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but there can be little doubt that the mass audience heard we would all die from something, and the context would be hot. The seas would evaporate, and so on. More sober talk these days is pointing to 2050 as the tipping point, or even the end of the century. It is hard to get people worried about what might happen in thirty years’ time, let alone in eighty years.

Nonetheless, climate action has not gone away, though some of its recent manifestations, like Extreme Rebellion, seem much wider in their purpose than simply reducing GGE. Climate action often seems to be associated with a move towards socialism, or to be opposed to capitalism (not quite the same thing), or simply to be opposed to the existing order. I don’t remember its being quite like that twenty years ago, when we started to be told authoritatively that in the climate domain things were grim.

What has happened, anyway, in the climate domain? Assertions fly around. The fires in western USA have been caused by it. Storms are caused by it. Droughts and floods in Australia have climate change as their cause. There are climate refugees. Various animals and insects have found that their usual habitats have been threatened by climate change, or will be threatened or might be threatened. Hot summers and cold winters are caused by it. The seas are rising and acidifying because of it. And so on. None of these assertions is well supported by data. In contrast, this year’s global wheat harvest are said to be the biggest ever, and we will know how accurate that forecast will be quite soon.

Which points to another conundrum in the whole debate. It is rare to find anyone suggesting that a bit more heat for the planet wouldn’t be such a bad thing. Climate activists move quickly past the well-supported argument that the planet is greener than it used to be, that the Sahara and Sahel have shrunk, that growing seasons are longer and that harvests, to return to that point, are more plentiful. Why is a warmer Earth a bad thing? Well, so the argument goes, we’ll get a tipping point and a runaway heating that will burn everything up, as Mr Biden said. The evidence for such a possible catastrophe is slight, just like the proposition that ‘climate sensitivity’ is the key to it all. After forty years of talk and argument, climate sensitivity is still where it was in the 1980s — a notion that is necessary to support the central CAGW argument, but not one that is verifiable or validated. If it exists at all, its range in increased air temperature  could be somewhere from 1.5 to 4.5 in terms of doubling the amount of CO2 in the air.

I don’t write much about global warming or climate change any more. It is clear that governments, the media and the global NGOs are trapped in the belief that it is a real problem. They don’t have to explain themselves because they have the whip hand. Those like me who are sceptical are in the minority, and there’s not much we can do about it. However, carbon taxes and a full-scale assault on fossil fuels don’t seem any closer than they used to be, and because nothing much is changing in the climate domain, industries and electorates feeling threatened by such policies are becoming more vocal, especially in the EU. In Australia Labor has the problem that coal is a key export from Queensland. Coal and minerals generally are much more important in the Queensland economy than agriculture. Those who cry out against mining and export do not live in the regions where coal is mined, but in the inner-city electorates a long way away.

Much the same can be said about electric vehicles, hydrogen power, and the other current fads about how we must move forward on the back of a new green economy. Electric vehicles make a good deal of sense in urban areas, but they don’t do anything to reduce GGE. Isn’t that what the goal is? Sooner or later we all have to grapple with the reality of increasing atmospheric CO2. To what extent is it beneficial, to what extent harmful? Is a stable, reliable and relatively cheap electricity grid of great importance? If it is, shouldn’t we be ensuring that we continue to have one? Isn’t that more important than chasing after ‘alternative energy’ sources, which presently can’t do the job?

These are the questions we should be asking ourselves, it seems to me. I’ve been waiting quite a time, and will have to wait longer, I think. I’ll have another essay on a related subject next week.


Join the discussion 124 Comments

  • Neville says:

    Don another good essay and like you I’m very relaxed about their so called claims of impending doom and a climate crisis.
    The US DEMs consider this is the most important crisis facing the world and yet all the data/ evidence proves that we are living at the most fortunate time in human history.
    What stuns me is the complete disregard for very recent African history and the amazing improvement for our poorest continent over the last 50 years.
    In this time of so called climate crisis we’ve seen their population increase by 950+ MIL people in just 50 years and they are much better off, have increased life exp, better nutrition, higher education etc and also have a higher urban population as well.
    This wouldn’t be possible if there was a climate crisis. But the US DEM’S idea of more ruinables will be a disaster for their environment and will have to be changed every 20 years anyway and millions tons of rubbish cleaned up or buried as well. Plus toxic materials .
    Of course there’ll be ZERO change for their climate or temp or anything else. Meanwhile China and developing countries will happily build proper base-load power stns to ensure they have reliable cheap energy for the rest of the century.

  • Boambee John says:


    “Various animals and insects have found that their usual habitats have been threatened by climate change, or will be threatened or might be threatened.”

    The interesting thing about arguments like these is the complete rejection of evolution as a potential response by fauna and flora. It is as if the famous “Monkey Trial ” has been consigned to the forgettory. Where are the vigourous defenders of evolutionary science? Gone very silent, every one.

    Any change will most probably be gradual, and as you pointed out, could be beneficial, as it has been so far. Talk about “tipping points” seems to rely on the dreaded computer models whose predictive record is abysmal. Perhaps the worriers should get a life, and accept that adaptation is an entirely practical response?

  • Climate Change has gained so much traction because reverence for nature is so bound up with human psyche, but Gaia is an indifferent God. The Aztecs discovered this after human sacrifices didn’t make it rain. Our collective psyche is exploited for cynical economic reform were we’re sold inefficient equipment in exchange for vague promises of better weather in 100 years time

  • It is well nigh impossible to  introduce reason into an episode of mass hysteria until the participants begin to personally suffer the negative consequences of their unreason.  It is almost certainly going to require frequent blackouts and unaffordable power bills to break through the mass delusion on renewable energy.  It is probably going to take at least another year for this to begin to bite but a global recession stemming from the pandemic may speed up the return to sobriety.  In the meantime the most useful thing might be to develop a clear well presented argument for what needs to be done. Unfortunately, it sometimes takes chaos to subdue the madness before a voice of reason can be heard.

    • Alice Thermopolis says:

      Agreed. Watched an episode of Kenneth Clark’s Civilization (1969) the other night. It seems today’s pantheism can be traced back to at least the mid-18th century when disillusionment with Christianity set in. Rousseau kick-started “environmentalism” around 1760 by writing about his “faith in the divinity of Nature” in his Reveries of the Solitary Walker. Then came Wordsworth and a “Few Lines composed above Tintern Abbey (Monmouthshire), the Lake poets, and….by and by….our very own Tim Flannery’s Here on Earth – An Argument for Hope and so on and so forth.

  • Peter Bobroff says:

    ModTran6, an atmospheric radiation transfer simulator, predicts no increase in upward diffuse flux at the top of the atmosphere as CO2 increases from 285ppm to 410ppm. The lower bound of climate sensitivity in the current CO2 concentration could well be 0.0

  • Stu says:

    It is remarkable, even incredible that so many people, so many scientists, so many research organisations, so many national science bodies, so many governments have been taken in by the climate change story. Even Japan has now committed to be carbon neutral by 2050. Oh bugger. And all this in spite of the stiff opposition by a handful of old geologists and other bit players plus a few large media players. Those few including non science based political pundits have kept the real story alive. Trouble is that belief in this minority position is shrinking, down to 20% on latest information. Never mind keep the chin up chaps and follow the example of Captain Smith, go down with the ship while the band plays.

    • Boambee John says:


      Interesting. All you have is more “science by consensus”? Really?

      We realise that physics and chemistry are beyond your abilities, but surely even you could research the scientific method, so that you do not always demonstrate your ignorance.

      Anyway, here are some non scientific questions that even you should be able to check out and understand.

      What percentage of “supporters” place climate change as their top priority? How much are they prepared to pay annually to solve this “problem”? Do they place it above their economic wellbeing?

      PS, when does your grand daughter get to open your letter of seff-abnegation? Will you report her reaction here?

  • spangled drongo says:

    Don, thanks for this very necessary summary of possibly the biggest hoax ever foisted on mankind.

    Never in the history of civilisation have we had an approaching “catastrophe” that has been as obscure as this climate catastrophe.

    It has been constructed by the consensus of the climatology community through illogical predictions, greatly assisted by climate models, with the driving forces being political, monetary and philosophical.

    If it were based on science, the models would need to improve their ability by 1000 times to detect any GGE. But by not being able to, it just conveniently allows more assumptions to take place.

    The measurable evidence for this “catastrophe” does not exist, yet we have people believing these days simply because they have been taught from birth that this is how the world must act.

    It is interesting to observe that these believers in this new religion are the ones so critical of all the religions that have gone before.

    The are so impassioned and unsceptical that even a swift return to a new ice age would not change their minds.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    How long has the racket been going? Ten years? Twenty years? And what’s happened? John Cook got a (presumably) lucrative job in the US, and disappeared from view. The Australian weather remained as unpredictable as it has always been…and-nothing. Tell me one thing that would convince an independent observer that the ‘climate’ had changed in any way. Not the hundredths of a degree bullshit fed by the ABC for the ‘hottest day evah’, but something the average man would notice. I’ve been here for nearly eighty years, and there is nothing. There were people screaming “the end is nigh” on the streets of Sydney in the 50s. Being Australians, we laughed and ignored them. One is inclined to ask what has happened to us?

    • Boambee John says:


      Those people with their “Repent, the end is nigh” signs were widely acknowledged to be at best unbalanced, more likely crackpots.

      Now those who publish “Repent of your carbon profligacy, the end is nigh” in “scientific journals” are regarded as geniuses (genii?), and the media hangs on their every word. But they still seem to be at best unbalanced, though not entirely crackpots.

  • spangled drongo says:

    The consensus of the climatology community is being well reinforced by endless Gretas:

    “School students are being groomed for social activism while too many are still functionally illiterate as they leave the classroom.

    A new OECD report shows that Australia’s school system has an excess focus on students developing “awareness of global issues”.

    Little wonder our students’ performance in the OECD-run Program for International Student Assessment has plummeted faster than almost any other country. More than one in five 15-year-olds don’t have the essential literacy and numeracy they will need to be successful in work or further study.”

  • Neville says:

    Gosh you blokes are a bit hard on the likes of stu and his many mates.
    These poor donkeys only refer to their fantasy planet to try and influence us and get very hostile if we refuse to follow their ideas.
    I think my Africa version is unique and doesn’t fit with any of their scary stories. In fact I’ve shown how well our poorest continent has performed since 1900 or 1970.
    In fact in 1970 we had some of the world’s leading scientists and lefties telling us that mass hunger and starvation were just decades away and not just Africa or China or India but the USA and Europe would also follow within 30 years. Remember 1970 Earth day?
    Of course they were completely wrong, but just imagine if someone or group alternatively forecast the reality we see today. They would’ve been howled down and called all sorts of names and hated with a vengeance and the loony left wing media would’ve put in the boot as well.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Now that the science is “settled”, the social media controllers such as Twitter, Facebook, and Google can have climate “fact-checkers,” founded and funded for the express purpose of promoting the climate crisis narrative.

    Twitter, Facebook, and Google should not be the arbiters of truth on complex scientific and societal issues. They should embrace the dictum of Voltaire: “I may disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Some of us would settle for, “live and let live.”

    The self-righteousness of the new religion is breath-taking.

  • Neville says:

    BTW Tony Bubolinski has just been interviewed on Fox News and he has blown the lid off on Joe and Hunter Biden. And Joe is seems to be the big guy mentioned in the emails.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s much more of that FOX interview of Tony Bobulinski and he has documents from the Bidens and others to support his claims.
    He even recorded a phone conversation with the Biden family lawyer and we hear a short excerpt of that recording on this video.
    But Joe Biden+ Hunter+ Jim Biden were directly paid millions $ from the Chinese company and it was directly linked to the Chinese CP.
    Now we know that Joe lied during the debate and if this con merchant is elected President he will be hounded forever until he steps down.
    BTW he has handed all the documents trove to the FBI and I think other sources. Obviously FOX are involved as well.
    The last third of the video is the most important part and let’s hope that more voters are made aware of this info before they vote.
    This donkey would be the most compromised President in history if he wins on NOV 3. All hog tied just waiting for the CCP to sell the West down the drain.

  • Chris Warren says:

    At this stage – with all the data and work that has emerged, much of Don’s comments carry little weight. They seem to amount more to a liturgy of denialism than a scientific body of evidence based research.
    You do not address New Zealand’s agricultural GHG emissions by quipping “I’ve visited the land of the long white cloud many times, but I’ve never heard these belches.” That is not science.

    I see no problem with claims of ‘an existential threat’ and there is enough science to know that “climate change will ‘bake the planet’.” All this is simple physics and chemistry.

    Maybe there is a scientific argument that the seas will not evaporate but measurements are showing increased water vapour in the atmosphere and surely most comes from sea evaporation. So this cannot be denied. Obviously “It is hard to get people worried about what might happen in thirty years’ time, let alone in eighty years.” But this is a problem – not something else.

    Of course increased energy in the global system could increase fires, storms, droughts and floods, hot summers and even cold winters – if not now, sometime in the future. Rising seas and acidifying were cited at a drop in pH of 0.1 since industrial era, and sea level rise was cited as 1.7mm pa (1901-2010) and 3.2mm (1993-2010) in IPCC Report Working Group 1, Ch3, pg 258-9. To suggest this assertion is not well supported by data, is all too common denialism.

    Clearly a warmer earth is a bad thing; we’ll get a tipping point and a runaway heating that will generate catastrophe. This is simple physics. You do not need any change in ‘climate sensitivity’ and it is completely verified. The change is in the GHGs. This is sufficient. As GHGs absorb infra red radiation why would anyone throw doubt as to whether “… it exists at all”. It is a scientific fact and such tactics demonstrate all too common denialism.

    It may appear there is no need to write much about global warming or climate change as it is clear that governments, the media and the global NGOs rcognise that it is a real problem. There is no room for sensible useful scepticism as the science is so strong and there is no science to base real scepticism on. This is just a minority camouflage. However there are many aspects of global warming that need further work particularly the work of William Ruddiman and some work on cheap geosequestration as simply reducing emissions is no longer sufficient.

    In Australia a problem is that our economy is largely underpinned by fossil fuels either in domestic roles or as exports. Unfortunately some sour interests are trying to protect their fossil fuel interests by driving wedges between rural and urban Australians.

    Electric vehicles, hydrogen power, are not fads and have greater potential to reduce GHGs than fossil fuelled vehicles. You cannot enrich yourself if you destroy the same for others. This is the most important rule of all moral philosophy whether from the West (Hobbes/Kant) or East (Confucius) or even in antiquated texts suchas the Bible.

    If people want to serve as being “sceptics” then they need to find science at least equal to the science they want to raise scepticism over – otherwise they are just pushing denialism.

    • Boambee John says:


      Some of your bland assertions are less than convincing.

      “Of course increased energy in the global system could increase fires, storms, droughts and floods, hot summers and even cold winters – if not now, sometime in the future”.

      They could, or perhaps they won’t.

      “The change is in the GHGs. This is sufficient. As GHGs absorb infra red radiation why would anyone throw doubt as to whether “… it exists at all”.”

      You elide all too easily over the issue of absorbtion saturation.

      “There is no room for sensible useful scepticism as the science is so strong and there is no science to base real scepticism on.”

      Genuine science is always open to challenge. This is fundamental to the scientific method.

      “Clearly a warmer earth is a bad thing; we’ll get a tipping point and a runaway heating that will generate catastrophe.”

      Could equally validly be written as “Clearly a colder earth is a bad thing; we’ll get a tipping point and a runaway cooling that will generate catastrophe.”

      “Electric vehicles, hydrogen power, are not fads and have greater potential to reduce GHGs than fossil fuelled vehicles.”

      Hydrogen has significant technical issues that you brush aside too easily.

      That reference to EVs reminds me, however, of some questions I posed to you on an earlier thread. Obviously you were too busy at that time (drafting this post?) to respond, so I re-post them here to remind you.

      “Boambee John
      October 16, 2020 at 6:42 am

      Do you deny that wind generators require massive foundations of concrete reinforced by steel? Do you deny that production of the turbines requires large quantities of rare minerals, often mined in poor conditions, and processed in nations with lax environmental standards? Do you deny that distributed networks of renewable generators require new transmission lines to join them to the existing grid? Do you deny that the DC power produced by ruinables requires conversion to AC power, and that the frequency must be stabilised?

      Are you a reality denialist? Or are you simply ignorant?”

      Add EVs to the mix and the demand for power will rise massively. How do you propose to supply it with solar, wind and batteries in their current and likely future state if development? Will you copy the NSW state minister who proposes “demand management? Is demand management just a euphemism for “rolling blackouts”?

  • spangled drongo says:

    Reams of unsubstantiated blither don’t cut it, blith.

    Try just one word of empirical evidence. That’s what simple physics really is. Not blither.

  • Neville says:

    We now know that Joe Biden was the big guy referred to in the emails. All this started when he was VP and he’s been up to these con tricks for years, yet the lefty media con merchants are playing dumb and hiding this from US voters.

    And their Chinese business partner was targeted by the authorities because he was too close the the CCP. Here’s a part of the story.

    “And now, we are learning a Chinese business associate within the Biden orbit was under a FISA spy warrant (via Daily Caller News Foundation):

    Feds suspected Hunter Biden associate/client Patrick HO of working covertly as a foreign agent.

    HO was the subject of a FISA warrant, according to court documents in his bribery case.
    — Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) October 28, 2020

    “Federal investigators obtained a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant against one of Hunter Biden’s Chinese business associates, suggesting that the executive was suspected of acting as a covert agent of a foreign government.

    Prosecutors revealed the existence of at least one FISA warrant against Chi Ping Patrick Ho, known as Patrick Ho, in a Feb. 8, 2018 court filing obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

    Ho was charged on Dec. 18, 2017 with conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and money laundering related to CEFC China Energy contracts in Uganda and Chad. Ho had been an executive at the multi-billion dollar Chinese energy company prior to his arrest”.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the transcript of the Tucker Carlson interview of Tony Bobulinski. Alas the video is now copyright by FOX news.

  • Neville says:

    Joe, Hunter and Jim Biden are up to their ear lobes with the”biggest f…… spy chief in China.” Hunter’s words not mine and Hunter’s other partner has now disappeared and he’s supposedly worth over 300 bn $.
    Don’t forget this idiot family could be the USA first family after NOV 3.

    Here’s Hunter’s audio tape etc.

  • Neville says:

    New record low temps are being set in parts of the USA and more to come along with unusual early snowfalls. Gosh it must be part of their CAGW? SARC

  • spangled drongo says:

    Banks and major companies are pathetically going along with the hypocrisy of the green left. It will be interesting to see just how much is window dressing and virtue seeking:

    “Banks have been given a privileged position in our society and our economy and they shouldn’t interfere in markets but simply facilitate them with capital. That is their role and they should stick to it.”

    Mr Littleproud said “when so much of our nation’s wealth is generated in the regions, penalising these industries and destroying livelihoods just to get the warm and fuzzies is pure insanity”.

    “It shows just how out of touch ANZ is about how our regional communities live and work,” he said.

  • spangled drongo says:

    Remember the science of 1978?

    Leonard Nimoy, Columbia University, and leading world climate scientists were telling us that an ice age was coming. Perpetual snow and a polar desert:

  • Neville says:

    Thanks for that SD, an oldie and a goody.
    Here’s a study from Nature showing a graph of the AMO and OHC in the north Atlantic.
    The two graphs seem to follow closely and start at about 1960 and end just before 2020. If they are accurate it seems the AMO warm phase is starting to cool and likewise the OHC.
    If so this warm phase could be much shorter than the previous warm phase and the previous cool phase lasted 25 to 30 years.
    Dr Judith Curry thinks the cool phase could start in the 2020s and again last for 20 to 30 years. Who knows but the arctic could be much colder for a long period and perhaps last into the 2040s. Time will tell.

  • Neville says:

    Because our silly D1 never seems to learn, I think I should post one of my comments from the other thread. THE BOTTOM LINE IS ” IF WE STOPPED ALL co2 EMISSIONS TODAY IT WOULDN’T HAVE AN IMPACT FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS”. The Petit et al study proves this point.

    Here the Conversation echos what I’ve linked to from the RS & NAS and the Zickfeld study. If we stopped ALL co2 emissions today it wouldn’t have an impact AT ALL for THOUSANDS of years.

    Yet we have silly donkeys telling us repeatedly that we will have a better climate if we reduce our co2 emissions. Of course there’s no evidence AT ALL of a climate emergency and in fact the reverse is true. Just look at deaths from extreme events, SLR, human’s standard of living + life expectancy etc.

    And if Prof Happer is correct we have nothing to fear from co2 except a much GREENER planet and a brighter future for everyone.

    Here’s the link and quote about co2.
    “Slam on the climate brakes”

    “What would happen to the climate if we were to stop emitting carbon dioxide today, right now? Would we return to the climate of our elders?

    The simple answer is no. Once we release the carbon dioxide stored in the fossil fuels we burn, it accumulates in and moves among the atmosphere, the oceans, the land and the plants and animals of the biosphere. The released carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Only after many millennia will it return to rocks, for example, through the formation of calcium carbonate – limestone – as marine organisms’ shells settle to the bottom of the ocean. But on time spans relevant to humans, once released the carbon dioxide is in our environment essentially forever. It does not go away, unless we, ourselves, remove it.

    In order to stop the accumulation of heat, we would have to eliminate not just carbon dioxide emissions, but all greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide. We’d also need to reverse deforestation and other land uses that affect the Earth’s energy balance (the difference between incoming energy from the sun and what’s returned to space). We would have to radically change our agriculture. If we did this, it would eliminate additional planetary warming, and limit the rise of air temperature. Such a cessation of warming is not possible”.

  • Neville says:

    More for silly D1 AGAIN. Here’s all the countries’ co2 emissions graphs since 1990 and earlier.
    Check out China and other (developing) countries’ graphs and then tell us how you would stop them from building 100s of new coal fired stns for decades to come?

  • Alice Thermopolis says:

    Thanks Don

    Nature controls us, not vice versa: whether the issue be climate or covid-19.

    As for the political class, what H L Mencken wrote in 1918 is true today, from the Court of King Catactacus to that of the Queen of Aotearoa:

    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”

    He also wrote: “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong” and “There is always an easy solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.”

    For me, the notion that a bunch of countries/bureaucrats can control the planet’s climate is somewhere between Machiavellian self-interest/opportunism (Chinese manufacturers of solar panels/wind turbines/storage batteries, etc.) and a collective delusion that now competes with religious belief.

    Indeed, the Church is now trying to win back lost spiritual market share by going ever greener – “holier” – than thou.

    One can sign the St Francis Pledge online:

  • Neville says:

    The best and most honest DEM’S advert I’ve seen in a long time. Boy there’s some very talented people on youtube.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Pure, unadulterated lies, slander and rancid fakery.

      Disgusting effort by neville to spread Trumpy propaganda and disinformation.

      • Boambee John says:


        “Disgusting effort by neville to spread Trumpy propaganda and disinformation.”
        Lost your sense of humour (if you ever had one)?

  • Peter E says:

    Many an expert likes to pin the label ‘populist’ on Donald Trump. The real populist is the guy rushing around crying that the earth is gonna bake!

    • Chris Warren says:

      Peter E

      If GHGs continue to accumulate in the atmosphere, then truly – the Earth will bake.

      This is a scientific fact.

      • Boambee John says:


        Do some research on absorption saturation.

        • Chris Warren says:

          No issue there. You do not know what you are talking about.

          • Boambee John says:


            Do you?

          • spangled drongo says:


            There is never an issue about “settled science” when universities can sack any thinking scientist.

            We will never know what research escapes rigorous testing by academics who do not want to jeopardise their jobs.

            The blitherers would have it no other way.

        • spangled drongo says:

          BJ, blith is too stupid to know what’s going on in the world around him wrt groupthink GHG emission “prevention”.

          He thinks this is a solution:

          Tesla, the current darling of the auto industry, for example, in addition to direct subsidies for manufacturing facilities and purchase credits ranging from $2,500 to $7,500 per vehicle, Tesla sells emissions credits to other car companies to meet California regulatory requirements. The sale of these credits totaled more than $1 billion over the past year, accounting for Tesla’s entire free cash flow over the period. Tesla loses money on each car it manufactures.

  • Neville says:

    More on the Cobalt mines in the Congo and the terrible working conditions for women and kids who work for a pittance and are at the risk from Chinese buyers via economic exploitation and sexual abuse.
    But our donkeys couldn’t care less and promote EVs at every opportunity and some of the wealthiest people and companies prosper from these very poor people.
    Companies like Apple, Google, Samsung etc, so let’s hope the recent lawsuit will bring a stop to these vile mongrels and these poor people get proper compensation for their families death tolls and shocking conditions that have gone on for far too long.

  • Neville says:

    More anti- science from the EU’s so called scientists. They’re closer to poor Greta’s POV and seem to disbelieve proper data and evidence.
    They are warning the EU that economic growth is not a good thing and will be detrimental to the fight against climate change.
    Of course this is the opposite to what’s happened over the last 200 years. The wealthiest countries in the world have achieved that advantage because of economic growth and the use of proper data and evidence.
    The stupidity of these far left parasites is a testimony to their cloistered existence and ignorance about the real world and real people.

    • Chris Warren says:

      More fake dogma from the dogma machine. This is what fossil fuel fanatics are scared of – “science”. According to science;

      “Demand for energy and resources has been growing as a result of population growth and increased consumption to the point where all the scientific evidence shows we are bumping up against fundamental planetary boundaries on which our civilizations depend. EASAC summarises this evidence with a focus on climate and biodiversity, describing what many international scientists have been thinking since the 1970s – that current unsustainable trajectories are built into our economic theories and our political reward systems. These fundamentals need to be reset so that long-term sustainability is built into our decision-making at all levels rather than just left to altruism at the fringes.

      “The short-term perspective of many vested interests in continuing the status quo (whether in fossil fuels, resources extraction, high consumption in the linear economy, overfishing, conversion of forests and so on) is a formidable barrier to change. “Decision-makers seem to listen more to vested interests than to science,” says Anders Wijkman, Member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Science. “The science message has been consistent since the 1970s on the finite nature of the planet but been ignored. Incremental emissions reductions – achieved so far – are far from what is needed”

      Emission Gap is widening

      Climate warming is proceeding too fast to meet the Paris Agreement objective of avoiding dangerous climate change. Positive feedback effects that accelerate warming are already occurring. Even with the extreme effects of the COVID19 pandemic, the gap between what is needed in terms of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) and what is being achieved continues to widen.

      At the same time, biodiversity is being lost at a rate that will weaken and degrade the services we rely on from nature and sabotage progress towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) in poverty, hunger, health, water, cities, climate, oceans and land. That is what drives the conclusion that achieving sustainability may only be achieved through transformative changes.

      What keeps us from listening to the science?

      “There is much talk of redirecting our values and reward systems towards a more sustainable economy whereby we can live well within our planet for more than just a few more years. But the inertia of the ‘brown economy’ cannot be underestimated”, says Norton. Even now, fossil fuel interests have succeeded in capturing almost double the post-COVID19 recovery funds in G20 countries allocated to renewable energies. Food and agricultural interests are driving deforestation, land clearing and over-fishing but continue to be subsidised and escape paying for the environmental costs of their activities.

      Wijkman: “The problem is the short-term nature of our political and economic system. I call it the tyranny of the now. So-called wealth is detached from the real wealth of our environment and our well-being. We have even delegated stock market speculation to algorithms and regard that as wealth – even though it has no real value. That’s just one illustration of our disconnect with the physical reality of our planet and its limits.”

      Concrete change measures

      “Generation Greta gets it,” continues Wijkman. “Our focus should be on well-being and welfare, but our economic system puts all focus on growth and GDP which adds fuel to the climate and biodiversity crises. Yet, we are not becoming happier by consuming more and more and more material goods. The pandemic hopefully has demonstrated that consumption in itself is not the main objective or goal in life. It‘s well-being that is the main goal.”

      The scientists list some of the most urgent and transforming change measures:

      Replace GDP by measures of real well-being that don’t rely on exploiting and destroying the planet’s resources
      Overcome the vested interests in the brown economy – starting with replacing perverse subsidies with positive incentives for environmental responsibility
      Steer our economic system to think long-term
      Engage industry and finance sectors to drive the changes and engage the public through new approaches (examples provided in the publication)
      Grasp the opportunities now of the post-COVID and Green Deal stimuli to start to fix the system which is no longer fit for purpose.?

      “We are aware that our conclusions challenge political leaders and global elites who have campaigned for the traditional economy, expecting science and technology to allow economic growth to be indefinitely sustained,” says Prof. Louise Vet, Netherlands Institute of Ecology. “But we all have to accept the realities of our finite planet. Only if we push the reset button now and work with nature instead of against it, our children get the chance of having a future.”

      • Taieri says:

        Anders Wijkman is NOT a scientist. He’s a politologist. Therefore, he’s as competent to make pronouncements on science as my neighbour’s cat.

  • Boambee John says:

    The spirit of Thomas Malthus lives on!

    There really are some slow learners. Club of Rome anyone? Or the Boy Who Cried “Wolf”?

  • Neville says:

    GEEZZZZ Ehrlich and the flat earth day loons have learnt nothing over the last 50 years as they pursue their stupid ideas.
    Meanwhile on the real planet earth the progress since 1970 has been amazing and now the developing countries are becoming wealthier and healthier as they see poverty drop every decade.
    Don’t forget that just 200 years ago nearly every one of the 1 bn people alive then were in the poor and sick corner, but with the advent of the Ind rev + fossil fuels the 7.8 bn people today are much better off.
    They live on average to 72 years, have better health, better education, more food, 95% less deaths from extreme weather events etc and the UN projections now show that by 2050 or 2100 everyone will be much healthier and better off as well.

    Here Lomborg answers some of the more ignorant claims of the fools who would put all this at risk because they never learn the lessons of of the past. As Lomborg says their alarmism is false and he provides the proper data to support his case. And Shellenberger’s new book “Apocalyse Never, why environmental alarmism hurts us all,” also provides us with the evidence to fight these con merchants.

  • Chris Warren says:

    Calm down Neville your alarmism is reaching screeching heights

    • Boambee John says:


      It is indicative of the mental flexibility of alarmists that disagreeing with them is now labelled as “alarmism”. Whatever happened to “denialism”?

      The persistence of climateers with Malthusianist pessimism, while demanding ever more subsidies for their unsustainable plans for solar, wind and batteries, is a clear confirmation of their narrow, closed, minds.

      • Boambee John says:

        On the subject of sustainability, a repeat of some questions for Chris, which he chooses to ignore.

        “Do you deny that wind generators require massive foundations of concrete reinforced by steel? Do you deny that production of the turbines requires large quantities of rare minerals, often mined in poor conditions, and processed in nations with lax environmental standards? Do you deny that distributed networks of renewable generators require new transmission lines to join them to the existing grid? Do you deny that the DC power produced by ruinables requires conversion to AC power, and that the frequency must be stabilised?

        Are you a reality denialist? Or are you simply ignorant?

        Add EVs to the mix and the demand for power will rise massively. How do you propose to supply it with solar, wind and batteries in their current and likely future state if development? Will you copy the NSW state minister who proposes “demand management? Is demand management just a euphemism for “rolling blackouts”?”

        Without the supposedly “unsustainable” concrete and steel industries, and the environmentally polluting mining and processing of cobalt and rare earth minerals, a solar, wind and battery powered world is a pipe dream.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Sez blith, while up to his neck in his enuresistic emissions.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s Shellenberger’s TED talk about the S&W disaster. About 15 years ago he thought that S&W was the answer but today he knows these dilute energy sources will destroy the environment.
    Dr Hansen is another scientist who thinks that Nuclear power is the way of the future and especially for the USA.

  • Neville says:

    In this recent 5 minute video Shellenberger again asks why we must destroy the environment in order to fight climate change.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Of all the ‘irrefutable facts’, two are paramount. A population cannot increase indefinitely on a physically limited space, and a physically limited space has finite resources. Thrash about as you wish, but those constraints \will not change.

    • PeterD says:

      Hi Bryan

      “A population cannot increase indefinitely on a physically limited space”

      Population growth, biodiversity loss etc – these are measurable. Smarter, more efficient methods of food production etc may help but your term ‘indefinitely’ is a clincher. What is sustainable becomes a key consideration.

      “physically limited space has finite resources.”

      Again, this is a fundamental truism. Even, one might think, with coal, fossil fuel extractions etc. there are finite boundaries. If one relies on natural factors such as ‘wind’, ‘solar’ one might think this is more sustainable but of course, the hidden costs, such as painting the the wind turbines etc can be costly.

      When one stands back and looks at the correspondence on this site, there are some bizarre interactions. It reminds me of bright, intelligent schoolboys {yes, sexist, I know} who poke each other with a compass and use insulting terms; or who want to go down the dark burrows after Hunter Biden or Eric Trump or latch onto Guiliani, conspiracy theories or other dubious muck. Focus on policy analysis. This site has been impressive and sustainable over the years because of the huge efforts and credibility of Don Aitken but if he is unable to continue it, which of these smart boys is going to put his hand up and say, I’ll write the articles and do all the work around moderation, setting an inclusive tone like Donald Trump does, promoting balance and fairness?

      Even with climate change generally there are three broad factors that are relevant: science, politics/ideology and economics.

      Science and economics are more objective but the politics is appalling. You may, Bryan, be a member of UniSuper if you have worked in a University. On Friday, the Chief Investment Officer indicated that there is no investment by this fund if firms have more than 10%
      involved in fossil fuels etc and that the transition to renewables, in his view, is that’s occurring and inevitable. Certain CEOs, too, of large companies will not invest in fossil fuels. When Japan, South Korea, China and a US[Biden] commit to 2050 targets all of these forum discussions – so intense and febrile – will be consigned to the dustbins of history. Alternatively, if the science is true – that climate change is a hoax and CO2 etc is going to promote greener pastures etc. then that will in time become evident and indisputable and, conversely, the contributors to this site will have been prescient, prophetic people who read the science properly.

      Politics/ideology with no moorings to the science or the economics is the greatest danger because it is so partisan, destructive, insular and just so damned unsatisfying in a human sense. The grandfathers on the site are like the crazy uncle in the attic who rails, Lear-like against the storms and turbulence of the times.

      • Neville says:

        Gosh Peter D I’ve provided you with the science and the latest data/ evidence, so what don’t you understand?
        Just watch Lomborg and Shellenberger and note they only quote the ORIGINAL or THE REAL IPCC studies etc, before the summaries + news stories + pollies and stupid reporters distort everything.
        Shellenberger tells us ( he is still an IPCC reviewer ) that Dr Tol refused to continue because of the distorted data from the summaries, pollies and media etc.
        So much of what we read in the media is extremist and distorted nonsense, but I suppose it suits their fantasy world.
        BTW the real world data now shows us that the RATE of INCREASE in population is falling in every continent EXCEPT Africa. See Dr Goklany, Dr Rosling, Lomborg, Shellenberger, UN etc.
        But we will see an overall increase to about 9 to 10 bn people by 2100 and these UN pop projections have been very accurate for at least 50 years.
        This lower rate of pop trends appears to happen with better education and a more stable, easier lifestyle and the trend to more urban living. Of course Africa will also change in time but it will take longer than the other continents. And the average age of Africans today is about 19 and Aussies are about 37, Japan is about 44.

        • Chris Warren says:


          Why are you posting such extremist and distorted nonsense? I suppose it suits your fantasy world.

          • PeterD says:

            Hi Neville,

            You write: “I’ve provided you with the science”. That is true – you’ve offered me out of of three – but on the politics/ideology and the economics, I am able to contest your networks and question your assumptions. I have stated quite unashamedly that I lack the background to assess the science independently but I must say I’m drawn instinctively to the CSIRO and to mainstream IPCC scientists. I also wrote on this site, perhaps five years ago, that I would place greater trust in practising climate change scientists who are currently embedded in co-ordinated research teams in locations around the world collecting data at source, rather than mediating graphs and papers from their lounge room in retirement. I tend to believe in systems thinking rather than single-discipline experts so that the complex dynamics are captured.

            Finally, I tend to go both ends of the spectrum to understand realities. So in terms of the US election next Wednesday I tend to look at Fox News – Hannity, Carlson, Ingraham – as well as try to understand the mindset of so many evangelicals in the US; and I then go to the other end, ‘The New York Times’ and CNN at the other end. Donald Trump has done some very good things in office – exposing the inequalities in the China-US trade relationship, winding back US troop involvement in the middle east, and questioning many of the paradigms which underpin US economic activity. The winding back of US troops in the ME is something that previous presidents have not done and this, in my view, is something that deserves enormous recognition.

            But I also look at Donald Trump’s questioning of the US election results in advance. Efforts to stifle or muffle or delegitimise or make voting more difficult undermine democracy. This practice repudiates past struggles for voting rights in US history.

            In this case it reveals a most ungracious and vile president who is only thinking of his own re-election and will use any tawdry tactics possible because he believes his best chance of success is foul play. The way he speaks of fellow Republicans who oppose him, or Biden/Harris who are standing against him is nasty: it needs to be recognised for what it is – unworthy in a president and a precursor to voter rejection from fair minded people.

            But can he be successful next Wednesday? It is certainly a possibility.

      • Chris Warren says:


        Yes, science is the answer. It is also the question.

        It seems to me that denialists are using politics to provide their answer and economics to pick the questions.

    • Chris Warren says:


      Population is a tricky subject. IN 1973 as an undergraduate at ANU, I often saw bumper stickers advertising “ZPG” but I just shrugged them off. I worked on the student paper and, at that time, publishers sent free copies of books to editors asking for reviews. One book was Meadows’ “Limits to Growth” which introduced much of your argument.

      One problem is that too many people are the beneficiaries of capital gain obtained through population growth. For instance my predecessors could only afford to purchase a home on the then outskirts of Sydney – McMahon’s Point. It is now valued at over 2 million. Similarly my then elderly great grandparents left Tasmania during the depression and again could only afford a small house on the outskirts of Sydney – Maroubra. It is probably valued at near 2 million now.

      Savy small businesses then to look for new developments hoping to get entry into a market relatively cheaply to reap future profits as the population increases.

      In short – to obtain a sustainable population would require radically different expectations as to profits and wealth increases. To do otherwise will produce ecological catastrophe which we have always known about since, at least the last 50 years.

      • PeterD says:

        Hi Bryan,

        About Maroubra: I grew up there in the 50s and I remember much of it to the left of Malabar/Torrington Road was bushland, as was the area to the left of Fitzgerald Avenue. But I look at young people in particular – two in my own family – who both recently purchased older type homes for $2.3 million – one in Bunnerong Road, Matraville. In a political sense, it makes me think many older people are doing ok economically [many women who have been divorced did not come out so well, however, with less super as well]. With the Covid-19 budget debt to pay off, perhaps there are some tax benefits around negative gearing, dividend imputation flow-ons, trust structures etc that older people may relinquish for the benefit of younger people but that is almost tantamount to heresy.

      • Boambee John says:


        “One problem is that too many people are the beneficiaries of capital gain obtained through population growth.”

        One thing I find gravely disappointing about the modern environmental movement is its abandonment of limited population in favour of a politically correct focus on multiculturalism and large scale immigration.

        Groups like ZPG and Australians Against Further Immigration have essentially disappeared, while all major political parties, including the Greens, have pursued an immigration ponzi scheme in the name of GDP growth.

        The Kung Flu business has slowed this down, but already there is a push to resume large scale immigration. Revardless of arguments about climate change, this would be disastrous, and must be opposed.

        • dlb says:

          Agree BJ.

          There is a new political party called “Sustainable Australia Party” that want to drop annual immigration from 200 K to the long term average of 70 K. They also claim to be politically centrist.

          Perhaps they are a flash in the pan? They want to have a moratorium on new coal mines, which may upset a few here.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    “But I also look at Donald Trump’s questioning of the US election results in advance”

    So you approve Hillary”s “Do not concede under any circumstances”?

    • PeterD says:

      Hi Bryan

      I don’t approve of Hilary’s statement.

      But let’s, for argument’s sake, remove it from the US context and focus on the principle. Last night, at a certain point, there was media pressure on the Queensland Opposition leader to concede when signifiant numbers of postal votes had not been counted. In any election, while the maths is still in dispute, it is unwise to concede, even if it means waiting for a few days. How foolish would it be to concede, and then find your party obtained the necessary seats to govern because you had been too hasty.

      There is a clear distinction, however, between a gracious, timely concession speech, based on the maths versus eroding respect for the voting process generally. In the Queensland election coverage last night, one of the commentators made the point about how we conduct elections in Australia and transition to new governments. The US Supreme Court has had to make multiple rulings in the last two weeks on matters and I think it is fair to say that some states in the US try to make it more difficult – rather than easier to vote – when the evidence for wide corruption of the voting process is not convincing. Sometimes it is covenient for a party to exclude certain categories of people and interesting to note that Bloomberg spent millions paying the fines of people who could then vote. Shows what’s at stake.

      On the principle of good practice around elections, there is value in looking at false advertising – such as Clive Palmer’s campaign on the ALP’s death tax. In the past the ALP has been guilty of the same thing around false accusations of the Coalition and Medicare. Interesting that here in the ACT, there is some legislation around truth in advertising.

      Some are arguing that the US election is a referendum on fake news. It seems to me, whether it be politics or climate change or indeed Facebook or Twitter, that there be some degree of standards around conspiracy theories, deliberate bias, accepting celebrities’ views, inaccuracies by both Biden and Trump etc. Have I a solution to how this can rectified? No. But in our society there are now so many people, ‘thought-leaders’, ‘influencers’, ‘Facebook Top posters, nutters, con artists and impostors that it is a issue that affects all of us. There is also an increasing number of people who lack the capacity to conduct a valid argument, using evidence and data to support conclusions.

      In our school English curriculums, there is scope to teach to these issues: equipping young people with the skills to assess websites, recognising tactics such as shooting the messenger rather than addressing the arguments, using emotive arguments, accepting cliches and stereotypes etc. I have made many postings on Twitter and Facebook and I have on occasions been guilty of these practices. But is it too widespread, especially on social media? And it confirms an old adage: ‘When our language goes to pot, the nations goes to pot.’

    • PeterD says:

      Hi Bryan,

      I don’t approve of Hilary’s comment. I made too long a posting on this and it has to be moderated before it appears.

  • Bryan Roberts says:

    Chris, I am not interested in ‘sustainable’ populations. If you want to argue, tell me where I am wrong.

    • Chris Warren says:

      Talk about taking candy from a baby…

      “…tell me where I am wrong.”

      “…I am not interested in ‘sustainable’ populations.”


      • Bryan Roberts says:

        Me: … tell me where I am wrong.”

        Chris: I would like 2+2 to equal 5
        Me: … I am not interested in ‘sustainable’ populations.

        ‘Sustainable’ means ‘managed’, Chris. Who does the managing, and how?

  • Neville says:

    It looks likely that the ANZ could be heading for a lot more trouble in their stupid fight against our coal and fossil fuel industry.
    This stupid bank and others have recently been caught out by ASIC and now have to pay hundreds of millions $ to customers who were ripped off.
    Now shareholders have had enough and are demanding that some of the offenders be stood down. BTW this bank is heavily into funding the S&W idiocy and trying to promote more carbon trading contracts etc.
    Jo Nova has done a good job highlighting this bank and assisted by a concerned shareholder. Go Jo.

    • PeterD says:

      Hi Neville,

      Your disgust with ANZ’s stupidity re coal and fossil fuel is poignant. Clearly you are focused specifically on the science, not the politics or the economics around climate change. If other banks and lending institutions block investment loans etc as I mentioned with UniSuper above, then your disgust will only intensify. Morning Star research – a creditable investing source, I believe – rates ANZ as being undervalued, therefore a good buy at the moment but notes: “Relatively high exposures to institutional lending, including the mining and oil and gas sectors and Asia, are significant risks to our loan loss assumptions” If the ANZ risk aversion approach become accepted more widely across the economy, spreading to other banks and lenders – no matter how conclusive you see the scientific evidence – it becomes a difficult problem because money – not scientific knowledge – becomes the main driver. The scenario then becomes one of abandoning a stranded asset, jumping from a sinking ship. You then have to contend with Chris Warren’s logic that “denialists are using politics to provide their answer and economics to pick the questions.”

  • Neville says:

    Peter, it’s great to see you acknowledge that science + maths is where I’m coming from in my comments here .
    I couldn’t care less about clueless ruinables like S&W or DIRTY EVs or stupid investments in co2 credits etc.
    At the end of the day it just means that the rest of us catch up to SA and pay much higher prices for our energy. In fact the entire SH is already a NET co2 SINK so it’s just a complete waste of time and an extra horrendous cost to our economy for a guaranteed ZERO return.
    See CSIRO Cape Grim and please start to wake up. Oh and then there’s Zickfeld and the RS and NAS study, plus even “the Conversation” supports my arguments about their so called mitigation nonsense.
    IOW NO CHANGE for THOUSANDS of YEARS even if every country STOPPED ALL co2 emissions today. I mean do I have to link to co2 levels since 1988 AGAIN?

    • PeterD says:

      Hi Neville,

      I appreciate your efforts to point out the ‘link to co2 levels since 1988 AGAIN’ but once again I can not, and have no intention to dispute the science with you. On the politics/ideology and the economics, however, I can engage. What Is interesting about the climate wars is the contrast between Britain and the US. It seems to me that much of the scepticism in Australia has been imported from the US and indeed there is a suggestion that the finance and momentum behind this has originated from oil/fossil fuel sources. In the UK there is more acceptance and indeed support. This contrast is significant, it seems to me.

      What do you make of this extract from a report? “Australia’s economy will be 6% smaller, there will be 880,000 fewer jobs and $3.4tn in economic opportunities will be lost if the climate crisis goes unchecked for the next 50 years? [

      Even if you take this report with a huge grain of salt, Neville, as I’m certain you will, it makes the increased SA Australian energy prices that you refer to look like a drop in the ocean.

      • spangled drongo says:

        PeterD, to truly assess the cost/benefits of renewables you have to look at renewable installation in off-grid situations such as the Qld Govt installation of a solar thermal power generator in the off-grid town of Windorah.

        The town has a diesel generator that provides power to the approx 25 premises there by consuming about 100,000 litres of diesel fuel per year but the govt decided to spend a further $100,000 per premises and provide renewable power.

        After spending twice the intended cost, they ended up with a solar power plant that still requires full back-up from the old diesel generator to the same extent of about 100,000 litres of diesel per year.

        So the govt cost of $200,000 per house [total $5 million] was not only a complete waste of money but they also have a huge, ongoing maintenance bill.

        Making it the equivalent of not just a 100% failure but possibly a 200% failure.

        When renewables are attached to the grid and subsidised, as they are in the majority of cases, their cost/benefit is impossible to assess correctly but off-grid they have nowhere to hide.

        And they cannot hide from the fact that they are worse than completely useless.

        If “lack of climate action over 50 years” stops us from building any more of these monstrosities we will be so far ahead of the true believers that you won’ be able to put numbers on it.

  • Neville says:

    It looks like the la nina may last into March 2021 at least and could lead to lower temps. Who knows?
    But Aussies will have an increased risk of more cyclones and flooding this season. But the overall Aussie trend for cyclones is down since 1970 and the 2015 ’16 season was the only season in 50 years to record no severe cyclones. See BOM for cyclone data.
    Of course that’s contrary to the usual nonsense we are told by the MSM and the clueless Labor and Greens parties.

    • PeterD says:

      Hullo spangled drongo

      You point out the costliness of renewables in off-grid situations and certainly the case study at Windorah that you refer to is extremely costly.

      What strikes me is that every state in Australia – Liberal and ALP governments – have set climate targets for 2050 aligned with the Paris Agreement but this is not the case at the Federal level. Is there anything happening at state level, including the ACT, that might improve upon this? As technology develops, perhaps with advances in battery and asynchronous storage, will the Windorah model always be the norm or are there possible developments that would reduce the costs you state? In Europe and the UK, in Japan etc are there solutions or better models that the Queensland one? Elton Musk has incredible stock market value at the moment: if anyone solves this off-grid cost dilemma, it will be a critical break-through. We have no Covid-19 vaccine at the moment but change is possible – so too, with the issue you identify; it is not static and fixed for fifty years.

      • spangled drongo says:

        PeterD, the reason for building all these completely non-functional “renewables” is to reduce CO2 emissions but the net result is always more emissions.

        At huge cost increases combined with more unreliable power.

        Where is the logic in that?

        30 years of “improved” technology has made virtually no difference.

        And still we ignore the obvious, Nuclear, when we have it all in our backyard.

        “Elton Musk has incredible stock market value”

        Elon Musk loses money on every EV he sells.

        IOW, they are all like the Windorah power plant.

        Without excessive govt subsidy they would not exist.

        • PeterD says:

          Hi spangled drongo

          In previous interactions with you I have agreed about nuclear – not other points though.


      • Boambee John says:


        “As technology develops, perhaps with advances in battery and asynchronous storage, will the Windorah model always be the norm or are there possible developments that would reduce the costs you state?”

        The Micawber solution? Something will turn up.

        Possibly, but if you focus blindly on set solutions (solar, wind, batteries) you might miss a breakthrough elsewhere. Research should look broadly for solutions, not focus on radical improvements, which might not be possible, to existing largely mature systems.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s the FED Govt’s daily update data on CV -19. All cases plus deaths etc since FEB 2020 and many graphs on just about everything we’d want to know.
    Victoria is the standout disaster of course and many graphs plus data to support the argument.

  • spangled drongo says:

    When the best one in the UK is seriously losing money it simply means that renewables without huge taxpayer subsidies are a complete waste of time, effort, money, space, resources, environment….you name it; they’re a stupid extravagance:

    • Neville says:

      Yes SD, what a disaster for the environment, for the electricity grid, for the long suffering taxpayer and against plain common sense.
      But most of all, none of these disasters will have any impacts on temp, climate, or anything else.
      Their so called climate change + their so called mitigation is the most corrupt and fraudulent con trick of all time.
      Just imagine cleaning up this idiotic mess every 20 years and then starting all over again.

  • Neville says:

    Are we really this stupid and fanatical? Welcome to the age of unreason and the barking mad religion of Green.
    “Age of Un-Reason: How Fear & Ignorance Drives Wind & Solar Worship Cult
    October 31, 2020 by stopthesethings 4 Comments

    “If it looks like a cult and sounds like a cult, it’s a cult”.

    The new ‘green’ religion is a world where the naïve and gullible seek salvation through the veneration of wind turbines – as if crucifixes – belief in “the science” has supplanted Scripture and ‘scientists’ peddling doomsday tales garner rapt attention, like the fire and brimstone preachers, of old. Those who question “the science” are branded “deniers”, with all the vehemence that was once reserved for Spanish Inquisitors rooting out heretics.

    What’s dressed up as “progress” these days seems more and more like a drift back to our Dark Age of misery, poverty and ignorance.

    Anyone who thinks that wind turbines and solar panels equate with mortal salvation, is more than just a little confused. But that’s the very point and purpose of those pushing the so-called inevitable ‘transition’ to an all wind and solar powered future.

    As in days gone by, the model rests on inventing new forms of fear and firmly instilling them. And then following up with the promise of redemption through sacrifice and worship; albeit worshipping wind turbines and solar panels, instead of saints and idols.

    The faithful readily subscribe to the myth and the mantras – and merrily provide buckets of cash – all for a chance to get up close and personal with one of these whirling wonders (see above) and to otherwise signal their supreme virtue, to all and sundry”.

    Prager University poses the the following: Has environmentalism become more than just a good faith effort to protect the Earth? Is it now tantamount to a religion? And if it is, is that a good thing or a bad thing”?

    PragerU’s latest short documentary, hosted by Will Witt, explores the origins, agenda, and motives of today’s environmental movement. What he finds raises some challenging questions for anyone who sincerely cares about the future of the planet”.

    • PeterD says:

      Hi Neville,

      You frequently use the word ‘stupid’ if certain groups or individuals are not in accord with your own views of climate science. Is it the case that you are the source of all knowledge and wisdom in this area and all those who are not in agreement with you are ‘stupid’?

      I received this in the mail from Andrew Leigh today. A former Harvard Professor: is he stupid just because he hold antithetical ideas to you?

      “The debate over gas has suffered from too much hot air and too few clear facts. It’s true that gas provides some stability in the electricity generation system, but that role is increasingly going to be played by batteries and other forms of energy storage. Hydro-electric systems can meet immediate demands, and a joined-up grid allows solar power to flow from a sunny state to a cloudy one. From a practical perspective, there’s unlikely to be major new developments in the gas power sector, nor major closures. Gas has a vital transition role, but the future is in renewables. Oh, and every time you hear someone talking about a ‘gas-led manufacturing boom’, remind them that wholesale gas prices have halved from around $10 a gigajoule in 2018-19 to around $5 a gigajoule today, without prompting major new investment in the sector. There are opportunities in manufacturing, but most new jobs over coming decades will be in service industries (that’s true globally, and in Australia).

      Renewables offer multiple upsides for Australia. As anyone with rooftop solar panels can attest, renewables produce cheap energy, using the vast amounts of wind, solar and hydro power that this continent is blessed with. A clean energy transition offers thousands of jobs. Most importantly, clean energy reduces Australia’s carbon emissions. As my colleague Mark Butler has pointed out, during the six years of the Rudd and Gillard Governments, emissions fell by 15 percent. Over the seven years of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Governments, emissions have fallen just 1 percent. Last week’s bushfire royal commission report is just the latest reminder of how important it is for Australia to act on climate change; not only to lower our carbon footprint, but to give us the authority to argue for stronger global action.”

      • Neville says:

        Peter I’ve given you the data on your so called renewables ,batteries and environmental disaster and the clean up mess every 20 years etc.
        How many times do I have to repeat it and how much larger do you think this will become if we’re really stupid enough to continue with this delusional nonsense?
        And of course ZERO change for temp and climate by 2100 and beyond. Oh and then there’s China and the developing world who want proper base-load power and couldn’t care less about your delusions.
        Please wake up and stop following these very stupid people and their stupid ideas.

        • PeterD says:

          Hi Neville,

          “Australia’s economy will be 6% smaller, there will be 880,000 fewer jobs and $3.4tn in economic opportunities will be lost if the climate crisis goes unchecked for the next 50 years”

          Some people on this site derive their retirement income from UniSuper, a highly rated fund. If more than 10% in fossil fuel sources exists in a company, it is removed from the portfolio.

          ANZ just the beginning with lending institutions. Just basic financial risk analysis as it is becoming so with many insurance companies.

          Many corporates are now backing renewables.

          Japan, Korea, China, the UK, US under Biden, are focussing on reducing emissions and transitioning to renewables.

          All the Australian states – Lib & ALP – are setting targets aligned with Paris Agreement.

          Mike Cannon Smith is not ‘stupid’ but sees opportunities, as does Andrew Leigh.

          It may be that I am naive because I neither confirm nor deny your science but you may have to concede that the tide is turning and that you, in fact, though courageous in trying to block the Dutch dikes, basically deluded. You are not
          the person to speak to young people about the future climate: there are so many Gretas about these days who want a better future than your prescriptions offer.

  • Neville says:

    Here’s one of the best videos explaining the Religion of Green.
    And they’ve even supplied some of the BS from the wealthy hypocrites and Bill Nye’s response is a classic in irrational thinking. Importantly the IPCC reviewer Shellenberger reminds us that nothing from the original sources warns of the apocalypse or the end of the world.
    But none of this rational, common sense approach plus data will impress the extremists from their ABC etc or their devoted followers.
    You see they are devoted to their cult.

  • Neville says:

    Just for our silly donkeys who refuse to understand and follow the proper data.
    Mauna Loa co2 levels have increased by 2.75 ppm to 411.54 ppm in the last 12 months. And the Tassie Cape Grim co2 data level is 410.8 ppm.
    And so much of the world has been in lock down this year and yet we get this very high co2 increase.
    When will these fools wake up?

  • spangled drongo says:

    PeterD thinks that the brainwashed Gretas of this world actually know more about climate science than the most knowledgeable scientists.

    Does he really believe that’s how evolution has worked in the past?

    • PeterD says:

      Hi spangled drongo,

      I’ve been away for a few days and the wagon train has moved on but I want to draw attention to what I perceive as an invalid conclusion, faulty logic and false inferences on your part.

      You wrote: “PeterD thinks that the brainwashed Gretas of this world actually know more about climate science than the most knowledgeable scientists.”

      Let’s focus first on what I wrote: in commenting about young people and the future climate, I wrote “there are so many Gretas about these days who want a better future than your prescriptions offer.”

      Basically I was pointing out the hopes of young people for a positive climate. Is it possible that young people have been ‘brainwashed’ or have been too gullible to faulty media reports or are simply idealistically naive etc? Yes, that could be a fair inference.

      Did I, in my original statement, make any comments about the level of scientific knowledge that Greta or other young people possess? Did I discuss the ‘most knowledgeable scientists’? In a rather unsubtle way I did differentiate between eccentric old uncles up in the attic and how the negativity and denialism of these types of people dash the hope of young people. But it’s possible that these uncles are prophetic figures and the young are far too gullible. It’s a different question altogether when one is talking about ‘knowledgeable scientists’ and who actually might be in this group. So what do you do: you jump to conclusions based not on what I wrote but on invalid logical steps.

      Again, I make the point that I have never made assessments about the climate science, but I have questioned the way you draw conclusions from simple ideas I have written about.

      The question occurs to me that if you can not comment fairly or logically in what I have written, then how is it possible for you to comment on complex science systems objectively?

      • spangled drongo says:

        PeterD, sorry if I got you wrong, but with your statement to Neville; “You are not the person to speak to young people about the future climate” you seem to be telling him that his idea of future climate was wrong, and she shouldn’t be given that sort of scientific advice.

        Whereas I would have thought any rational person could see that that advice is exactly what she is lacking with her limited education.

        And she seriously needs to be acquainted with the fuller and broader aspect.

        • PeterD says:

          Hi spangled drongo,

          Your first sentence above now shifts the focus of interpretation to the type of scientist best equipped to provide advice to young people like Greta who may indeed, as I have conceded, be gullible, naive or too idealistic etc. about the future climate.

          You can see that I have consistently looked beyond retirees who are no longer active in the field except perhaps in a theoretical sense, to beyond those who may be single discipline experts, to beyond lone rangers.

          “I’m drawn instinctively to the CSIRO and to mainstream IPCC scientists. I also wrote on this site, perhaps five years ago, that I would place greater trust in practising climate change scientists who are currently embedded in co-ordinated research teams in locations around the world collecting data at source, rather than mediating graphs and papers from their lounge room in retirement. I tend to believe in systems thinking rather than single-discipline experts so that the complex dynamics are captured.”

          • spangled drongo says:

            “I’m drawn instinctively to the CSIRO and to mainstream IPCC scientists….”

            You would be a lot wiser to place your faith in people who can supply evidence to back their claims.

            As someone who lived or died by CSIRO advice I can tell you there are plenty of scientists with a wide range of knowledge, and lack of it, and it makes you understand one of the greatest scientists’ sayings; “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”. Nothing truer!

            And those IPCC SPMs are often very questionable.

            So when you study these “experts” of yours and realise they can’t show anything that is happening today, climate-wise, that has not happened in spades in recent centuries and millennia when the claimed cause of the non-problem, CO2, was minimal and at the same time cannot show any empirical evidence as to how the increase in CO2 is causing this same non-problem, you seriously need to reassess your prejudices.

          • PeterD says:

            Hi spangled drongo,

            You write “So when you study these “experts”.

            Once again, your interpretation is faulty. To use the word ‘study’ is far too exalted and generous a term to use for my engagement with the issues. There is a huge word of difference between ‘study’ and ‘being drawn instinctively’ – which could even be interpreted as ‘gullible’, ‘naive’, ‘idealistic’. I could even accept the last three words as a valid interpretation. As I have mentioned – in contrast to you – I claim no knowledge of the science but the ideology/politics, as well as the economics, do not elude me. In the final analysis, the tipping point for change is more likely to be around politics and economics, in my view, because the science has been so mired. Interesting that you did not comment on my last sentence.

  • Stu says:

    SD makes lots of statements that he does not back up with facts. Here is one of them “ Elon Musk loses money on every EV he sells.”. I suggest that is utter bullshit. Tesla is now profitable although still putting investment into expanding production. And is one of the most successful auto companies. And by the way the most valued on the stock markets.

    I suggest that SD, and a few others here, are caught up in an emotional rollercoaster ride based on some deep allegiance based on antagonism to change and modernism, even science. Just look at his sources, GWPF, Prager, Shellenberger etc.
    You do have to wonder, what is the cause of their impressive passion for the status quo, their opposition to change, to new ideas, to progress, to a clean environment, to opportunity. A rational person says “what are the alternatives to the status quo”, not “let’s stick our heads in the sand and refuse to consider any change, we are right”.

    Their obtuseness and resistance to any change says it all really.

    As with the car story, the markets get it right in the end, and the markets are now betting against coal. Get over it.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Stu, you never stop making statements that you never back up with facts.

      How long have we been waiting for your evidence to support your CAGW claims?

      You have the same philosophy as little Greta.

      True belief. But no rationality. Or evidence.

      And as for your suggestion of Tesla being profitable, how do you lose a billion a year and remain profitable?

      “A $408 million Q2 loss means Tesla is over $1 billion in losses for the year, and its CTO is stepping down”

      But because it gets govt subsidies and can sell renewable energy credits to automakers like Ford, GM and Fiat Chrysler, it stays solvent enough to keep going.

      “As with the car story, the markets get it right in the end, and the markets are now betting against coal.”

      What you fail to take into account is that when laws are changed to assist any aspect of the free market [IOW, preventing it from being free] and those laws are not based on measurable evidence, historical market evolution goes out the window and a false market prevails, that is politically, not scientifically, based, with a limited lifetime.

    • Boambee John says:

      Stu puts up a field of strawmen, and fails to knock them down.

      Life is too short to bother with a detailed rebuttal to Stu Micawber.

  • Stu says:

    SD as usual missing the mark “ A $408 million Q2 loss means Tesla is over $1 billion in losses for the year, and its CTO is stepping down”.

    First his figures are out of date. Second he has no concept of accounting and business. In the last five quarters Tesla had posted a profit. And yes, some of that has come from the other auto companies through environmental credits. But they have also increased operational expenses by investing some billions in new plant and equipment to expand production. New plants for the Cybertruck and a new plant in Germany are still a cash drain but will contribute mightily once in production.

    Meantime the “market”, which he loves to quote seems pretty happy, just look at the stock price and the trail of devastated short sellers who have lost billions betting against Tesla. Perhaps SD is one of those, it would explain his hostility.

    SD like Nev would be well served back in 1900 strongly defending the horse against the encroaching combustion engine vehicles threatening their cosy world.

    Meantime feel free to check out Ross Gitten’s piece in todays SMH. Here is a quote from it.

    “ We remain free to change our export offerings to meet our trading partners’ changing needs, or to tell them all to get stuffed because producing coal and gas is what we’ve always done and intend to keep on doing. Our sovereignty is not under threat. No one can stop us making ourselves poorer.”

    • Boambee John says:

      Ross Gittens! ROFLMAO.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Stu needs to go and study the principles of the free market and stop fooling himself that we can legislate for profit.

      “When individual rights are respected, unregulated competition will maximize economic benefit for society by providing the most goods and services possible at the lowest cost.”

      Free markets should never be based on ideology.

      • Stu says:

        WTF are you talking about? Just ranting as usual I guess.

        • spangled drongo says:


          • Stu says:

            Come on guys act grown up for once. Where did I say you “legislate for profit”? Where is your response to the business facts of Tesla? As I said, and you ignored, the stock market is very supportive of the Tesla business program, hence its current stock price and trail of broken short sellers espousing the same sentiments you push. Time to get on your horses and head back to your sheltered workshops.

          • spangled drongo says:

            “Where did I say you “legislate for profit”? ‘

            You still don’t get it, do you? Oh, dear!

            Try looking at the business facts of Tesla. Eight months ago it was headed for the corporate junkyard. Its stock had fallen 40 per cent largely on concerns that it was running out of buyers for its high-priced vehicles, and was making continual losses.

            It sells a tiny fraction of the world’s cars but because it gets such generous treatment from govts which will increase exponentially under a Biden govt, plus all the increased virtue-signaling from big investors, it has become a darling of the woke set.

            But when its value is based on such virtue-fakery that has no future guarantee, anything could happen.

            You are welcome to it.

        • Boambee John says:


          Are you the pot or the kettle?

  • Stu says:

    SD once again you are wide if the mark, your bias is showing.

    “ Tesla (TSLA) has released its financial results and shareholders letter for the third quarter of 2020 after market close today.

    We are updating this post with all the details from the financial results, shareholders’ letter, and the conference call later tonight. Refresh for the latest information.

    As we reported in our Q3 earnings preview post yesterday, the market had high expectations for Tesla this quarter after the company confirmed record deliveries earlier this month..

    Wall Street was expecting revenue of about $8.2 billion for the quarter and a gain of $0.55 per share.

    Tesla managed to destroy expectations with $8.7 billion in revenue and a gain of $0.76 per share (Non-GAAP).

    The market liked Tesla’s expectation beat with a 4% jump in after-hours trading, thanks to $800 million in profits this quarter..

    Tesla reported in the shareholder letter:

    The third quarter of 2020 was a record quarter on many levels. Over the past four quarters, we generated over $1.9B of free cash flow while spending $2.4B on new production capacity, service centers, Supercharging locations and other capital investments. While we took additional SBC expense in Q3, our GAAP operating margin reached 9.2%.

    The automaker ended the quarter with a new record of $14.5 billion cash position in the bank.

    With those results in Q3, Tesla has now achieved an operating margin of 6.3% over the last year:

    For the trailing 12 months, we achieved an operating margin of 6.3%. We expect our operating margin will continue to grow over time, ultimately reaching industry-leading levels with capacity expansion and localization plans under way.

    Here’s the summary of Tesla’s Q3 2020 financial result,1066

    And finally Tesla remains supply constrained not demand.

    • spangled drongo says:

      Like your logic, stu, Tesla price is based on the woke v the real.

      • Stu says:

        Please help us to understand SD. Give us your ranking. Which do you hate most, Tesla, Musk or EV’s? It certainly appears to be a powerful fetish.

        • Boambee John says:


          Speaking for myself only, I have great admiration for Musk’s work on space development. I suspect that SpaceX is largely funded be “environmental” subsidies to Tesla and other green boondoggles.

          He is working the subsidy farming brilliantly, but unlike other subsidy farmers, he is using the money for productive purposes.

        • spangled drongo says:

          No wonder you can never come up with any evidence, stueyluv, when you can’t even grasp the bleedin’ obvious.

          “Free” markets that are regulated by politics is not what the free world should ever be about.

          Even a politically controlled country and market like China is not that stu-pid.

          China will gain enormously at our expense in the decades ahead because of western climate stu-pidity.

          • Stu says:

            I see, you are a Q-anon nutter also. Brilliant.

          • spangled drongo says:

            Poor ol’ stu thinks the free market was formed by QAnon.

            Try dealing with the message, stueyluv.

          • Stu says:

            LOL you do come up with silly statements. I thought you reckoned you were a master at sarcasm, clearly not. Back to your knitting grandpa.

          • spangled drongo says:

            When you are incapable of dealing with the message, stueyluv, we know you are going to revert to insulting the messenger as your last ditch defence, but don’t be too repetitious.

            It’s not only pathetic, it’s boring.

  • Witheld says:

    Wow, Hi Don this the view of a climate change denier, its a somewhat unique view from an intellectual that I admire. But in all reality you were the Vice Chancellor of the second University in Canberra, which was for long time, inside our nations capital. Would you have been able to hold that post with a view like that now? Probably not. Iam glad youre able able to write what you think. Perhaps its an overly brave view, perhaps not, at the end of the day Yours is a view of a political scientist not the right type of science to have a up to date view on the subject. My favourite debate on this is from Brian Cox and Malcolm Richards on Q and A. I hope Don Youre not a One Nation supporter it would be a shame. I admire your writings and views a lot.

  • […] A recent post, summing up his view of warming alarmism. […]

Leave a Reply