“Fossil Fuels Make Us Safe”: Senior Australian Politician Openly Mocks Climate Change Narratives

Craig Kelly
Australian Politician and Climate Skeptic Craig Kelly, Federal Representative for Hughes

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Guardian seems worried that influential Australian politicians are openly mocking climate claims.

Craig Kelly MP mocks climate change ‘exaggeration’ in presentation to Liberal party members

Fossil fuels make us ‘safe from’ climate change, says MP who is working with Tony Abbott to move Liberals to the right

Coral bleaching has been happening for centuries, threats of rising sea levels to countries such as the Maldives and Tuvalu are greatly exaggerated and temperature gains have been grossly exaggerated by scientists.

These are the assessments of the member for Hughes, Craig Kelly, who is part of a Tony Abbott-led speaking campaign to pull the Liberal party back from the centre.

The Guardian has obtained a tape of a presentation by Kelly at the right-aligned Mosman branch of the Liberal party in September that outlines in detail his climate scepticism.

Kelly said that “30 years ago, the temperature was the same globally about where it was today” – even though the Bureau of Meteorology and other international agencies estimate the planet has already warmed more than 1 degree in the past century.

“The reality is we live in a time where our generation has never ever been as safe from the climate because of fossil fuels, concrete and steel,” Kelly said. “The climate was always dangerous. We didn’t make it dangerous.”

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/nov/09/craig-kelly-mocks-climate-change-exaggeration-in-presentation-to-liberal-party-members

No doubt the mob which turned up to protest the public presence of a climate “denier” were as usual wearing lots of fossil fuel derived synthetics.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
148 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Robertfromoz
November 9, 2018 1:01 am

My favourite pollie next to Trump , he has stuck with it worn the criticism and called out the CAGW scam for what it is .
Unfortunately for him he is up for preselection and the leftards of his party want him gone for not falling into the 97% consensus line .

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Robertfromoz
November 9, 2018 8:21 am

One Nation will take him in. They are the true Conservatives in Australian politics.

warren
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
November 9, 2018 2:51 pm

Yes indeed!

max
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
November 9, 2018 5:50 pm

Alan you say:
“One Nation will take him in. They are the true Conservatives in Australian politics.”

One nation party program do not have anything with true Conservatives

read here:
https://www.onenation.org.au/policies/bringing-back-australian-values/

In Great Britain, conservative ideas (though not yet called that) emerged in the Tory movement during the Restoration period (1660–1688). Toryism supported a hierarchical society with a monarch who ruled by divine right. Tories opposed the idea that sovereignty derived from the people and rejected the authority of parliament and freedom of religion.

Conservatives typically see Richard Hooker (1554–1600) as the founding father of conservatism, along with the Marquess of Halifax (1633–1695), David Hume (1711–1776) and Edmund Burke (1729–1797).

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

Simon
November 9, 2018 1:16 am

“Kelly said that “30 years ago, the temperature was the same globally about where it was today”
Why do you print the nonsense of a fool like this? It is so easy for anyone to check he has no clue. Glad he is on your team.

E J Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 1:20 am

Simple!

Simon
Reply to  E J Zuiderwijk
November 9, 2018 1:26 am

Brilliant response. Did you think of it yourself?

Robertfromoz
Reply to  E J Zuiderwijk
November 9, 2018 1:27 am

+10000/3.18/.04×1.8-1000

E J Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Robertfromoz
November 9, 2018 2:26 am

Is that Polish or Infix notation?

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 1:25 am

Fossil fuels comprise fully 85% of global primary energy. Eliminate fossil fuels and most people in developed countries would be dead within a few months.

It IS that simple, Simon.

Simon
Reply to  Allan MacRae
November 9, 2018 1:29 am

Not the point. Saying temperature is the same as 30 years ago is a Trumpy… a lie.

Alex
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 1:37 am

He said ‘about’. He is right.

Simon
Reply to  Alex
November 9, 2018 1:45 am

No he is not right. You would have to be a complete climate science ignoramus to think we are at the same place we were 30 years ago. Show me the metric that says our temperature is about the same as it was in 1988. Pick any one.

fred250
Reply to  Alex
November 9, 2018 2:57 am

Yes he IS CORRECT.

0.5C is within the measureing accuracy of thermometer from 30 years ago.

fred250
Reply to  Alex
November 9, 2018 3:03 am

so you think 18.3C ISN’T about the same as 17.8C ??

REALLY????

No way you could tell the difference

fred250
Reply to  Alex
November 9, 2018 3:06 am

“we are at the same place we were 30 years ago”

Yep, a tiny bump out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.

Well below the temperatures of 90-95% of the current interglacial.

lee
Reply to  Alex
November 9, 2018 4:11 am

Poor Simon. Fancy thinking that NOAA can estimate temperatures, accurately, to within two decimal places.

MarkW
Reply to  Alex
November 9, 2018 7:19 am

Simple, Simon. The claim is that temperatures have gone up one or two tenths of a degree.

That’s trivial, to less than trivial. So “about” is adequate to describe such a change.

Beyond that, the error bars on those measurements are greater than the claimed change, which makes the claimed change even more trivial.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Alex
November 9, 2018 8:43 am

Here’s a real simple dynamic – God’s in the process – the Devil’s in the details – because that’s where rationalization happens. That’s where the Warmist lives – it’s also why we’re measuring global temperatures in the hundredths of a degree.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Alex
November 9, 2018 2:02 pm

Re Simon:
**No he is not right. You would have to be a complete climate science ignoramus to think we are at the same place we were 30 years ago.**
He is MUCH more correct than the ignoramus specimens that tell us CO2 is responsible for temperature increases that are not occurring.

OweninGA
Reply to  Alex
November 9, 2018 2:10 pm

When you can only measure temperature accurately to +/- 0.5C, the temperature today is precisely the same as it was 30 years ago. To say otherwise is foolish.

It is amazing that warming is happening everywhere except where we are measuring it.

James
Reply to  Alex
November 9, 2018 8:30 pm

Express the temperature difference in Kelvin, and the percent change in absolute terms is less than 0.2 percent. So it has changed very little.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 1:43 am

No, Simon,
Your analysis is too simple.
Australian temperatures now are the same as those in the 1930s within the limits of error.
Look up the relevant official Commonwealth of Australia Year Books from about the 1950s. Please try to do some original research instead of parroting a party line. Geoff

HotScot
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 9, 2018 1:56 am

Geoff Sherrington

No point arguing with him/her. Alarmists don’t know what limits of error are. They pick the highest number they can think of, double it, set their hair on fire then run around in ever decreasing circles screaming until the burn their own arsehole.

Ask any of them where the acceptable, empirically derived studies are that credibly demonstrate CO2 causes the world to warm. But take their matches away before you do.

Simon
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 9, 2018 1:56 am

So what…. he said globally. He’s wrong. End of story. Back him if you want, but you will be wrong too.

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 9, 2018 3:35 am

The UN’s IPCC Has No Credibility On Global Warming

By Allan MacRae
September 2015

https://canadafreepress.com/article/the-uns-ipcc-has-no-credibility-on-global-warming

When misinformed politicians fool with energy systems, the costs are enormous–globally, trillions of dollars of scarce resources have been squandered, economies have been severely damaged, and innocent people have needlessly suffered and died.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
November 9, 2018 11:28 am

Doesn’t setting one’s hair on fire create CO2 as a byproduct?

tonyM
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 2:28 am

SIMON says:
Show me the metric that says our temperature is about the same as it was in 1988. Pick any one.

He cited data.
August 1988 anomaly: 0.06
Sept 1988 anomaly: 0.20

He is short by 0.13 C for August thirty years ago and well in the money for Sept!!
Go look it up.

tonyM
Reply to  tonyM
November 9, 2018 2:31 am

Should read:
He cited the UAH data.

HotScot
Reply to  tonyM
November 9, 2018 2:35 am

tonyM

Careful now, if it gets to 0.14………..we’re all gonna Dieeeeeeeee

tonyM
Reply to  tonyM
November 9, 2018 2:37 am

correction:

He cited UAH data

schitzree
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 3:07 am

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1988/plot/none

If it would help Simon, I can draw a straight line across the graph at 0.2 degrees for you.

~¿~

HotScot
Reply to  schitzree
November 9, 2018 4:06 am

schitzree

What would that graph look like were the scales truly representative? I daresay we couldn’t even detect a visual temperature rise.

schitzree
Reply to  schitzree
November 9, 2018 6:25 am

It is so easy for anyone to check he has no clue.

The sad thing is, it WAS easy to check. So why didn’t Simon?

Obviously, because Simple Simon doesn’t Science. As one of the Climate Faithful Simon accepts everything he is told by his High Priests, aka the Climate ‘Scientists’ and ‘Communicators’. It’s all run like a Cult. You don’t need to check anything you’re told by the other Faithful, and anyone who questions or disagrees is a lying unbeliever who shouldn’t be listened to.

The good news is, more and more people are recognizing it as a cult.

~¿~

Steven Fraser
Reply to  schitzree
November 9, 2018 6:38 am

Or, for Australia, just look at the UAH Lower Troposphere anomaly trend, located at the bottom of the dataset. +.18C per decade, .05 above the global.

Reply to  schitzree
November 9, 2018 1:59 pm

Ideologies are substitutes for true knowledge, and ideologues are always dangerous when they come to power, because a simple-minded I-know-it-all approach is no match for the complexity of existence. Furthermore, when their social contraptions fail to fly, ideologues blame not themselves but all who see through the simplifications.
Quoted from the intro by Dr. Norman Doidge, MD, to
Peterson, Jordan B.. 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos (p. xxi). Random House of Canada. Kindle Edition.

observa
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 5:48 am

Well if he’s got it wrong Simon then tell us what the temperature is supposed to be globally? Surely the clever climastrologists have worked it out by now with their computer models.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 6:20 am

Not the point. Saying temperature is the same as 30 years ago is a Trumpy… a lie.

OK. I assume this is the basis for your claim, right? Since the Sept Global Average Temperature was 0.14 degrees warmer than the mid-1970’s, Trump is lying when he says it was the “same” today as in the mid-1980’s.

MarkW
Reply to  RACookPE1978
November 9, 2018 7:22 am

As usual, our warmist trolls have to change what others actually said in order to make a point.

He didn’t say they were the same, he said they were about the same.
The change is so small, assuming it actually exists, that “about” covers it.

MarkW
Reply to  RACookPE1978
November 9, 2018 4:30 pm

If anyone thinks that I just calls RACook a warmist troll, then I apologize to RACook for being imprecise in my phrasing.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  MarkW
November 9, 2018 5:50 pm

Of my some 10,000 replies in this forum, some few replies no doubt have been misunderstood to be from a warmist troll. For those who misunderstand, I do apologize for not being able to make my words more clear.

In this case however, I was trying to force the original writer (he who has been quoted as calling Trump a liar) for not understanding that 0.14 degrees does not, indeed, equal 0.0 degrees. However, the intent of the President’s comment was to show that global average temperatures have not risen substantially (and have cooled from their recent peak!) since the global atmosphere average was first measured, despite CO2 increasing by nearly 33%

Editor
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 8:12 am

Simon,

you decided to raise a stink over the 30 year statement, but NOT once did you provide evidence to back your position. Then you go on and on still not supporting your claim.

called it a lie and made disparaging statements about others, without a single factual reply from YOU!

I looked it up, it was indeed about the same in 1988 as it is in 2018, when you start at July 1988 to July 2018:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1988.6/to:2018.6

You make no point anyway since the man’s skepticism is valid for other reason besides temperature.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 9, 2018 8:48 am

‘called it a lie and made disparaging statements about others, without a single factual reply from YOU!’

Lock-step progressive methodology. You can apply it to almost any issue.
Of course, to really capture the flavor of it, you have to deliver it with unbelievable levels of condescension and conceit.

Yet Another Simon
Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 9, 2018 11:51 pm

You have just verified that Simon was correct, there is an upward (lower troposphere) temperature trend over a 30 year period in the UAH data: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1988.6/to:2018.6/trend

MarkW
Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 10, 2018 7:59 am

So what if there is a trend?
1) The trend is way less than the margin of error on that data.
2) The trend is small.

In other words, saying the temperature is “about” the same as it was 30 years ago is not an incorrect statement.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 9:07 am

‘a Trumpy… a lie.’

Good example of progressive-speak. Practically a caricature.

The funny thing is, the cute-little nickname and belittling is one of their weapons that Trump uses against them – and BOY can they not take it.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 10:10 am

Simon: So, its up 0.25C in 30 years, but not much more than that from the 1930s in 80 yrs. Dont pretend you dont know how the temperatures have been fiddled. Kelly could have been a sharper critic had he pointed out we were at the bottom of a very cold period 35yrs ago (Some of the same alarmists were worrying about an ice age coming) and most of the warming was recovery from it.

BTW, Simon, the wit of EJZ above went over your head! You guys need to laugh more.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 9, 2018 11:06 am

‘You guys need to laugh more.’

They don’t have that button.
That’s another thing progressives have destroyed: comedy.

DaveKeys
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 11:42 am

The left live in a philosophical world. A 0.0000x% increase means it is hotter. The fact it is well within statistical noise means nothing.

As Australia attempts to close its coal fire power stations. Australia will be digging bigger and bigger holes to dig up more and more coal to feed the new coal fire power stations being built across the developing world. That is over a 1000 new coal fired powered stations. You will say nothing because all you care about is what white Europeans do. The main stream media will say nothing because they do not care.

Somehow white European CO2 has magical properties. It has the amazing ability to stop the planet warming.

mike the morlock
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 1:46 pm

Simon November 9, 2018 at 1:29 am
Hello Simon , you meet at sometime want to look out the window, check the weather reports around the world.
Apple crops in India freezing, the most snow in Vail Colorado in 80 years. If anything we are seeing a repeat of the 1960s-1970s cold period. People around the world are sitting up and noticing. Less and less people are buying your snake oil.

michael

mike the morlock
Reply to  mike the morlock
November 9, 2018 2:15 pm

might ,not meet. must spell check

michael

old white guy
Reply to  Simon
November 10, 2018 4:41 am

BS sport. It is “about” the same.

Carbon Bigfoot
Reply to  Allan MacRae
November 9, 2018 4:22 am

Alan or Anthony:
News Banner on CNBC Financial Channel ” FEDERAL JUDGE HALTS KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION CITING INSUFFICIENT CLIMATE IMPACT REVIEWS.”

It appears nothing seems to go away with there CLIMATE GOONS.

schitzree
Reply to  Carbon Bigfoot
November 9, 2018 6:58 am

INSUFFICIENT CLIMATE IMPACT REVIEWS.

What? They need more Climate Impact Reviews for the Keystone XL Pipeline? Well, that’s easy to fix. Here’s one now.

The Keystone XL Pipeline will have absolutely no negative effect on the Climate whatsoever. Even if you are a raving Climate Cultists who believes the Earth is a minute fraction of a degree from bursting into flames, it should be obvious that the Pipeline itself doesn’t produce a significant amount of CO2. In fact, transporting the oil by Pipeline instead of by railcar requires far less energy, and that energy can come from a variety of sources.

Now, BURNING that Oil will produce CO2, but it is going to be burned regardless of whether it is moved by train, Pipeline, or whatever. As is already being done.

See, easy.

~¿~

AGW is not Science
Reply to  schitzree
November 9, 2018 9:33 am

Yes, amazing how they somehow believe that the inability to send the oil through a pipeline equates to the inability to move the oil AT ALL. The other reason it’s laughable is because they, if successful, will have succeeded in causing MORE emissions of the dreaded CO2 to do the same thing, which is to transport the oil.

RockyRoad
Reply to  schitzree
November 9, 2018 5:10 pm

I didn’t know subterranean structures had anything to do with hyperterranean climate!

Gary Mount
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 1:45 am

The temperature of the surface averages about 288 Kelvin, so yeah he is correct.

Simon
Reply to  Gary Mount
November 9, 2018 2:00 am

“The temperature of the surface averages about 288 Kelvin, so yeah he is correct.”
Only if you have no interest in accuracy.

M Courtney
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 2:26 am

Accuracy needs to be relevant. Would you say twins are different ages because one was born first?
A politician needs to refer to practical differences. Yes, you might be able to discern a fraction of a degree change in temperature anomaly over half a century (although you can’t distinguish anthropogenic and natural causes).

But that matters not one jot. It has no impact.
However, raising the costs of fossil fuels will have a big impact. And a negative impact.

fred250
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 2:59 am

You would not even notice a 0.5C difference in your lounge room

INDISTINGUISHABLE

And totally immeasurable in the reality of surface instruments.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 5:31 am

Simon:

If any climate alarmist had any interest in accuracy, they would be demanding that the global temperature set(s) be evaluated for accuracy and precision. They don’t. I assume therefore they have little interest in the numerous and widely discussed issues related to the temperature-related issues.

When trying to check the veracity of your counter claim that it is warmer now globally than it was thirty years ago, I found that El Ninos have to be factored out as they are not considered to be related to AGW. When this is done, it is not detectable warmer than it was thirty years ago. “Detectable” has a meaning: a standard definition, and mathematical formulae for setting the limit of determination (LOD) based on the equipment and the number of measurements used in the calculation. Strictly applied, as scientists are won’t to do, there is no way to support a claim that the global temperature is higher now that it was in 1988 with high confidence.

One could assert that it is higher, with low confidence. This assertion is fine provided the uncertainty is simultaneously cited. I can assert anything I want and claim a 1% possibility it is true.

It is always important to maintain an overview of this whole CAGW enterprise: CO2 is wa-ay up and temperatures are stagnant. Lack of correlation is a strong proof of a lack of causation.

Richard
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 9, 2018 6:19 am

“As scientists are wont to do”, not “won’t”. Nit picky, I know, and probably that mindless autocorrect, but only error in what you wrote.

John M Ware
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 10, 2018 4:19 am

“detectably” not “detectable” [Sorry–my proof-reader compartment wouldn’t let that go, especially since “won’t” for “wont” got nabbed.]

I have noted many times that a difference of as much as five degrees is undetectable to me, especially if wind is considered. Example: 52 degrees F, in sun, calm wind, feels quite similar to 57 degrees F, cloudy and breezy. The whole procedure of pronouncing (say) .027 of a degree to be dangerous global warming is so intellectually dishonest, it hurts!

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
November 10, 2018 5:25 am

Richard: quite correct. Thanks. I typed wont and it made won’t. Thank goodness WUWT readers are worldly wise.

RockyRoad
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 5:23 pm

So it gets a smidgen warmer..maybe!

Warm is good, cold is bad.

Enriching atmospheric CO2 is good.

Depleting atmosphric CO2 is bad!

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  RockyRoad
November 10, 2018 5:30 am

RockyR

According the ‘hotter oceans paper’ the O2 has been going up as a result of oceanic outgassing.

Isn’t it amazing how powerful humans are? We control everything. Totally. Let’s turn northern Québec into a human-habital zone; restablish the tree line on the Arctic Ocean shore. We can turn the whole Earth into the Garden of Eden. All we need to do is tweak. Right?

yarpos
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 2:06 am

Easy for you to check? really? would you even know what you were looking at? or do you just beleive because the Grauniad or CNN told you to? scratch just one layer deep pass the MSM and you will be surprised or just take the blue pill.

fred250
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 2:55 am

Yep, he should have said 80 years ago.

Less than half a degree of warming in the last 30 years.

No warming except for El Nino events.

No CO2 warming signal ANYWHERE.

fred250
Reply to  fred250
November 9, 2018 3:08 am

According to UAH, October in Australia 2018 was 0.9C COLDER than October 1988 !

Steven Fraser
Reply to  fred250
November 9, 2018 6:42 am

Yep.

Richard M
Reply to  fred250
November 9, 2018 8:30 am

I agree. About .25 C of cooling over the first 40 years followed by .25 C of warming over the past 40 years. All the rest is noise. For that we have already spent how many trillions?

Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 4:33 am

All of this…

May have played a small role in this…

While feeding half of the human population…

HotScot
Reply to  David Middleton
November 9, 2018 4:43 am

DM shows up and Simon scarpers.

LOL.

commieBob
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 4:42 am

Actually, a couple of the samples from 1988 were warmer than the current sample. link

Greg
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 5:37 am

Within the range of error he is correct. Fools should not call others fools, it just makes you look foolish.

Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 5:53 am

Because Kelly is right, give or take 0.1 or 0.2 degree. In the troposphere where this predicted affect of CO2 was predicted but not proven to happen. Hence the “missing heat”. It was never really there in the natural world. Just in well paid modellers computers and imaginations and the bank balances of renewable subsidy farmers, not real. Climate models are a form of environmentalist VR for the hard of science, not real.

Kelly might be 0.1 degrees out, but there is nothing to see here, in fact. But he must be wrong if it contradicts zealot belief and facts don’t matter to a technological society any more, though. What people think and want is what science must produce?Right? Nope. Physics and the natural world doesn’t work like that

I suspect people will need a real problem that humans can be proven to cause and there is anything humans can do to change to justify the Billions pa being wasted currently by developed nation’s politicians on unsustainable non-solutions to a non-problem on the technical facts, expensively imposed by law. Also in the context of the power and energy of global systems and the natural feedback from warming oceans that shuts down any surface warming perturbation in the single W/m^2 range, with massive cooling power of oceanic evaporation and increased cloud albedo that will easilly maintain our short interglacial equilibrium for few thousand more years, until the last interglacial heat impulse is lost to space and we cool back to the next long glacial period until the next 100,000 year interglacial produces another warm snap.

The science IS settled. Change is tiny, and probably nothing much to do with CO2 from humans in the Troposphere or anywhere else. Nothing really changes significantly over human lifetimes. Noticeable regional change, perhaps. Globally, not. Any perturbations are massively controlled naturally between the stable glacial floor temperature and the 100Ka peaks we currently occupy, a few degrees higher, in the only civilised period humanoids have ever managed. But most still seem too fearful and ignorant to try to understand hard reality, and prefer their easy beliefs to the facts and physics that can get us through the next ice age without Billions dying and civilisation being reset to neolithic. Warm is good.

comment image?dl=0

Mark Pawelek
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 7:13 am

Fossil Fuels Make Us Safe

<– Copied from the headline for that piece. Do you dispute it? Or do you have no answer to it. It's the fundamental issue here. Fossil fuels make up safer and you activists have nothing to replace them with apart from pipe-dreams. Changing the subject and trying to make it about what someone said about temperature is just trying to dodge the issue.

MarkW
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 7:16 am

Pointing out the truth really ruffles your panties doesn’t it.

Dreadnought
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 7:31 am

Oh dear, Simon, you’ve been hoist by your own petard (see comments and links below).

Latitude
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 7:47 am

“Why do you print the nonsense of a fool like this? It is so easy for anyone to check he has no clue. Glad he is on your team.”

He’s right dimwit……30 years ago was 1988

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2018_v6.jpg

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 8:57 am

I’d say 1°C is “about the same”, wouldn’t you? Not to mention that the trend in the Southern Hemisphere is lower than the Northern Hemisphere, which makes the claim even more correct.

rishrac
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 9:41 am

@ Simon,
You should check the math. It had to warm up to the baseline before any increase in temperature could start to be attributed to co2. Almost all of the warming is to the base line. After that, the temperature is what? 0.2 C higher than baseline. The irony is that the more NOAA/NASA cool the past the wider the discrepancy between co2 and temperature. The heats hiding in the ocean? Sure, that’s why Florida is under 4 feet of water. Just as predicted. NOT! Do you know what thermal expansion is? The only reason AGW has gotten any traction whatsoever with warming is because of cyclic ocean patterns. Can you guarantee That once those patterns end that the world doesn’t cool? Areas of wheat growing go offline, huge hail, and other extreme weather events. That’s what’s recorded when there has been a cool down. The French Revolution wasn’t because it was too warm. There was no food. Hail and cold destroyed the crops.
In other words Simon, you don’t have a clue.

MarkW
Reply to  rishrac
November 10, 2018 8:02 am

We’ve need about 2 to 3C more warming just to get back to the average of the last 10,000 years.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 11:38 am

He didn’t say it was exactly the same 30 years ago. He didn’t say it was warmer 30 years ago. He said “about” the same. And yes, the global average is “about” the same as it was 30 years ago. The difference is in tenths of degrees. The 13-month running UAH difference is about 0.2 deg C. The trend over the past 40 years for UAH is about 0.13 deg C/decade, which again puts the difference between today and 40 years ago (let alone 30 years ago) on the order of tenths of a degree, or “about” the same as today.

ironicman
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 11:43 am

Simon its pretty close.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_October_2018_v6.jpg

Its plain to see you don’t have a clue.

leitmotif
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 1:26 pm

Between 287K and 288K. Sounds pretty stable to me. What is the significance of a global average temperature anyway? Does it tell us anything about high or low temperature trends in various regions of the planet? Does the average income of all 7 billion people on the planets tell us anything about earnings, wealth or poverty? Don’t think so.

Why don’t alarmists just push for more oxygen and nitrogen to be pumped into the atmosphere to reduce the concentration of CO2. Avogadro’s hypothesis rules, OK!

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 2:09 pm

Simon,
Because this blog is run by an American, and in America we believe in the free exchange of ideas. Even those we don’t necessarily agree with, which is why you are not censored here even though you espouse opinions that most here don’t agree with. This is the bedrock of a free and rational society. I think it’s a little telling that I have to explain this to you.

Graham Balderson
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 10:34 pm

Simon should follow his own advice. According to UAH v.6, the temperature anomaly in Oz in Oct ’88 was 1.27 deg. compared with an anomaly of 0.38 deg in Oct ’18. So, in the Australian context and simplistic Simon terms, the climate now is much cooler than 30 years ago.

KELLY’S RIGHT
Reply to  Simon
November 10, 2018 6:23 am

Simon says;

‘’You would have to be a complete ignoramus to think that we are at the same place we were 30 years ago. Show me a metric that shows the temperature is about the same as it was in 1988.’’

It’s simple to show Simon;
UAH global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies,
Sept 2018 : + 0.14°C (Australia : +0.19°C)
Sept 1988 : + 0.20°C (Australia : +0.55°C)

And Simon, it’s simple to lookup;
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

So what Kelly could have more accurately said; that in Sept 2018, (when he gave that speech), globally, it was actually 0.06°C COOLER than it was 30 years ago in Sept 1988.

Now you may argue 0.06°C is not much to quibble about, however don’t forget that the total sum of all the Paris promises, (if met by every nation, and if the IPCC computer models are correct) will avoid 0.05°C of warming by the year 2100

M Courtney
November 9, 2018 1:48 am

“The reality is we live in a time where our generation has never ever been as safe from the climate because of fossil fuels, concrete and steel,” Kelly said. “The climate was always dangerous. We didn’t make it dangerous.”

Nobody can sensibly disagree with that.

I guess that’s why the Guardian didn’t open up comments.

Fred250
Reply to  M Courtney
November 9, 2018 3:10 am

It really was a MOST EXCELLENT STATEMENT, wasn’t it 🙂

Ultimate , undeniable TRUTH !!

Ellen
Reply to  M Courtney
November 9, 2018 6:25 am

Amen!

Dreadnought
Reply to  M Courtney
November 9, 2018 7:34 am

“I guess that’s why the Guardian didn’t open up comments.”

Yes, indeed. And, apparently, they’re on the verge of going under and can’t afford the mods…

Graemethecat
Reply to  Dreadnought
November 9, 2018 12:10 pm

Indeed. Notice how desperate the begging letter at the end of Guardian articles has become.

Simon
November 9, 2018 2:00 am

“The temperature of the surface averages about 288 Kelvin, so yeah he is correct.”
Only if you have no interest in accuracy.

DonM
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 10:15 am

You made the same comment above.

It appears that your definition of accuracy is inaccurate:

You have $9.98 in your savings account and the bank pays you a rate of 1.5%; your quarterly statement will say that you earned $0.04. The new balance of $10.02 is still about where is was last quarter.

Simon, you still have $10. If you think people will be more impressed by telling them that you have $10.02 (instead of $10) you are just going to make yourself look silly ….

(see first M Courtney response to you if you actually want to lose the ignorance)

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 2:20 pm

Simon,
You don’t even know what accuracy is. Please explain the difference between accuracy and precision. Which one can’t be improved by averaging multiple samples and why? If you can answer those correctly, you may start to get a little respect around here.

brians356
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2018 11:01 pm

My dear Simon,

If predicting future climate is “settled science”, then what will the average global temperature be, to the nearest 0.1C, in 50 years hence (9 Nov 2068, assuming current trajectory of increase of CO2 concentration)?

Monckton of Brenchley
November 9, 2018 2:04 am

Global mean surface temperature has risen by a third of a percentage point in almost 170 years. Not a lot, and net-beneficial, thanks to CO2 fertilization and the reduction in cold-related deaths, which always outstrip heat-related deaths.

Mike Bryant
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 9, 2018 2:25 am

I don’t think we’ll see Simon reply to this very accurate assessment.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Mike Bryant
November 9, 2018 8:37 am

Sure we will – he’s already made the same reply twice. And it’s still early.

HotScot
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 9, 2018 2:27 am

Monckton of Brenchley

Nice to see you back Chris.

Warren
Reply to  HotScot
November 9, 2018 3:03 am

Yes!

MarkW
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
November 9, 2018 7:26 am

A small increase in warmth lengthens the growing season all over the world and expands poleward the areas where crops can be grown.
The tiny increase in temperature over the last 150 years has been almost 100% beneficial.
(And that’s before adding in the benefits of CO2 fertilization.)

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  MarkW
November 10, 2018 8:44 am

“A small increase in warmth lengthens the growing season all over the world and expands poleward the areas where crops can be grown.”

That might be true if the increase was uniform, but it never is. Some places warm, some cool, some don’t do much of anything. If you have earlier blossoms in one place, it’s likely you have later blossoms in another place.

High Treason
November 9, 2018 2:07 am

For those living in Sydney, Craig Kelly , Sophie York and Malcolm Roberts are presenting on “Energy Poverty” on Wednesday 14th November 6 for 6.30 pm at the Macquarie room, Parliament House. Suggested donation $10 to cover our costs.
We could not get anyone to defend energy price hikes (we try to get a balanced view at our forum topics.) Format-the presenters get 15-20 minutes free hit at the topic , then a relatively generous Q & A. We get booted out at 9pm. With luck, we might get the APAC channel to record and broadcast proceedings, complete with questions.
We go back with Craig Kelly and Malcolm Roberts to the old carbon tax rally days.

michel
Reply to  High Treason
November 9, 2018 5:00 am

What you need is someone to go with a straight face and explain that according to the IPCC latest, we need to tax gasoline at somewhere between $$1.20 and $48.90, and corresponding increases in heating oil, greater in the case of coal. If we are to save civilization these taxes need to be implemented in 2030, so 12 years from now.

They should argue that we need to be planning now for 2030 gas prices to be somewhere in the middle, say aim for gasoline globally to be about $20 a gallon. Heating oil similarly.

This, they will explain, is necessary, according to 97% of those with any right to an opinion, if we are to save human civilzation on planet earth. Anyone refusing to endorse this is a genocidal denialist.

This is the only way you will ever get these hysterical people to understand the implications of what they claim to believe. If they believe what they claim to, and if they are right, this is what needs to be done. Probably $40 a gallon in 2050.

So, confront them, by advocacy, with the real consequences of what they are arguing and demand that they either support it with its consequences or abandon it.

BobM
Reply to  michel
November 9, 2018 4:26 pm

Make sure you take handouts showing the math. Many won’t believe it unless you can show energy equivalent from carbon tax/ton (or whatever metric is used) to $$ per gallon/liter (again whatever metric is used)… Difficult for most people to grasp such numbers without seeing simple explanations. Nearly everyone that frequents this blog (Simon excepted) “sees” this stuff easily, even naturally, and we often assume, incorrectly, that most people understand math the same way. In reality, most people are, unfortunately, innumerate, like Simon.

MarkW
Reply to  michel
November 9, 2018 4:33 pm

“people are, unfortunately, innumerate”

Which has been the goal of the modern education establishment.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  MarkW
November 10, 2018 8:48 am

I’m pretty much stupid when it comes to math, but it’s pretty easy to see through the CAGW scam if you have any skepticism.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  High Treason
November 11, 2018 1:47 pm

Shame its too late to make this event more publically aware.

HotScot
November 9, 2018 2:32 am

Sorry to hear Melbourne is suffering the scourge of terrorism today.

Warren
Reply to  HotScot
November 9, 2018 3:01 am

Thanks for the thought. If it wasn’t for Peter Dutton it’d be worse. He has greatly curtailed immigration here.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Warren
November 11, 2018 1:43 pm

Well that’s new migrants without family here. Migrants already here bring their families. Anyway, this man was already known to authorities not for being a risk himself, but because of his connections. And reports stated that he was being “chased by people with spears”. Always has been a matter of time before someone like him commits an act of terror in Australia. Australia, in terms of migrants that eventually commit crimes like this, is about 40 years behind Europe. I saw acts like this in Europe in the 80’s.

The only Christian country I know of that keeps people of different faiths in “check” is Ethiopia. Muslims want to open a mosque in Addis Ababa to which Ethiopian Christians respond by asking if they could build a Church at Mecca. Ain’t going to happen.

Warren
November 9, 2018 3:10 am

Mr Goldman Sachs Malcolm has shown his true left-wing colour of late. The wolf was running the chicken shed. Go Craig & Tony restore some conservative values.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Warren
November 9, 2018 3:22 am

yeah lets hope…meanwhile i just read that power tariffs in Victoria are to rise 30$ or so a quarter ..
this follows outright bribes of cash in hand 2,225$ per household installing solar panels free installing(govt funded) supposed cost of 12K$ without govvy handouts
and NO input payment to be made on whatever the home generates
meanwhile the grid is aleady struggling to handle the input from solar n the smidgen from wind
some homes are getting overpowere in and its not doing equipment lights or the bills much good.
Labor n greens coalitioning and promising crazier green deals and bribes all over for votes to stay in..
if we dont get Andrews OUT were going to be looking as bad as SA

warren
November 9, 2018 3:21 am

The average of all AU costal station temperatures has not changed in 40 years.

jim heath
November 9, 2018 3:38 am

How do you un teach 30 years of Global Warming rubbish?

Steven Fraser
Reply to  jim heath
November 9, 2018 6:46 am

Put it in a 55-gal drum and burn it.

RayG
Reply to  Steven Fraser
November 9, 2018 9:26 am

One 55 gallon drum won’t make a dent in the amount of CAGW™ rubbish that has been generated. It would take a fleet of mass burn facilities to begin to cope with it.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  RayG
November 9, 2018 9:45 am

Waste to energy plant! See, there IS a use for it!!

Of course, not sufficient to make up for the resources squandered producing it, but it’s osmthing, anyway…

leitmotif
November 9, 2018 3:39 am

The very next article in the failing Guardian’s climate change section has the headline “The End of the End of the Earth by Jonathan Franzen review – hope in an age of crisis”.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/nov/09/the-end-of-the-end-of-the-earth-by-jonathan-franzen-review-hope-in-an-age-of-crisis

Franzen makes Private Frazer sound like the world’s greatest optimist.

HotScot
Reply to  leitmotif
November 9, 2018 4:40 am

leitmotif

I tried, honestly, I did try to read that guardian article but I really can’t take pronouncements of global doom from a twitcher seriously.

leitmotif
Reply to  HotScot
November 9, 2018 5:13 am

Franzen must have based his world view on the teachings of Eeyore and Marvin the Paranoid Android.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  leitmotif
November 9, 2018 5:51 pm

Peter Lorre in “5 Weeks in a Balloon”. I think most of his lines were simply “Ve are doomed!”

Bruce Cobb
November 9, 2018 4:11 am

Yep, our climate is simply fabulous, as Trump said. Oh, we still have “bad weather”, which the Climate Numptys love to point to, mostly to try to distract from the fact that the slight warm-up we’ve had since the LIA has been entirely beneficial, and that their much-vaunted, CO2-based models climate models have failed.
It is fun to watch them squirm and squeal as their CAGW ideology goes down the tubes. Good riddance.

steve case
November 9, 2018 4:32 am

… as their CAGW ideology goes down the tubes. Good riddance.

If only that were true. The Climate Change/Global Warming juggernaut is on course to win the political debate by any means necessary. That includes stealing elections. Down the road you can look forward to paying a carbon tax, having a government controlled thermostat, government GPS monitor on your car, tax on meat, air travel rationing, street cars, brown-outs & black-outs – – or worse.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  steve case
November 9, 2018 2:53 pm

If Trump stays in office the world is saved despite itself. When Trump says no, that’s the end for everybody else. Oh yeah, the companies, governors, mayors, are going to do this and they are going to do that. Bloomberg sent the UN 100million. That was the ‘tell’ for me! In a marxysparxy putsch measured in centi-trillions, the pathetic gesture signalled the end of global warming gulags for citizenry opposed to the meme.

Did Steyer, Rockefeller, Soros or other crony caps follow suit? Of course not. That kind of cash is better invested in buying an election of Dems to keep up their cash flow from poor taxpayers. They burned 100million on the Hillary drubbing and some more tens of same on by-elections. Fortunately, the ‘elites’ arent actually that smart and easy money gets foolishly dumped into projects that the average Joe and Jane know is a dodo.

Tom Abbott
November 9, 2018 4:50 am

From the article: “These are the assessments of the member for Hughes, Craig Kelly, who is part of a Tony Abbott-led speaking campaign to pull the Liberal party back from the centre.”

The “center” I presume is the Leftwing position; the position that believes in CAGW and the necessity to ruin Australia’s economy in an futile effort to curb global CO2.

Meanwhile, any reductions in CO2 that Australia manages to make will be offset by the increases in CO2 production in China and India and elsewhere.

It looks to me like all of Australia ought to be pulling back from the “centre”.

Why bankrupt yourselves for nothing? That doesn’t make any sense.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 9, 2018 5:53 pm

China’s CO2 increases likely exceed ALL decreases all other meager decreases from other countries.

observa
November 9, 2018 6:11 am

Interestingly enough even watermelon Aunty can’t ignore the problems with rooftop solar when you read between the lines although they tend to obscure the obvious like the duck curve and fallacy of composition with an overall flavour that it’s the poor little bloke that’s getting screwed over by big biz again-
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-08/high-voltage-fuelling-increased-electricity-consumption/10460212

They’ve completely ignored the obvious to date with renewables like so many true believers but it’s getting much harder to do that as the cracks are rapidly beginning to show in our national grid and no media organisation can ignore an emerging story forever. They’re being mugged by reality and can’t keep sicking their heads in the sand. Summer is coming with peak aircon and with it the threat of cascading blackouts.

John Bell
November 9, 2018 6:24 am

The climate faithful (and new agers like my sister) have no care for the truth, it is all about feelings.

observa
Reply to  John Bell
November 9, 2018 6:44 am

Well it will be interesting to test those feelings at some stage in the future when the true believers are sweltering with no airconditioning. Either that or they have to pay a Helluva lot more to firm the ‘unfirm’ power (as large suppliers like AGL and Origin are euphemistically referring to it now) and that can’t happen overnight. The obvious question will be whatever happened to all the cheap abundant power we were promised from Gaia?

E J Zuiderwijk
Reply to  observa
November 9, 2018 7:24 am

Except then that they won’t be sweltering but shivering with no heating worth the name.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  John Bell
November 9, 2018 10:47 am

Yes, the feelings syndrome is exactly right and the primary target of the policy marketing effort.

Dreadnought
November 9, 2018 7:43 am

Proponents of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming conjecture are null hypothesis deniers.

ResourceGuy
November 9, 2018 7:52 am

This just illustrates that a lot of former boxers are needed for this public policy fight with knowledge of good jabbing strategy to go with all the logical argumentation and evaluation types. Clear headed thinking has not been enough to get the job done so far.

Joel Snider
November 9, 2018 8:39 am

The amazing thing is that, this is a position that should be a no-brainer. Honestly, it’s exhausting trying to explain the obvious to people that only pretend to not get it.

November 9, 2018 9:23 am

From a production standpoint, that video is just terrible — stills backed by talking in a cave. I’m not motivated, in the least, to subject myself to that. I clicked out after thirty seconds.

Why people put up such videos continues to amaze me.

Brett Keane
November 9, 2018 11:38 am

Simon and a few other sockpuppets took over a blog in NZ a few years back. It was run by the State-owned but Charter-run radio broadcaster, with a newish liberal charter. Infested with ‘Feminist Historians’ and all that claptrap. Anyway, they ended up banning me for writing the Truth about their mendacity. I took them to the Broadcasting Tribunal eventually. Instead of defending themselves, the Broadcaster closed the blog. maybe a win for me but a loss for free speech all the same. Seeing we pay their wages……So have no mercy on the creepy troll. Brett

Philip Schaeffer
November 11, 2018 12:55 am

Craig Kelly is an influential politician? That’s news to this Australian.

Philip Schaeffer
November 11, 2018 1:04 am

Amazing all the love for one specific heavily adjusted satellite data set.

Gary Mount
Reply to  Philip Schaeffer
November 11, 2018 6:13 am

What’s not to like :
Examination of space-based bulk atmospheric temperatures used in climate research

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01431161.2018.1444293

Patrick MJD
November 11, 2018 1:51 pm

In the Rudd years in Australia, climate change was our biggest threat to security. Now it’s Muslim extremist lead terror attacks. One was bound to happen well before the other.

Pixie
November 11, 2018 11:18 pm

You will never change the mind of millennial snowflakes, like the Hitler youth they have been subject to the propaganda from birth…

November 11, 2018 11:47 pm

On Feb 13, 2018: The judge dismissed all charges in the lawsuit brought against Dr Tim Ball by BC Green Party leader Andrew Weaver. It is a great victory for free speech.
‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
“Human Caused Global Warming”, ‘The Biggest Deception in History’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPzpPXuASY8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO08Hhjes_0
https://www.technocracy.news/dr-tim-ball-on-climate-lies-wrapped-in-deception-smothered-with-delusion/
http://www.drtimball.com

Bryan Bates
November 12, 2018 2:17 pm

Who is support him in his position.

%d bloggers like this: