Guest essay by Eric Worrall
With the Aussie federal election this Saturday, Professor Emeritus Ian Plimer, who wrote the iconic book “Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science”, has suggested Australia’s opposition leader Bill Shorten may be intentionally misleading on climate change.
The truth of climate change is revealed at school
Ian Plimer
May 16 2019Bill Shorten and his allies, the Greens economic vandals, believe climate change is a moral issue. So is telling the truth.
With his elite private school education, the Opposition Leader would have learned about the Roman Warming, the Dark Ages, the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age. These took place before industrialisation and were all driven by changes in the sun. He would have learned that natural warm times, like now, bring great prosperity, increased longevity and less disease, whereas Jack Frost brings death, depopulation and economic stresses.
In biology, the Labor leader would have learned of Darwinism and environmental adaptation of species. Humans live on ice and in the hills, valleys, tropics and deserts, at altitude and on coastal plains. Like countless other organisms, we move and adapt when the environment changes. Species thrive when it is warm.
From his education at a religious school, he would have learned about the apostle Thomas. One of the strengths of our Western civilisation is doubt and scepticism. Surely Shorten does not believe the catastrophism promoted by green activists and self-interested alleged experts at the expense of the nation. If he does, he is unelectable.
If he is knowingly promoting a falsehood, he is unelectable. Critical thinking was fundamental to our culture and should be embraced in policy formulation. In school science, Shorten would have learned carbon dioxide is the food of life and without this natural gas, which occurs in space and all planets, there would be no life.
…
Read more (paywalled): https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/the-truth-of-climate-change-is-revealed-at-school/news-story/31d9ab27de3ec577217a590476bf16c1
Despite being Australian, I haven’t written much about this election because frankly I think both major party leaders are unelectable.
With a few honourable exceptions like Federal MP Keith Pitt, who have spoken out against the green party line, and Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who is facing a furious green attack in his electorate, this Aussie election is kind of a choice between Al Gore or Al Gore lite.
Thankfully in Australia your vote is not wasted if you support a minor party candidate or independent. Australian federal elections use an instant runoff vote system like Maine, USA, in which you list the candidates you want in order of preference. That means you can vote your heart with your first choice, then vote strategically with your other choices to make sure the candidate you really don’t want comes last.
I urge anyone participating in Saturday’s election, please do some research into the candidates on offer. Consider minor parties like One Nation, which has consistently supported climate skepticism and affordable energy for as long as I can remember – on their senate ticket is Malcolm Roberts, who infuriated Australian media by making Brian Cox’s climate alarmism look silly on national TV, and who during his previous senate term infuriated mainstream politicians by meticulously examining the shaky assumptions behind proposed climate legislation.
Even if you don’t think your preferred candidate has any chance of winning, remember your instant runoff vote allows you to send a message to Australian politicians, with minimal risk your least favourite candidate will win – the only kind of message most politicians bother to listen to.
It is nearly as bad, or worse, in the US. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and her Green New Deal have managed to make almost all of the two dozen or so candidates for President look almost as clueless as herself.
They are clueless, and we can thank her for getting them to say so.
Apparently the mayor of NYC will join the group of hopefuls with a Thursday announcement.
New York Mayor De Blasio will announce he is a presidential candidate today.
Polls show only 18 percent of New Yorkers think De Blasio should run for president. He’s not very popular in New York, and for good reason.
Another Democrat loser with a big mouth and no clue about the real world.
I think we should be quite grateful to Ms. Googly-Eyes for doing such a splendid job in regard to helping other people look ridiculous. Nobody has ever done it better! Nobody!
If there is any way at all to turn common sense into something you can inject into people, please let us know. It seems to have left the building.
Unfortunately common sense residing within one individual isn’t all that common. It takes a village of common people to amass enough common sense to be recognizable, each one having only a small piece. Often when confronted with a situation wherein an individual demonstrates their lack of sense, they will say, “Well, everybody knows that.” when the evidence demonstrates that they obviously did not know that.
Jordan Peterson says red lipstick is sexually signaling.
AOC didn’t make 24+ Democratic candidates for president look bad, all this snowflake did was propose to save the earth, hopefully within 12 years. by eliminating airplanes & farting cows.
Scrape together the “best” qualifications of the 24 individual candidates and you still don’t have a legitimate contender.
Trump has the personality of a horribly thin-skinned used car salesman, but he is doing exactly what he promised:
exit Paris climate accords
exit TPP
authorize keystone pipeline
strengthen US military
kick the crap out of ISIS
reduce regulation
reign in EPA (no controlling puddles of water in your front yard)
hard-ball trade negotiations with China
renegotiate NAFTA
renegotiate tariffs with EU (esp. autos)
appoint conservative judges (Supreme, appellate & district courts)
He struggling with extraction Obama-care, immigration, building the wall and controlling Federal spending. You win some, you lose some; he’s winning a lot of the right battles.
But if you standout you’re OUT.
Voting for a party built on hatred of Muslims because they also follow your climate “scepticism” seems odd. Malcolm Roberts didn’t enrage anyone, but he was certainly a national laughing stock.
If you want cheap power for the grid, to repeat, the energy market operator, the energy companies, the national scientific organisation are of the same mind; wind and solar power, firmed by batteries for short term surges, and pumped hydro for longer.
You might be interested in this article. https://www.manhattan-institute.org/green-energy-revolution-near-impossible?fbclid=IwAR0U9gu1tkSN1sAcsx-hshJUR0hdLoIQXQ4UYMT4OREjqazXXJ8SOGGc1jg
Thank You. Good article.
Super article. A must read for AOC.
Thank you for that, Fred. A must read — but only for those who still have an open mind. Sadly, I doubt Tony qualifies!
Guess Tony didn’t want to learn something unpleasant to his cherished views.
Tony, suggesting a party which has prominent Muslim members is anti-Islam is a bit of a stretch.
So much fake news. Emma Eros is a nobody candidate who won 4.5% at the last election. She isnt “prominent”. What other members (plural) are you referring to?
One Nation are a bunch of clueless, far right, xenophobic fringe-dwellers. First it was “Australia is being swamped by Asians”, now it is “Australia is being swamped by Muslims”. It is their brand of hatred and fear born of ignorance that leads straight to Christchurch massacres.
As for Ian Plimer isn’t he on the payroll of a dozen or so mining companies and blames the Keeling curve on volcanoes?
One Nation’s Muslim candidate owns a business, spoke up against extremist interpretations of faith, and she’s a woman. Yet you call her a “nobody”. Interesting.
You called her prominent. She got 4.5% of the vote and I’d never heard of her. You said members, who else?
4.5% is nothing to sneer at for a first outing. You could also look up Imam Tawhidi. Or use Google yourself instead of trying to drag this thread off topic with baseless smears.
Just trying to keep you honest Eric. Speaking of which, Imam Tawhidi is a fake Imam and has no connection to One Nation.
Loydo, the fact that you’ve never heard of her is just more proof that you never read anything beyond today’s talking points memo from your handlers.
“Far ” anything is the way the press talk about anyone that doesn’t support their PC (press correct) viewpoint. So, whenever I see anything described as “far … “i know that person isn’t thinking for themselves but is just regurgitating hate-filled press propaganda.
The real “far” anything these days are the press, whose views are often off the scale in terms of extreme.
For most leftists, the political spectrum goes like this: Communism, Socialism, Far Right.
As always, when you try to teach reality to a leftist, they just get more angry.
Anyone who disagrees with them is evil, bigoted, xenophobic, sexist, and any other big words their small minds can conjour up.
The party that preaches love and tolerance is utterly incapable of demonstrating either characteristic.
Perhaps you can explain what Roberts got so egregiously wrong. 😉
Having a numpty audience laughing on cue is hardly a “national laughing stock”.
Malcolm Roberts has a PhD in atmospheric physics. That is why the ignoranti attack him. Can’t have anyone in parliament who actually knows what he is talking about.
Baseload demand for Australia (excluding Western Australia which is not on the national grid) is 18,000 MW at 4 am. 10 hours after the sun has gone down. Very few places in Australia where the wind blows all the time. There is no battery existing or capable of existing that can handle that. Pumped hydro won’t work because you need a vast amount of power to pump it up, loose some as in runs down. Might as well save the wastage and just put it in the grid. Loads of spare upland lakes to pump water into? No problem with local species, traditional owners, greenies opposing dams?
I bet he upsets a few “believers” in the halls of power.
Roberts is not in the halls of power, he failed to renounce his dual-citizenship and so was ineligble. He does not have a PHD and his field of knowledge had nothing to do with the atmosphere he is a mining engineer and worked in coal mines. His views on climate have been “universally repudiated”.
So much truthiness here.
Define “universally”. 😉
why do i suspect youre a supporter of the getup mob mate?
Your proof is?
His proof is this morning’s talking point memo.
His handlers would never lie to him.
It was misty/cloudy here until lunchtime and there was no wind all day (North Central Victoria in Australia). Great for solar and wind…not.
Martin Clark
I’m an American, so not up to speed on Aussi politicians, but I’m interested in this argument about Malcom Roberts HAVING or NOT HAVING a physics PhD.
o The Australian politician Malcom Leuan Roberts DOES NOT appear to have a PhD (of any kind)
…however, there are two people with similar names:
The somewhat similarly named Australian academic Malcom J Roberts DOES HAVE a physics PhD.
Am I correct in understanding Malcom Roberts the political DOES NOT have a PhD?
Pumped hydro cannot do it without coal and gas.As I type, victoria NSW and SA have minimal wind and the area Rhein’s farms cover is extensive. You could add 10x more and story would not change. Batteries are not feasible at a viable cost.
Dream on.
There are still an awful lot of sceptical people in Australia, you’re obviously not shouting at them loudly enough.
That’s the technique isn’t it?
Give Bob Brown our best wishes next time he drops over your place, Tony.
Tony, please do a little bit of investigation into the performance of wind & solar generation reliability at grid-scale requirement levels.
There’s now > 30 years experience of them all around the world.
I’ll spell out the undeniable conclusion for you –
T H E Y W I L L N E V E R W O R K.
“I’ll spell out the undeniable conclusion for you –
T H E Y W I L L N E V E R W O R K”
That’s the bottom line. Eventually even the clueless will figure this out. The question is: How much damage to economies will be done between now and then?
It might surprise you, Tony, but constantly accusing your opponents of being Racist Bigots just because they believe those trying to enter their country should FOLLOW THE LAWS for doing so, doesn’t really convince anyone.
In fact, since it has become standard procedure for the Left to make such accusations at ANYONE who has a different opinion then a Leftist, for ANY REASON, it has largely become ineffective at convincing the majority of anything other then that you are a dog whistling Leftist demagogue trying to maintain thought control while your dreams of Socialist Totalitarianism goes down in flames.
~¿~
We need Malcolm Roberts back in the Senate to kick the Greens’ and CSIRO’s butts. 6 years of Malcolm there to hold them to account will be awesome. Who would want to be chairperson of the CSIRO knowing that they are going to be hounded for (nonexistent) evidence from day one. 3 times we drove down to Canberra where the CSIRO were supposed to present evidence. 3 times they did not turn up at the behest of a Senator.
As for laughing at representatives that defend OUR culture, anyone that laughs at their own Patriots is a TRAITOR.
I know Malcolm Roberts very well-he is possibly the most dedicated person we have had in Parliament in 30 years. His time in the political wilderness has been used on the hustings in Queensland. Even with the Palmer juggernaut, Malcolm is still in with a good chance. Without the Palmer effect (outspent the rest of the political parties put together-maybe not including GetUp), Queensland could have had 2 One Nation 6 year Senators, which would have been a significant political power entity.
This election is crucial. A vote for Bill Shorten will be national suicide.
Tony, turn out the lights when you leave.
A couple more interesting studies:
See MIT Technology Review, titled “The $2.5 trillion reason we can’t rely on batteries to clean up the grid,”
and University of Chicago, title “Do Renewable Portfolio Standards Deliver?”
Once again, the troll demonstrates that to a liberal, disagreement is equal to hatred.
Funny thing, wind and solar have made energy more expensive every single place they have been tried. But the liars keep trying to tell us that up is down and right is wrong.
By the way, I love how you twist following government mandates into a love for renewable energy.
Tony, the biggest battery being worth 14 seconds on the grid. Brett Keane
If the polls are right, as they usually are, better get used to Bill Shorten,
Prime Minister.
Now the question is, “Does Bill believe in CC,”” or like almost every
Australian and to that matter, every Western Politician, simply pays Lip
Service to the idea, simply to get elected.
I suspect that he being a intelligent man will try to have another Hawke and
Keating type government, but depending on a just over the line, or a massive
win , he will come under a lot of internal pressure to have more renewables,
then he will preside over the big brown out which must occur soon.
MJE VK5ELL
Labour will win easily. And not only that, there will never again be a conservative Federal government again in Australia. There are two reasons for this :
1) The education system in Australia is the most left wing in the western world and indoctrinates hundreds of thousands of kids into becoming militant Labour voters every year.
2) Mass immigration into Australia is the highest in the western world. We take int 250,000 per year – EVERY YEAR. That is like Germany taking in one Million every year, or the US taking in 3.5million EVERY YEAR. And most of these are from China, India and the Mid-East-Africa – who are 80%+ left wing voters.
Demographics is destiny. Australia is now a totally different country to what it was 20 years ago, and even just 10 years ago.
Bill Shorten is an intelligent man?
Sorry there Michael, but there is ample evidence to suggest that Shorten is ANYTHING but intelligent.
This is the man who stated 8 to 10 minutes for recharging.
This is the man who equated Climate Action with stopping a chubby friend from eating 10 Big Macs.
This is the man who gave the “I don’t know what the Prime Minister said, but I support what she said” TV interview.
You want to convince me that Shorten is intelligent then allow me to get myself a drink first, because we are going to be here a long time.
He’s got a few other headlines resurfacing at the moment too –
“Victoria Police contacted Shorten rape complainant today – she is satisfied police are taking her complaint seriously”
https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2019/05/victoria-police-contacted-shorten-rape-complainant-today-she-is-satisfied-police-are-taking-her-comp.html
Other threads there too
Vic Labour for too long was told that our expensive power costs were in part , due to “goldplating” and over building the infrasructure due to govt incentives.
now were told our power price are rising again due to the need to build infrastructure.
turning power cos to private from govt run was THE biggest F up we ever allowed
Well I have news for you MJE VK5SELL
The Polls have been spectacularly wrong in predicting the result of the Australian Federal election
Shorten did not win as the polls predicted
Morrison the Prime Minister came from behind to win and the ALP appears to have lost 6 seats
So Congratulations to Ian Plimer
He was spot on with his statement that Shorten was unelectable
Ian with that track record why not try your hand at projecting the global temperature ? ( Sarc)
From Melbourne Australia Saturday Evening just after Shorten conceded defeat
“If he is knowingly promoting a falsehood, he is unelectable.”
The man has a short memory…..What about the falsehood Plimer told the world when he said “”Human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere must be taken into perspective. Over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day.”
CO2 current about 0.004%. 4 parts in 1,000. Up from 2.8 parts in 1,000. So 1.2 parts up in 1000. 0.12 parts in 10,000.
I think I have the maths right. But someone will correct me.
except its parts per MILLION not thousand
Actually it’s roughtly 0.04% of the atmosphere which is 400 parts per million or 0.4 parts per thousand.
Which makes the increase over the last 70 years or so bout 0.1 parts per thousand, which is in the ball park of 1 part in 10,000.
So the claim was accurate.
As usual, the trolls indicate their innumerancy.
What is false about Plimer’s claim?
1 in 10,000 translates to 100 per 1,000,000 if my fingers and toes do not deceive me. Given that the current CO2 levels are what? 400 ppm? Extending that logic we could say that a humanless planet would currently be 300 ppm.
What is wrong with this statement? I don’t hear anyone claiming that *all* the CO2 being added to the atmosphere has been man made so on my casual inspection what he is saying is completely valid.
So how is this a falsehood? Is this more or less false than ‘the world will end in 12 years’? Is this more or less false than ‘Perth may become the worlds first Ghost Metropolis’? More or less than ‘even if they do fall, the rains will fall in the wrong place’? More or less false than ‘Give us more money’?
Just curious.
“One volcanic cough can do this in a day.”
That’s the falsehood. Either he was ignorant or lying.
He was a Professor of Geology so it was definitely lying.
That makes this article even more funny.
Despite being Australian, I haven’t written much about this election because frankly I think both major party leaders are unelectable. … this Aussie election is kind of a choice between Al Gore or Al Gore lite.
>>
So true Eric I can’t Koala-bear any of these political degenerates. It’s like “choosing” between Seppuku and falling on a chainsaw. No thanks to the best-bad fake ‘options’ that they’ve designed to rip us all off once more, and to freely offer our wallets and our lives on our behalf, as a burnt-offerings to the insatiable maniacs (literally mania-nutters) at the UN who are determines to sacrifice planetary civilization, science, education, global political stability and planetary sanity on the alter of deliberately induced total stupidity.
Other than that Saturday will be one of ignoring all politics.
I will ask the greens/labor candidate on election day ‘why don’t you want to act on climate change?’
They believe that acting on climate change is buying carbon credits from Africa, via a tax on Australian business – how much CO2 does this save the planet?
If the Greens and Labor believe this CO2 is so bad why did they get so excited at the Paris agreement signing by Obama et al whilst any cursory glance at the agreement meant that China was going to become the greatest CO2 emitter on the planet until 2030 and maybe beyond. Why as this has proven to be the case are they not demonstrating outside every Chinese embassy in the world?
The is all BS and a bunch emotional cripples excuse for a ‘meaningful’ existence.
‘The Roman Warming, the Dark Ages, the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age’ bought benefits to cold places such as Europe. Living in inland, drought-stricken, dry river Australia, with many 40+ degree days this summer, I don’t really think warmer (hotter!) times are going to being much benefit or joy. Plimer should be well-aware of this since he studied the geology around the arid mining city of Broken Hill (the government has just spent $500,000,000 on a single water pipeline taking river water to the city.)
‘Species thrive when it is warm’. That depends on water. Species thrive in tropical forests, not so much in waterless deserts, which are hotter.
‘Like countless other organisms, we move and adapt when the environment changes’. Where shall we all move to? This is already a problem: South Americans moving north into the USA, Africans and Middle-easterners moving into Europe. Disruption leads to wars, wars lead to disruption, leads to more population movement. Where can I go?
Yeah the little ice age really rocked for ice skaters everywhere! Are you for real?
When people live in a remote desert mining city, like Broken Hill for instance, they tend to need assured water supplies, but that’s not a “climate crisis”, is it? It’s city-planning 101.
BTW, the shorthand for $500,000,000 looks like this: $0.5 billion. Yeah, it’s a bit less hysterical looking than your version, so probably you prefer the longhand version still.
As for water availability in deserts, the “In Land Sea” that is Lake Eyre, is filling as you read this, to levels not seen in well over 50 years, because the Eastern States arid areas got thoroughly flooded with outstanding rainfalls during the past 3 months (it’s called the “Wet Season” … it happens every summer … it’s due to heat that increases occurrences of low pressure systems, over water and over land … in short, increased heat roughly equates to increased rainfall … and a healthier environment … darn it), so we’re good for water at present. Cancel the emergency.
What we need though are more dams, but the eco-nitwits think plants, animals and of course humans should not have such water, as it would be really bad for the ‘environment’. Weird argument, huh?
And where shall we or rather you go? I have some unsavory suggestions, but I’ll give you a hint: If you put build say 40 major dams in outback Australia, you may eventually realize humans can make the Australia environment considerably better then it has been for at least 5 million years.
And thereby sate your feigned shallow worries.
Nice concern-troll though, “Tom Foley”.
Yes, I was a bit naughty at spelling out the cost of the Broken Hill pipe-line. I could have gone into more detail: how there is already a pipeline from the Murray half-way to Broken Hill (to the Anabranch), and when it was built in 2004, locals suggested that it be extended all the way; and how there is already a pipeline from Menindee on the Darling to Broken Hill, and how locals suggested that the new pipeline could run up to Menindee and connect with that one, so providing water to Menindee, Pooncarie, and farms along the way.
But the point I was making was that warmth doesn’t bring prosperity without water, and we are already piping our limited water to hot dry places.
Now when you attack someone, it’s a good idea to get your facts right.
Lake Eyre has flooded (since 1885), in 1886–1887, 1889–1890, 1916–1917, 1950, 1955, 1974–1977 and 1999–2001, with the highest flood of 6 m (20 ft) in 1974. We have yet to see how high the 2019 flood will get (I can’t find a current height); the water flow down the rivers has been the fastest, reflecting the intense rainfall in northern Qld, but how long will it last? There’s not much in the way of agriculture around lake Eyre – water doesn’t get they often enough, and gets too salty when it does.
The Eastern States arid areas – are unfortunately still arid. In Mildura, there was 8.8mm ( a tenth of the average), in the first four months, then two downpours in May so far totalling 43.8mm. That’s not enough to break the drought, and anyway it’s very patchy- I live 30k away and here we got half of that.
By the way, we don’t get a ‘wet season’ in inland western NSW/NW Vic/ SA – our good rain (regular, soaking) tends to be in winter, if La Nina is around, and it’s spread out – it can rain, or not rain, at any time. There can be occasional heavy short downpours (like 150mm in an hour or so) in some summers if northern cyclonic depressions get dragged south, but they usually cause lots of damage and evaporate fast. The summer wet season is restricted to northern Australia, and it’s rain up there (ie about 2000km away from me on the dry lower Darling) that is flowing down into Lake Eyre. That’s a separate catchment – it actually has to rain in southern Qld and northern NSW to get water into the Darling. Yes, there has been some good recent rain there in the last couple of weeks, but not enough yet to help the river, And it has to rain a lot more right on us in western NSW to break the drought and get the grass to grow again.
40 major dams in outback Australia? Right. Where will the water come from? Pipelines from the north? Right. The cost-benefit analysis doesn’t hold up. It may be worth spending half a billion on a 270km pipe to Broken Hill because of the value of the minerals, but thousands of kilometres of pipelines to numbers of dams – for sheep? Wool’s not worth that much these days. Cattle maybe, but why not move them to where the water is? I’m not sure where you get an argument that water is bad for the environment, well, maybe if you move a lot of water from one place to another the first is going to have less water and may be worse off? I think the issue of more dams is just basic economics.
Five million years ago, I would be sitting on the shores of a marine ocean, enjoying the sea breeze. I doubt that human ingenuity could make this spot as good as it was then.
And finally, I’m not a troll. I’m not personally worried or feigning worries, I’m old and won’t be around all that long – so I don’t need to worry about where to go. I was just challenging Plimer’s statement that we can move if it gets too hot. It was rhetoric – where can we all move to? I don’t think inland Australia will be a prime destination – after all no-one much wants to live here now – most of us are clinging to the edge of the continent.
maybe one of those “drowning” islands. 😉
Who said anybody had to stay in one particular continent?
Of course no-one has to stay in one particular continent. Humans never have. Africans led the way millenia ago, peopling the world. Asians moved into the Pacific 3000 years ago. Eurasians from steppes moved en masse into western Europe around 500AD. Their descendants, modern Europeans, moved to the Americas, southern Africa, Australia and New Zealand in the last 500 years.
Today’s movements continue this human trait: South Americans are moving to North America, Africans, Syrians and others from the Middle East are moving to Europe. Some countries, notably Australia, find it easier (at the moment) to block this because of their distance from the main sources.
Such migration will continue, fuelled by overpopulation, drought, hunger and war, and by the lure of a better life. If warming contributes, it will just acerbate a genetic human predisposition. Still, there are so many of us now, the question will always be: where to?
wools worth a LOT nowdays! even the lowgrade used to be carpet wools are selling for 10 a kilo or more now.
and why the hell arent they using artesian water for broken hill?????
birdsville does ok doing that…minor detail is the cold water;-/ coming up is Hotter than the HWS in homes produces;-)
some of that reverse heat sink tech could prob sort that out to generate power?
Broken Hill lies outside the Great Artesian Basin. The geology is very old, about 16-1700 million years; it is part of a craton, the oldest most stable part of a continental plate, mostly crystalline rocks – no water there, just lots of minerals. There are some small areas of much younger limestone, sedimentary rocks which do hold water. Water pumped from these was essential to mining in the early days of mining, before 1900, and there had been some recent extraction. But there is just not enough water there.
There’s a great book on the history of the Broken Hill water supply: Water Carts to Pipelines, 1968, Bobbi Hardy. It relates the stories of Aboriginal rainmakers, the man who offered to make it rain by shooting cannon into the air, for a fee. The locals rejected this, but he went ahead anyway, and when it rained three weeks later, they did pay up. Then there was the miners protest in the late 1880s drought, when they strung up and burnt a firework filled effigy of the Minister for Mines because he would not let the townspeople access a water tank designated for a mine. The local newspaper wrote: it was the most brilliant public display the Minister has ever made.
As for wool, the current high price is due to very low supply. The prediction is that this year’s clip will be the lowest since 1924. Comparable past prices in today’s dollars are 1951: $70, 1973: $54, 1988: $34, 2018: $20.
(I lived in Broken Hill for a while).
You do understand it is mainly night time temperatures?
What does that actually mean? Do you have any numbers?
Try every study done on the subject.
Heck, even the models got this one right.
What is mainly night time temperature?
Your the self declared expert, and you don’t know this one?
The current warming is what Lee is talking about out of thin air. The rising trend is caused by warmer night time temperatures. The really warm Pacific has been putting more moisture in the air causing lower day time temperatures and warmer night time temperatures around the globe. The increased snow and rainfall over major parts of land masses has caused cooler temps, but not enough to entirely compensate for the warmer nights. Joe Bastardi at Weather Bell has talked about this off and on over the last few years.
Quote: ” Species thrive in tropical forests, not so much in waterless deserts, which are hotter. ”
All presumption on your part. Warming generally increases activity and growth the world over.
Deserts are hot regardless of any 1C increase over 100 years. That makes zero difference to the denizens that live there. And most every desert does have life in it, always has, always will.
A 1 degree increase is the average for the globe. That means it can be a lot more than 1 degree in some places. The effect depends on geographic location, coast or inland, equatorial or polar, altitude; and depends on seasonal change, day v night temperatures, and so on. A small increase can have a big effect if it coincides with less water, a large increase may have less effect if it rains more. So I stand by my comment, warming will not increase plant and animal activity in arid areas if there is less water.
I have always had trouble with the way the complexity of climate change (now and in the past) has been oversimplified into a single degree figure for the world – whether plus or minus.
>>A 1 degree increase is the average for the globe.<<
Oh for God's sake Tom. It was warmer than it is now during the MWP. There was no mass migration from Northern Africa (arid) then and there won't be this time. As for the projected 0.5 degree further rise, It's highly unlikely that it will happen – all things (besides co2) being equal. The average global temp has not increased for 2 decades.
I think you are responding to the wrong comment. In the one above I was talking about the the different impact of temperature increase depending on location and geography.
But regarding the MWP, this appears to have been localised to parts of the northern hemisphere – Europe, the Arctic. Elsewhere it seems to have been cool and dry in some places (Africa) or cool and wet (Australia). Certainly more data is needed for the southern hemisphere.
As for migration from Africa, recent droughts and resulting hunger have led to major population movements within Africa, which have acerbated wars there (yes, high population growth is a factor). This has had a knock-on migration out of Africa; about a million sub-Saharan Africans went to Europe between 2010-2017. There were 180,000 in 2017, and a drop to 134,000 in 2018. Spain, Italy and Greece carry the brunt of this. How much warming, aggravating drought, is involved is certainly debatable, but there’s no doubt that mass illegal migration from Africa to Europe has increased in the last decade.
African migration to the US, presumably legal, went from 80,000 in 1970 to 2 million in 2015.
The lie that the MWP was localized to Europe is refuted by hundreds of studies finding it all over the world.
???
An Average is an Average. Yes, if the Average is 1 degree, then you can have places or times when it is several degrees. But those have to be balanced by OTHER places and times where it is much less then a degree, maybe even 0.
And we already know from both climate Models and actual past measurements and proxies that what you get is that most of the warming happens at night, in winter, and closer to the poles, while little happen during the day, in summer, and closer to the equator.
In other words, the Cold gets warmer, the Hot stays the same.
~¿~
Why is this model right and CO2 models wrong? I thought we didn’t trust models?
Where I live it is getting hotter during the summer, day and night, and the hot weather is starting earlier and staying longer (like 40+ on the October long weekend, and in early May – cf. the extending bushfire seasons), but staying as cold or colder, day and night in winter. But them I’m half way between the south pole and the equator.
Tom, you really shouldn’t work so hard to embarrass yourself.
The models mentioned by Schitzree are climate models. So they are the same models that you are using.
As I understand it; it’s the night time temperatures and cold climates which are warming, upping the world average. Hot areas and day time temperatures aren’t getting hotter.
This is the most recent I can find on night temperatures warming: https://skepticalscience.com/human_fingerprint_warmer_nights.shtml.
The research quoted is 2006, that’s 13 years ago, do you know of anything more recent?
Note that while this data does indicate that cold nights are decreasing, and warm nights increasing, the days are changing too – fewer cold days and more warm days. It’s just that the nights are changing more. The hot is not staying the same.
“If an increased greenhouse effect was causing warming, we would expect nights to warm faster than days. This is because the greenhouse effect operates day and night. Conversely, if global warming was caused by the sun, we would expect the warming trend to be greatest in daytime temperatures. What we observe is a decrease in cold nights greater than the decrease in cold days, and an increase in warm nights greater than the increase in warm days (Alexander 2006). This is consistent with greenhouse warming.”
With regard to my earlier comment about colder nights in winter where I live, I will check the data, but I think the answer may be that here we’ve been in drought for most of the last 15 years, so we get more clear nights in winter, which is usually the rainier/cloudier time. Some winters we have had almost no rain at all, and clear skies day and night for months. Cloudless skies give colder nights.
No, I remember an article on WUWT about two, possibly three years ago that covered the topic pretty well. I’ve seen nothing since. No idea what the title might be to search for it.
But SKS has said as much as well. Perhaps not as I stated it, but rather more warming at night than daytime.
At the end of the day, we’ve had an average increase of 1C over the last 100 years. I don’t count that significant at all. I know the Australian desert reaches over 50C in the day. I don’t believe for a second that 51C is going to make any difference to life out there.
It also means that it can be a lot less in some places.
It really is typical of you acolytes to assume that the worst case scenario is the one that must happen.
MarkW. In answer to your two emails.
“So they are the same models that you are using.” If you look at my posts, I don’t mention any models. I don’t ‘use’ any models. I have a problem with models, as with the generalisation of a single figure of temperature for the whole globe (regardless of whether it is claimed to be rising or not). I have been just providing information on topics that I know something about. I didn’t know of the night temperature issue, so I went and looked it up. I note that the 2006 paper on night:day temperatures was reporting data, not the results of modelling.
I don’t assume the worse case scenario. But I wish we didn’t end up arguing from two extremes: the world is going to end v. the deserts will become verdant pastures and forests. No, CO2 won’t make the world won’t end in 12 years, and no, it won’t make the deserts bloom, without more water.
More CO2 means plants don’t need as much water.
How much more sweating is half a degree C going to cause anyway?
BTW, none of the migrations you mention are caused by climate. They are all caused by incompetent socialist governments.
Well said. Shorten vs Morrison is indeed like Gore vs Gore-lite.
I’m voting for the United Australia Party to give the Libs a message.
Before you vote United Australia be aware Clive Palmer appeared on stage with Al Gore, sucking up to Gore’s green agenda. Palmer seems happy to keep green taxes if he thinks it will win him more votes.
Palmer was against the Carbon *sic* tax, until Gore made a personal trip to Australia just to see him in private. As soon as that meeting concluded, Palmer was all for a Carbon Tax.
What changed chameleon?
His income, most likely.
“Palmer was against the Carbon *sic* tax”
Carbon [sic] Tax ! I like it! I’m going to use it. 🙂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic
“The Latin adverb sic (“thus”, “just as”; in full: sic erat scriptum, “thus was it written”)[1] inserted after a quoted word or passage indicates that the quoted matter has been transcribed or translated exactly as found in the source text, complete with any erroneous, archaic, or otherwise nonstandard spelling. It also applies to any surprising assertion, faulty reasoning, or other matter that might be likely interpreted as an error of transcription.”
end excerpt
Since a Carbon Tax is really a tax on Carbon Dioxide, calling it a Carbon Tax needs to be designated as erroneous and an error of transcription by applying [sic]. :).
Good move, neither majors are better than Palmer.
Both full of corruption and poor planning for long-suffering taxpayers.
Apart from that, Palmer is an opportunist particularly in relation to the corrupt Gore & Co.
Clive Palmer is spending about $60 million on election advertising. He defaulted on debts he had to employees and the taxpayer paid them $67 million under the fair entitlement system for workers of bankrupt companies.
So the taxpayers are effectively paying for Palmer’s election ads. Just who is corrupt?
Funny how corruption is only bad when it’s the other guys politicians who are corrupt.
I’ve heard differently. I can’t validate the figures though. He owed the Nickle miners $200 million in wages but refused to pay. He was taken to court over that but I have no idea what the outcome was.
I heard on the radio that he’s spent $300 million on advertising for his political party. It could also be true that some or most of this was donation, or reimbursable from the government.
Either way, the people up around Mackey region aren’t favorable toward him, that’s for sure.
He has offered to pay some up – IF he wins. It is also not clear whether that includes funds the Government has paid out in workers’ entitlements.
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and her comments about a world disaster if things are not done to arrest climate change has recently suggested her comments where made in jest.
In Australia, if Labor wins government, their policies will be adjusted by Labor’s association with the Greens Party who want even greater changes to eliminate CO2. Disaster it will be for the Australian economy.
And comments like these from Plimer will be censored from the media, if the Greens have their way
“If he is knowingly promoting a falsehood, he is unelectable.”
That’s a giggle. I can’t recall an elected politician who didn’t, at some time or another (and mostly all the time), knowingly promote falsehoods.
On Saturday I’ll be scanning the ballot paper for the “hang the lot of them” option.
Vote [1] for “hang the lot of them”.
Beat me to it. Well said!
I get more cynical every year.
If Australia wants to surrender itself to the Cult of Calamitous Climate,I am all for it.
It is amazing to watch mass hysteria in action.
It seems we are instinctively herd beasts,for we sure are easily led.
The DOOM BY CARBON DIOXIDE meme is astounding, you have to willfully know so little of human history and science, that you can accept Doom by plantfood.
The political movement to demonize an essential nutrient defies all logic,reason and uncommon sense.The current panic amongst Gang Green is glorious to watch.
Buy more popcorn.
Shorten is perfect ,when asked the cost of his emissions plan he attacks the questioner with madness.
If Australia cannot be bothered to deal with the fools and bandits “leading ” the country..I guess you are going to wind up like Canada.
You too can elect a Petulant Pipsqueak as supreme leader.
Be of good cheer, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is an intelligence test.
It doesn’t matter who you vote for, a politician gets elected, then the PM runs off to Washington to get orders, just like Canada, UK, EU, etc.
It really is fascinating the number of numbies who are absolutely convinced that the US runs the world.
“It is amazing to watch mass hysteria in action.”
That’s definitely what we are seeing. The unknown is how big is the “mass”?
Out of curiosity, given life is finite how does politically “saving the world” within only 12 years via massive spending and elimination of all private business and capital investments address this fundamental inconsistency?
Or does being “saved”, in this context, merely refer to a more nebulous and metaphysical religious definition of the word “saved”, and not to being actually physically saved, as such? Are we still going to be assuredly doomed no matter how much money is being gouged out of our soon to be repossessed wallets, to pay for our imaginary UN indulgences?
7.7 billion people would like some feedback.
You’re talking about cause and effect. Something that cannot be answered by those who promote it. It’s the old “you have to sign the bill to see what’s in it” strategy.
Except that this one isn’t a strategy; it’s lack of critical thinking, lack of understanding, lack of history, lack of common sense.
Interesting ! Question; looking at the political World today, year 2019, is there anywhere any politician worth voting for?
Brgds from Sweden
//TJ
This is not rocket science, Shortens deputy (Tanya Pliberserk or something) has no idea how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. If you dont know that then how do you know if your policy will create nicer weather as intended?
The truth it does not matter because its not about creating nicer weather its about creating a level of command and control over the populace. Lazy ass Australians will figure that out soon enough but will be too lazy to do anything about it?
“crakar24 May 15, 2019 at 8:59 pm
This is not rocket science, Shortens deputy (Tanya Pliberserk or something) has no idea how much CO2 is in the atmosphere.”
Quoting the actual measured concentration in comments on articles here in Australia about “carbon pollution” confuses people. Most people can’t grasp what ~410ppm/v is. They understand statements like “gigatonnes” of “carbon pollution”, and they get scared. Even using the rice analogy, out of 1 million grains of rice to represent the atmosphere, 4 of them are CO2, and has risen 1 from 3 to 4 in 150 years doesn’t get through. Many people believe there should be ZERO CO2 in the atmosphere (Well at 410ppm/v we’re not far off).
Should it not be 400 grains of rice?
That’s total CO2, the 3 – 4 grain gain is the human contribution. But yeah, I wasn’t as clear as I should have been.
The sad reality is Climate Change is, it has nothing to do with science. It is, everything to do with politics and the need for the left wing of the political divide, to find a stick to beat the electorate with.
I’m embarrassed having to watch Brian Cox make a political fool of himself while trashing his scientific principles, which he did on the Australian QA program.
If the models, which are so often embraced by the Climate Alarmists as evidence of impending catastrophe, were anywhere near correct, plus, if the modellers were allowed to include agents of climate change beyond the anthropogenic drivers they have been told to model, we might take their constantly flawed projections/potentials more seriously.
How many people have to die at the alter of the false idol “Man Made Climate Change” before the sensible thinkers on the planet realise, throwing virgins into volcanoes does not help control volcanoes?.
Cory Bernardi was a rare LNP member who could not stand by and watch Turnbull enrich himself and his family at the expense of the Australian economy.
Think of the Australian Conservatives when you are casting your senate vote.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=408571883223314
Yep. I did
I intend to.
I’m a founding member.
The sun undoubtedly drives climate change and will have been a driver in all the historical climate events cited above.
But why does that mean there cannot be a new, additional driver of climate from human CO2?
It does not follow that previous climate drivers are necessarily the only or inevitable drivers of climate.
Lord Monckton estimated CO2 forcing at around 1.5K / doubling of CO2. From memory Plimer is in the CO2 makes very little contribution set, but he doesn’t put it at zero.
I doubt many people here think CO2 makes zero contribution Griff.
Because the physics of CO2 do not allow it. Each doubling has a logarithmic effect with a very slight effect the first time and then virtually nothing thereafter.
Right you are.
Tens of millions of years ago when the first (1st) CO2 molecule entered the atmosphere it created an immense “HOT SPOT” of global warming ……. which “jump-started” climate change hereon the earth.
And then when the second (2nd) CO2 molecule entered the atmosphere it was limited to creating an immensely reduced or “1/2 HOT SPOT” of global warming ……. because the doubling of the CO2 molecules has a DECREASING logarithmic effect on their “warming” abilities and thus after billions n’ billions of CO2 molecules have entered the atmosphere …… there is virtually no CO2 caused AGW occurring anywhere within earth’s atmosphere.
The aforesaid “logarithmic effect” has reduced the “warming effect” of atmospheric CO2 to ZERO, NADA, NIL, NONE.
“But why does that mean there cannot be a new, additional driver of climate from human CO2?”
Because warming caused by the radiative effects of CO2, whether natural or anthropogenic, has never been observed or measured which means there is no experimental evidence to support the AGW hypothesis.
Junk science tends to work that way.
Modtran http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/modtran.html allows you to calculate the difference in energy reaching the surface due to a change in atmospheric content, say for example a doubling of CO2.
By putting the height above ground as zero and looking up 1.66Wm-2 for a change in CO2 from 280ppm to 400 ppm for the standard US atmosphere with no clouds or rain; this equates to a increase in equilibrium temperature of 0.44C using the Stefan Boltzmann equation.
Now increasing CO2 from 400ppm to 800ppm gives 3.3Wm-2 difference in IR hitting the surface or a 0.88 C temperature increase.
Just checking the above with MODTRAN and shifting from the CO2 concentration from 280 ppm to 800ppm gives 4.96Wm-2 difference or a 1.32 C temperature shift which is the same as adding the 0.44C and 0.88C above.
So if there are no positive feedbacks from water vapour the highest temperature increase you can expect when we get to 800ppm is a 1.32C rise in temperature. If the “Iris Earth” theory of Prof Lindzen is correct then the extra water vapour turns into clouds and introduces a negative feedback by reducing the amount of sunlight hitting the ground so the effect of CO2 doubling might be zero.
As the levels of CO2 have been much higher in the past and life wasn’t burnt to a crisp then I guess there’s no positive feedback.
Until you can prove that the whatever drove the previous warm spells is not causing the recent one, you can’t assume that the recent one must have been caused by CO2.
There is at least one article a day on BBC news and SKY news about some detrimental, weird aspect of man-made global warming and climate change with no redress to its authenticity, i.e. Sceptics Stay Away!
This didn’t happen until recently and started about the same time BBC radio was censured for allowing Nigel Lawson to dispute climate alarmist warnings.
I think the last sceptic to appear on BBC television was Piers Corbyn on The Big Questions in 2016 where his first class honours in physics from Imperial College was pitted against the vast knowledge of science from a member of the Green Party and a member of Friends of the Earth.
Of course, the host, Nicky Campbell, heavily sided with the climate alarmists with his mocking, pitying tone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooq_ZCmSIcY
Will voters be convinced by such propaganda or will it be a turn-off for some? Who knows?
Ian has misjudged One Nation and Malcolm Roberts as being a friend to our cause , One Nation on Malcom Roberts recommendation were the deciding votes on a bill to place draconian emission limits on weed wackers, chainsaws and lawn mowers .
Seems they were assured there was no mention of CO2 and climate change in the wording (or so they said afterwards) but didn’t even bother to read the bill .
From memory it was on page one or two .
Australian Conservative Party or ACP are the only party that seem to be switched on to the CAGW scam and have been stable and coherent .
Bill Shorten probably missed the biology classes at his private school, preferring to study “The Communist Manifesto” and “Mein Kampf” before going to his local Students Union meeting.
Even if you were to take 100% of the output of the various battery manufacturers and devote them to battery back up for the grid, you couldn’t build them fast enough.
Long before you had installed enough batter power to last for even a day, the oldest batteries would have reached the end of their useful life and all new construction would just be to replace what is wearing out. No new capacity.
That also doesn’t leave even a single battery for the magical electric cars.
Tony, the biggest battery being worth 14 seconds on the grid. Brett Keane