The Conversation: “Sorry to disappoint climate deniers, but coronavirus makes the low-carbon transition more urgent”

Failed Aussie Conservative Leader John Hewson. By Australian National University (ANU TV) –, CC BY 3.0, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Failed Aussie Conservative Leader and ANU “Tax and Transfer Policy Chair” Professor John Hewson thinks Coronavirus “plusses” such as the noteworthy setting aside of civil liberties offers an opportunity for ramming through climate policies.

Sorry to disappoint climate deniers, but coronavirus makes the low-carbon transition more urgent

April 6, 2020 6.04am AEST

Climate deniers have been hanging out for the United Nations’ next big summit to fail. In a sense, the coronavirus and its induced policy responses have more than satisfied their wildest dreams, precipitating a global recession that they no doubt hope has pushed the issue of the low-carbon transition well down the political and policy agenda.

The next round of international climate negotiations – the so-called COP26 in Scotland – has been delayed until 2021. Presumably, climate sceptics hope governments and policy authorities will now be consumed by, in the words of our prime minister, the need to “cushion” the impact of the recession and ensure “a bounce back on the other side”.

Deniers argue that further disruption to economies and societies will be avoided at all costs. 

Sorry to be the harbinger of denier disappointment, but there is every reason to expect that the virus crisis will strengthen and accelerate the imperative to transition to a low-carbon world by mid-century.

As Christiana Figueres, former executive secretary of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, states in her recent book:

“We are in the critical decade. It is no exaggeration to say that what we do regarding emissions reductions between now and 2030 will determine the quality of human life on this planet for hundreds of years to come, if not more.”

There are a few “pluses” from the experience of coronavirus. Emissions are falling (although clearly no one would advocate a global recession as a climate strategy). And the response of governments to the crisis has seen decisive domestic action – working individually, but together, in meeting what is a global challenge.

Individual governments have demonstrated how quickly they can move once they accept the reality of a crisis. We’ve also seen just how far they’re prepared to go in terms of policy responses – lockdowns, social distancing, testing, rapid and historically significant fiscal expansions, and massive liquidity injections.

It’s noteworthy that issues that in “normal times” could not have been ignored – such as civil liberties and concerns about intrusive governments and effective competition – have so easily been set aside as part of emergency responses.

Read more:

John, what is missing from your glorious climate action revolution is large scale buy-in.

Most people in Australia and elsewhere have accepted the Coronavirus lockdown because there is solid evidence that Coronavirus is a problem. Horror news videos coming from New York, Iran, Italy, Spain and Britain have sent a powerful message which most people have accepted, that it is worth some serious inconvenience to avoid joining those poor dying people gasping for breath in overcrowded hospitals.

There is no solid evidence climate change is a problem. The only “evidence” climate activists have presented for their economic lockdown is a bunch of fear mongering UN elitists whom nobody likes, a 17 year old puppet with serious psychological issues, and a bunch of jet setting professors who keep having to revise their calculations when all the bad things they predict fail to happen.

Until you and your friends can present genuine evidence climate change is a problem, nobody in their right mind is going to accept a climate change lockdown, or anything remotely resembling the kinds of economic cuts failed politicians like you want to inflict on the people you once aspired to lead.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 6, 2020 6:07 pm


Reply to  dai davies
April 6, 2020 6:57 pm

Sorry to disappoint real crisis deniers like you John but since we now live under a threat of biowarfare attack from communist China we don’t really give a shite about your hypothetical future centuries of slightly warmer winters.

We now have a new boogie man to keep up awake at night and the golden age of climate scam funding is over. No more money left.

So Sorry.

Reply to  Greg
April 6, 2020 7:24 pm

What kind of communist country allows private ownership of the means of production?

China has a fascist economy.

Reply to  Observer
April 6, 2020 8:38 pm

China has a hybrid economy with a left of center political structure.

Mark A Luhman
Reply to  n.n
April 6, 2020 9:10 pm

Left of center, far left of center, the kind our elites would love, since the CCP does give a rat A$$ how many people it has to kill to keep control. Or how much they have to lie about a troubling virus that they cannot control. Our elites and Europe do except they are almost their. Elite answer to voters, no way on God green earth if they get their way, it irreverent they are a bunch of stupid people that won’t know which way north is if you ask them. They have a hard enough time with up and down.

Reply to  n.n
April 7, 2020 6:04 am

National Socialism?

Reply to  Observer
April 6, 2020 11:32 pm

Observer, I see where you are going with that, and I concur … on the basis of the original fundamental definitions.

What is more important is this: fascism and communism are the same thing, at the fundamental root. They both pivot on coercive control of “the means of production.”

The means of production: the minds, volition, autonomy, and productivity of free human beings. When these are “controlled” by the force-wielding authority, it is of little consequence if they are stamped “fascist” or “communist.”

Both are murder.

Doug danhoff
Reply to  windlord-sun
April 8, 2020 1:17 pm

They have historically led to genocide in most cases, and have never succeeded over time

john harmsworth
Reply to  Observer
April 7, 2020 7:40 am

Fascism is exactly what it is. The “Communism” is just a facade they use so they can pretend to be “for the worker”. it is just a centralized economy that uses private ownership and management to optimize the economy. This still doesn’t work properly because it is so corrupt. It is very similar to Nazi Germany’s operating structure.

Reply to  john harmsworth
April 7, 2020 9:46 am


Additionally, the United States is becoming more like that form of fascism, since the appearance of private property is high, but control by authority is increasing.

Ayn Rand has the most powerful insight into penetrating into the base to discover that these “forms” of government, fascism and communism, are the same at the root.

She identifies that they are ‘collectivism.’

Loren Wilson
Reply to  Observer
April 7, 2020 10:02 am

Not fascist – more like socialist. They both allow private ownership of production but control it from the top. Both are just different brands of the same idea, but Fascist governments are differentiated by having a charismatic leader. Italy’s Mussolini is the prototype. Hitler, although less charismatic, was able to talk his people into killing about five million of their neighbors. China does not have a charismatic leader, nor does North Korea. Fear does not charisma make.

The Expulsive
Reply to  Observer
April 7, 2020 11:20 am

Fascist government is the correct moniker for the (so called) Peoples Republic. Most of the fawning “roaders” are also fascists at heart, especially those who wish to undermine what it took centuries to build with respect to a liberal democracy and the rule of law.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Observer
April 7, 2020 3:02 pm

China has an artificial dependent economy. See them fall back into near collapse after Trump burst the bubble made up of US companies bringing technology, investment, modern manufacturing, education on scales they had no idea existed, and a ready made giant market. And then Europe copied this. No inventing a superior mousetrap in the Middle Kingdom. That isn’t what they do. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese are in America studying and stealing American ingenuity, not drawing from their own dry well.

China is coming to heel and accepting a more realistic trade deal with Trump or they know they are headed back into the 19th Century smoke and misery.

All the wonderment and adulation at the “Chinese Miracle” and the encouragement of the gray-faced 19th Century néomarxists in Europe and the American left to replicate this first ever socialist utopia globally, is delusional. All they’ve really seen is that America is orders of magnitude greater and more productive than they even thought.

For those not in the wokeheit delusion, they are witnessing the beginning of the end of their climate enabled dreams. If America doesn’t go along, it ain’t going to happen.

Reply to  Observer
April 7, 2020 6:19 pm

good point.
the transition from communism to capitalism is complicated by the management of the transition by the communist party and the Peoples Bank of China. This strange situation creates many weird contradictions. For example, the branch of the government that owns the major airlines is also the air transport regulator and the branch of the government that owns and operates the stock exchanges is also the stock market regulator.

Reply to  Greg
April 6, 2020 8:46 pm

Jerry Brown’s never-ending CA drought is still on pause. Despite a snowless February and claims that the rain and snow could NEVER catch up in March and April … we just got as much as 4ft dumped in the Sierra from a two-day Storm here over the weekend. (And it’s still snowing).

The “climate experts” are WRONG so many times … and their outlandishly flawed models simply NEVER replicate reality. And I’m being called the “denier”? Sorry. Get back to me when you demonstrate your slightest understanding of climate … let alone seasonal variability of weather. Just two days ago the Global Warmist embeds in our local Channel 2 weather Dept. were crying about the snow Survey which revealed we were only at 52% for the central Sierra annual average (huh? But our reservoirs are all FULL) . Well … after this ONE storm the (compacted) snowfall is now at 80+%. Don’t these Global Warming shills EVER learn from their FAILED predictions and FAKE prognostications?

And How is it possible that Jerry Brown’s family first arrived in CA in 1852 … yet Jerry conveniently IGNORES nearly 200 years of direct family experience with seasonal variability of CA weather and snowfall, and recurring droughts … and instead puts his trust in FAILED computer models which consistently predict ONLY doom and gloom and the evils of fossil fuels? This so-called professor john-hewson can piss off . He’s an ignoramus too.

We “Deniers” understand climate … and understand ChiCom-19 … farrrr better than the self-anointed intellectual elite. Their graphs are crap, because their data is crap. They’re all shitting a golden Twinkie … about DYING from the ChiCom-19 while we are calmly analyzing the REAL data … not the hysterical hyper hysteric “projections” inscribed in MASSIVE RED LETTERS on the now-malignant Drudge Report. Sheesh. “Professors” like this doosh are worthless humans, wasting space and the efforts of civilized men.

Mark A Luhman
Reply to  Kenji
April 6, 2020 9:14 pm

I am keep being reminded that Arizona is in a drought, even though the Palmer drought index says otherwise and surprise surprise, this year all the Salt River dams are filled to capacity. Funny last I heard from the media we were still in a drought.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Mark A Luhman
April 7, 2020 2:06 am

And Cape Town, that was told they would run out of water two years ago, is going into a third winter (also a Mediterranean climate) with the average dam levels at close to 60%. Where could all this water have miraculously come from?

Reply to  dai davies
April 7, 2020 7:25 am

I think the operative word here is “failed.”

April 6, 2020 6:09 pm

“the imperative to transition to a low-carbon world by mid-century”

Sorry, sir but it isn’t a “low carbon” world that we need to avoid the climate holocaust that deniers deny. What we need is a zero carbon world. Duh!

Jamie Moodie
April 6, 2020 6:09 pm

what utter nonsense this failed liberal elite waste of oxygen has to say. Unfounded rubbish all to belong to the elite gaggle of charlatans espousing the end is nigh. Grow up

Reply to  Jamie Moodie
April 7, 2020 12:23 pm

Christiana Figueres: “It is no exaggeration to say that what we do regarding emissions reductions between now and 2030 will determine the quality of human life on this planet for hundreds of years to come, if not more.”

In a way she’s actually right. If we do nothing to the climate human life will improve immensely for hundreds of years! The world has been on an economic boom for years and all the increased wealth, despite a rapidly growing popultation, oligarchs, stock shufflers, bank dynasties, wealthy billionaires, and hundreds of useless bureaucrats making bad regulations the world population is much healthier and wealthier down to the average individual.

April 6, 2020 6:10 pm

“We’ve also seen just how far they’re prepared to go in terms of policy responses – lockdowns, social distancing, testing, rapid and historically significant fiscal expansions, and massive liquidity injections.”

There is a petition in France against the lock down:

Reply to  niceguy
April 6, 2020 7:01 pm

merci !

Reply to  niceguy
April 7, 2020 3:23 am

‘fiscal expansions, and massive liquidity injections’

Which will kill savings and render the coin worthless. If ZImbabwe dollars were the solution why work?

Reply to  niceguy
April 7, 2020 3:25 am

Maybe time for a revolution when we run out of cake.

Michael Jankowski
April 6, 2020 6:24 pm

The policy responses are temporary and in an attempt to mitigate a short-term issue. How stupid are these people acting like this can be done on a long-term scale, let alone permanent?

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
April 6, 2020 7:21 pm

How stupid ….?

To paraphrase that great philosopher Buzz Lightyear “to infinity and beyond”.

April 6, 2020 6:27 pm

Of course, in Australia, a Liberal politician is supposedly a centre right conservative, i.e. liberal in the classical sense with a belief in civil liberties and economic freedom. Hewson’s current views are the very opposite of what a true liberal believes.

Reply to  DocBud
April 6, 2020 8:29 pm

John Hewson has always been confused.
About everything.
Especially if he wants to be a “progressive” or a “conservative”
Which basically makes him a “useful idiot”

April 6, 2020 6:32 pm

John Hewson was the greatest moron to ever lead the Liberal Party and he has not changed his spots. He is still a pious failed politician bent on self-aggrandisement. What is missing from his argument is even a vestige of proof that there is a real climate problem. People can clearly see the Covid-19 is a problem and are taking immediate steps to stop it. There is solid evidence that Coronavirus is dangerous. There is no evidence at all that any global warming or climate change is a problem. Warmistas rely entirely on falsified ‘adjusted’ temperature records, sequestration of any weather disaster and fear-mongering predictions that never eventuate, Their top effort was presenting a teenage sock-puppet with serious mental issues as a climate guru. People will only accept economic hardship or lockdowns when they can see a purpose to it all.

Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
April 6, 2020 6:43 pm

The China virus is dangerous, like many other infections. There is no evidence that WHO is correct about the danger.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  niceguy
April 6, 2020 7:00 pm

The WHO apparently has been burning media bandwidth to do live crosses to Lady Gaga, so there is no evidence the WHO are even taking this seriously.

Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
April 6, 2020 7:10 pm

Drop the “serious mental issues ” , it is greatly exaggerated, spiteful and does not advance your augment one jot. It means most reasonable minded folks will write you off as a hateful bigot and ignore the rest of your otherwise valid points.

The same goes for Eric Worral. It’s bad enough to see that sort of thing in comments but I’m surprised Anthony Watts allows this sort thing in articles posted on WUWT. It really does a disservice to the credibility of the site.

Reply to  Greg
April 6, 2020 7:27 pm

Greg, I know and have interacted with a guy with Asperger’s Syndrome. I can safely say from observations, that this has completely wrecked his life as a normal member of society. You may have been lucky to avoid having such people in your life, so don’t make light of it.

Reply to  philincalifornia
April 6, 2020 8:39 pm

I too have encountered a few students with Asperger’s in my university teaching career. Some made it part-way through their Sophomore year; none every graduated. For various reasons, their inability to properly process and access complexities – whether social or academic – seriously interfered with their normal integration into society. Those who misuse/abuse Greta to further their climate agenda … well … you fill in the blanks … their reward is unprintable here.

Mark A Luhman
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
April 6, 2020 9:17 pm

Should have to do with a short rope and a long drop after a judgement by a jury. Won’t every happen, we won’t even be able to collect the monetary cost they forced on us over nothing.

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
April 7, 2020 9:12 pm

Why is spell-check turning every “ever” into “every?”

Reply to  Greg
April 6, 2020 9:52 pm

Just because she and her depraved family put her on a pedestal as the world’s climate saviour should not prevent us from calling her out for what she is.
Her recent performances on boats and trains plus claiming to have had CV lend them selves to sensationalist stupidity – akin to a mental issue.
A normal perso/family does not gather around them a gang of thugs as body guards.
Another Hateful Bigot

Reply to  Greg
April 7, 2020 1:01 am

Grow up Greg.

Reply to  Greg
April 7, 2020 4:23 am

Greg, why do you pretend to have serious mental issues ?

You have no credibility.

Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
April 7, 2020 12:52 am

Come on nicholas, stop going easy on the turd. He shares Australian political glory with Bill Shorten (don’t you just love the initials?) as the only two Leaders of the Opposition to lose the “unlosable” election. Earns the label LINO (Liberal in name only). For non-antipodeans, the Liberal Party in Oz is a conservative party.

Reply to  Asterix
April 7, 2020 4:26 am

“the Liberal Party in Oz is a conservative party.”

No, it is a centre left, striving to match the progressive parties in dumbness and “virtue seeking” .

Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
April 7, 2020 3:39 pm

John Hewson, Kevin Rudd, Malcolm Turnbull. All elitist self promoting windbag globalists. Australia has suffered enough and now they want the world to suffer. There should be a law against failed blowhards being allowed to waste the world’s time.

April 6, 2020 6:36 pm

“Individual governments have demonstrated how quickly they can move once they accept the reality of a crisis.”
I see this assertion as proof the governments have not really accepted the climate as a crisis. The author should certainly see this as it is central to his argument.

Christiana Figueres says “It is no exaggeration to say that what we do regarding emissions reductions between now and 2030 will determine the quality of human life on this planet for hundreds of years to come,”
This is likely true- Ignore the emissions lies and strive for abundant,affordable energy and life will continue to improve. Choose the Green new Deal and watch the decline of human civilization.

Reply to  DMA
April 7, 2020 1:15 am

Christiana Figueres says “It is no exaggeration to say that what we do regarding emissions reductions between now and 2030 will determine the quality of human life on this planet for hundreds of years to come,”

She is certainly not wrong. If we continue to squander resources on Climate Change idiocy the future looks bleak indeed.

Reply to  DMA
April 7, 2020 6:12 am

“Choose the Green new Deal and watch the decline of human civilization.”
The problem is that if they ever manage to get a GND rolling, the resulting decline of human civilization will be blamed on the remaining emissions, and new more drastic restrictions will be imposed.

Reply to  DMA
April 7, 2020 7:36 am

I hereby propose a Green New Challenge inviting all good Leftists who fear the “climate crisis” to LEAD BY EXAMPLE! Please immediately decarbonize, 100%. For the Planet! If you believe so very sincerely in suicidal green martyrdom, for Gaia’s sake, man, show us how it’s done! Please post videos for universal adulation of your performative CO2 cessation and subsequent “green” composting. All monetization proceeds to Extinction Rebellion, of course!

J Mac
April 6, 2020 6:36 pm

Oh, those Climate Change fascists! I listen to John Hewson’s words and I hear the cadence of jack-booted Luddites marching in the streets, wannabe dictators preaching environMental Justice and Purity, and eco-ferret block watchers spying and snitching on neighbors for violating the latest carbon neutral diktats.

Richard (the cynical one)
April 6, 2020 6:53 pm

“The only evidence presented . . .” list of hot air proponents you mention has a glaring omission – the dramaddicted Hollywood crowd, with their sad need for the spotlight.

April 6, 2020 6:55 pm

Shame Shame Shame.

Hard to believe that an ex conservative leader in Australia has fallen so far, even quotes the UN, my oh my.

To the contrary of what Hewson says, a low carbon economy is very UNLIKELY to emerge, given the price/availability of oil, and the near bankrupt state of economies around the world. These economies will be looking to establish the least expensive and most reliable base load generation of power to rebuild industry, carbon.

Old Ranga from Oz
April 6, 2020 6:55 pm

Why do you think John Hewson was rejected by the Australian electorate? “My way or the highway” doesn’t go down well with the Quiet Australians, who prefer making up their own minds and resist being told what they must think.

Craig from Oz
April 6, 2020 6:57 pm

Hewson is still publicly active? Colour me surprised.

People still don’t listen to him? Saw that coming.

Also, Eric:

“Most people in Australia and elsewhere have accepted the Coronavirus lockdown because there is solid evidence that Coronavirus is a problem.”

Actually disagree.

People accepted lockdowns not because there was solid evidence, but cause there wasn’t. We BELIEVED Wuhan Virus could leave dead people on every street corner and reacted to the risk, eventually, by closing borders and then closing front doors. People accepted the trade off between not having a job for a while with the reward on not having everyone you know and love gone from their lives.

That was then. Lockdowns were accepted. Past tense.

Now Your Country May Vary, but you deliberately name dropped Australia so let us go there.

So this is now and Australians are either getting their facts from the ABC or they are starting to wonder where all the bodies actually are. Australia is not Italy but despite all the evidence we are constantly reminded that we are where Italy was 2 weeks ago and there will be DEAD EVERYWHERE. Except there isn’t. Why is open to discussion. Possibly we are a statistically healthier and younger population with different population density. Possibly the warmer climate is killing Wuhan bugs a lot quicker than in other parts of the world. Possibly the virus has mutated into a more soy form. Possibly because we don’t have multiple direct flights to Wuhan after agreeing to become a vassal to the Chinese clothing industry.

Wuhan Virus is a harvester, and going by the total deaths in Australia, not even a good one at that. Yes NSW and Victoria have outbreaks but if you look at the graphs for the other states it is difficult to even get meaningful curves the numbers are so small.

People accepted. They will not continue to accept. The youngest death in Australia I could find seems to have been in their 50s, so in practical terms the average Australian has more chance of death from misadventure than being struck down by Wuhan. The people who are having income prevented are increasingly displeased and those fortunate enough to still have an income are dark they are effectively banned from spending any of it (despite the fact that allowing cash into the economy at the moment would be mildly useful).

Yes not being able to spend your own money is a First World Problem, but like the saying goes, “I live in the First World”. If I wanted to live in organic conditions using candles for light and boiling my own bathwater I would vote Greens.

When is it going to end?

April 6, 2020 7:01 pm

Very-scary global warming (aka CAGW aka climate change) alarmism has always been a false crisis, concocted by wolves to stampede the sheep. It is a global-scale scam created by scoundrels and believed in by imbeciles.

The leaders of the global warming movement know they are lying – no rational person could be this stupid for this long.

The evidence that global warming alarmism is a false crisis is overwhelming – the following paper enumerates 25 facts that falsify the CAGW hypothesis – I could have added many more, but as Albert Einstein famously stated “One would be enough”.”

Time for coffee. I leave you to ponder a few quotes from this remarkable man:

“I think 99 times and find nothing. I stop thinking, swim in the silence, and the truth comes to me.”

“Everyone has two choices. We’re either full of love… or full of fear.”

“The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.”

By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc.(Eng.), M.Eng., January 10, 2020

Dennis G. Sandberg
April 6, 2020 10:49 pm

Allan Macrae I wished I’d said this, oh well, I’ll just adopt the expression as my own…kinda like Biden, one plagiarism after another.

“alarmism has always been a false crisis, concocted by wolves to stampede the sheep. It is a global-scale scam created by scoundrels and believed in by imbeciles.
The leaders of the global warming movement know they are lying – no rational person could be this stupid for this long”.

April 7, 2020 3:23 pm

We’re either full of love . . . or full of fear . . . or full of . . . never mind! 😉

April 6, 2020 7:11 pm

The alarmists are scared that will never be able to regain the initiative. And they probably won’t.

Laws of Nature
April 6, 2020 7:15 pm

“It is no exaggeration to say that what we do regarding emissions reductions between now and 2030 will determine the quality of human life on this planet for hundreds of years to come”

Seems wrong!
How long would it take to wind the “CO2 clock” 20years back, if all human emissions would be cut in half (assuming they are the sole reason for the CO2 increase)
The answer can be seen in the first image here:
… it would take about two years to go 20% towards the new equilibrium.
So if needs to be humans can turn the clock backwards very quickly, which leaves plenty of time now to get the science right first!

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Laws of Nature
April 7, 2020 7:21 am

Laws of Nature – April 6, 2020 at 7:15 pm

How long would it take to wind the “CO2 clock” 20years back, if all human emissions would be cut in half (assuming they are the sole reason for the CO2 increase)

Laws of N, …. that was an utterly silly, if not downright stupid question for you to be asking, …. so, …. did you ask it as a result of your ignorance or because you were nurtured to believe the “junk science” of CAGW?

Anyway, Laws of N, given the scientific fact that human emissions of CO2 has extremely little, if any measurable effect whatsoever on the yearly increase in atmospheric CO2, ….. it would take like 1,000 years “to wind the “CO2 clock” 20 years back”.

And Laws of N, …. it is entirely possible that during the next 1,000 years the current Interglacial will commence to end, and if so, atmospheric CO2 will begin decreasing accordingly, …… regardless of what humans do.

Laws of Nature
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
April 7, 2020 8:45 am

“it would take like 1,000 years “to wind the “CO2 clock” 20 years back”
I see, you are repeating the claim from the article (slightly reworded).
What you should have done is visiting my link, which demonstrates that the “IPCC models” use very short time constants for some of the residence time for an atmospheric CO2-surplus.
(that is for the non-equilibrium anthropogenic contribution, not the part due to a possible shift of the equilibrium, but so far that is a rather small amount)

Sam, I doubt your expertise on this topic and would need more than just your words to take you seriously (like a scientific link and such).


Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Laws of Nature
April 8, 2020 10:06 am

Laws of Nature – April 7, 2020 at 8:45 am

Sam, I doubt your expertise on this topic and would need more than just your words to take you seriously (like a scientific link and such).

LoN, … your doubt about my expertise doesn’t surprise me in the least.

Given the fact that most of you posted commentary was directly contrary to the actual, factual, evidence supporting the science, you had no other option but to “doubt my expertise”.

LoN, … I am a scientist. I embarked on a scientific career in 1959 when I started my Freshman year in college …… and graduated 4 years later with an AB Degree in the Biological and Physical Sciences.

Laws, it is obvious from your above post that you ACTUALLY believe that human emissions of CO2 has a direct effect on the quantity of atmospheric CO2. So I ask you, LoN, …… HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE …. when calculated, ….. estimated, …..insinuated ….. or guesstimated CO2 emissions by humans are not reflected in the Mauna Loa Observatory Record of daily, weekly, monthly or yearly CO2 quantities?

LoN, how is it possible for you to believe (aka: Keeling Curve Graph) that atmospheric CO2 decreases during NH summer because of the ingassing of CO2 by green growing biomass …… and increases during NH winter because of the outgassing of CO2 as a result of microbial decomposition of dead biomass ……… when both of the aforesaid are biological impossibilities.

scientific link requested, to wit”

United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety

Refrigeration slows bacterial growth. They are in the soil, air, water, and the foods we eat. When they have nutrients (food), moisture, and favorable temperatures, they grow rapidly, ….. Bacteria grow most rapidly in the range of temperatures between 40 and 140 °F, the “Danger Zone,” …..

A refrigerator set at 40 °F or below will protect most foods (dead biomass).

April 6, 2020 7:16 pm

When John Hewson sells all of his assets, donates that money appropriately as per his beliefs and lives the life that he expects the rest of us to endure, I might listen to him. The same goes for the rest of the hypocrites.

Reply to  Don
April 6, 2020 8:33 pm

IIRC Hewson has significant investments in “carbon reduction” boondoggles and the like.
All requiring taxpayer subsidization of course.

paul rossiter
April 6, 2020 7:32 pm

I agree with all the criticisms posted above, but the reality is rags like The Conversation, The Guardian and MSM are all getting their message out there with the general population and in general we are not.

Reply to  paul rossiter
April 7, 2020 4:30 am

Bingo Paul

Reply to  paul rossiter
April 7, 2020 7:17 am

Shouldn’t we focus on getting rid of the ‘rags’ .

April 6, 2020 7:39 pm

So tell me once again in plain language so I can understand it why the #19 virus is connected to AGW. I’ll wait.

John in Oz
Reply to  markl
April 7, 2020 12:03 am

there is every reason to expect that the virus crisis will strengthen and accelerate the imperative to transition to a low-carbon world by mid-century.

Like you, I failed to see the link between the 2 subjects.

I also have the misfortune to be an Aussie who had to suffer this Labor-lite idiot as a Liberal PM (loosley, the Labor Party in Oz = Democrat, the Liberal Party = Republican.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  John in Oz
April 7, 2020 7:32 am

Like you, I failed to see the link between the 2 subjects.

“HA”, ….. the ‘link’ is “fear”, …… and the “linkees” are the vested intere$t fearmongers’.

Komrade Kuma
April 6, 2020 7:43 pm

I don’t know why Eric called Hewson a “conservative’ because he is far, far from that. Our centre-right party is the Liberal Party ( hey, we are Australian and we distance ourselves from the English out of habit – its a convict thing). In Hewson’s case he would be a Democrat in the US and was always on the leftish fringe of the Liberal Party here. He also managed to ‘lose the unloseable election’ courtesy of a media stuff up of epic proportions over his inability to explain a consumption tax he was proposing yet he is a professor of economics. He has been bitter and twisted ever since, getting more so as he gets older and less and less relevent. He is still a media go to ‘commentator’ / ‘expert’ but that’s really just the media sexing up the day’s news to turn it into a product to flog via their parade of talking heads on TV. In other words he is just a bit of ketchup on the media sausage.

Reply to  Komrade Kuma
April 6, 2020 8:37 pm

Hewson was what was referred to as a “wet”, claiming to be a conservative but really to the left of the mainstream. He really should have been an Australian Democrat, a party that was supposed to sit across the centre but rapidly moved to the left, similar to the UK Liberals.

He’s a bit of a favourite at the publicly funded Australian Broadcasting Commission as its pet “conservative “…shows how its commentary is “balanced”. All the while he has a secure job during this CV19 economic uncertainty as he has a publicly funded position at a university.

And while we are at it here’s an ANU colleague of John Hewson, Andrew Glikson, who started life as a geochemist and now presents himself as a Paleo-Climate scientist claiming that the current rate of C02 increase is greater than that due to the meteorite impact at the end of the Cretaceous…

Reply to  Komrade Kuma
April 7, 2020 4:17 am

Hewson could not explain which ingredients were exempt from GST (Goods and Services Tax)
when baking a cake. For this he lost the election. We didn’t have GST at the time, people needed to understand how it worked. It works, for some reason ours has stayed at 10%. There’s no GST on fresh or unprocessed produce.

4 Eyes
April 6, 2020 7:46 pm

“but coronavirus makes the low-carbon transition more urgent”. More urgent for him because he is seriouysly invested in it.

April 6, 2020 8:14 pm

What I don’t get is how all of these otherwise normal and skeptical people have fallen for this fake virus scare. There are plenty of professionals in the medical and infectious diseases fields on record saying variously that this virus epidemic is no worse than previous ones, probably less contagious, less deadly, lower death rates than average flu seasons, mis-reported, over-reacted to, likely to have a ‘second wave’ once lockdowns are removed, and with the responses likely to wreak untold economic and human harm, etc, etc, etc.

Tom Abbott
April 6, 2020 8:31 pm

From the article: “although clearly no one would advocate a global recession as a climate strategy”

Really? I’m not so sure about that. Advocating trying to power the world with windmills is the equivalent of advocating for a global recession, because that’s what they are going to get if they implement such a policy.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 6, 2020 9:41 pm

Global recession, worser than that.

April 6, 2020 8:31 pm

When I see the phrase, “climate deniers”, I automatically assign “idiot” to the person spouting it, and I read no further.

April 6, 2020 8:35 pm

Uh….no. Actually there is no money to throw away on fake problems.

Reply to  Joey
April 6, 2020 9:04 pm

Macron still wants to finish closing a 100% working nuclear power plant, the oldest one working, but not that old (40 years in young in the US).

Chris Hanley
April 6, 2020 8:47 pm

Gore campaigned to be the US Democratic presidential candidate in ’87 and Hewson campaigned to be Australian PM in ’93, both countries avoiding corresponding ‘bu!!ets’.
What do people like Hewson see in the climate change hysteria, he has renewable energy investments, can it be simply pecuniary⸮

April 6, 2020 8:47 pm

Macron and his cronies are gestapo-liberals: a bunch of furor and a scintilla of liberalism, related to stuff like gay mariage and economic liberalism but only when it’s about tax free imports from China and tax free exports to the US. (No requests for tax free imports from the US.)

For the right to cross French borders, they are liberal. For the right to move within France, they are gestapists.

Reply to  niceguy
April 6, 2020 9:32 pm

Also, Macron called it a war. Called for national unity etc. after sending his prime minion to tell us to fill in paperwork to have the “right” to go out, and after mocking the only credible opposition party (the “RN”, “Rassemblement National”).

I think it’s a war: the Deep State war against the People.

April 6, 2020 8:50 pm

Ole John who lost the unlosable election in 1993 because he couldn’t explain the GST (VAT) costings on the ingredients of a cake and now earns a living as the Chair of renewable companies. Guessing he still wants his cake and eat it too!

Joel O'Bryan
April 6, 2020 8:51 pm

This is sort of a ‘Now that China’s biowarfare has Western capitalism’ down on the mat, Okay socialists< "Unite!" and now kick 'em hard — Don't let the Western affluent middle class rise again to use fossil fuels in abundance.

April 6, 2020 9:01 pm

I have to disappoint the greenpeacy. THEY have been telling us what they believe about pollution for the last months. They came clear about it, and they don’t even know that, because they are really really dumb:

Air pollution does not matter. That’s what they told us when they claim they could measure the health risk of an air born disease from China numbers. Industrial regions in China are hyper polluted. If that does not impact the proportion of people with weakened lungs and the health risk when exposed to a given dose of any air microbe, then nothing environnemental does.

They have been telling nonsense about air pollution forever. And when faced to a practical case, they let it be known that they never deeply believed it.

April 6, 2020 9:07 pm

Social Changes with COVID-19 are a prelude to life with less fossil fuels. With COVID-19 we’ve seen extensive self-imposed social adjustments to transportation that are very similar to what will be required to live with less fossil fuels in the future. As we weed ourselves from unrestrained use of oil, we’ll need to lower our demands from the transportation infrastructures and the leisure and entertainment industries to the best of their abilities to conserve oil for where its most needed for society, to make the thousands of products that support lifestyles as well as worldwide sustainable economic development.

Reply to  Ronald Stein
April 6, 2020 9:27 pm

“Fox Business host Trish Regan claims the coronavirus outbreak is just “another attempt to impeach” President Donald Trump.”

Trish Regan is correct. But Kung Flu is a lot more than that. It’s the ultimate meltdown of rationality and the coup by the medical establishment.

“Someone should tell self-important anti-gun doctors to stay in their lane. Half of the articles in Annals of Internal Medicine are pushing for gun control. Most upsetting, however, the medical community seems to have consulted NO ONE but themselves.”

The NRA is right. Putting these noisy doctors in their place was a smart move. Genius even. It caused HUGE push back from very very dumb doctors who insisted that was their lane when it obviously was not.

But we should be worried about the good doctors not just about gun laws, but about everything else.

Those who whined not about the dumb noisy doctors but about the NRA being “unwise” or “improper” or “lacking taste” are responsible for the present situation.

April 6, 2020 9:09 pm

Being unsure about the goods and services tax applicable to a cake killed his political career.

So, what I’d like to know is how much carbon tax he’d now propose for the same cake?

April 6, 2020 9:16 pm

We must take a stand and threaten that we’ll remove all “constitutional” protections for those who attacked these protections. It means we’ll pass post hoc laws and enforce them. It means that we’ll renege on anything legal, any act, any contract, that profited someone who acted against our rights. That civil servants that can’t be fired won’t fired, but retroactively un-hired. That money earned will be collected back.

We must say that we’ll do anything – as in a war.

April 6, 2020 9:25 pm

So, what he’s saying, is that the problem is not CO2, but rather a religious (i.e. moral, “ethical”) imperative to reduce carbon. Perhaps a Green Blight, Planned Parenthood, or some similar solution. #Wicked

April 6, 2020 9:29 pm

“We’ve also seen just how far they’re prepared to go in terms of policy responses…”

This is the part that is truly terrifying. These people think nothing of draconian measures to control the sheep. In fact, the more brutal and murderous, the more they like it. An earth with 7 billion fewer humans is a better earth, according to them.

Mark A Luhman
April 6, 2020 9:33 pm

The COVID models that predicted millions to die in the United States due to COVID-19 and a later model that said 100,000 to 200,000 looks to be close to how many will die in the world! Yep a model that predicts the out come for 360,000,000 is closer to the outcome of 7,000,000,000. Now that modeling at it finest, and now they are still going to tell us their models will tell us the climate a hundred years from now, if their errors are anything thelike COVID-19 modelers they have no idea what they are talking about. Yet the are just as insane to think we should have faith in their models after a simpler model failed miserably. It about time the model community start admitting if the do not have a test bed that can verify there models against know data, and data points that are known, as to affectis, and where the model should go. In engineering models where they can be tested in the real world with known variables, even then sometime a variable that critical variable gets left out and the building, equipment or bridge fails. When you cannot measure your variables as to the effect they might have in a model, modeling is a fun what if game but in the real world, the models are junk.

Reply to  Mark A Luhman
April 7, 2020 12:48 pm

206 million people in the US in 1968; 100,000 die from the Hong Kong flu (H3N2).

330 million in the US in 2020; a similar rate yields 175,000 deaths (adjusted to account for the hype and making sure that EVERYONE is counted, whereas in 1968 there were deaths not attributed to the specific flu).

0.05(x) + 0.003(x) = y

(my model takes 45 seconds to complete … it will be more accurate than all the other the models (except for the models that are completed/refined after at the 70% complete phase).

Brooks Hurd
April 6, 2020 10:04 pm

Hewson believes that since governments have proven that they are willing and able to trample on the freedoms of their citizens for the real hazards of a very infectious disease with no treatment, that they should be willing to do the same for a perceived issue supported by adjusted and cherry picked data just because he supports it. The one hazard has the world’s best medical researchers and clinicians working tirelessly to find a solution, whereas the other one has claimed that the science is settled.

I am so happy that the Corona virus is not being solved by the likes of Michael Mann.

Jeff Alberts
April 6, 2020 10:27 pm

Can any of these self-proclaimed experts at “The One-Sided Conversation” actually name a climate denier? I certainly don’t know of any.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
April 7, 2020 2:44 am

How do you even DENY climate? What is the hell is denying climate? I’d like a picture.

Reply to  niceguy
April 7, 2020 5:20 am

Presumably, a perturbation from the normal temperature distribution (e.g. +/- 10, 20, 40, 80 degrees) that produces a sustainable (“30 year”) shift of the average measured? modeled temperature. Then there is their carbon fixation, with motives that can and should be separately scrutinized.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  niceguy
April 7, 2020 5:50 am

“How do you even DENY climate?”

Of course, what the alarmists are talking about is “Human-Caused Climate Change, and when they call skeptics “deniers” they are saying that skeptics deny Human-caused climate change, and they would be correct in the sense that skeptics don’t outright deny Human-caused climate change, the skeptics just say there is no evidence for Human-caused Climate Change, and if CO2 does make changes in the Earth’s atmosphere, they appear to be minimal, since we have searched for decades for evidence of such changes and can’t find any.

Alarmists want everyone to think of “Climate Change” as meaning “Human-caused Climate Change. They want everyone to assume there is evidence for Human-caused Climate Change so we don’t have to add in the “human-caused” part. What else could it be but human-caused, they say, so why state the “obvious”..

So when they say skeptics “deny the climate”, they are playing word and head games with the public. It’s attempted psychological manipulation.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 11, 2020 4:34 pm

It’s their shorthand. I’m not required to figure out what they mean. And I’m sure it means different things to different alarmists. If they’re trying to say we deny human-caused climate change, even that blanket statement isn’t true for all of us.

If they can show evidence beyond simple loose correlation, then maybe I won’t “deny climate” any more.

April 6, 2020 10:49 pm

People like Newson think that they should be in control because they know best .
Here in New Zealand we are under severe lock down and all gatherings are forbidden and we are not allowed to travel except for essentials .
This is the first time this has happened in my lifetime but most people are on side as the government are now doing their best to stop this Covid 19 as the corona virus is called here.
Just over 1100 have tested positive with 12 in hospital and 4 in intensive care .One death so far.
New cases are from tracing contacts of those with the virus ,and testing large numbers to find all positives.
The general population can see that this can be controlled and will be ready to start normal life as soon as the emergency is lifted.
What fellows like Newson fail to see is that modern civilization depends on cheap affordable energy and not one of these people calling for a reduction in fossil fuel use call for nuclear power plants to reduce CO2 emissions .
Do they live in a bubble ? ( like we are doing right now in NZ ) no they fail to understand how the world works and how far we have all progressed in the last 70 years around the developed world .
They cannot see that billions have been lifted out of poverty by the use of fossil fuel and that as the countries standard of living improves the birth rates start falling .
A lot of the proponents of CAGW were arguing that the world was over populated 60 tears ago and that we would all starve.

Chris Hanley
April 6, 2020 10:53 pm

Nowhere does Hewson mention nuclear, but his article does include a photo of wind turbines as well as a photo of steam coming from cooling towers labelled: “The pandemic has slowed global emissions growth” which it probably has, but the critical question in this context is: has it slowed the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration?.
The energy return on energy invested for solar and wind including storage is a fraction of the equivalent ratio for fossil-fuelled, hydro and nuclear.
What Hewson (doctorate in economics) is pushing is the equivalent of a return to subsistence farming.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
April 6, 2020 11:26 pm

Hewson has no investments in nuclear.
He has substantial investments in wind power (ie government subsidies).

Kelly L
April 6, 2020 10:58 pm

Hewson is not nor never was a Conservative leader, he was leader of the liberal party, and please note small l not L.

Kelly Logan
April 6, 2020 11:03 pm

Referring to caption under photograph of Hewson, he was never leader of Conservatives, has always been a small l liberal in the Liberal party

April 6, 2020 11:29 pm

Mr. Eric Worrall
Appreciate your excellent research of all your various contributions to this blog .
It obviously takes much time and commitment to do so .
In regard to Hewson and co. and Turnbull etc , do you have any details of how much investment these type of people have in the renewable industry .
They should be called to account for their own involvement and perhaps income from the sources they are recommending .


Tom Abbott
Reply to  george1st:)
April 7, 2020 5:58 am

“Mr. Eric Worrall
Appreciate your excellent research of all your various contributions to this blog .”

I appreciate it, too, Eric. You don’t get nearly enough credit for all you do on this website. Ignore the nitpickers, all three of them. 🙂

Patrick MJD
Reply to  george1st:)
April 7, 2020 10:52 pm

“george1st:) April 6, 2020 at 11:29 pm

…Turnbull etc…”

Talk to his son, Alex IIRC. He’s in to renewable financing in a big way. Turnbull made most of his millions by turning an AU$500k “mum and dad” investment in OneTel, then selling up large to the tune of a couple of hundred million just a few months before OneTel went bang in the late 90’s!

Bob in Castlemaine
April 6, 2020 11:40 pm

Why does John Hewson repeatedly refuse to declare his blatant conflicts of interest when he regularly pontificates about the “climate change”?
Andrew Bolt elaborates:
“Why didn’t Hewson disclose that he earns his living by promoting global warming schemes and policies?

For instance, he is chairman of the Asset Owners Disclosure Project :

The Asset Owners Disclosure Project (AODP) rates and ranks the world’s largest institutional investors and assesses their response to climate-related risks and opportunities.

He is also paid to spruik global warming to students at the Australian National University:

Dr John Hewson


Policy and economics of climate change….”

Rod Evans
April 7, 2020 12:47 am

“There are a few “pluses” from the experience of coronavirus. Emissions are falling (although clearly no one would advocate a global recession as a climate strategy).”
Clearly Newson was out, when the memo was sent through from the UN, saying global recession is precisely the preferred option of Climate Alarmists.
Destroying capitalism is the most certain route to global recession.
Somebody should let his know, the Green New Deal is all about global recession.

Ian Coleman
April 7, 2020 1:06 am

It is wise to listen to the people on the other side. For one thing, they may be (at least partly) right. It’s frustrating with climate change catastrophists though, because they’ve coupled their concern about the dangers of climate change with a large leaven of moral vanity. They are good people because they care about the climate, and you are a shallow Science-denier who cannot understand simple facts. So yeah, after a while you give up.

But they’re sincere. Greta Thunberg really means it, although I doubt if very many of her admirers actually think that endless economic growth is a fantasy, and should be abandoned.

My own theory is that money will eventually win out, and the impossibly faulty economics of climate change mitigation will eventually doom the whole thing. The coronavirus recession is going to sabotage interest in expensive climate change swindles like wind power. Not only that but, as the decades pass and the climate catastrophes just don’t happen, people will just lose interest. How many people are worried about global nuclear war these days? That is a once-popular anxiety that has mostly been discarded.

Coeur de Lion
April 7, 2020 1:18 am

The cancellation of COP26 comes as a huge relief to the Alarmist camp. It would have been a disaster. However incompetent and biased the British MSM, they couldn’t have ignored ALL THOSE AEROPLANES! The crowds of funny foreign faces. The weird behaviour of hanger on pressure groups. Chaired by a British nonentity. The rain. With a bit of luck the snow. The rambling nonsense right up to the final cobbled together ‘statement’ kicking the can down the road once more, once more, once more. The 400 Ivory Coast delegates fly home without any Green Climate Fund money because they failed to bribe anybody.

Ed Zuiderwijk
April 7, 2020 1:30 am

Don’t bother with the moron. His use of the derogatory term ‘denier’ tells us more than we need to know about his ethics.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
April 7, 2020 5:12 am

His religion, or its relativistic counterpart, “ethics”.

Dodgy Geezer
April 7, 2020 1:47 am

“….there is every reason to expect that the virus crisis will strengthen and accelerate the imperative to transition to a low-carbon world by mid-century….”

OK. Give us some of the reasons.

As far as I can tell, the reason is that the virus crisis shows that governments can take advice from scientists and apply it to populations when a real threat is discovered. And not when a threat is not discovered.

I suggest that responses to the Climate Change threat should wait their turn in the queue. Just behind the threat of radiation from 5G phone masts enabling shadowy committees of multi-billionaires to take over the world…

April 7, 2020 3:22 am

Hewson is rubber room material. For his own self protection and that of society he should be locked up.

April 7, 2020 3:25 am

The ANU is a lapdog for Communist China. It is only a matter of time before they fly the red flag and hand out little red books to their students.

April 7, 2020 3:33 am


7 Apr: AP: Modeling coronavirus: ‘Uncertainty is the only certainty’
“The key thing is that you want to know what’s happening in the future,” said NASA top climate modeler Gavin Schmidt. “Absent a time machine you’re going to have to use a model.”
Weather forecasters use models. Climate scientists use them. Supermarkets use them…

Reply to  pat
April 7, 2020 4:33 am

The climate models are about as accurate as those keeping supermarket shelves stocked with toilet paper.

Reply to  pat
April 7, 2020 5:09 am

They need to narrowly specify the operative domain. They need to specify a frame of reference, in the past, present, and future, and the assumptions/assertions underlying their hypotheses (“models”).

April 7, 2020 3:38 am

It is true that climate change must be reversed, but today the only way to reduce carbon emissions is unrealistic. Brutal geoengineering is needed combined with family planning in developing countries, reversal of migration, wider use of nuclear energy, LENR and so on.

Reply to  malkom700
April 7, 2020 4:37 am

“It is true that climate change must be reversed”

What sort of dumb, nonsensical comment is that?

What do you even mean by it ?

Do you really want temperature to drop back down to those of the Little Ice Age.

To you really want global CO2 to drop to barely plant subsistence levels, causing famine around the world.

Reply to  fred250
April 7, 2020 5:52 am

The temperature only needs to be reduced by two degrees, because we know that this way the climate is stable. However, current trends threaten an avalanche effect mainly due to the melting of the termafrost.

mike macray
Reply to  fred250
April 7, 2020 6:32 am

“It is true that climate change must be reversed”

I recommend turning the clock back and reversing the increase of Entropy.
That should do it.

Reply to  malkom700
April 7, 2020 5:33 am

Carbon emissions could be stopped one way: development of a new source of safe, abundant, easy-to-deploy energy generation that achieves the old saying “too cheap to meter.” However, the inertia to deploy additional fossil fuel plants in Asia would still require a century to halt.

Reply to  windlord-sun
April 7, 2020 7:21 am

That’s what LENR technology is all about. Unfortunately, if energy production were to be completely carbon-free from tomorrow, it would still be necessary to temporarily use geoengineering to safely get the world out of its current impasse.

Pat Frank
Reply to  malkom700
April 7, 2020 12:36 pm

There’s no evidence that CO2 has done, or will do, anything to the climate or to global temperature, malkom.

The IPCC and allied ilk literally do not know what they’re talking about.

Reply to  Pat Frank
April 8, 2020 2:13 am

The misconception is caused by the fact that science is really overwhelmingly left-wing and liberal and therefore politically unreliable but in turn the one hundred percent consensus that CO2 is the key responsible is for the meaning of something. If it were only sixty percent, I wouldn’t believe in science either.

Reply to  malkom700
April 8, 2020 3:06 pm

Huh? What impasse? CO2 at .04% up from .03% a short while ago, but no big deal in the Holocene nor in the Phanerozoic (that’s an understatement.)

Maybe you meant to say “…it would still be necessary to burn FFs anyway, to some extent, to prevent the percentage falling so low it endangers plant growth worldwide?”

Reply to  windlord-sun
April 9, 2020 12:42 am

It just means that microorganisms don’t die out just for our grandchildren. Personally, I’d rather try to do something even if it might seem selfish.

Eamon Butler
April 7, 2020 4:18 am

Hands up. Who thinks this ”Lockdown” thing, is the way forward and how we should be living our lives to make sure we have a ”better Climate” in the future?
Given that it’s the single biggest obstacle to the Alarmists’ agenda and has banished them into obscurity, it’s hardly something they should be holding up as their Champion.


Al Miller
April 7, 2020 7:19 am

Anyone who starts out “Climate Deniers” is a fool. There is no such thing clearly, but the cultists from the green blob continue to beat the drum with such foolishness.
I, sir, do not deny climate. I do however deny that that you are a rational thinking person, except in your inhumane pursuit of helping to try and destroy the western economy which has so successfully alleviated so much human suffering. Never in the history of mankind has life been so good.
Begone and at the very least have the decency to stop lying to us. State outright your real objectives- you know be a man.

M__ S__
April 7, 2020 7:25 am

Why would anyone listen to or believe the “climate” cult claims?

Reply to  M__ S__
April 7, 2020 8:32 am

Exactly my thoughts. Should anyone pay attention to what the local village idiot says?

Bill Hirt
April 7, 2020 7:32 am

Fossil CO2 Emission Hoax,
Climatologists grossly overstate the impact of fossil CO2 emissions on global temperatures. The world’s fossil CO2 emissions have increased from 22,674 million tons (Mt) in 1990 to 37,077 Mt in 2017. A plot of global temperatures from 1850, (Little Ice Age) to 2018 shows the temperatures increased between 1920 and 1945, before significant CO2 emissions, at the same rate as from 1970 to 2018. The temperature increased from1970 to 1990 at the same rate as from 1990 to 2018 despite the 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions. Clearly global temperatures were not that sensitive to those emissions.

Also a plot of CO2 in the atmosphere showed CO2 increased from 320 parts per million (PPM) in 1960, to 396 PPM in 2014. Yet the rate of change from 1970 to 1990 was essentially the same as for 1990 to 2014. Again despite the 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions.

If increasing fossil CO2 emissions didn’t increase atmospheric CO2 PPM they could not be the reason for increasing global temperatures. The only rational explanation was global temperatures, driven by the sun were increasing CO2 out gassing from ocean surface. That global temperature increases were the cause of increasing CO2 in atmosphere not the result.

I’m a retired Boeing engineer but it shouldn’t take much education to recognize that if a 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions doesn’t result in a dramatic change in the rate at which global temperatures or atmospheric CO2 levels increase its “unlikely” fossil CO2 emissions are the reason. Yet apparently 96% of scientists don’t recognize that rationale.

One of the seminal arguments for global temperature sensitivity was an August 2007 Scientific American article, “The Physical Science behind Climate Change”. The article claiming to be “The Undeniable Case for Global Warming” based their conclusion on the failure of their computer models of climate temperature with their initial estimates for “forcing” (influence of) to match measured temperature. The end result was matching their computer model results to measured data required “forcing” for fossil CO2 emissions to be 10 times that of the Sun. The fact that the global temperature increase from1990 to 2017 was essentially the same as from 1970 to 1990 despite the 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions would “seem” to belie that conclusion.

The fact that atmospheric CO2 level increase from 1970 to 1990 was also the same as from 1990 to 2017, again despite the 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions reaffirms the lack of sensitivity. The real correlation is between global temperatures and CO2 in the atmosphere. As the letter concludes the likely reason is global temperatures driven by the sun, have increased CO2 out gassing from the ocean surface. Again, that increasing global temperatures are the cause for the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere not the result.

The conclusion is fossil CO2 emissions are not an existential threat to the planet. Hundreds of billions have been wasted each year attempting to limit fossil CO2 emissions. That all the billions spent attempting to replace fossil fuels with renewable sources have likely had little affect on either global temperature or atmospheric CO2 levels. The sooner the whole world recognizes that the better.

Joel Snider
April 7, 2020 7:51 am

Shameless exploitation.

April 7, 2020 7:55 am

Nobody but marxist-sycophants care what “The Conversation” says.

Alan McIntire
April 7, 2020 9:38 am

Government regulation of where and how often we can travel away from home are a leftist/greenie version of “paradise”. I’m reminded of Weird Al Yankovic’s “Amish Paradise” parody,

Most rational people want this hellish lifestyle to end soon,

Vincent Causey
April 7, 2020 10:01 am

Well this alarmist could not be more wrong. This state of emergency will not suddenly make people go “gee, this is so easy. After covid-19 has been defeated wouldn’t it be fun to continue all these measures for ever, for the sake of global warming?” Not only will they not entertain such an idea, even for a second, but they will be extremely averse to anything that entails restricting travel, work and leisure or adding even more costs to those they will be forced to pay via higher taxes to pay for the fiscal measures now being implemented. Anybody that thinks they can leverage this moment to engineer some kind of climate austerity will be in for a rude awakening.

April 7, 2020 10:33 am

AKA: If the measures we currently have in place fail to destroy the economy, here are some other handy ideas to try.

April 7, 2020 10:33 am

Scrap metal from failed projects of Dr Hewson litter the Australian landscape.

April 7, 2020 1:09 pm

Who knew that a tiny virus would efficiently spotlight the dead enders of the Great Climate Crusades.

I guess WHO knew but they were busy playing UN diplomats.

Gary Pearse
April 7, 2020 3:08 pm

” It is no exaggeration to say that what we do regarding emissions reductions between now and 2030 will determine the quality of human life on this planet for hundreds of years to come, if not more.”

This is the only statement of Figueres I completely agree with and why Im in the battle against totalitarians like her.

Walt D.
April 7, 2020 4:19 pm

Since one of the goals of the Marxist progressive was to use the environmental movement to destroy capitalism, and the corona virus has accomplished in a few weeks what they could not in 30 years, you would think they would just declare victory and move on.
However, it would appear that they have become greedy and just can not wait to extract a few billion out of a 2 trillion stimulus (with moe to come down the road).

%d bloggers like this: