Watch an Aussie Politician Squirm as Malcolm Roberts demands Evidence Climate Change is a Problem

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

One Nation federal senator Malcolm Roberts wants a simple answer from the Aussie CSIRO: what is the evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing dangerous climate change?

So far, the answer appears to be CO2 is a problem, because other people think other people think CO2 is a problem.

Malcolm Roberts also provided an interview with “The Outsiders”, describing the background and allegedly shoddy CSIRO science behind this question and squirm session, including the CSIRO’s alleged utter reliance on the discredited Marcott 2013 paper as the basis of CSIRO claims of “unprecedented temperature rise”.

Marcott himself said the following about using his paper to draw conclusions about industrial era temperature rise;

20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

Marcott’s original Q&A which contains that quote is available on RealClimate.

The CSIRO published the following statement on their website.

Statement in response to comments made by Senator Malcolm Roberts. 

CSIRO stands behind its researchers and the integrity of the research produced by them. CSIRO’s demonstrated record of scientific excellence is underpinned by our commitment to the full and transparent participation in the scientific peer review process which results in evidence-based science of the highest quality, including making data publicly available.

CSIRO is in the top 0.1 per cent of the world for its four core fields of science, and in the world’s top 1 per cent for the other 14 fields. We rank in the top 3 of the world’s national science agencies for our impact. 

CSIRO’s climate briefings to Senator Roberts as well as subsequent responses to his questions are publicly available on the Senate website  .

Read more:

From Senator Malcolm Roberts description of his senate video (top video):

This afternoon I asked questions to the Prime Minister via Senator Corman.

And even though I had just told Senator Corman that the CSIRO has been caught out relying on discredited scientific papers and unvalidated models as the basis for advice to government on climate policy, he still supports them 100%.

In fact he gave them a glowing endorsement.

QUESTION 1. Thank you, Mr President.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. In 2016, 17, 19 and 20 I cross-examined CSIRO’s climate research team on four presentations to me.

That revealed:

• CSIRO has never said CO2 from human activity is a danger;
• CSIRO admitted today’s temperatures are NOT unprecedented;
• CSIRO’s cited papers do NOT show rate of temp rise is unprecedented;
• CSIRO has never quantified any specific impact from human CO2;
• CSIRO relies on unvalidated, erroneous models;
• CSIRO relied on discredited papers;
• CSIRO showed little understanding of papers cited;
• CSIRO admits to no due diligence on reports & data;
• CSIRO allows politicians to misrepresent CSIRO without correction;
• Fifteen highly respected international scientists verified our conclusions What is the basis for the government’s climate and energy policies?

QUESTION 2. Your ministers for climate and energy and preceding Lib-Nationals and Labor-Greens govts claimed that climate and renewable energy policies are based on CSIRO advice, yet CSIRO’s climate team admitted to me that CSIRO has never stated carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger and when asked for the source of that political claim suggested I ask politicians and ministers.
On what basis is your govt claiming we need to cut the carbon dioxide from farming, industry, transport and driving cars?

QUESTION 3. The CSIRO climate research team’s position ultimately relies on unvalidated and erroneous computer models that are not suitable as a basis for policy. In implying, falsely, that they have confidence in the models yet have never assigned a quantitatively calculated confidence level, CSIRO has misled you. Will your government hold an independent inquiry into the so-called science that is supposedly the basis of your climate and energy policies?

When future historians try to trace the chain of events which led to the squandering of trillions of dollars on green boondoggles, when our descendants try to identify the chain evidence which was used to justify such expenditure, they will fail. Because there is no actual evidence to be found.

Our descendants will recognise the climate movement for what it is; one of the great collective mass insanities, like Tulip mania or the South Sea Bubble. They will marvel that millions of people as a group abandoned common sense and followed the herd, for reasons probably even they could never clearly explain.

Additional information from Dr. Willie Soon:

Here is the report:  

Here is the press release:

Here is the media conference:

Here is one single coverage I can see from Sky News:

255 thoughts on “Watch an Aussie Politician Squirm as Malcolm Roberts demands Evidence Climate Change is a Problem

    • Descendants if we have any that are literate enough and the history is available, will see that the entire ‘global warming’/’climate change’ exercise was intended to deindustrialize the ‘West’ and was more to ‘Reset Capitalism’ than it was anything to do with atmospheric temperatures.

      Search on: Figueres Capitalism

      This is what caused the complete melt down when Trump won in 2016 – another way other than treaties (superior to the US Constitution) the Paris Accord, TTIP and TPP had to be found.

      Search on: WEF “Great Reset” January

      • None of those were actually treaties. Treaties require a vote of the Senate.

        Treaties are not superior to the US constitution, they are equivalent thereto, i.e. of the same weight. That is why the Democrats want to join in international gun restrictions, but are never able to get them passed in the Senate. The above mentioned agreements are not treaties as defined in the constitution. Early on in TRUMP!’s presidency there was much coverage of his “destruction”of Obama’s “Legacy”. Obama’s true legacy was one of overreach and laziness in doing the hard work of actually getting “treaties” approved by the Senate, but of course everyone knew that the Democrats would have the White House for years to come, so they did not need to follow the constitution to obtain the results they wanted.

        Paris was just a presidential agreement. Same with TPP, that is why TRUMP! could withdraw without concurrence of congress, although he did, for some reason unknown to me, follow the withdrawal framework, which I do not think he needed to do.

  1. Filtering your climate science research through Malcolm Roberts an ex-coal miner and now politician from a far-right fringe party, is a typically crazy, Worrellian idea.
    From his maiden speech to parliament: “changes in the carbon dioxide level [of the atmosphere] are a result of changes in temperature, not a cause.” He’s not a dummy so this is just intentional lying.

    • Loydo So why don’t you answer Robert’s questions Loydo? Instead of making ad hom attacks on him. I know why you don’t answer, it’s because you can’t

      • I discourse with Sen. Roberts on a different site and he has the all the information and evidence to assert his position. And he does so with vigour.

        He’d make mincemeat – no, smooth pate – out of Loy-do’s diatribe.

        Ad hominems are from behind a computer are far safer, even if they are an instant forfeit.

        • Always treat another man (woman) online as if they were within an arm length in person.

          A ‘Worrellian’ idea. LOL That is quite the complement Loydo.

          • Seeing this professional BS politician artfully avoid answering any of the valid points raised by Sen. Roberts is particularly frustrating. However, attempting to call this “squirming” is definitely ‘Worrellian’ ( an amusing anagram of Orwellian ).

            I came here expecting to enjoy some humiliating “squirming”, only to see this shyster getting away with murder.

      • David Guy-Johnson,
        Poor Loydo can’t help himself! He’s caught up in the emotions of his deep religious fervor; he MUST hurl anathemas at those that dare to question the fundamental doctrine of his religion, the High Church of Climastrology!
        Like many earlier religious cults that practiced human sacrifice, this modern cult believes that sacrificing enough humans will bring about ideal weather and good harvests! Being largely disconnected from reality, they fail to notice that weather conditions are improving along with harvests without any sacrifice necessary at all! In fact our civilization is well on it’s way to conquering hunger and starvation; something the sociopaths that lead this cult are dead set against! If we survive the current viral scam being perpetrated by the ChiComs and the globalists history will view people like Loydo as one of the many deluded cult members spread across history!

      • “I know why you don’t answer, it’s because you can’t”

        That’s exactly right. Neither Loydo or any other alarmist can show evidence that CO2 is overheating the Earth’s atmosphere.

        Senator Malcolm Roberts asked the right question: Where’s the evidence.

        Notice how the CSIRO had no answer. That’s because, they, like Loydo, don’t have an answer. There is no evidence that humans and their burning of fossil fuels is causing the Earth’s climate to change.

        It’s time for alarmists to prove their claims of Human-caused Climate Change. It’s time for our leaders to require it before moving forward with more wasteful spending trying to fix the Earth’s weather.

        No evidence, Loydo. What say you?

    • “changes in the carbon dioxide level [of the atmosphere] are a result of changes in temperature, not a cause.” Loydo after years and 1000’s of pieces of evidence, you still have the physics upside down. All throughout history, temperature has led CO2. The oceans outgas CO2 to the atmosphere when they warm up. Heat flows from the oceans to the atmosphere upon evaporation. Malcolm Roberts knows more about the physics than you will ever know in your lifetime. It is the biggest scientific scam in history.

      • “All throughout history, temperature has led CO2”
        And what? There’s no physical law that excludes the reverse, especially considering the fact that all historic CO2 out-gassing gave a positive feedback to temperature, a boost. Furthermore, denying that atmospheric CO2 increase is overwhelmingly anthropogenic pushes you to the flatearthers’ camp. The sad truth is that now CO2 from human industry is giving a boost to temperatures. Malcolm Roberts is either intentionally lying or ignorant, I don’t know which is worse.

        • “There’s no physical law that excludes the reverse”

          There is NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that CO2 causes warming

          You cannot produce any

          CSIRO cannot produce any

          “The sad truth is that now CO2 from human industry is giving a boost to temperatures.”

          A mantra based, scientifically unsupportable piece of dribble.

          Here is your chance.. produce the evidence….

          Will you FAIL as badly as CSIRO has ?

          • “There is NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that CO2 causes warming”
            Unfortunately denying science is not just your problem, it’s hindering a proper response to challenges we face. So please learn.

          • nyolci

            Where you ended your post with “So please learn” would have been a good place to present the data showing the physical evidence that CO2 causes warming. I’m prepared to learn, but could you please restrict it to the Earth’s atmosphere and surface, CO2 levels above 280ppm and the existence of water vapor.

            Thank you in advance.

            Also, I asked for data. Somebody says there’s data is not data.

            This is going to be a pretzel of a deflection folks ………

          • “So please learn.”

            ROFLMAO !!

            Great to see you adopting the “headless chook” routine of someone who KNOWS he/she cannot actually PRODUCE any EVIDENCE.

            How can I learn when you don’t PRODUCE any EVIDENCE, fool.

            You keep proving that Malcolm Roberts is correct.

            Well done. 🙂

          • ““There is NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that CO2 causes warming””

            And you keep proving me correct.

            Still waiting ! 🙂

        • “fact that all historic CO2 out-gassing gave a positive feedback to temperature, a boost”

          Another totally incorrect statement, totally without evidence, of course.

          Actually , what the Vostok graph clearly show is that when CO2 was it its peak, the Earth started cooling. !!

          Look at the graphs some time, if you can read a graph, that is.

          There has been NO runaway global warming by raise CO2.. EVER. !

          • AndyG55 you cheeky chicken, I know its you, the give away is all the trademark !!!
            You just can’t help yourself can you. But please do tell us more, all this shouty, angry trolling is so enlightening.

          • “all this shouty, angry trolling is so enlightening”

            Irony is lost on you, isn’t it.

            PS, once again, not a single attempt to deal with the arguments, just insults towards those who don’t worship as you do.

          • fred,

            If CO2 is a positive feedback loop then we wouldn’t be here discussing this. The Earth would have long ago become a burnt-out cinder.

          • Loy dohh.. STILL NO EVIDENCE

            So you ADMIT that he is correct about the Vostok graphs… and you can’t counter it…

          • Yes, I have read what AndyG has said in many places and how he says it.

            And seen how effective he is against empty fools like you.

          • Anyone is welcome to look at the Vostok graphs..

            It was an interesting observation that he made….

            At every peak in CO2.. the planet was cooling…..

            I was quite surprised when I first read that, and had to look myself.

            Have you looked at the Vostok graphs Loy? Was he incorrect?

        • You wrongly assume, science is settled, it’s far away to be. 😀
          The models your “knowledge” is based on run to hot, what even alarmists like you are about to agnowledge. The value of the CO2 sensitivity is not exactly known, the range of estimates is about 0 – 6,5°C based on researches.
          The role of ocean cycles is not surley established, wait the AMO turns in the negative phase during the next five to seven years, while we live in a strong solar minimum.
          Than it’s time to come around with your so called “challenges” 😀

        • There isn’t a scintilla of evidence to support the claim that CO2 is a positive feedback. That’s just the assumption that the modelers put into the models in order to get the scary numbers that those who were paying them wanted.

          • If they actually understood feedback they would know that positive feedback alone *always* results in runaway as the positive feedback just keeps pumping the system higher and higher. This means that when CO2 in the atmosphere was much higher the Earth should have turned into a cinder then and we would not be here discussing the issue.

            Since all the multiple differential equations in the models turn into a linear equation of the form mx+b about 20 years out they *do* predict the Earth will suffer dire consequences somewhere in the future. At some point the average global temp will burn it all down.

            I am reminded of the Marxists meme in every new country that tries it – We *will* make it work this time! The climate alarmists meme is – This time the Earth *will* turn into a cinder!

          • One example of “positive feedback” that I encounter regularly is in making a flat grade with a dozer blade.

            Because the cutting edge is in front of the tracks a slight undulation under the front idler is magnified at the cutting edge and a bigger hump results. Which causes an even bigger hump when the idler meets that and so on to the “dozer woopsies”

            And why the blade on a grader is between front and back wheels

          • Interesting comment Ian…which is why I back blade in float mode for the final pass when I want things to be relatively smooth and level and not amplify the ‘humps’ as you say. Including filling in holes that drag some dirt in front of the back of the blade while I am back blading in reverse gear. A good descriptor for feedbacks that I can use with my red neck equipment operator friends that don’t follow all this in any detail. But they are quick learners and will understand exactly what one is talking about.

          • Yep, not a jot of data and as I mention above…if there is no proven cause (and real science is based on statistically significant empirical data not arm waving or screeching) , then there cannot be any proven effects?

        • “The sad truth is that now CO2 from human industry is giving a boost to temperatures.”

          The “truth” you say? Me and Senator Roberts want to know where the evidence backing up this claim is.

          I don’t think you have any evidence. If you do, you will be the first one.

          Just asserting that something is so, doesn’t necessarily make it so. And all we get out of climate alarmists are assertions and assumptions, like you are doing here. Assertions and assumptions are not evidence of anything.

    • Typical response from you, which does not answer the question but relies on previous unproven stuff. Answer the question if you can! But you can’t, as nobody has ever been able to do. So “ex-coal miner” is now a derogatory term! What have you ever done in your life, to try to run down this honourable man who just asks for the proof which is costing the taxpayer billions of dollars. The proof! Produce it if you can!

      • He was an engineer. They are the hardest to to con with the climate scam as they look at the evidence in detail and content and plausibility.

        • Senator Malcolm Roberts was a mechanical or mining engineer who, being a Queenslander, worked in the Queensland coal industry. As an engineer in a completely different field I too understand the maths, physics, chemistry, statistics etc that underpins the so called science behind the CO2 mania and find it utterly unconvincing for a whole set of technical reasons. That the ‘global warming’ proponents resorted pretty quickly to the ad hominem of ‘denier’ also introduced the issue of them being unreliable ‘witnesses’ in the matter which begs the question: Why?

          I actually don’t think much of One Nation (Malcolm Robert party in the Australian Senate) and mark him down a bit generally on that count for being one of them but he is on the money re the politically inspired CO2 phobia.

          Here’s a tip to Lloydo et al. Public ‘experts’ typically make their living, earn a nice little bit on the side or get intro’s into new opportunities, boards and positions etc by spruiking a ‘party line’ for the same reasons there are greaseball CEOs who drive their organisations to maximise the KPI’s in their own reward rubrics as against those metrics which are in the best overall interest of their organisations. They have been incentivised to gild the lily, toe the line, follow the script etc. so trotting out schlock like 97% of climate scientists agree etc is like saying 97% of excrement stinks, accurate statistically but hardly surprising. 100% of ISIS adherents agree on all sorts of crazy stuff but so what?

          Here in Oz we have recently had a series of expose’s on CEO’s university VC’s and other such senior management people revealing all manner of incompetence, sexual harrasssment and downright greed all of which evidence a culture of Wall Street style ‘greed is good’ self interest first and foremost.

        • If it were ONLY a sink then we would not be here discussing its properties as our CO2-based existence would be non-existent.

          Telling half a story – as the oceans act as both sinks AND sources – is ignorant at best or lying at worst.

          • Quite funny that they harp on about oceans warming…

            …. then say they are becoming a net sink.

            All you can say is DOH !!!

          • The ocean is a *net* sink John, it’s CO2 conc. is increasing. The increase from 280-415ppm cannot be from the oceans. There needs to be a very compelling reason for someone like Roberts to spout such nonsense as: ““changes in the carbon dioxide level [of the atmosphere] are a result of changes in temperature, not a cause.”, in his maiden speech to parliament as a newly elected Senator. It is one of two things: Olympic grade incompetance or deep cynicism. Making our laws is the last place I want to see a clown like him.

          • Wrong again Loy

            And with no evidence

            ““changes in the carbon dioxide level [of the atmosphere] are a result of changes in temperature, not a cause.”

            This is a KNOWN, proven scientific fact !

            Sorry you don’t have any scientific intelligence or learning to actually understand basic science and physics.

            You don’t even seem to try. !!

          • “Olympic grade incompetance”

            Only person showing total incompetence is YOU.

            Your understanding of science is like a deep abyss of emptimess.

          • “The increase from 280-415ppm cannot be from the oceans.”

            Yet most of it is.. natural warming does that.

            And you have no proof otherwise.

        • Are you saying the people you refer to are mere apparatchiks for the world Marxists funded by the CCP and fascists like Google, Soros, etc?

        • “Is Soros running low on cash?”

          Ah, the QANON anti semitic bow wow inevitably gets barked.

          “The quality of our trolls has been going downhill lately.”

          I routinely search for Nick Stokes posts here. I used to find one every once in awhile, but now all I get are mentions of him by other posters. Posters here fervently seek superterranean validation, but their last hope of it seems to have decided that it’s been one pig fight too many…

    • Loydo, you made it, once again! So many illogical and absolutely unrelated to the topic words. Have you been ordering white pills embossed with the North Korean flag star ?

    • an ex-coal miner

      And what is wrong with being a coal-miner ex or otherwise?

      now politician from a far-right fringe party

      Not being an Aussie I can’t speak to where in the political spectrum his party belongs (Experience tells me that oftentimes when a lefty like you calls something “far right” the actual truth is they’re closer to the middle because anything to the right of the “far-far-left” is “far-right” in your book) but so what? Even if we take it as read that he’s from “a far-right fringe political party” what does it matter what political party he belongs to? that’s totally irrelevant to the question he asked (a question, it is noted, you provide no answer to).

      He’s not a dummy so this is just intentional lying

      Prove he’s lying. Asserting it doesn’t make it so. Of course proving he’s lying means actually addressing what he says rather than just making ad hom. attacks. As you only seem capable of the later, I’m not surprised you make no attempt at the former.

      • “what is wrong with being a coal-miner ex”
        That he is financially interested in denying anthropogenic warming. You deniers are very quick to point out the flimsiest financial interests in what is established science, and now you flatly deny such an obvious one…

        “Not being an Aussie I can’t speak to where in the political spectrum his party belongs but so what?”
        One Nation (PHON) has all the stuff you rightly associate with the far right, you don’t have to be an Aussie for that. Furthermore, being far-right (including various kinds of libertarian idiocies) correlates well with climate denial. So this is quite relevant.

        “Prove he’s lying”
        He’d done exactly that. The fact that the increase in CO2 levels is overwhelmingly anthropogenic is extremely well established scientifically, you have to have a mindset of a flatearther to deny that.

        • “The fact that the increase in CO2 levels is overwhelmingly anthropogenic is extremely well established scientifically”

          No , it hasn’t.. Some 10% 15% or the increase..

          Again.. PRODUCE the evidence.. Don’t FAIL like CSIRO has

          Rabid regurgitation of AGW mantra, is NOT science. !

          • Indeed it’s not science but it’s all useful idiots like nyolci, loy-doh, and griff have. The saddest part is they don’t even seem to realize just how pathetic their adherence to that failed mantra is.

        • “One Nation (PHON) has all the stuff you rightly associate with the far right,”

          WRONG again.. only called that by those on the very far left !!

          • Wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if nyolci couldn’t actually list a single item on the platform.
            He’s been told that they are evil, and that’s all he needs to know.

          • Indeed just as he’s been told he was an ex-coal miner so that means he must have “really-really deep financial interest”. Never mind his coal mining career ended over a quarter of a century ago. Just picking up a lump of coal decades ago when you were a child would be enough to give you a “really-really deep financial interest” in coal by his (il)logic.

          • “WRONG again.. only called that by those on the very far left !!”

            Remember Mark Latham? Was up for being Prime Minister when he was a member of the Labor Party (Democrat equivalent in Oz).
            He’s a NSW Seantor now – with PHON affiliation.

        • “denying anthropogenic warming”

          Denying a FANTASY… Only real anthropogenic warming is urban heat,

          … and that is a very small part of the globe, just happens to be where most surface thermometer stations are.

          Come on, we are waiting for some actual science of warming by human CO2.

          so far NADA. Nothing..

          Just like CSIRO. !!

        • You only cite the climate bible with unfounded phrases without content or evidences. You only show to be able to use the obscure alarmist vocabulary, nothing else.

        • Loydo, backed up by nyolci …the mind police seem to be calling out the reserves. They know Malcolm Roberts is a major threat to their scam. Roberts has a PhD in Atmospheric Physics.

          • PS: Atmospheric Physics doesn’t address where the CO2 comes from, just what it does once there.
            As always, every comment from Loydo just further drives home the fact that she doesn’t have a clue, about anything.

          • “the mind police seem to be calling out the reserves.”

            That tank is well and truly EMPTY !!

            I love watching them flap around like stunned mullets when they are asked to actually produce evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2. 🙂

            Never actually been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.

        • -> That he is financially interested in denying anthropogenic warming.

          Are you actually saying that suckling researchers who have not been weaned off the teat of government grants are not financially motivated?

          Could you also kindly explain the billions spent on unreliable, so-called renewable energy on the basis of AGW theory?

          To suggest that only a coal miner could be financially motivated would lead to an inauspicious discussion.

          • “Are you actually saying that suckling researchers who have not been weaned off the teat of government grants are not financially motivated?”
            So we can agree that financial interests may be in all these, right? Settling this, we can agree that a senator from the mining industry really-really has some deep financial interests, right?

            “Could you also kindly explain the billions spent on unreliable, so-called renewable energy on the basis of AGW theory?”
            1. The “so-called” renewables are renewables, without the “so-called”, and unlike the fossils.
            2. The spending on renewables started well before (and were not based on) the AGW theory. Hydroelectric is as old as large scale use of electricity.
            3. The unreliability of renewables is being addressed and good solutions are already on the way. Some methods are cc 100 years old like running hydroelectric stations in the reverse when there’s excess electricity. Even simple and already partly used measures (like international cooperation – wind always blows somewhere…) are very good in evening out reliability problems. I don’t understand your alarmism in this regard.
            4. The alternative to fossils is not just renewables but nuclear as well.

          • So we can agree that financial interests may be in all these, right? Settling this, we can agree that a senator from the mining industry really-really has some deep financial interests, right?

            Name them. Heck name just one. He hasn’t been in the coal mining business for over 25 years (A quarter of a century!), so what exactly (be specific) is his “really-really deep financial interests” you keep insinuating he has (but yet have been completely unable to define)?

          • Fossil fuels are being renewed, just not as fast as we are using them.
            Wind and solar may be renewable, however the constructions being built to harness them aren’t.
            Who cares when spending on wind and solar started, it has no bearing on the discussion.
            Just because people are talking about solutions is not evidence that the solutions aren’t any more fanciful than wind and solar themselves. For example pumped storage does work, however it loses much of the energy being stored. Beyond that, there are few good places for it and most of those are already taken. Finally, the same “environmentalists” that demand wind and solar fight against dams, in fact they want all the existing ones removed.
            Nuclear, finally, you have managed to say something that is true and intelligent. Of course your fellow “environmentalists” will have you hung for this.

          • Love that you include hydro.

            Means that China has already met any possible “renewables” quota, and they can go on building coal fired power stations 🙂

        • That he is financially interested in denying anthropogenic warming

          Surely being an ex-coal miner means he no longer has such an interest (assuming such an interest ever existed). “ex-” mean “no more”.

          You deniers

          Ad homs will get you no where except laughed at.

          are very quick to point out the flimsiest financial interests

          Eh? It’s your side that started that particular battle by claiming (without evidence) that everyone with a realistic view of the complexities of the Earth’s atmosphere (ie those that aren’t drinking the Kool-Aid that’s you’ve drunk so deeply from) are somehow in “the pay of big oil” or have some “financial interest”. Seems only fair to point out the financial interests on your side. tit for tat. Don’t like the taste of your own medicine? Aw, poor baby.

          One Nation (PHON) has all the stuff you rightly associate with the far right

          Again, I don’t know much about Aussie politics, but I take such claims from a far lefty like you with a truck load of salt.

          Furthermore, being far-right (including various kinds of libertarian idiocies) correlates well with climate denial

          Even if that were true, it would still not be relevant.

          First off, no one denies the climate. You make yourself look the fool when you use such nonsense terms. But by all means continue doing so, it only makes it easier for other to spot how devoid of merit anything you have to say is.

          Secondly, Correlation does not mean causation. There are people on the right who buy into the climate change/global warming scam and those on the left who do not. claiming someone’s political affiliation as a mark against them says more about you than it does the topic they are discussing and their position on said topic.

          He’d done exactly that

          Bwahahahahahaha. Oh, wait, you were serious? Bwahahahahahaha. Nope, sorry but asserting something and proving something are two completely different things. Even grade school aged children can tell the difference between the two. Clearly you, however, can not.

          The fact that the increase in CO2 levels is overwhelmingly anthropogenic is extremely well established scientifically

          No It hasn’t. It’s been asserted repeatedly, but again assertions and proof are two different things. But hey, if it’s so “overwhelmingly established scientifically” then providing such proof should be a cakewalk, yet all anyone on your side ever does is assert it and never once provides the proof when asked. not once. They’ll play slight of hand shell games. they’ll toss out irrelevant distractions with claims about consensus and lots and lots of ad homs, they’ll even avoid being seen in the same room as someone asking the question. But they’ll never provide that “overwhelmingly established scientifically” proof. now why is that one has to wonder?

          • ” “ex-” mean “no more” ”
            Are you serious? If you don’t know that most lobbyists are ex guys and senators from whatever industry tend to favor that particular industry then you’re either very naive or …

            “Secondly, Correlation does not mean causation.”
            Hm, then we can agree that there’s a good correlation, right? I didn’t claim causation 🙂 and your first argument was about the intentional misunderstanding of the phrase “climate denier”. In other words, you didn’t dispute there was (a quite strong) correlation.

            “[it’s been established that CO2 levels’ increase in atm. is anthropogenic] No It hasn’t”
            Yes. Actually, these carbon budget calculations have been a routine for decades, and this is a very well established part of the science.

          • If you don’t know that most lobbyists are ex guys

            Are you serious? Lobbiest get paid by companies to lobby. He’s not a lobbiest, he’s not in the pay of any company to lobby, he’s a Senator. If he’s, as it was put, “an ex-coal miner” that means he isn’t in the business of mining coal anymore. period. What exactly is his financial interest in a business he is not part of? Hmmm? Being a former member of something does not put money in the bank. Back in my youth, I was a paper boy. I’m an ex-paperboy so by your logic I have a financial interest in the newspaper business, but as I don’t receive a dime for being an ex-paperboy, no newspaper company is providing me with cash. Your so-called logic is laughable. Now, if you could show that he’s somehow still employed by coal companies or owns significant stock in such companies then you could believably start to make a claim he has such a financial interest. Pointing to his former job just doesn’t pass the laugh test.

            I suppose we are in agreement that those on the right tend to be more logical and seek actual proof than those on the left who tend to be more emotional and unthinkingly by into assertions without proof.

            Yes. Actually, these carbon budget calculations have been a routine for decades, and this is a very well established part of the science.

            That assertions have been routine for decades does not make them either true of proof. Again you show you have no understanding of the difference between assertion and proof.

          • First you claim that he has a financial interest, then when it is pointed out that he doesn’t, you then whine that people who have experience in an industry should not be allowed to be involved in regulating that industry.

            Just how desperate can you get?

          • “and this is a very well established part of the science.”


            Science that you have been “told” about, but are totally incapable of actually producing..

            We are still waiting !!

          • Jeff Alberts get off your damn spelling/grammar Nazi high-horse. You know damn well what it is (despite any typos) or are you claiming you are totally incapable of reading comprehension (the context of the post makes perfectly clear what is being discussed) in which case stop trying to grammar Nazi everyone else’s posts until after you graduate from remedial school.

          • (This is a reply to another comment of yours but I can’t directly reply to that)

            “First you claim that he has a financial interest”
            I still claim that.

            “when it is pointed out that he doesn’t”
            Well, no. All you’ve claimed is just that he’s not part of the industry NOW. Of course this is not a refutation. These industry insiders turned politicians (turned industry board members after a few terms) are well known figures in any country and if you claim this is something outlandish then you’re beyond naive (or pretend to be naive).

            “you then whine that people who have experience in an industry should not be allowed to be involved in regulating that industry”
            ??? I have never said anything like that. I just pointed out that he has quite obvious financial interests in that himself, and this link is, khm, very direct, it’s not like he has a friend who has a cousin who once visited a coal mine.

          • “I just pointed out that he has quite obvious financial interests in that himself, ”

            NO, you haven’t pointed out anything you can actually prove.

            NO EVIDENCE… just baseless supposition.

            And we are STILL WAITING for evidence of warming by human CO2.

            You continue to FAIL.. just like CSIRO has.

          • “I just pointed out that he has quite obvious financial interests in that himself”

            The same way politicians heavily invested in renewables have an interest?

            Forget the funding. Either his statements have merits or they don’t. Just saying they don’t, or that x number of scientists say there is a crisis, isn’t a refutation.

          • I still claim that

            And yet you still can’t name a single one of those interests. Come on name exactly what his financial interest in an industry that he hasn’t worked in for decades is?

            I just pointed out that he has quite obvious financial interests in that himself

            “You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means” – Inigo Montoya. Financial interest does not mean “worked there some time decades ago” as you so wrongly seem to think. Perhaps you should learn what the words you want to use mean before you try using them. It would certainly stop you from looking so foolish.

          • It’s been well over a week and nyolci still can name a single financial interest. Nobody is surprised, I’m sure.

      • A BE, and mining engineer..

        … would have magnitudes more practical and scientific knowledge Loy or griff would have.

        • “A BE, and mining engineer”
          Huh, then his denial of scientific facts is even worse then.

          “would have magnitudes more practical and scientific knowledge Loy or griff would have”
          I don’t know much about their practical knowledge but they seem to know relevant science well. Unlike this senator. Regarding practical knowledge we should ask them but nothing what they’ve said so far indicates they are bad in that regard.

          • You have no scientific facts.

            You , and CSIRO, cannot produce any

            What “scientific” facts does he deny.. produce evidence to show they are facts.

            …. or just keep making empty statements.

            griff and Loy are ignorant brain-washed dolts..

            … and if you can’t see that, you must be one as well. !

            WAITING for your scientific evidence !!!

            Waiting, waiting !! …………………. Don’t FAIL again..

          • “but they seem to know relevant science well.” (referring to griff and Loy)

            I really can’t get past the UTTER STUPIDITY of that comment !!

            How did you manage it.. to be stupider than griff and loy at their worst !!

          • NYolci
            Still waiting to read all these facts that proof a little warming is in any way dangerous

          • And here we go again, the classic, only those who agree with me are scientists, argument that trolls always fall back on.

    • Poor Loy.. DOH !

      you have said absolutely NOTHING to counter anything that was said.

      You have made a meaningless empty comment, based on ignorance and non-science

      Standard Loy, in other words.

      You, and it seems CSIRO, are INCAPABLE of producing one tiny bit of evidence that human CO2 causes warming

      NONE, NADA…. EMPTY as an abyss. !!

      This is probably the most pathetic post you have made .. EVAH !!

    • First, One Nation isn’t a far-right fringe party.

      Second, ice core data demonstrates that the temperature goes up before the CO2 levels, in other words CO2 can’t cause temperature increases.

      • Really Ian? Doubling down on transparent bs? Which is what you’d realise it is if you’d given it more that a millisecond of thought. The ocean is a net CO2 sink… so how can it be the source of the CO2 increase. I blame idiots like Roberts and Worrell for spreading this kind of bs disinformation, deliberately muddying the water and deliberately spreading doubt where none exists – for lying. Shame on them and shame on you Ian for being so credulous. As for the rest of Robert’s credibility he has none and is widely considered a laughing stock.

        • Loydo you arrogant dimbo, the oceans are are CO2 sink ONLY when partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere exceeds the partial pressure of said gas in the water, until equilibrium is established, whereupon the concentrations do not change. The solubility of CO2 declines with temperature, so as the oceans warm they exsolve CO2. This is simple physical chemistry, clearly you don’t understand it.

          • “The solubility of CO2 declines with temperature, so as the oceans warm they exsolve CO2. This is simple physical chemistry, clearly you don’t understand it.”
            Regarding simple physical chemistry:
            1. Around 1/4 of the total anthropogenic CO2 emission ends up in the ocean every year. (Around another 1/4 end up in plants, the rest stays in the atmosphere. Other factors like volcanic CO2 are negligible in comparison.)
            2. The ocean is still capable of absorbing CO2, saturation is still ahead, and this is despite increasing temperatures.

          • Not only that, but the increased growth of sea plants consumes a lot of that atmospheric CO2..

            Plants.. of all sorts…. LUV CO2

          • STILL WAITING for your evidence,

            Make up numbers all you like.. its meaningless…

            Keep proving Mr Roberts correct…

        • I’ve gotta give credit to Loydo for trying to think. It must have been painful for her.
          Now we have to encourage he to think logically.
          The fact that rising CO2 levels force some CO2 into the oceans is not proof that warming oceans don’t out gas CO2.

          • “The fact that rising CO2 levels force some CO2 into the oceans”
            Ocean is a net sink at the moment. It absorbs around 1/4 of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. In other words, atmospheric CO2 is NOT the result of oceanic out-gassing, and this is regardless of oceanic warming.

        • Again.. just parrot like regurgitated mantra BS…., without any evidence.

          Keep proving Mr Roberts is correct

          Thanks 🙂

          • “You are now saying the oceans are cooling !”
            Ah, now I understand! You have elementary problems with comprehension!

          • You poor evidence free, scientifically illiterate little clown

            Every post you make with ZERO evidence, proves Mr Roberts correct.

            Please keep going.

            So sad your grasp of basic science is less than zero. !

          • nyolci + loydo + other warmunist idiots,

            Englishman William Henry, who, even earlier, in 1803, presented a paper describing the partial pressures of dissolved gases in liquids and the atmosphere above, which has become known as Henry’s Law.

            Henrys Law ;

            Henry’s Law teaches that it is the TEMPERATURE of the liquid which determines the solubility of its dissolved gases. In oceans, which cover 71% of Earth, as the water warms up, it gives off the air dissolved in it until partial pressures of the gases in the atmosphere above and the solution are the same–CO2 being one of the dissolved gases–and conversely.

            THIS IS SCIENCE ! and you nyolci + loydo + other warmunist idiots, are science deniers.

    • As expected, Loydo can’t refute anything written, instead he attacks the messenger.

      It would be funny, had global warming insanity not killed so many people.

    • He told no lies. However, you have made a pathetic attempt at slinging mud in his direction. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    • Loydo,

      If I tell you the average global temperature for 2019 was 13C can you tell me:
      1. the maximum temperature in 2019
      2. the average maximum temperature in 2019
      3. the minimum temperature in 2019
      4. the average minimum temperature in 2019

      If you can’t do these four things then exactly what are we supposed to glean from the global average temperature for 2019?

    • Malcolm’s statement is correct. 97% of ghg emissions are from natural sources. The oceans contain 50 times more co2 than the atmosphere. The solubility of co2 decreases in water with increasing temperature hence the oceans off gas co2 to the atmosphere when they warm. This is supported by the same ice core studies Al Gore used to claim “see when co2 is high, the temperature is high”. Sorry, temperature changes first by about 800 years, and then CO2 follows is the correct science.

      • Thats all lovely and true David, but entirely irrelevant. The lie Roberts is telling is that modern CO2 increase is caused by an out-gassing, something he must surely know is false. The ocean’s CO2 conc is currently increasing not decreasing. How would you explain that?

        • WRONG again, little man.

          And zero evidence.

          You say oceans are warming, and becoming sinks.

          Your grasp of basic science is as EMPTY as your evidence. !

        • The only way ocean co2 can increase is if the temperature is constant or decreasing, which of course is opposite the AGW narrative. You cannot have increasing oceans temperature and not have a net loss of co2 to the atmosphere – that would defy everything we know about solubility of a gas in a liquid relative to temperature. And it is not just co2 in water – it is all gasses in all liquids. This was demonstrated by AL Gores ice core data which showed significant changes in natural atmospheric co2 concentrations as the temperature naturally changed over hundreds of 1000s of years during the current ice age we still live in.

    • Lloydo,

      … dummy or lying.

      Always the question (although not necessarily mutually exclusive).

      How does the question/answer apply to you?

    • Loydo,
      Malcolm Roberts is simply saying in that quote that Temperature precedes CO2 rises in all time periods from decades to centuries to Millenia, not the reverse.
      Countless scientists have said the same thing even if some alarmists seek to put spin on the fact to say, “this time it is different”.
      Why would you regard that as “ lying”?

      • No, he’s saying “changes in the carbon dioxide level are a result of changes in temperature”. He bizarrely disputes the anthropogenic source of the current CO2 pulse – just as several cranks on this thread are doing.

        • Loydo: Kindly explain why global temperatures actually DECLINED from 1940 to 1980, even as CO2 emissions were increasing rapidly.

        • “changes in the carbon dioxide level are a result of changes in temperature”

          Which is TOTALLY CORRECT.

          Proven scientific FACT which you CANNOT dispute.

          Again, you FAIL UTTERLY to produce any evidence to back up your idiotic anti-science claims.

          Real scientists, such as Harde, estimate humans have contributed around 15% of the HIGHLY BENEFICIAL rise in atmospheric CO2.

          You have NOTHING, you are like an EMPTY sack

        • In this thread someone tried to explain Henry’s law to you, note it is a law, and not a theory for good reason, no one disputes it as it has been measured time and time again for a multitude of liquid gas combinations. You will find the numbers available in any chemistry, engineering or environment modelling hand book. The simple math of Henry’s law indicates that in order for the rise in co2 to be solely the result of man, then the ocean temperatures must not be increasing – the temperature of the oceans must be constant or decreasing. If the ocean temperatures are rising as AGW alarmist claim, then the majority of the increase in global co2 emissions must be a result of off gassing from the oceans, not man. Temperature is the most significant factor affecting solubility in the liquid and the vapour pressure of the gas. Also note that 97% of the co2 flux is natural and only 3% is man made. A 1% change in natural emissions is equivalent to a 33% change in man made emissions. Which do you think is more likely to occur?

    • Loydo… a string of petty and sad attacks on Malcom Roberts before you shot yourself in the foot. Is this how you conduct an “intelligent discussion”?

      “Filtering Scientific Research through Malcom Roberts”? What a bizarre thing to say as if he has no right to comment based on the string of desperate personal sleights you rained down on his good name! I would say that is as good if not better than through the political sham which is the IPCC who’s framing document starts off with a conclusion! . far right fringe party indeed as if that means something outside of the vacuous world of left wing authoritarianism!

      Your quote is correct so what of it or are you saying that only impassioned left wing eco loons are allowed to speak with authority?

      Degassing of the oceans follows temperature rise not the other way around…what do you not understand about that and from that very simple and empirical data supported observation?

      Oh and while we are at it, the level of atmospheric CO2, the gas of life has only once been this low in the whole of Geological Time and that was during the Ordovician. Never over geological history has there been correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature..:NEVER!

      Second point, if the CO2 level over geological time is averaged out it comes to around 2500ppm. Back in the Cambrian the level was around 7000ppm and no the oceans were not acidic then and never ever have been over the whole of geological history! When the veg you like to eat evolved the level was between 2500-2800ppm which is why commercial greenhouses pump CO2 because plants grow bigger, faster and use less water.What is there not to like about that? Currently even at 410ppm plants are on a starvation diet.

      It may surprise you to learn but there exists no statistically significant empirical data set(s) of any kind which prove the theory that the 3% of CO2 liberated by man to join the other 97% of the annual flux released by the rest of nature has any measurable effect on temperature. For people to claim it does…all I can say is then without empirical data to back your claim up then it remains just that, a claim. Thinking on it, that must be a very magical 3% to outweigh any effect created by the other 97%. Secondly there exists no statistically significant empirical data set(s) which support the claim that that 3% in any way has a controlling influence on climate. Go find it and reference that data here if you wish to challenge me on this!

      If anyone seriously wants to make any assertion regarding the current 350 year old warming then for good science to be done then at least the cause of the three other recent warmings ( The Minoan, The Roman and the Medieval Warming Periods) must be understood and shown not to be in effect today. That STILL does not prove anything about man released CO2 back into the Carbon Cycle but it at least shows something else is going on.

      Given that the IPCC et al go no where near that question speaks volumes about their regard and indeed desire to see good and worthwhile scientific endeavour undertaken.

      So with no proven cause there can be no proven effect…QED!

      If you do want to know there actually IS a problem with CO2 and that is that there is not enough in the Atmosphere. There is a 160 million year old problem caused by the evolution of marine organisms which sequestrate CO2 to combine with calcium to make hard shells. that they have been successful at this is made testament to by the incredible volume of organic carbonaceous rocks present on earth. That the CO2 removed from the Carbon Cycle and locked up in these rocks is never mentioned speaks volumes as does the fact that CO2 exists in three media not 2 or 1 as the moronic bought MSM would have you believe. So there has been a relentless decreasing of CO2 available to the Carbon Cycle for 160 million years and the short temporary uptick possibly caused by man liberated CO2 is just that, a temporary blip in an inexorable 160 million year old decline. During the depths of the first part of the current ice age ( yes we are in the middle of one), atmospheric CO2 levels fell to around 180ppm, about 20ppm only above the death of plants. Following that 160 million year old linear decline, in just over 1 million years the atmospheric concentration is set to meet the death line for plants. What we should be “worrying over” is not lunacy to take more CO2 out of the atmosphere but how to put it back!

  2. Not sure about the closing paragraph. Tulip Mania and the South Sea Bubble were driven by greed, jumping on the get-rich-quick bandwagon. The Climate Crisis idiocy is driven by ignorance, stupidity and wilful deception.

    • No, there are also people in it for the money… They are busy milking subsidies and getting handouts.

      • A lot of people Stephen, more than you will imagine from all of the flunky hangers on to the professional meeting attenders. All local councils carry dead weight in respect of paid climate loons ( I make that sleight deliberately because what they spout has no basis in any science I know of).

    • “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”
      -Warren E. Buffett
      Chairman, Berkshire Hathaway Corporation

      As reported by U.S. News & World Report
      12 May, 2014
      by Nancy Pfotenhauer

      • ” “we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit” ”
        This is actually (and likely unintentionally) a very good argument in support of the leftish one that our society is, well, fcuked up quite profoundly. Just to illustrate this, the forerunners of Buffett didn’t give up child work and the 16 hour work day in the late 19th century because that made sense to them financially. Workers fought for it hard and made them accept it, and nowadays no one disputes these (openly).

        • Well, it seem we agree that it’s “fcuked(sic) up quite profoundly” for government to make useless expenditures of capital and resources “make sense” from a business perspective via tax credits. Perhaps there’s some glimmer of hope for you yet 😉

        • Once again, the far left spreads their lies.

          The reason why children worked is because productivity was so low that families couldn’t earn enough to live without it.
          To believe otherwise is to believe that either businessmen kidnapped children and forced them to work, or that families didn’t care about their children and forced them to work.

          When capitalism increased productivity, child labor stopped. In the west, child labor had all but disappeared by the time government got around to outlawing it.
          In fact the only places where child labor still existed, farms, small family business’s were exempted from the first laws.

          • Indeed. What people forget, or else just plain never thought about, was that back then “it made sense” wasn’t because “business man evil” but because work was much more labor intensive while also being much less productive.

            We didn’t have the labor saving machines that we have today. It took a lot of labor to accomplish what would be relatively very little compared to today. That meant workers needed hours to accomplish what we can do today in minutes. And that meant many more workers were needed to accomplish what one worker can do today. As we developed more labor saving machines, fewer workers were needed for few hours a day to achieve the same amount of productivity (and, as many companies eventually learned, workers were actually even more productive per hour at 8 hours a day then they were at 16 hours a day).

            Businesses are only going to pay labor no more than they’re worth in productivity, pay too much for labor (or materials, or any other aspect of a business) and it will eventually cause that business to go out of business. All those changes to labor (work hours, child labor, etc) were made possible by the increase in productivity brought about by the industrial revolution. It doesn’t matter what laws are fought for or passed, if a business can’t get the productivity it needs for the amount it cost in labor and materials, that business won’t be in business for long making those labor issues a moot point. It’s not a coincidence that such laws were passed only after business began adopting those changes once they were able to and not before.

          • “The reason why children worked is because productivity was so low”
            Like it or not, this is, of course, not true. The standard of living for the lower classes (cc 99% of the population) actually decreased through the early modern era (well into the first part of the Industrial Revolution), all the while productivity was progressing. Eg. height of commoners in the industrializing Prussia quickly decreased, as a result of exploitation and malnutrition. And this is just an example.

            “To believe otherwise is to believe that either businessmen kidnapped children and forced them to work”
            Now you give away that you’re clueless about this extremely well documented and well researched process. The studies about early capitalism have the status of classics. A few clues: have you heard of the so called “enclosures”? Where masses of peasants were expelled from their lands without any means of self support? Where they were literally had no way for a living other than selling their (and their children’s) work for almost nothing?

        • The same goes for the 16 hour work day.
          It was capitalism that improved productivity. Workers had the choice of taking their increased pay in either higher wages or shorter hours.

          Workers wages have always, and always will be, based on their productivity. That’s why increasing the minimum wage always fails to help workers. When a workers wage is pushed above his marginal productivity, that worker gets fired.

    • Two big differences.
      In the Tulip Mania and South Sea Bubble, for the most part, people lost their own money.
      Governments weren’t involved either.

    • And greed. Who in their right mind would spend 100s of billions $ on unreliable renewables and electric vehicles if it were not for the “climate crisis” we are currently in. The green industry is a huge business and a lot of people will loose livelihoods if the money stops flowing.

  3. “… millions of people as a group abandoned common sense and followed the herd, for reasons probably even they could never clearly explain.”

    Wow, what a good description of progressives in general. Permission to quote this often and loudly?

    I have an acquaintance who moved to Seattle and soon starting babbling nonsense – they are completely “bought in” to all things progressive no matter how obviously stupid the idea is. They think vaccines are dangerous and children should not get them, that the U.S. is completely racist, that all gun owners should be imprisoned as dangerous criminals, that CO2 is a highly dangerous pollutant man added to the air (and you can SEE it coming out of power plants as a whitish smoke), that the world is going to become unlivable, that the oceans are going to rise 200 feet by 2100…the list goes on. This person has a college degree and should be capable of independent thought, but for some reason fails to do so. They can’t explain any of their beliefs, so they refuse to talk about them to anyone who does not already hold the same beliefs.

      • Geometry has its axioms, unprovable assertions which are simply accepted as true. “On a Euclidean plane, parallel lines never meet.” There are 4 others that form the basis of Euclidean geometry. Would you now like to debate these with Euclidean “believers”? Similarly, the revealed truths in the Bible are taken as given (axiomatic). It is as utterly pointless to go after believing Christians for their belief in the Bible as it is to go after mathematicians for their belief in Euclidean geometry. The axioms in each belief system are not provable. Your discussions have more traction if you debate within the framework of the system. This is, of course, something Christians would do well to keep in mind as well, rather than wasting their time trying to “prove” the Bible is true and correct. Matters of faith are not susceptible to proof.

      • Religious people like to discuss the Bible. What they won’t do is stand still for attacks from people who don’t know the first thing about the Bible or religious studies.

        If you come seeking knowledge, then you are welcome. If you come seeking to indoctrinate, then stay home.

      • There *should* be a difference in discussing one’s faith and discussing a science based hypothesis or theory. Faith is not based on evidence, fact, or natural explanations.

        Discussing climate change *should* be based on evidence, fact, and natural explanations. The fact that most catastrophic climate change believers cannot explain their positions means that it is Faith based, not science. And then they have the stupidity to claim that science is on their side.

        I have no problem with religious people and their Faith, as long as they are not trying to force it upon others through government regulations and laws. Climatology is a cult based on the belief that everyone dies for their sin (burning fossil fuels). It collapses, as do most cults, when it fails to deliver. The trick will be to keep claiming that enough progress has been made to just barely push out the end date, like dangling a carrot in front of a donkey.

    • I have a good friend who fits that description. He becomes extremely touchy and resentful when I press him on his belief in the CAGW, and flatly refuses to engage with scientific arguments.

      • I have friends who fit that description. They becomes extremely touchy and resentful when I press them on their belief in just about any topic, flatly refuses to engage with scientific arguments.

  4. I looked at the Brian Cox piece again. The appeal to authority on NASA: “NASA, the people who put men on the

    Of course , the NASA people who put men on the moon are not the one’s promoting the GISS agenda. This is not rocket science.

    • Good call on the Brian Cox quote.

      Speaking of NASA, just how much CO2 has NASA released or caused to be released into the atmosphere since it’s inception? By extension add in every other national and international and private body engaged in space exploration, research, military or commercial activities. IF NASA et al really believe human generated CO2 it is so bad they should shut themselves down immediately and “save the planet”

    • The people in NASA who actually put people on the Moon,

      …. and the actual people who went to the Moon

      …. all think “Climate Change™” is a monumental scientific JOKE !

      • And a good many of them (and the men they sent to the moon) have since passed away. One thing all of them have in common is that not one of them has publicly spoken out in favor of CAGW, whereas a few of them have spoken out against it. Not exactly the ringing endorsement Cox is trying to pretend by invoking the glory of NASA’s past.

      • Hoping to visit my best mate in QLD (Gold Coast) next year for the first time. Thankfully Malcolm will probably still be running the shop. I’m very grateful my mate doesn’t live in Victoria!

  5. One could also ask the CSIRO as to any direct evidence that the elevated CO2 levels actually trap any significant heat?
    BOM data from central Australia, where arguably the only variable over time is CO2 show no rise in minimum temperatures and , more significantly no reduction in Tmax-Tmin.
    Clear and unequivocal evidence based on unimpeachable data collected at the Giles weather station over 65 years.
    This effectively represents a controlled experiment on the enhanced greenhouse effect.
    Simple,basic science

  6. Eric, this opinion for hire attitude of CSIRO is exactly what I observed in Nevada. CSIRO was hired to conduct a genetic study of Carlin-type gold deposits, focusing in the Lynn Window along the Carlin Trend. Their depth of burial/formation section did not recognize remnant Eocene volcanics, which occur at Skarn Hill on the west side of the window, and which occurrence makes at two kilometer difference in their model. I pointed out this occurrence to them, and whom to contact to verify, and they instead called their initial “expert” consultant who denied the occurrence. At that point I offered to take them directly to the location in question and they said their study was correct and that was it. This is a sad descent into their current mode for CSIRO, but they have other correct-thinking government agencies along with them.

  7. The funny part was with the response I had to look up the 4 field the CSIRO claimed it was top ranked in

    Agricultural Sciences
    Space Science

    Talk about exaggeration I really love the claim about a leader in space science 🙂
    Nick Stokes must be back at work there redefining what top ranked means.

  8. Religions rely on faith not proof. Why are so many of you “scientists” requesting conclusive evidence for claims that the High Priests Griff and Loydo have assured you are matters of fact?
    It beggars belief!

    • Of course, you are largely correct, but it’s just a knee-jerk reaction to try to educate people who yes, as you say, have no desire to be educated.

      Also, High Priests, capitalized? Those two are well down the pecking order in the congregation.

  9. When future historians try to trace the chain of events which led to the squandering of trillions of dollars on green boondoggles, when our descendants try to identify the chain evidence which was used to justify such expenditure, they will fail. Because there is no actual evidence to be found.

    It’s as if all the elites, all over the world, all decided to support pseudoscience, because they wanted to get rid of fossil fuels. The pretext given them by scientists is the greenhouse gas effect; for which no evidence exists. Of course a number of scientists convinced themselves that their models of warming are “settled science”. They believe in the pseudoscience of modeling. They are lost from rational debate.

    I have a hard time figuring out why the politicos are all liberals, progressives and left-wingers. There’s nothing intrinsically good, socialist, liberal, nor progressive in climate alarmism. Alarmism itself cannot lead to better outcomes for earth, or its people. Only to worse outcomes. The world government argument of Tim Ball doesn’t wash well. When I confront individual liberals, progressives and left-wingers, they almost all tell me that climate is a non-issue for them; not worth bothering with, nor including in policy. Yet en masse they turn into climate alarmists be merely repeating what the likes of modelers tell them!

    It makes so little sense you’d almost explain it in terms of sociobiology; those people have the lemming gene. ot the consensus gene (same one)!

    • They don’t want to ban fossil fuels, they just don’t want the little people using up a resource that they believe belongs to them.

  10. Human Caused Global Warming The Biggest Deception In History.
    Is a great little handbook for the layman, by climatologist Dr. Tim Ball.
    He lays out clearly the science, politics & motives of the 1%s pushing the fraud, naming Rockefellers & Soros as chiefs.
    Their motives are threefold:
    1) a vast depopulation,
    2) de-industrialisation,
    3) a totalitarian world govt.
    Only 121 pages, an easy weekend must-read.

    The covid-19 scamdemic is a flanking attack with the same aims.
    Dr. Tim co-founded aimed at truth in science to expose the covid & climate frauds.

    • Canadians need to have the deceptions exposed in a similar way with politicians NOW.
      Could Chrystia Freeland handle such hard hitting questions?

      • She’d fold like a cheap dress, but meanwhile she is now our chief financial officer, after massive failure in foreign affairs and elsewhere

        We are so screwed

  11. Watch the YouTube video of the Senate enquiry with Dr Larry Marshall. Evasive and uncooperative. Dr Marshall should be sacked.
    The Prime Directive of the CSIRO is to inform the public about science sufficiently to be able to not fall for science based scams (pseudoscience.) The CSIRO is beholden to both the taxpayers and the politicians. I asked the CSIRO’s David Thodey about the 2 masters issue. He weaseled out by saying the politicians are the representatives of the people. As the Prime Directive has been violated due to pressure from politicians, isn’t it his responsibility to call out those that would make him violate that Prime Directive?
    Next time, Malcolm might pose the question of what would you call a politician that forces doctors to violate the Hippocratic Oath? (A tyrant) Then pose the question about what sort of politician forces a scientific body to violate the purity of science?

    • The problem is all parties, with the notable exception of One Nation, are bedridden with environmentalists and scammers invested in promotion of RE.

  12. Re NASA Brian Cox conveniently ignores:

    1. Three men had to die on the launchpad in Apollo 1 — they weren’t even in space — due to total incompetence before NASA got its act together

    2. The Challenger space shuttle launch should never have taken place; and when the disaster happened — due to NASA incompetence — NASA tried to cover it up. It was only Richard Feynman’s brilliance and determination to reveal the truth that exposed NASA for what it was.

    3. When the Columbia foam strike took place NASA should have carried out a spacewalk to determine if there was any damage to the heat shield tiles — engineers expressed their concerns during the mission but were ignored. Nothing was done and the astronauts all perished. At very least some sort of rescue attempt might have been made had the problem been looked into during the mission.

    So why should anyone believe NASA. Yes, it put man on the moon but it’s also been exposed as incompetent and prepared to hide the facts if in its interests to do so.

    Next time Brian Cox praises NASA he should be reminded of its many imperfections.

    • Not to mention of the men who put men on the moon and the men who actual went to the moon, not one of them have come out in favor of CAGW. Not a single one. Whereas several of them have spoken out against CAGW. The people Cox is using as a prop don’t agree with Cox.

  13. Harries et al (2001), “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing long wave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997”.
    “ …..Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.”
    Dr. Myles Allen provided Harries et al (2001) to Judge Alsup in the Cal.v. BP litigation as one of the “fingerprints of human caused global warming”.
    Unfortunately Dr. Allen screwed up.
    See “The Alsup Aftermath” at Real Climate –
    Now in fairness to Dr. Allen, he then displayed the graph that was the correct slide for his presentation.
    The correct chart then displayed shows a graph of the “Impact of rising OHGs on the spectrum of outgoing energy has been directly observed from space”.
    While Marcott may be discredited ,Harries (2001) has become an iconic paper as Dr. Allen believes.
    NOAA has a Climate Data Record ( CDR ) of daily Outgoing Longwave Radiation, and it should confirm Harries (2001).
    And the answer is ………?

  14. Slightly tangential but esp for Aus….

    Australia, grow this sh1t instead of wheat, fir trees, eucalyptus and sheep:

    BTW, is that OCO Sputnik still reporting a CO2 *hole* above Australia – compared to a CO2 *mountain above what’s left of the world’s rainforests?
    Does that not tell clear-headed enquiring minds in excellent centres of excellent excellence in the top 1% of excellent excellence in The Most Excellent Australian centres of CSIRO excellent excellence – *SOMETHING*
    Please someone, say something.
    No, not that blustering buffoon in the first video
    An excellent spike on an excellent bridge in an excellent capital city will suffice to place his excellent head excellently upon
    Avert your gaze Loydo – lest *your* excellently excellent head should excellently explode

    Some of that perennial wheat will:
    a) hold Australia’s dirt together
    b) grow something where nothing otherwise does
    c) negate the need for those plants with the extra long clopteropsises that we heard about recently
    d) give an excuse to cut, chop and pyrolyse those disgusting Petrol Bushes and Fir Tress you presently grow (to make Biochar and get some organics/water retention into the soil)
    d) enable the local peasants to evict those dirty desert-creating woolly monsters commonly known as ‘sheep’ before they do totally irreparable damage. It is No Coincidence that sheep hail from Syria/Fertile Crescent = just *look* at those places now. He11 on Earth and Aus is going there soon if you insist on keeping those creatures
    e) give those political correct and most excellent parasitic muppets at CSH!TSO something productive to do
    f) it *might* even help The Climate but, as the natives known and as it is written indelibly into their genetics, THEY trashed the place with their ‘fire sticks’ 30,000 years ago and created the present-day desert we all know (and love??)

    Yes, there *are* ‘tipping points – some of them take millions of years to tip back again. maybe never

    Some Modern Day Muppets, around here and in California, imagine that ‘selective burning’ is possible and is a ‘Good Thing’
    Apart form believing in the GHGE, Ozone Holes, Ocean Acidation and Rona Rona virus, they could *not* be More Wrong About Anything

    • The only problem with invasive perennials (as this will be) is will it take over and grow everywhere, displacing local flora and become a big pain in the arse? Kudzu is a prime example. Wheat, corn, soybeans, sorghum, peanuts.. all are annuals and while some of the seeds drop to the soil during harvest and germinate in the spring, they don’t show up in your backyard.

      I would worry about this especially in marginal growing conditions.

  15. And Malcolm Roberts backs up everything I have been saying.. FACTS

    No scientific evidence of warming by human CO2.. not even CSIRO can produce any.

    And certainly NONE of the CO2 haters / natural climate change deniers that troll this blog have the slightest hope.

    griff, half-runt, Loy.. Three stooges of incompetence. !!

    No matter how many times they are asked to PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE

    … they always end up running round like headless chooks in evasion. !

    • Oh come on – there are great heaps of evidence the planet is warming.

      You just have your fingers in your ears, going ‘la-la-la’

      • No one is arguing that the planet is not warming a little. What is up for discussion is what is the cause of the warming. We don’t even fully understand long term or short term natural variation yet, so laying all present warming at the feet of civilization is folly at best, and outright lies at worst.

        • Earthling2,

          Respectfully, exactly what is warming? Maximum temps? Minimum temps? How can you tell from the average global temperature?

          If you don’t understand that then how can you possibly determine what the cause is?

          • Well, we know that is mainly warming at night, and in winter, and mostly in the northern hemisphere. And fairly moderate warming, and it just may be a return to normal from the abnormal cooling of the LIA. Average global temperatures really don’t mean much in this regard, as average doesn’t mean a whole lot to the entire planet, when the measured warming is happening as per my first sentence. On average, I would say nothing much to worry about. But it would be good to understand natural variation before we blame CO2 for everything.

      • bait and switch, griff “warming” and “warming by human CO2” are not the same thing. He’s talking about the later and you try to switch to the former. Such deception only shows how lacking in any real argument you are. Next time, try to address the actual point rather that switch to a different one.

      • No one denies that the planet is warming. That’s your lie griffie poo.
        The argument is about how much, if any, of that warming is being caused by CO2.

        The fact that you can’t be bothered to address the actual arguments being made, is just more proof that even you know that you can’t.

      • “there are great heaps of evidence the planet is warming.”

        ONLY at El Ninos, we are only just above the coldest period in some 8000-10000 years.

        Its was far warmer before the LIA, (trees under glaciers etc)

        Stop DENYING natural climate change, griff.

        And PRODUCE some actual EVIDENCE of human cause warming, except UHI smearing.

        Or just keep prattling mindlessly as is your usual MO.

      • “Oh come on – there are great heaps of evidence the planet is warming.”

        Griff, do you want the planet to cool?

        • He’s drunk the “warming = bad” Kool-Aid for so long he probably does want the planet to cool. He’s failed to learn history. Cold kills more then warm. The cooler times have been the worst times for life on this planet. The Warm times have been the best times for life on this planet.

      • Oh come on – there are great heaps of evidence the planet is warming

        Putting aside your bait and switch, yes the planet has been warming since the depth of the little ice age, so what? Life likes it warm, cold kills. I’d rather warmer than go back to the temps of the little ice age, most life on this planet agrees judging by how it’s flourishing more now compared to back then. If you like it the cold so much, there are plenty of really cold places on this planet you can move to, I suggest you do so and leave the rest of us to enjoy the life sustaining warmth.

  16. I’m starting to feel sorry for those little carbon dioxide molecules, struggling out there in the atmosphere against almost impossible odds to intercept fugitive heat energy attempting to escape into space to create a frozen planet.

    They are outnumbered by a factor of 2500-to-one by the other gases out there which are apparently doing nothing to help, but now they are copping the blame for doing their job too well, and causing global warming.

  17. Who cares about the CO2?
    Its doubling gives just 0.7 degree.
    The major driver of the climate is the agriculture and urban development.
    We cut trees like crazy, develop huge areas.
    Of course, the climate will change!

    • Well why can’t the climate also change from additional human CO2 in the atmosphere? The physics have been quite clear since Arrhenius’s time.

      • If it’s so clear than prove it, don’t just assert it, don’t just say “well why can’t…” (and don’t switch the subject from warming from human CO2 to just plain warming). Actually do the hard work of proving it. If you can do that, something no one has done to date, you’d be able to end the climate debate in an instant. No one will be holding their breathe, however, as you’ve long since proven you don’t have it in you to even attempt to prove it.

      • Once again, griff doesn’t manage to read for comprehension.
        Alex does not deny that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes changes.

        Note line two where he talks about the 0.7C increase, as measured by Arrhenius.
        Note line three where he admits (by inference) that CO2 is a minor influence on climate.

        griff, if you would bother to actually address the arguments made, you wouldn’t be quite the laughing stock that you have become.

        • ” as measured by Arrhenius.”

          Inside a glass jar..

          I’m guessing that griff spends most of his life at the bottom of a glass jar or bottle….

          … and thinks it represent the atmosphere.

      • Your understanding of physics is that of a 5 year old, griff.

        Yes CO2 is a radiative gas. That is all Arrhenius showed, rest was just supposition.

        And neither you, nor CSIRO, can produce any evidence that it causes atmospheric warming.

        You have been asked to produce the evidence many times, and have, like CSIRO,, failed utterly and completely

      • “Well why can’t the climate also change from additional human CO2 in the atmosphere?”

        You can fantasise all you want, but it doesn’t cause any warming.

        Because other thing control the temperature, NOT CO2 (as you keep proving)

        The atmosphere does change… it becomes better able to support plant life.

      • “griff September 1, 2020 at 7:52 am

        Well why can’t the climate also change from additional human CO2 in the atmosphere?”

        The actual evidence for the last 50 or 60 years shows the climate hasn’t changed in any measurable way with the change in CO2 from ~280ppm/v (Estimate) to ~415ppm/v (Measured). If it has then please provide the evidence.

        • Maybe a fraction of a degree of beneficial warming, most from changes in cloud cover over the tropics (where the SUN heats the oceans.

          Some urban warming that gets smeared all over the place to create a fake temperature trend in the surface data…

          Other than that, and some natural changes in some minor WEATHER patterns, totally UNRELATED to any human cause.

          Basically NOTHING !!

  18. “CSIRO is in the top 0.1 per cent of the world for its four core fields of science, and in the world’s top 1 per cent for the other 14 fields. We rank in the top 3 of the world’s national science agencies for our impact. ”

    That statement is more of a red flag than the free pass they think it is.

  19. The progressive herd cheers a teenager who says, “how dare you”.

    There is no treatment for the progressive parasite.
    It’s infected millions and only long term die off (amputation) will fix it.

    • Hi Fred!
      You could check my scientific site ( for
      Chapters 1: Showing the non-influence of the IR absorbing gases on climate.
      Chapter 2: The major causes of changing climate.
      (Largely variable heat escaping from tectonic boundaries.)
      Chapters 4: Cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons.
      (Largely variable heat escaping from tectonic boundaries.)
      Chapter 5: Ocean pH.
      (Largely affected by variable H2S => H2SO4 emissions from tectonic boundaries. Does wonders to coral reefs!)

      You might guess my PhD is in physical chemistry.

  20. That politician could be replaced by an MP3 file playing on an iPod and no one would notice any difference.

  21. There are a number of additional questions that Malcolm Roberts could ask CSIRO which would drive home his points-
    1. Q: Is today’s temperature warming or cooling ?
    A: How long is a piece of climate string. Whether one perceives a warming or cooling trend depends upon the period of time chosen, from the dawn of time to now.
    2.Q:Is climate changing?
    A: Climate is always changing. Despite wide currency, the phrase “ climate change” is a tautology.
    3.Q:Is there such a thing as a global climate?
    A: Notionally,yes; but mainly for technical scientific use at a high level of abstraction.
    These are not “ trick questions” but the answers from the CSIRO would be instructive.

  22. Cormann didn’t squirm, did he?

    He played the Geoff Boycott straight bat.

    Malcolm Roberts is a truly great hero for common sense but don’t pretend this is some sort of victory for sceptics. It’s not. It was ignored.

  23. A basic question to ask anyone commenting that “Climate Change” is due to increasing carbon dioxide levels is,
    “Although a vast majority of folk believe that increasing carbon dioxide levels are causing the observed increase in global temperatures over the past decades, do they know this to be true? “

    A dead giveaway is the answer often given is that we must err on the safe side!

    The reason that this proposition cannot be supported is that it can be shown easily to be untrue – via simple and unequivocal Thermodynamics; it’s so much simpler than arguments framed around IR. See my site’s Chapter1B and even more simply in the one-page 1C.

    A cut-down version follows:-
    ALL gases are greenhouse gases as, like all substances, all absorb heat, not necessarily by absorbing IR, which is only one method of transmitting energy. (Others being convection, including wind, and conduction.) Therefore CO2, methane, etc, are very minor greenhouse gases.

  24. Once you understand how a debt based currency works it all makes perfect sense. Since money is created whenever debt is created, and since you need more money to pay off the principle plus interest, more debt must always be created. It’s a vicious circle that demands short term prioritization of everything and progressively more irrational spending schemes, finally wholesale plundering and destruction of everything.

    • That simplistic rant assumes debt is the only source of money. Money however is just a stand in for productivity (IE money is exchanged for labor/work), so no, debt is not the only source of money and as such the entire chain following your simplistic assumption fails as long as debt is not excessively greater than productivity.

      We can easily see this in action at the business level. Most every business has a line of credit (IE debt), when a business is run well making something of value to their customers, they can and do make enough money to keep operations going and sometimes even expand them, cover their debt obligations and still have some left over (IE profits) to provide money to their shareholders. When businesses aren’t run well and/or fail to make something their customers value, they don’t make enough money to do all those things and eventually go bankrupt.

      Could businesses run without debt? Sure, but that would slow down economic activity considerably. Business person has an idea, doesn’t have the money to implement the idea so has to wait months/years before to getting enough money to starting production at a much smaller scale (all the while hoping some other, richer business person doesn’t beat them to the punch) . Once up and running, again will have to wait until acquiring enough profit (which, as a small scale will also be a small amount of profit so can be a very long wait) before attempting to expand.

      In short, debt in and of itself is neither good nor bad. Many a good, solid, profitable business has debt, after all. It’s how it’s managed that’s important.

  25. All these politicians do is spew a load of bull about “climate change”.

    This whole subject derives from the work of the UN’s IPCC. Yet, to date, in none of the IPCC’s reports published over the past three decades has the IPCC ever cited a single study demonstrating that human activity CO2 emissions causes catastrophic global warming, and is the key driver of climate change. Why?

    This is the core question everyone should be asking. And why are politicians not demanding an answer to this simple question of the UN’s IPCC?

  26. All these WUWT articles say they were published three days ago, even the one posted about an hour ago. Odd.

    Just thought I would mention that.

Comments are closed.