Aussie PM Scott Morrison Brandishes a Lump of Coal in Parliament

UN Shames Australia for a Lack of Climate Ambition

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Making big climate pledges was a cheap political win when the goal was way off in the future. But now the first deadlines are approaching, long serving politicians in countries like Australia are in the increasingly embarrassing position of having to explain their total lack of achievement.

Australia accused of ‘shamefully’ holding back global action on climate change

United Nations calls on all countries to have ‘concrete plans to phase out fossil fuels as fast as possible’

Adam Morton and Daniel Hurst
Sat 27 Feb 2021 06.01 AEDT

Australia has been accused of “shamefully doing nothing” and weighing down global action after a UN analysis found national pledges to cut greenhouses gas emissions over the next decade have barely begun to do what is necessary to tackle the climate crisis.

The assessment of emissions reduction plans submitted to the UN by the end of last year found if all were fulfilled they would cut global CO2 by only 1% by 2030, compared with 2010 levels.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has advised a 45% cut is needed over this time to limit global heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

Patricia Espinosa, the executive secretary of UN Climate Change, called on all countries, including those that submitted their commitments last year, to reflect on the new assessment and lift their ambition. “We need concrete plans to phase out fossil fuels as fast as possible,” she said.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/27/australia-accused-of-shamefully-holding-back-global-action-on-climate-change

There is no viable path to global net zero except nuclear power. The staggering extractive minerals cost and manufacturing effort required to go 100% renewable is well beyond our civilisation’s current engineering capabilities. Google tried and failed to find a path to 100% renewable energy. Green Left Film producer Michael Moore gets that renewables will not replace fossil fuel. Nature presenter David Attenborough has called for a green “Apollo Project”, to try to bridge the currently insurmountable technology gaps.

But with nuclear off the table in most countries, politicians, especially long serving politicians, are in the increasingly hilarious position of trying to explain why they have achieved nothing, but are still sincere about their commitment.

The renewable push will end in certain failure. The gross failure of renewables is becoming increasingly difficult to conceal. But at least we’ll get some entertainment value for our money, watching our politicians publicly denounce each other in an effort to shift the blame for all those broken green promises.

4.7 23 votes
Article Rating
129 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 26, 2021 6:15 pm

Strangely Australians feel no shame from the recent US Biden administration attack as they have learned over the years that no matter what you do the weather will take absolutely no notice and the Climate will follow the weather.

Dennis
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
February 26, 2021 6:22 pm

Naturally, Earth Cycles since time began.

noaaprogrammer
February 26, 2021 6:18 pm

What is the pecking order from top to bottom showing what countries the UN considers to have done the most, down to the countries that have done the least?

Dennis
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
February 26, 2021 6:25 pm

It depends on the targets the would be UN bullies are prepared to attack.

Bryan A
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
February 26, 2021 10:08 pm

CHINA is hailed as the Self Proclaimed Climate Champion and is likely the UN poster child for Climate Hero
China is adding TWs of coal generating capacity and is emitting more CO2 than any other individual nation, in fact China is responsible for 28% of total global emissions anually. (and increasing year over year)
the USA is likely the UN Climate Villain although we’re probably the only country to reduce emissions below 1994 levels

Dennis
February 26, 2021 6:19 pm

Australia signed the badly flawed and selective Paris Agreement, selective meaning nations put under pressure to comply, after the Paris Conference in late 2015, Agreement signed in New York in April 2016. In November the Turnbull Government ratified the Agreement they signed unnecessarily, believed to have done so when they learnt that President Trump was not prepared to have the US sign the Agreement. Politics, globalism, Australian leftists.

Australia earlier signed the UN IPCC Kyoto Agreement, Howard Coalition Government and years later the Rudd Labor Government ratified it unnecessarily.

However Australia is one of the very few signatory nations that achieved all of the Kyoto emissions targets. And now in 2021 Australia is well on track to achieve Paris targets, despite pressure from the untrustworthy and selective UN IPCC to stop Australia applying credits for achieving Kyoto targets to Paris targets.

I am happy for Australia to ignore the climate hoax and creatively accounted warming trend modelling scare campaign. But “UN shames Australia”. How dare they.

Dennis
Reply to  Dennis
February 26, 2021 6:21 pm

Please note that “developing nation China” produces more additional emissions every year than the total of Australia’s emissions per year.

Will the UN shame China or is the UN a group of faceless unelected manipulators who are not Australians.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Dennis
February 26, 2021 7:57 pm

It is the per capita emissions that count. Developing countries are able to continue increasing their emissions until the reach the same per capita level as the richer countries.

Robert of Texas
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 26, 2021 8:25 pm

Then it isn’t really an “emergency”, is it?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Robert of Texas
February 27, 2021 7:04 am

No, it’s not an emergency. These UN clowns say 2030 is the deadline, yet the Chicoms and the Indians don’t have to do a damn thing about emissions *until* 2030, and at that time, they still don’t have to do anything if they do not want to. it’s all voluntary.

Reducing CO2 is the biggest scam in human history.

fred250
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 26, 2021 9:31 pm

“It is the per capita emissions that count.”

.

BULLSHIT !

Australia’s emissions are totally insignificant and make no difference to anything anywhere.

What you are saying is that its NOT ABOUT GLOBAL CO2.

Thanks for the CON , izzy-a-dope.

Bryan A
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 26, 2021 10:22 pm

if elevating atomspheric CO2 levels is the problem then it’s total annual emission tonnage that count more than any “per crapita” figure. The Per Crapita arguement is just an excuse to allow China to emit without restriction and force western developed nations to commit economic seppuku

Lrp
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 26, 2021 10:54 pm

This is a flawed concept. China’s middle class is larger than the whole population of the USA, and they consume, fly, and generally speaking emits just as much as any person in the USA. The combined middle class of Chiba and India exceed by far the size of the middle class of all western countries. This situation has been arrived at through technology and manufacturing transfer, and It follows then, that at this point in time you cannot increase the per capita level emissions of China and India without pauperising and reducing the middle class of economically barely limping developed countries.

LdB
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 27, 2021 12:11 am

UN representation is per country you don’t get extra representation because you have more people. In the Olympics and sport you don’t get extra handicap because your country has less people you are expected to compete as a country. So it follows emissions for each country should be set exactly the same how many people you have shouldn’t matter.

So who decided that just because you have more poor people it is okay to keep emitting more … answer some leftard politicians and activists. We didn’t get to vote on it and many Australians don’t agree so take you per capita emissions and smoke them.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  LdB
February 27, 2021 7:11 am

“So who decided that just because you have more poor people it is okay to keep emitting more … answer some leftard politicians and activists.”

Obama and Kerry.

They needed to get the Chicoms on board with the Paris Climate Accord, so they gave them whatever they wanted to get them to join.

In this case, what the Chicoms wanted was to have no restrictions on their emmissions, and that’s what Obama and Kerry gave them.

Obama and Kerry were more interested in making a deal, than what was in the deal. Same thing with the nuclear deal with the Mad Mullahs of Iran.

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 27, 2021 3:57 am

China’s per capita emissions are already more than 40% higher than the UK ‘s. They are about to become the world’s largest economy by GDP if they aren’t already. I think those excuses have run dry.

Anon
Reply to  It doesn't add up...
February 27, 2021 4:56 am

We all have seen the science here and know it is mostly falsehoods, convolutions and lies, and China knows this also.

So, when being confronted with a lie, there is no need to offer “excuses” but the appropriate response is to offer falsehoods, convolutions and lies in return.

At some future point, when all of this can no longer be “papered over”, China, India and Russia are possession of the same facts that we are at WUWT and will finally pull the plug on all of this. However, that won’t happen until the West has damaged its economy beyond repair (and will stall until then). IMHO

Last edited 1 month ago by Anon
Alan M
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 27, 2021 4:46 am

Wonk. ?What about per capita per GDP?

Richard M
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 27, 2021 6:41 am

Why are other countries responsible for China’s massive population? The real measure should be per square kilometer. That is the portion of the planet they manage. In that case Australia is doing very well.

jtom
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 27, 2021 11:13 am

Bogus argument, then.

Since the green movement holds that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels, they would save buckets of money not building fossil fuel plants in favor of renewables. They would not need to increase their emissions one iota.

OTOH, the industrialized countries are faced with trashing billions of dollars already invested in fossil fuel plants.

So why are india, China, et al, allowed to increase their emissions, rather than deploying cheaper renewables, and why are we subsidizing energy-impoverished countries when we are bearing much greater costs?

The answer, of course, is that renewables are not cheaper, and cannot provide the power needed for a country to industrialize; directly at odds with the claims of the greens. That being the situation, it is ludicrous for any country to accept restrictions on CO2 emissions. They will rise, regardless. If there are climate change fears, then the time, money, and effort should be focused on adaptation, not prevention.

The terms of the Paris Accord is demonstrative proof that fossil fuel power is required for an industrialized country. Renewables are unsuitable and more expensive. The entire green argument falls apart.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 27, 2021 12:41 pm

Izaak

What a terrible argument
China is a third of world CO2 emissions but only 15% of world population
So they have already far exceeded their “fair” per capita emissions

As per Paris agreement, they are allowed to increase their emissions by 30 times the amount we in Canada are supposed to decrease.

30 times!!!!!!!

Explain to me again how CO2 is an existential threat in the eyes of the UN

Peter K
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 27, 2021 1:12 pm

I believe this man made climate change will eventually become the scam of the century. I have been involved in connecting a few large scale solar farms, to the grid. The owners of the grid, in Australia, are in overdrive upgrading and extending the grid to enable connection to new and proposed remote solar and wind farms. Sending some existing transformers in reverse and will eventually cause unreliable supply. Within two years the green energy will exceed the name plate rating of existing coal fired power stations. Fixed panel solar farms and wind farms are at best 25% efficient and the swing axle solar farms are around 45% efficient. This is compared to 99.9% for coal power stations There will be an oversupply of generation during daylight hours. Our Australian politicians are oblivious to current progress. Mean while China are installing 120GW of coal powered stations this year. China need reliable and cheap energy 24/7 so that they can produce many export items, such as solar panels and modular transformers with built in inverters. The transformer and inverter package has a capacity of 5MW and fits nicely on a semi trailer.

Dennis
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 27, 2021 2:53 pm

Are you one of the deceivers who count emissions in Australia from the use of fossil fuel and add the emissions from fossil fuels exported and used in other countries?

And add the exported fuels emissions twice when used overseas?

It’s some kind of weird greenism, the same math that confuses revenue and profit of businesses when trying to claim businesses avoid taxation.

RLu
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 28, 2021 12:44 am

Total BS.
At best, it could be argued that the West had a moral duty to research ways to deal with peak-oil. To test out what works and to show developing nations that they too can live just like us, without oil.
The frac’in revolution showed the solution. It is not by condemning developing populations to rely on weather dependent energy.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dennis
February 27, 2021 7:00 am

“But “UN shames Australia”. How dare they.”

Yes, a shameful organization like the UN has a lot of gall trying to shame someone else.

Why are they picking on Australia, anyway? Maybe the Chicoms are behind it.

As you say, Australia has met its obligations to date, so Australian politicians should gather their statistics together and publicly compare them to all the other nations on this Earth and let’s just see who should be shamed or not.

From what I hear, none of the EU members are meeting their goals. In fact, I can’t think of any who are meeting their goals other than Australia. Even the U.S. which isn’t even trying, has reduced its emmissions more that the arrogant b&^%$$ds that make up the UN.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tom Abbott
Bryan A
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 27, 2021 9:47 am

it’s OK Tom…you can call a spade a spade…the UN is a troop of Arrogant Bass Turds

Mike
February 26, 2021 6:22 pm

Patricia Espinosa,(the spiny one) the executive secretary of UN Climate Change, called on all countries, including those that submitted their commitments last year, to reflect on the new assessment and lift their ambition. “We need concrete plans to phase out fossil fuels as fast as possible,” she said.

No we don’t. Next….

Dennis
Reply to  Mike
February 26, 2021 6:24 pm

Well considering the “climate emergency” scare campaign, if it were true, why bother with net zero emissions by 2050?

It will have ended long before that time.

Dennis
Reply to  Dennis
February 26, 2021 6:27 pm

Transition to Electric Vehicles is another exercise in futility based on climate emergency scare campaign timing

Jeremiah Puckett
Reply to  Dennis
February 26, 2021 6:43 pm

If it were true, Obama wouldn’t have spent millions buying a coastal property. How many billions is Gates worth? I’d like to see him out money where his mouth is. Spend $20 billion of your own money before taking a dollar of mine.

Dennis
Reply to  Jeremiah Puckett
February 26, 2021 7:40 pm

And Al Gore, and …………..

Jim at Broke
Reply to  Jeremiah Puckett
February 26, 2021 7:49 pm

Bill and Melinda Gates own more than one house. The most recent purchase is
an oceanfront home in Del Mar, near San Diego for $43 million.

Thats interesting when it is recalled that Gates is expecting sea level rise to cost trillions of dollars globally in the next little while (geologically speaking).

Sounds more like hypocrisy to me.

The link is: https://variety.com/2020/dirt/moguls/bill-and-melinda-gates-pick-up-del-mar-oceanfront-mansion-1234590980/

Pharmargeddon
Reply to  Mike
February 26, 2021 6:37 pm

She will need the fossil fuels to make the concrete.

Jeremiah Puckett
Reply to  Pharmargeddon
February 26, 2021 6:44 pm

Funny. No one understands this but concrete is a massive CO² emitter.

Dennis
Reply to  Jeremiah Puckett
February 26, 2021 7:09 pm

Consider the foundations of wind turbines.

Mike
Reply to  Dennis
February 26, 2021 7:47 pm

”Building each foundation involves the excavation of more than 3610 tonnes of earth, the use of 1680 tonnes of concrete and more than 67 tonnes of steel reinforcement”.
I think wind turbines will – thankfully – be a thing of the past before too long.

Last edited 1 month ago by Mike
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mike
February 27, 2021 7:18 am

I think you are correct. Windmills have now increased in numbers to the point that the flaws in this generting system are starting to become apparent to the Average Joe. Higher electricity prices, and they fail at the worst possible time.

griff
Reply to  Jeremiah Puckett
February 27, 2021 4:19 am

Bill Gates does: ‘Gates considers cement to be a great example of something in need of a desperate cleanup to fight climate change.
“It’s over 6% of worldwide [carbon] emissions,” Gates told “Marketplace Morning Report” host David Brancaccio in a recent interview. “And yet, we don’t have a way of doing it that’s clean, that doesn’t cost dramatically more, more than twice the price.” ‘

And, you know, the world is going to keep building buildings just for the basic sheltering needs in the developing countries. And so we can’t ask them to stop doing that, but we need to give them an innovation so that that cement isn’t superexpensive. And the U.S. has got the innovation power. We need to get our brightest minds, both at the basic [research and development] level and startup company level, working on cement and create demand for any cement that’s starting to lower that extra “green premium.” ‘

Bill Gates offers his plan for avoiding climate disaster – Marketplace

Alan M
Reply to  griff
February 27, 2021 4:49 am

And what has he actually done about it?

Disputin
Reply to  griff
February 27, 2021 5:48 am

“We need to get our brightest minds”… Well, that leaves Mr Gates out!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Disputin
February 27, 2021 7:21 am

Mr. Gates has enough money that he could get lots of our brightest minds together. I wonder if that occurred to him?

What Gates really ought to do is get his mind together with Dr. William Happer’s mind, and then Mr. Gates will realize that he no longer needs to worry about CO2 being a problem for humanity, since Dr. Happer’s latest research says CO2 in the atmosphere is currently “saturated” and cannot add much additional warmth to the atmosphere no matter how much more CO2 goes into the atmosphere.

In other words, there is a limit to how much warmth CO2 can add to the atmosphere, and we are near that point now.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tom Abbott
czechlist
Reply to  Disputin
February 27, 2021 10:43 am

Hmmm. Gates either wasn’t smart enough to develop software which didn’t require constant fixes or he was smart enough to see the advantage of producing software that required constant fixes.
Now he wants to develop vaccines and climate controls. Whether he’s smart or not his history suggests it would be expensive, extremely frustratingand never ending.

LdB
Reply to  griff
February 27, 2021 7:19 am

And no-one cared and the world kept using more and more cement.

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
February 27, 2021 7:19 am

And exactly how many tons of Cement go into the Foundation Footings of Wind Turbines?
Hint

fred250
Reply to  Bryan A
February 27, 2021 12:36 pm

Not to mention the COAL that is used to Make all that steel !

Wind turdines certainly do their bit to enhance the planet’s biosphere 🙂

Lrp
Reply to  griff
February 27, 2021 9:35 am

You mean like helping China build ghost cities and artificial islands?

jtom
Reply to  griff
February 27, 2021 11:32 am

Common rocks mixed with different specific, crushed common rocks, plus water. Good luck finding a substitute that’s anywhere near as cheap; the main ingredient would have to be common dirt.

Gary Ashe
Reply to  griff
February 27, 2021 11:53 am

6% of 3% of 0.04% Griff lad.

6% of the 3% human contribution to the whole carbon cycle of a trace gas that makes up 0.004% of the whole atmosphere and 0.04% of all radiative gases.

Last edited 1 month ago by Gary Ashe
fred250
Reply to  griff
February 27, 2021 12:34 pm

One scientific ignoramous quoting another

Another little fantasy , based on feelings and EMPTY words.

And totally against the actual science and chemistry of the situation.

You are an idiot, griff.

Jeremiah Puckett
February 26, 2021 6:40 pm

Sure wish liberals would point out China’s and India’s promises. They’re living up to them perfectly.

Dennis
Reply to  Jeremiah Puckett
February 26, 2021 7:10 pm

Will China and India escape the ruin caused by climate emergency hoax?

griff
Reply to  Jeremiah Puckett
February 27, 2021 4:24 am

India commissioned just 8 GW in 2019, with as much as 47.4 GW of power projects at different stages being cancelled in 2019. These cancellations have reduced the total coal capacity under development to 66 GW.

And we can expect further cancellations. Indian coal plant runs at massively under capacity.

Solar is now 14% cheaper than coal-fired power in India, making it difficult for new coal plants to secure power purchase agreements in competitive tenders. Coal power generation fell 3% in 2019, due to a drop in power demand and an increase in renewable power generation, including hydropower from a strong monsoon season.

Since 2017, India has commissioned more solar and wind capacity than coal. In June 2019, the renewable energy ministry had said that it was aiming for 523 GW of renewables by 2030, which is over double the country’s currently operating coal power capacity of 229 GW.

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
February 27, 2021 10:02 am

“… it was aiming for 523 GW of renewables by 2030, which is over double the country’s currently operating coal power capacity of 229 GW”
Given that Wind produces about 35% of nameplate capacity, 523 GW of wind capacity will produce only 183 GW Actual eratic non dispatchable generation and fall short of Coals 229 GW constant and dispatchable capability.
In generation of electricity Nameplate Capacity is Folly it’s actual percentage of capacity that matters and constant reliability

Last edited 1 month ago by Bryan A
jtom
Reply to  griff
February 27, 2021 11:35 am

So India should have no issue with the Paris Accord being amended to say that India will have a zero increase in CO2 over present levels.

Give it a try with them, Griff.

fred250
Reply to  griff
February 27, 2021 12:40 pm

If coal is running under capacity, then India’s problem is with distribution.

Solar is NEVER cheaper than COAL because it only operates a fraction of the day.

It is pointless for running a modern society

Your continue cut/paste without engaging a single brain cell…

…. shows just how short you are of cerebral capability,

ie.. you are an ignorant moron, griff.

Alan M
Reply to  Jeremiah Puckett
February 27, 2021 4:50 am

But you forgot the sarc\

Last edited 1 month ago by Alan M
Sean
February 26, 2021 6:56 pm

Climate ambition = ruthlessness. But the world is just not ready for that kind of transparency.

lee
February 26, 2021 7:03 pm

I am Shamed; shamed I tell you. NOT. Australia is still a carbon sink. Recently Zak Kirkup, politician Western Australia started touting Net Zero. He couldn’t even tell me what out gross sequestering was. So I did the maths for him and forwarded it. Gross emissions 88.5Mt of CO2. 241M Ha of forest and rangeland. At 0.5T/ha – 442Mt CO2. Wa definitely a carbon sink. I got an email back headed Dear Bill.;0

Dennis
Reply to  lee
February 26, 2021 7:07 pm

The rot set in with Whitlam Labor socialism in education and now the former students are becoming the politicians of now and future years, woke dopes.

Lrp
Reply to  lee
February 26, 2021 11:00 pm

Not to count crops, parks, and the surrounding territorial waters.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  lee
February 27, 2021 1:25 am

Nice one Lee. And that could be just the very start.

People of Australia: lets use your mining know-how:
Quote from the wiki
The extensive Antrim Plateau flood basalts, covering in excess of 12,000 square kilometres, erupt in the Cambrian of Western Australia

Thus: Crunch up some of that basalt and scatter it around the place, starting near a coast where a prevailing wind comes ashore.
If you can rustle up some organic material, any organic from any where, mix that in too.

There’s plenty more basalt lying around and, died & gone 2 heaven, the Ring of Fire is just-next-door. Bring some of that volcano dust/rock/stuff home in the empty coal cargo ships as they return from China?
Maybe even, simply swap coal for the scrubbings coming off the Chinese coal stations?

You want Global Greening – OK – Go Get It.
Before you know it, Aus will be pulling down 5 tonnes of CO2 per acre per year

That will be something to crow about ‘stead of a measly 0.5 tonne per Hectare.

The weather will be nice(r) too

Last edited 1 month ago by Peta of Newark
Alan M
Reply to  lee
February 27, 2021 4:53 am

Is that like Climate Bill?
OMG we have an election coming up here in WA and who do you vote for, the woke, the more woke or the other nutters. Might be informal for the first time ever ( for those not in Aus it means I can “stuff it up” but still be counted as voting

Last edited 1 month ago by Alan M
Spetzer86
February 26, 2021 7:08 pm

Can we sell off JB for parts to make up for the USA share?

Dennis
Reply to  Spetzer86
February 26, 2021 7:12 pm

Carbon dating completed?

RickWill
February 26, 2021 7:15 pm

I am Australian and have been hard at work setting up my Ocean Thermostat Controller (OTC). The OTC is set to limit the surface temperature to 30C. I now have it working across all three tropical oceans.

RickWill
Reply to  RickWill
February 26, 2021 7:16 pm

The Pacific –

Slide1.PNG
RickWill
Reply to  RickWill
February 26, 2021 7:18 pm

The Atlantic –

Slide2.PNG
RickWill
Reply to  RickWill
February 26, 2021 7:19 pm

And the Indian –

Slide3.PNG
RickWill
Reply to  RickWill
February 26, 2021 7:22 pm

So all the heavy lifting to eliminate climate change is done. The surface temperature will never get warmer than it is today. No one needs to worry any longer about warming.

I cannot do anything about it getting colder though. I noticed that my regulating system in the Atlantic struggles to make it to 30C at times through the year.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  RickWill
February 27, 2021 9:32 am

Thank you for your service, 2 pats on the back

Tom Abbott
Reply to  RickWill
February 27, 2021 7:28 am

You probably deserve a grant for that, Rick. 🙂

RickWill
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 27, 2021 2:14 pm

I would like to patent it and get a sizeable royalty for every 0.001 degree Centigrade I reduce the temperature from the IPCC consensus temperature increase. It would be a steady income stream because they predict warming just goes on for the next few centuries.

CSIRO CMIP5 prediction was that the Pacific warm pool would reach 314K by 2100. I am regulating it to 303K so if I could get $1M for every 0.001C less I could make a handy fortune. The globe is spending many times more than the royalty I want to achieve the same result.

I would have to keep a few papers buried though to protect my claim for novelty. This one from NASA GISS has almost got my control system described (please keep confidential):
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/1999GL900197

I may need to cancel Sud, Walker and Lau if they are still around although it would appear James Hansen and the IPCC have done a good job already on that.

A small point from the paper published in 1999. They claimed a controlled temperature of 30C. As you can see my system has negated all the global warming this century because I am now controlling at 30C. I have no doubts it will be still controlling at 30C long after I have gone and the system is entirely maintenance free. I hope I can transfer the royalty stream to my children.

hunterson7
February 26, 2021 7:29 pm

Australian nihilists could achieve the death of all Australins without impacting the climate one bit.

markl
February 26, 2021 7:37 pm

More Agenda 21 dictates ……. shame those who refuse to comply into submission. When that fails exert economic/trade pressure. No one paid attention to Agenda 21 and now it’s being played out in front of all.

Dennis
Reply to  markl
February 26, 2021 7:44 pm

Now Agenda 30, still called Sustainability.

Example: Protecting forests for future generations (what about us?) and effectively locking up minerals and energy reserves, water supplies by banning dams, no sustainable planned logging, and in short stealing the wealth of nations stupid enough to designate National Parks well in excess of affordable land management and common sense.

griff
Reply to  Dennis
February 27, 2021 4:25 am

Yes: and still a conspiracy theory.

fred250
Reply to  griff
February 27, 2021 1:15 pm

griff ADMITS IGNORANCE of the agenda he espouses and supports

Such a MINDLESS and UNAWARE useless idiot. !

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
February 27, 2021 7:40 pm

Another
Drive By Griffing

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Dennis
February 27, 2021 4:29 am

I didn’t know what Agenda 30 was so I found it at https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda

It’s a mind blowing vision for world government. A plan for a perfect world!

Mr.
February 26, 2021 7:43 pm

The (unaccountable) UN must be desperate if they’re relying on Australia to stop the climate(s) from changing.

Even if they are staking everything on the CO2 conjecture.

Let’s do the numbers –
CO2 is 0.0004 of the atmosphere.
manmade CO2 globally is apparently ~ 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere (= 0.00001 of total CO2)
Australia is ~ 1.4% of this.
So, I’m getting 0.0000127% as Australia’s share of CO2.
(I may have miscalculated by a a few, or many zeros)

But meh – how is this even worth talking about?

tygrus
Reply to  Mr.
February 26, 2021 9:47 pm

There are several ways to calculate the numerator & denominator. You can look at the share of the annual increase, per area or per population.

Overall effect is based on the total accumulation since baseline. So if the global human CO2 emissions was equivalent to 4ppm/yr, it appears small vs 410ppm. But consider this 4ppm/yr emmission causes atmosphere CO2 to rise 2ppm/yr for 30 years so 350ppm became 410ppm, so 60/410 is human (human was ~14.6% of total a few years ago, or 17.2% rise from 350ppm). The effect of CO2 warming per ppm decreases as you increase it, see “temperature rise per doubling of CO2”.

What actually matters is global temperature (1) with no CO2; (2) with 350ppm CO2; (3) with future value eg. 500ppm or 700ppm? I wouldn’t be worried yet.

If Australia stopped, the global emissions get to the same result 1yr later.

Last edited 1 month ago by tygrus
fred250
February 26, 2021 7:44 pm

the SHAME will be if Morrison and Co bow to this pathetic bullying attempt.

Mike
Reply to  fred250
February 26, 2021 7:55 pm

His mind is on the next election. All he has to do is promise to ”do it” and then later after the election say,…. ”You’ll never guess….turns out it doesn’t work”.
That’s what everyone else will do.

Last edited 1 month ago by Mike
Ozonebust
February 26, 2021 8:18 pm

Dr Rod Carr, appointed Chairman to the NZ Climate Change Commission, and recognized in the Christchurch Press daily newspaper as NZ’s Climate Tsar, made the following statements:

The work done with one barrel of oil (166 liters)is equivalent to 10,000 labor hours.

“It is estimated that the climate has cycled between minus 4 deg. C to plus 2 deg. C around the pre-industrial average for the past 300 million years. And if we break out above the plus 2 deg C, and we do it with the acceleration and speed with which we are doing it, it doesn’t look like that’s ever happened before”

Interesting….

Ozonebust
Reply to  Eric Worrall
February 26, 2021 8:49 pm

Come on Eric, don’t start with those facts. They get in the way of a good story.

Ozonebust
Reply to  Ozonebust
February 26, 2021 8:46 pm

Here is an interactive chart for New Zealand, with many variables from our doom and gloom weather – environment experts NIWA. No wonder Dr Rod Carr is so concerned.

https://ofcnz.niwa.co.nz/#/localCharts

Its horrifying stuff, pathway RCP4.5, Auckland 2020 temperature = 15.7 – 2060 = 16.4. Oh no.
Christchurch my home town 2020 12.4 – 2060 = 13.2. Don’t know if I can tolerate that sort of increase.
At least there will be less heating required given ever increasing energy costs. I’m pleased I will be dead by then, phew.

Elle Webber
Reply to  Ozonebust
February 26, 2021 10:01 pm

Here in Vancouver, Canada, we are told that “the models” predict we will have the “climate” of Seattle in 30 years! Gosh, how will we cope? /sarc And here I thought we already did: a temperate rain forest.

mikee
Reply to  Elle Webber
February 27, 2021 5:24 am

Not according to Lurch Kerry as the world will end in nine years time!!

Bryan A
Reply to  mikee
February 27, 2021 7:48 pm

Lurch Kerry’s world will end in nine years though, the Kalamitous Kilmate Konfabulation will tumble down

Bryan A
Reply to  Elle Webber
February 27, 2021 7:46 pm

So much for outdoor Ice Skating…
Water Hockey anyone??

Davidf
Reply to  Ozonebust
February 26, 2021 10:14 pm

And the recent sea level rise scare story in NZ, guess what – RCP 8.5

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ozonebust
February 27, 2021 7:41 am

Someone ought to tell Dr. Carr that those computer models are not even close to reality.

So who are the deceivers here? It has to be the people who are producing these computer-generated lies about the Earth’s climate. They have fooled Dr. Carr into believing in a horrible false reality and this is causing him to make bad decisions with regard to the future of his nation.

Australians ought to sue the UN for foisting lies and economic hardship on the world with their bogus climate computer models.

fred250
Reply to  Ozonebust
February 26, 2021 9:36 pm

I agree, it is UTTER AND COMPLETE NONSENSE.

How do such IGNORANT people get into positions of influence. !

a) The planet has been warmer, for MOST of the last 10,000 years, some places by several degrees.

b) There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of warming by human released CO2.
NONE, NADA..

It is all just an ANTI-SCIENCE FABRICATION

Ozonebust
Reply to  fred250
February 26, 2021 9:50 pm

“Why do they get into positions of political influence”

Because they will reliably toe the party line. He has no scientific back ground at all, is legally blind. Since being employed for the role 15 months ago he has been learning about climate change.

The money is good, there is no risk, you are not questioned by those they employ you, you can easily justify not answering those who disagree as they are just conspiracy theorist deniers, and they can easily justify it to themselves and others that they are doing something good for human kind and saving them from them selves.

Chris Hanley
February 26, 2021 8:21 pm

“… The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has advised a 45% cut is needed over this time to limit global heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels …” (The Guardian: Adam Morton and Daniel Hurst).
That figure 1.5C above the coldest period during the current interglacial (Holocene), at least according to some proxy studies, is nonsense.
comment image
The above mean annual temperature reconstructed from pollen data from Lake Flarken (south-central Sweden) shows a ~3C temperature fall from the early Holocene and such a study fails to capture shorter term fluctuations that are possibly +/-1.5C or more.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-16006-1_2

John Robertson
February 26, 2021 8:30 pm

I doubt the UN has credibility to “Shame” anyone or thing.
Turns out the UN has been supplying China’s Communist Party with the names of every dissident who was willing to testify to the UN about China’s human rights abuse..
Needless to say quite a few did not survive to testify.

Just another bunch of useless parasites freeloading off of decent peoples good will.

Jim at Broke
Reply to  John Robertson
February 26, 2021 10:25 pm

An interesting thread of comments with which I largely agree.

But I must demur at a slur cast on a complete generation of well educated Australians:

Dennis in Reply to to lee on
February 26, 2021 at 7:07 pm said:

‘The rot set in with Whitlam Labor socialism in education and now the former students are becoming the politicians of now and future years, woke dopes.’

Evidence?

My tertiary education was made possible by the enlightened Whitlam policy of free tertiary education. I know quite a few of the highly educated and intelligent Australians who benefited in this way. Pardon me while I start to list by name the smart physicists, the occasional Chief Justice of NSW, the smart microbiologists, the internationally regarded astronomers etc etc

Almost none of the current batch of politicians in the various State governments and the Federal government were spawned during the Whitlam period.

I am certainly not a ‘woke dope’. My contribution to the well being of the country includes some useful work, first as an agricultural economist and then as a lawyer. It turned out that I was quite competent in both areas.

I can also count on some of the fingers of one hand the ‘woke dopes’ who appeared in the same stream. But there will be woke dopes in every stream.

I welcome some hard facts from Dennis.

Lrp
Reply to  Jim at Broke
February 26, 2021 11:08 pm

No need to take it personally and big note yourself

Alan M
Reply to  Lrp
February 27, 2021 5:23 am

So Lrp do you have a university education?

Lrp
Reply to  Alan M
February 27, 2021 9:53 am

Yes, I do.

Alan M
Reply to  Jim at Broke
February 27, 2021 5:14 am

I can back you up from the other-side of the ditch (but in Aus for 30+ yrs in the resources industry) Jim. So called free university education allowed us kids without rich parents whom paid a fair bit of tax to make a difference

mikee
Reply to  Jim at Broke
February 27, 2021 5:37 am

The only part of tertiary education that was free under Whitlam was the course fee You still had to pay for the compulsory student union fees, excursion fees (some were partially subsidised), text books, accommodation and ancillary costs associated with your degree course. That was my experience when studying for a three year science degree.

TonyB
February 26, 2021 10:32 pm

Crap from the Australian media today:
“Scientists have little doubt about what led to the deep freeze. Global warming has caused Arctic sea-ice to recede by about half-a-million square kilometres. This in turn has weakened the jet-stream, a normally stable band of low pressure and cold air surrounding the Arctic. Freed by the unstable jet stream, Arctic temperatures spilled south.”
– SMH

Anon
Reply to  TonyB
February 27, 2021 5:23 am

Tony Heller does a great job of basically mocking that claim, as the same unstable jet stream was used to explain the cooling scare of the 1970s. So, both warming and cooling cause a wavy jet stream.

So, in order to avoid that, the Earth needs to be at a constant Goldilocks Temperature, where the porridge (the Earth’s temperature) is “just right”.

Video here:

h**ps://realclimatescience.com/2019/10/new-video-cooling-or-warming/

(just replace the two asterisks (**) with two Ts (tt) in your browser)

It is absolutely hysterical that this is what climate “science” has become.

fred250
Reply to  TonyB
February 27, 2021 1:18 pm

Just like in 1977 when there were very high levels of sea ice.

comment image

a happy little debunker
February 27, 2021 12:13 am

Australia’s 11% drop in emissions since 2008, 3.3 people per square Klm
France 18% drop since 2008, 118 people per square Klm
USA 18% drop since 2008, 36 people per square Klm
China 39.7% growth since 2008, 150.5 people per square Klm
Qatar 11% drop since 2008, 252 people per square Klm

The point being is that Australia’s gains are impressive considering the relative population density.
That, and the fact that Oceania is a net carbon sink – means that not only is Australia reducing it’s emissions, it is reducing everyone-else’s emissions as well…
The UN can go and pound sand.

Ed Zuiderwijk
February 27, 2021 1:27 am

Being savaged by idiots is a badge of honour.

fred250
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
February 27, 2021 3:32 pm

More like flapped at with a limp-wristed lettuce.!

michael hart
February 27, 2021 1:33 am

The BBC had another notorious presenter called David, who became a spokesman for the British Green Party in the 1990s. David Icke.

A mostly harmless sort of chap, you can still find him on YouTube explaining something like how the British Royal family are really extra-terrestrial lizards attempting to take over the world, and how he is the prophet sent to rescue us. The worst thing is, he could probably make a better argument than Sir David Attenborough. Obviously, it’s a brave or foolish BBC employee who would mention his name today.

Jan de Jong
February 27, 2021 3:08 am

I also think that most occurrences of the word ‘green’ should indeed have quotes around them.

leitmotif
February 27, 2021 3:10 am

“UN Shames Australia”
That’s like being called a fat bastard by Jabba The Hutt.

Alan M
Reply to  leitmotif
February 27, 2021 5:19 am

Or more like someone being job shamed by someone who has never worked in their lives

Sara
February 27, 2021 4:31 am

Someone please let me know when any country with free will tells the UN climate “authorities” to stuff it.

Thank you.

Bruce Cobb
February 27, 2021 4:34 am

“Global heating”. Yes. Because when you want to warm something, you bring it inside, and when you want to heat it, you put it on the stove or in the oven.
Among the many weapons the Climate Liars have in their arsenal, language inflation is one of their favorites. “Name-and-Shame” is another of their favorites, because it gets countries into squabbles about who is doing what wrt “carbon”, instead of focusing on the elephant in the room – the Big Lie.

sendergreen
February 27, 2021 6:13 am

Re: Being shamed by arrogant, deluded, malevolent people.

Can I have some ? Please ?

Tom Abbott
February 27, 2021 6:44 am

From the article: “United Nations calls on all countries to have ‘concrete plans to phase out fossil fuels as fast as possible’”

A completely delusional goal that won’t happen in the lifetimes of those alive today, unless some technological breakthrough happens that provides an adequate substitute for fossil fuels. There is no adequate substitute for fossil fuels today.

Old Cocky
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 28, 2021 3:03 am

There is, but the regulatory hurdles are too high for it to be practical.

Tom Abbott
February 27, 2021 6:49 am

From the article: “The assessment of emissions reduction plans submitted to the UN by the end of last year found if all were fulfilled they would cut global CO2 by only 1% by 2030, compared with 2010 levels.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has advised a 45% cut is needed over this time to limit global heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.”

So, reductions of emmissions to date, which has cost the world Trillions of dollars, amounts to only a one percent cut by 2030, and the UN wants 45 times as much done as we are doing now.

To say it’s not realistic is an understatement. These people are living in La-la land.

Tom Abbott
February 27, 2021 6:52 am

From the article: “There is no viable path to global net zero except nuclear power.”

That’s right. When the alarmists get that through their heads, we will all be better off. They could actually focus on something that would do the job they want done and benefit all of us at the same time.

Nuclear is your only viable option, alarmists. Get used to it.

RelPerm
Reply to  Tom Abbott
February 27, 2021 7:01 am

Another option is to determine that “net zero” is bad for mankind and earth plant and animal ecosystems. CO2 is not evil.

Nuclear is not the best, compared to coal and natural gas.

observa
February 27, 2021 7:31 am

Andrew Hastie calls out these wet behind the ears climate changers with the Western Australia State election-
Zak Kirkup’s vow to close coal-fired power stations slammed by Andrew Hastie ahead of WA poll (msn.com)

JoHo
February 27, 2021 7:55 am

Colin Hernandez, in The Daily Mail on 26 Feb 2021 wrote, quoting from Dr David Thornalley, UCL, ‘In the UK climate models suggest there would be more winter storms and more summer heatwaves’. (Article extract attached).

Please reassure me that CO2 is not so powerful.

Last edited 1 month ago by JoHo
S.K.
February 27, 2021 7:57 am

The UN is controlled by dictators, despots and totalitarians who are only interested in developing policies and promoting faux science that are meant to negatively impact the free world.

It is time to end the funding of the UN.

Please contact our legislators and demand change because just chatting online will accomplish very little.

Last edited 1 month ago by S.K.
Larry Hamlin
February 27, 2021 8:52 am

The developing nations led by China and India dominate global energy and emissions by controlling nearly 2/3rds of the world’s energy use and resulting emissions with these measures still climbing along with commitments for more coal and other fossil fuel use after increasing CO2 emissions over the last decade by over 7.5 billion metric tons.

Where is the U.N. acknowledgement of this controlling global energy and emissions reality.

The developed nations have reduced emissions over the last decade by more than 1.5 billion metric tons with zero acknowledgement of that reality. Where is the UN acknowledgement of that huge reduction outcome.

This UN criticism is idiotic climate alarmist politics.

Biden and his Democrats are equally guilty of this same incompetence and deception.

Walter Sobchak
February 27, 2021 9:08 am

“But at least we’ll get some entertainment value for our money”

There are a whole bunch of people in Texas who are not laughing. And the rest of us shouldn’t be lauging either because the blackouts and soaring costs are coming to us soon.

Xinnie the Pooh
February 27, 2021 4:27 pm

being shamed by the UN is a badge of honour

observa
February 27, 2021 4:29 pm

As an aside here how’s this for media luvvy logic and their vacuous heads-
Biden’s Syria Airstrikes May Feel Like Trump Déjà Vu. Here’s What’s Different. (msn.com)

Biden air strikes are different to Trumps! Anymore up Biden’s ass than that and they’ll have his manure under their toenails. They couldn’t even spell shame.

observa
February 28, 2021 1:46 am

Bob Katter from the bush has a way with words for the latte sipping city slickers. You wanna sit on it like a big fat toad….?
Abolishing coal is telling India ‘they can’t have electricity’ (msn.com)

%d bloggers like this: