Claim: 1.5C Global Warming by 2030 – But There is Still a Chance to Avoid 2C

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Who is going to tell China? According to scientists interviewed by the SMH, there is still a chance to avoid 2C warming if we immediately halt the expansion of all coal and gas projects.

Facing the climate ‘endgame’ in a world bound for 1.5 degrees warming

By Nick O’Malley
April 15, 2021 — 12.01am

The world will break through the more ambitious Paris climate target of 1.5 degrees as soon as 2030 but may still avoid a more catastrophic 2 degrees of warming if governments act immediately to dramatically reduce emissions, according to a new report.

The Climate Council report, Aim High, Go Fast, is based on new data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and echoes similar findings by the Australian Academy of Science issued last week, but has prompted a dissenting report from one prominent Australian climate scientist, Bill Hare.

In the report the Climate Council says that in view of Australia’s historical contribution to global warming, its high emissions and its natural advantages in renewable energy generation, the government should now aim to reduce emissions by 75 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and reach net zero by 2035.

Asked if such an abrupt reduction was possible, one of the report’s authors, executive director of the Australian National University Climate Change Institute Will Steffen, cited the example of allied nations transforming their economies in five years to defeat the Axis power in World War II.

“The point is, it’s going to be a tough decade, no doubt about it,” he said. “There’ll be some disruption soon, but it’ll be an exciting decade and it’ll set us up for a much brighter future after 2030.”

To reach such targets Professor Steffen said the government would need to immediately halt the expansion of coal and gas and plan to support affected communities as fossil fuels were phased out. Secondly, Australia would have to reach almost 100 per cent renewables in its energy system by 2030.

Read more:

Oddly the Climate Council don’t seem to have published their report on their own website – I’m sure it will appear at some point. The climate council report is available here. Don’t get excited by Bill Hare’s dissenting report, he apparently thinks the Climate Council is not alarmist enough.

I’m looking forward to 2030. Climate alarmists have once again fallen into the trap of making a radical prediction with a near term horizon. Just like Al Gore’s ice free arctic by 2013, or Climate Council head Tim Flannery’s 2006 end of rain prediction, 2030 is too soon.

Either we won’t hit 1.5C by 2030, despite building hundreds of new coal plants, in which case climate alarmists will have to explain why, or they will look stupid when we do hit 1.5C, and nobody can tell the difference. Either way it will be an entertaining new entry in the list of failed climate predictions.

Update (EW): Me bad – the Climate Council report is at the top of their page.

4.9 10 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 14, 2021 6:03 pm

Please, let the two weeks to flatten the curve be over by then.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Scissor
April 14, 2021 9:21 pm

Don’t hold your breath.

Reply to  Scissor
April 15, 2021 8:04 am

There are several companies shelling out almost a billion dollars on building new facilities to address the continuing (and apparently continuing into the future) demand for more vaccine. We’re not getting out from under any time soon if that’s any indication.

April 14, 2021 6:07 pm

They keep on moving the armageddon goal posts … so we have 9 more years now ? That said, this is a report from the SMH which has little credibility at best.

Reply to  Streetcred
April 15, 2021 4:06 am

But, but lurch Kerry said we have twelve years!

Tom in Toronto
April 14, 2021 6:12 pm

Oh! However will we deal with our climate grief? I’m already in tears day and night at the thought of my frozen homeland, Canada, warming up to -2C instead of the always present and perfect -4C that we know has existed in perfect balance for millions of years.

Last edited 1 year ago by Tom in Toronto
Reply to  Tom in Toronto
April 14, 2021 7:22 pm

Indeed. If anyone needed proof that climate alarmism is cray cray, this should do it: climate alarmists actually fret that Canada might become too hot.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Dave Burton
April 15, 2021 4:24 am

Time to invest in Canadian real estate!

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 15, 2021 6:12 am

Sorry, but I’m saving up for beachfront property on Martha’s Vineyard next to the Obamas. Land values are sure to plummet once the sea levels start to ride.

April 14, 2021 6:16 pm

“…cited the example of allied nations transforming their economies in five years to defeat the Axis power in World War II.”

In order to obtain “climate justice,” there must be a victim class of people, largely fiction, who require autocracy to protect them from a fantastic doom. The protectors can then justify any action, including violence, against those in opposition to attain this goal of protection, whether or not it is achievable or even desirable.

Brian Jackson
Reply to  dk_
April 15, 2021 2:09 am
These people all have ONE THING in common – nice comfortable middle class lifestyle, well paid jobs, high standing in their community. They assume this will continue indefinitely and they themselves will be unaffected and are immune from the changes they forecast. It’s always “someone else” ie the rest of us plebs who have to radically reduce our lifestyles to head off disaster. They seem to be blind to the fact that their “end of the world” scenarios will impoverish them too. Here’s to the next big climate jamboree, loadsa flying, big hotels, high living, lotsa extra CO2. Glasgow anyone?

Reply to  dk_
April 15, 2021 8:06 am

So which country(ies) do we get do bomb into oblivion over the next four years? I assume this time we’re not going to be building them back (better or otherwise), because we wouldn’t want to increase CO2 that way. Seems like if you want to have the most impact, you start at the top…

John Dueker
April 14, 2021 6:17 pm

Someone should point out to the authors that making predictions that fail over and over meets the insanity definition.

Reply to  John Dueker
April 14, 2021 7:07 pm

or they will look stupid”

It hasn’t bothered them before but, then again, maybe they actually believe this sh!t? 

Reply to  John Dueker
April 14, 2021 11:17 pm

30 years of failed predictions hasn’t stopped them or decreased their bank balances

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Redge
April 16, 2021 1:56 am

If you include the daft Ice Age scare of the 1970s it’s 50 years of failure.
They have been getting it hopelessly wrong for half a century. How often do they need to be get it wrong before people finally say, “You’re chatting shit. We’re not listening to your twaddle anymore” ?

Last edited 1 year ago by BigCarbonPrint
April 14, 2021 6:19 pm

The Chines FGOALS model does not produce particularly alarming warming trends. They are currently 2C colder than the European models so no CO2 issues as far as China is concerned.

The Chinese models are closest to my prediction, which is the only prediction based on the physics of earth’s atmosphere and oceans. All the other models are based on the “greenhouse effect” myth.

Robert Arvanitis
April 14, 2021 6:23 pm

Had to click through the link to realize that SMH did NOT mean “shaking my head…” But that really IS the proper term for the warmist nonsense.

Tombstone Gabby
Reply to  Robert Arvanitis
April 15, 2021 11:08 am

G’day Robert, I take it you’re not an Australian.

“Sydney Morning Herald” – think “Huffington Post” – Junior.

Reply to  Tombstone Gabby
April 15, 2021 11:17 am

Junior but woke nasty

April 14, 2021 6:28 pm

Eric wrote:

I’m looking forward to 2030. Climate alarmists have once again fallen into the trap of making a radical prediction with a near term horizon. 

They are only predicting a 1.5C rise. You would need to know from what base. The CIMP6 models cover a current range of 2C. The European model is 2C warmer than than the Chinese model.

You need to identify a specific location or maybe 10 around the globe and agree on the current temperature then compare in a decade.

I can say without any doubt at all that the tropical ocean warm pools will be regulating to 30C as they have been doing for at least 10M years – Atlantic not always making it though.

Reply to  RickWill
April 14, 2021 6:32 pm

Always pays to check:
comment image

Atlantic finally making 30C – about a month later than 2020!

Tombstone Gabby
Reply to  RickWill
April 15, 2021 11:19 am

Thanks for the “Tropical Tidbits”, I wasn’t aware of that site.

Right now they’re following the tropical storm off the east coast of the Philippines. That started to show up on “earth nullschool” a couple of days ago. Always something new to learn.

M Courtney
Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 15, 2021 2:29 am

Climate Stability = The Inverse of Weather?

April 14, 2021 6:51 pm

The “beauty” of this scam, is that “business as usual” will land us somewhere between 1.5 and 2.5 °C above preindustrial… makes me think of a scene from the classic movie, The Outlaw Josey Wales

Last edited 1 year ago by David Middleton
Reply to  David Middleton
April 14, 2021 8:34 pm

“I reckon so.”

April 14, 2021 6:52 pm

In order to meet their goal, the climate screamers are going to demand a new world population of 500 million occupants, immediately. How do they do it so quickly? Mandate a deadly vaccine for a fake pandemic. Sound familiar???

M Courtney
Reply to  Brad
April 15, 2021 2:30 am

For goodness sake.
You can’t beat crazy with even more crazy.
If the vaccine was deadly someone would have noticed by now. Millions have been vaccinated – you would spot the bodies.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  M Courtney
April 15, 2021 7:30 am

I’ll let y’all know if I drop dead from my second Moderna shot on Mother’s Day.

Joseph Campbell
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
April 15, 2021 8:40 am

I didn’t “drop dead” (obviously), but I damn well knew I had had a shot…

April 14, 2021 7:01 pm

“Climate Council Emissions reductions required to avoid 1.5C Global Warming”

I do not see a problem. They clearly state that emissions from the Climate Council need to be reduced. The Graph is quite dramatic, showing Climate Council emissions going to 0 by 2030. Perhaps ways to constrain the Climate Council even faster can be developed.
Severe budget cuts could be considered.
An arny veteran suggested that if the Climate Council emissions really do threaten national security, then artillery could be employed.
That would do it.

April 14, 2021 7:04 pm

Is it only people on here who read beyond the title of this garbagedrivel? I must admit to speed reading too.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
April 14, 2021 8:51 pm

Agree, and I try to do as much pushback as possible out there in the real world, but I have a policy of my brain being a libtard-free zone, so I don’t get to ridicule them too much.

PS In case you missed the point, I was talking about the O’Malley title, not yours.

Last edited 1 year ago by philincalifornia
April 14, 2021 7:09 pm

Yes, but the Guardian sez our forrests are not recovering from draught and wildfires…becuz of….. CLIMATE CHANGE – WHAT ELSE? The Guardian is guarding your climate future, no?

April 14, 2021 7:11 pm

“Either we won’t hit 1.5C by 2030, despite building hundreds of new coal plants, in which case climate alarmists will have to explain why, or they will look stupid when we do hit 1.5C, and nobody can tell the difference.” – Eric Worrall

Exactly right!

+0.5°C is about the temperature change you get from an altitude decrease of 250 feet, or (at mid-latitudes), a latitude decrease of 30 miles. In the American heartland, farmers can compensate for that much warming by planting about 3 days earlier in springtime. {yawn} 🥱
comment image

The main practical impact of climate change is on agriculture, but in order to report a result in which warmer temperatures cause significant agricultural damage, you have to either:
1. Make wildly unrealistic assumptions, like assuming that farmers are too stupid to adjust their planting dates (which is what PNAS’s Zhao et al. 2017 did); or
2. Create ridiculously unrealistic conditions, like the Stanford Jasper Ridge wild grass study. They used heat lamps outputting 20 times the increase in IR radiation which would be caused by a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration — I’m not kidding, they really did!
comment image

When even that proved insufficient to harm the plants, they increased the wattage to more the 60 times the IR radiation which would be caused by a doubling of atmospheric CO2 — and they got many peer-reviewed papers published based on such dreck.

The best evidence is the modest amount of warming possible from anthropogenic GHG emissions will be generally beneficial, just as Arrhenius predicted: It disproportionately warms winter at frigid high latitudes, and slightly lengthens their short growing seasons.
comment image

Last edited 1 year ago by Dave Burton
Nick Graves
Reply to  Dave Burton
April 15, 2021 12:38 am

I think Carbonic Acid probably sounds more scary to the uninitiated than does Carbon Dioxide.

I can foresee the term becoming reintroduced. With Winnie The Pooh style capitalisation.

Reply to  Nick Graves
April 15, 2021 1:42 am

Indeed, they are already frightening gullible people with claims of ocean acidification; the notion of “air acidification” would really get such people alarmed.

Climate believer
Reply to  Dave Burton
April 15, 2021 4:08 am


That photo with the lamps is hilarious, thanks 🙂

Reply to  Climate believer
April 21, 2021 3:06 am

The Jasper Ridge researchers were trying, so very, very hard, to find a way to report the conclusion that CO2 emissions are harmful. The problem they needed to overcome is that a century of scientific studies have consistently shown that elevated CO2 is highly beneficial, for nearly all plants.

So they baked their little CO2-supplemented wild grass plots under heat lamps, at absurdly high wattages, supposedly to simulate the warming effect of eCO2. Yet their baked grasses stubbornly continued to thrive.

I would agree with you, that such contortions are hilarious, if they weren’t so destructive.

“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll back of the industrial age.” Prof. Richard Lindzen (Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, MIT)

Notice, also, the ladies’ wind-blown hair, in that Jasper Ridge photo. Ridges tend to be windy, and Jasper Ridge is no exception. One of the problems with F.A.C.E. studies is that wind causes unnaturally large fluctuations in CO2 levels. That’s why F.A.C.E. studies usually under-report the benefits of eCO2. (Open-top container [OTC] and greenhouse studies are generally more accurate.) Prof. George Hendrey explained the problem, here, and here’s a paper about it.

Prof Hendrey wrote:

“Much of what is known about global ecosystem responses to increasing atmospheric CO2 has been gained through Free-Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) experiments of my design. All FACE experiments tend to underestimate ecosystem net primary production (NPP) that may occur at a particular increased concentration of CO2. This is because of the sensitivity of photosynthesis to rapid and poorly controlled variation in CO2 concentrations that are an inevitable result of the FACE technique. We are working on development of a NPP correction based on photosynthesis experiments in which CO2 is oscillated in a controlled way in a leaf chamber while measuring photosynthetic fluorescence.”

So, not only did the Jasper Ridge researchers bake their wild grass plots under unrealistically high infrared radiation levels, they also chose a methodology (F.A.C.E.) which is known to underestimate CO2’s benefits, especially in windy conditions, and they chose an especially windy study site!

Yet another problem with the Jasper Ridge studies is that, in the long term, the biomass metric which they measured is limited by crowding. That makes the results of a many-year study of wild grasses inapplicable to agriculture. In the long term, unharvested grasses cannot continue to add much biomass, no matter how excellent the conditions for growth, simply because there’s no room for it.

We live in deeply unscientific times. Not all fields are as bad as “climate science” and “grievance studies.” But the peer-reviewed academic literature famously reports that most peer-reviewed study results are wrong:

Frankly, I don’t know why the Jasper Ridge researchers went to so much trouble, to try to justify reporting harms from eCO2 that they surely must have eventually realized simply do not exist. It would have been much easier to just pretend, like activist journalist Annie Sneed did in Scientific American.

Last edited 1 year ago by Dave Burton
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Dave Burton
April 15, 2021 4:37 am

Alarmists often mention Arrhenius but they NEVER mention what you emphasize in yellow.

April 14, 2021 7:27 pm

This all reminds me of the sham portrayed at the beginning of Ghostbusters II.

April 14, 2021 7:32 pm

Isn’t scientific precision amazing? The earth has warmed by about 1C since 1900, yet it is supposed to “jump” by a staggering further 0.5C by 2030 that will be somewhat catastrophic, and a further 0.5C rise will be even more catastrophic. But somehow, even more amazingly, if only Australia would close some coal-fired power stations, the world will be miraculously saved.

Reply to  Robber
April 14, 2021 7:42 pm

We are gonna be saved by ….sea grass and water fern….yes these 2 plants plus the fake meat we will be eating in the future will reduce Demon CO2.

Reply to  Robber
April 14, 2021 8:51 pm

Who was measuring anything like global temperature in 1900?

Australia had a severe drought in the late 1890s and was undoubtedly warm:

How many thermometers were being regularly read in Antarctica in 1900?

It is a VERY BRAVE claim to suggest that the globe has warmed 1C since 1900. Show me the basis of the claim – what temperature was it in March1900 and what temperature was it in March 2021.

Unless you can back you claim with real data you are simply repeating unverifiable nonsense.

Reply to  RickWill
April 14, 2021 11:24 pm

Who was measuring anything like global temperature in 1900?

Wouldn’t “measuring local temperature, globally” be more accurate?

Or even “measuring local temperature, not quite globally just in the parts of the world we can get to and then extrapolating a lot” be more accurate?

Last edited 1 year ago by Redge
Reply to  RickWill
April 15, 2021 2:57 pm

Annual climate statement 2020 by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.
“2020 was Australia’s fourth-warmest year on record. Australia’s area-averaged mean temperature for 2020 was 1.15 °C above the 1961–1990 average. Mean maximum temperatures were the eighth-warmest on record at 1.24 °C above average. Mean minimum temperatures were the fourth-warmest on record at 1.05 °C above average. The national temperature dataset commences in 1910.”
Unless these official records can be challenged, we must start with what the “Ministry of Truth” reports. I know Jennifer Marohasy has well-founded criticisms of what BoM has done to “adjust” the data, but these “facts” are out there.
Australian climate variability & change – Time series graphs:

April 14, 2021 7:42 pm

The Climate Council report, Aim High, Go Fast, is based on new data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate.”

Methinks they should should rename the report to, “Get High, Aim Fast.”..

By 2030, both the PDO and AMO will both be in their 30-year cool cycles, UAH 6.0 temp anomalies will be consistently below 0.0C, Arctic Ice Extents will be increasing, Greenland’s Land Ice Mass loss will be decreasing, and the global temp trend from 1996 to 2030 will be at or below 0.0C/decade..

CAGW will be a laughingstock.

B Clarke
Reply to  SAMURAI
April 14, 2021 8:26 pm

I think you hit the nail on the head. Its no coincidence the date 2030 is being played across the globe as a turning point , eg uk no more new diesel/ petrol cars ,power supply from only renewable sources, (granted some countries on the warming band wagon will still use nuclear) clean air acts to totally stop any sort of co2 imissions and others,farming certainly at any rate in the UK being over regulated to such a extent that many farms can’t cope, in other words making it impossible to farm through environmental draconian measures.All of the above agendas being pushed to accumulate in 2030/2050.

Its no coincidence that 2030 as you show will see a accumulation of decreased temps across the globe, which is a direct contradiction to what the global warming agenda is telling us.

So broadly and basically speaking ,just as we come into a sustained cooling of the planet ,our ability to travel,keep the lights on, feed ourselves will be servery restricted . The consequences I’ll leave for others to think/ talk about ,but this to me is why we see the ever increasing hysterical ,fanatical push by the warmests to shut us down by 2030.

Reply to  B Clarke
April 14, 2021 9:49 pm


I agree with your assessment.

We’ve ENJOYED about 0.9C of beneficial global warming since the global end of Little Ice Age in 1850..

We’ll soon see firsthand why a warmer earth is more advantageous than a cooling one.

CAGW has always been a political phenomenon, not a physical one.

Moreover, the earth is still starved of CO2 and the higher CO2 levels we’ve enjoyed from burning fossil fuels have increased annual crop yields by 15%/yr (worth about $3 trillion/year), have increased plant’s drought resistance (shrinking leaf stomata/less plant water loss), and have increased global greening by an area 1.5 times the size of the continental US… Where is the catastrophe?

Leftist political hacks are trying to take control of the entire global economy under the auspices of the fake CAGW scam, and, unfortunately, the COVID crisis has shown citizens are more than willing to give up their freedoms if they can be sufficiently scared into submission by “the #$CIENCE!!!(TM)”..

Fortunately, as the huge disparity between CAGW’s dire predictions become more and more devoid from reality, people will look out their windows and realize they’ve been lied to about CAGW and a huge backlash against Leftism will occur—trust is a fickle thing.

We’ll see soon enough.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  B Clarke
April 15, 2021 10:48 am

You guys are missing the point. If they don’t get the work done by 2030, they won’t be able to claim that RE saved the day and look how temps are now dropping. All this needs to be done so that CO2 begins to drop, although I don’t know why CO2 emissions couldn’t just be changed to show a drop.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  SAMURAI
April 14, 2021 9:16 pm

CAGW will be a laughingstock.

They will already have made the conversion from warming to cooling by then, convincing the “climate change” true believers that … ‘The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.’

Reply to  Rory Forbes
April 14, 2021 10:10 pm


CAGW science charlatans and Leftist political hacks will try to convince people global cooling is the new global warming as they did in 1970’s, but taxpayers will be fed up with higher energy prices, onerous taxes, failing economies, monetary crisis from excessive government debt and money printing, rising prices, falling living standards, rolling blackouts/brownouts, high unemployment, etc., that they’ll rebel against Leftism— Leftism never has and never will work…

Real scientists outside climatology will also start speaking out about the failed CAGW scam.

People ultimately vote with their wallets.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  SAMURAI
April 14, 2021 11:18 pm

Dear gawd I hope so. It’s encouraging to read someone who still has some faith in the people’s collective intelligence. This past year has seriously corroded mine. When I see so many standing by while their rights are removed without complaint … while an election is callously corrupted and the perpetrators are now bragging how they did it and and promise to use their new power to begin steering the “climate change” narrative; I think; “who’s going to stop them?”

As you say, there must be some sort of reckoning after more than 50 years of failed, pseudo-science, posturing and vast waste. The economy will be in a shambles (I believe the US economy will be in shambles long before cackling Kamala replaces O’Biden). But hey, I’ve got to remain humbled … my PM is soy-boi Trudeau … nuff said.

Stay positive!

B Clarke
Reply to  SAMURAI
April 15, 2021 1:14 am

Are you sure, heres someone speaking out, but arguably to the wrong people,at this point its more of a whisper, WARNING this is graphic , what many of you have feared, will it be acted on? Not on topic but a related topic thats often discussed here,and part of the bigger picture.

Reply to  Rory Forbes
April 14, 2021 11:29 pm

“Two Minutes Hate”
Reminds me of unsocial media

Reply to  SAMURAI
April 14, 2021 11:55 pm

The problem is that 2030 is the date that the elites in the UN and the crony industries behind them have set themselves.
The ‘Great Reset’ must be in place by then. Why? because that is the date so many of the wagers (converting real national wealth into debt) come due. So lets just fiscally ease ourselves into the bright new socialist NWO controlled, debt laden future.

Last edited 1 year ago by tom0mason
Al Miller
April 14, 2021 8:09 pm

Well – when you are falsifying the temperature record the truth is what the grauniad says it is right.

April 14, 2021 8:15 pm

Is Will Steffen a scientist?

Reply to  Lrp
April 14, 2021 8:42 pm

On the same level that John Kerry is.

Reply to  Lrp
April 14, 2021 9:42 pm

The retreating Antarctic ice is of great interest to him, even after his chartered ship was trapped by sea ice and had to be rescued.

April 14, 2021 9:39 pm

Has the Professor held any recent barbecues on the snow in the Antarctic recently to show the world that the area is warming?

Joel O'Bryan
April 14, 2021 9:42 pm

We already may be at +1.5C … with the appropriate adjustments.
And the only climate crisis will exist in the feverish nightmares of Climate bedwetters.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 15, 2021 9:15 am

“with the appropriate adjustments”

Exactly. And if we don’t hit 2C by 2030, I’m sure there will be more “appropriate adjustments”.

Joel O'Bryan
April 14, 2021 10:06 pm

Eric writes, “Who is going to tell China?

Well when China takes Dongsha Island (island belongs to Taiwan, and guarded by Taiwan’s Iron Brigade) as the first step to taking Taiwan itself, probably within the next 14 days, and maybe this weekend, this whole climate scam charade may come unraveled as China will be signalling it doesn’t give a damn what the rest of the world thinks.

The Chinese PLAAF and Navy units have been practicing the Dongsha Island seizure now for about 8 days. The latest air incursion by a large air combat and air support contingent (fighters in CAP orbits, Chinese AWACS, EW jamming planes, ELINT support aircraft, and anti-submarine aircraft) into Taiwan’s ADIZ effectively showing how they plan to take Dongsha by establishing air superiority over the island and preventing Taiwan’s air force from defending the island’s airspace.
Chinese air forces will set up a fighter Counter Air Patrol (CAP) orbits and support aircraft to stop Taiwan from interfering or reinforcing its forces on the island as Communist Chinese amphibious helicopter ships land PLA army and marine units on the island in what will be an intense but short battle as the several hundred Iron Brigade defenders are overwhelmed.

Climate Czar John Kerry will no doubt be babbling on about climate as the world’s existential threat (like an idiot) and get China back to CO2 scam talks, whilst China marches its military to first regional domination of its neighbors, and ultimately global economic domination backed up by a sizable missile force threat for those that don’t kowtow.

Ole Dementia Joe is about to face his first of many foreign military-political crisis.

Last edited 1 year ago by Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 15, 2021 3:38 am

China and Russia will co-ordinate and the Ukraine will see Putin’s tank cross the border at the same time.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Tedz
April 15, 2021 11:50 am

Watching that too. The Donbass is about to go hot as well as Putin seems to preparing to send 100,000 Russian troops with tanks, mortars, SAMs into that region. That one won’t directly involve US military forces though. Whether the US Navy will be in a position to assist in the Dongsha Island defense is also doubtful. Dongsha Island is just too close to the Chinese mainland, so that China’s airforces and navy will be able to isolate it quickly from any Taiwan or US response.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 15, 2021 4:45 am

What I don’t understand is why Taiwan after 70+ years doesn’t have a million anti aircraft and anti ship missiles.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 15, 2021 5:07 pm

Because until about 10 years ago, China’s navy and airforce was a joke. They’ve been steadily turning that around. They can build ships faster than they can man them with competent experienced sailors. Training people in those technical skilss takes time. They are finally getting there. And Taiwan is trying to play catch up after Obama gave them the cold shoulder, but Trump greenlighted every military arms sale he could.

April 14, 2021 10:15 pm

Whilst I agree that making predictions with a near term date should be a mistake, with governments, media, academe and corporates all providing cover these alarmists can say just about anything and still be lauded as some sort of extraordinary seer. Tim Flannery should’ve been driven out of public life but the media seems oblivious to his litany of botched predictions. The activists create this alternative reality void of truth or facts to avoid the need to make admissions that they actually have no idea what they are talking about.
im not optimistic that things are going to change much over the next few years.

Gary Pearse
April 14, 2021 10:42 pm

1.5С by 2030? Alright, but you do already know that atmospheric CO2 will be ~440 by then with the hundreds of new coal-fired electrical plants all over Asian and African countries puffing away. With their new booming economies, of course they will also be building hundreds of new cement, iron and steel, etc plants an the stock of ICB cars and trucks in the world will be doubled. I’d say knock yourselves out if I can find a place to live outside of the Marxbrothers West.

April 14, 2021 10:45 pm

Climate Council ROFLMAO…

Flannery, Steffen, al ……. FAILURES all. !

Why would anyone even consider ANYTHING they say as being even slightly related to reality ?

April 14, 2021 10:47 pm

Claim: 1.5C Global Warming by 2030 – But There is Still a Chance to Avoid 2C
More BS from the climate clowns!
Show me 10 places that are suffering from the slight amount of warming that has happened since the 1980s and he will display themselves as another lying or derange fool!
2°C would be most welcome.
Higher global temperatures and more atmospheric CO2 levels are good!
Lower temperatures and CO2 levels equals death!

Rod Evans
April 14, 2021 11:14 pm

( wish these climate warming alarmists would get their act together and start delivering some of their much talked about climate warming.
I am fed up with the constant overnight frosts we are getting here in the UK Midlands. this year. Maybe it is just weather, and at some point the BBC will declare a heat wave has arrived when the daily temperature manages to reach 20 deg. C again, like it did one day last month….I am forever the optimist.

April 15, 2021 12:14 am

The alarmists are immune against all the fact and it will never be possible to ridicule them. Why ? It is a religion.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Rudi
April 15, 2021 4:48 am

Western nations are now “climate emergency theocracies” crazier than ISIS.

Vincent Causey
April 15, 2021 12:16 am

Alarmists keep making this comparison with WWII – “during the war…blah, blah, blah.” Yet a moments thought would show that other than state direction, there’s no similarity to fighting a war. In fact they are almost completely opposite. The main actions taken during the second world war was to crank up manufacturing to the maximum, using more energy to do so, and then using the result of that output to blow things up. Call me skeptical, but I don’t see how that’s going to achieve net zero.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Vincent Causey
April 15, 2021 4:50 am

And if we ever had another major shooting war- we just crank up the solar and wind farms?

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 15, 2021 6:06 am

Some guy in NATO suggested using solar-powered tanks. Seriously. The West is doomed.

Reply to  Vincent Causey
April 15, 2021 7:58 pm

A better comparison would be with the nazi’s who were chronically short of oil. Even with every incentive to do so they could not significantly increase their supply of fuel. The allies are not a good comparison because they had enough oil to power their economy and weapons without using synthetic fuel. The allies never tried to replace any of their energy shortfall with synthetic fuel. . In the same way the Nazi’s were unable to solve their fuel supplies with synthetic fuel, the zero carbon people will be unable to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy. The zero carbon people even with a WW2 style effort will end up failing just like the Nazi’s did. Maybe the zero carbon people will bring back horses to move stuff like the Nazi’s did.

Chris Hanley
April 15, 2021 12:23 am

1.5C above pre-industrial by 2030 would seem pretty unlikely considering Hadsst3 (more plausible than global) linear trend has it now ~7C above 1850 i.e. the current trend of 0.04C/decade.
According to NOAA the current rate of CO2 increase is around 2.5ppm/yr so at that rate in 2030 the CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa would be around 445 ppm.
1.5C in the next ten years would require a sudden and spectacular reversal of the current temperature to CO2 concentration correlation, not necessarily implying a direct causal link.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Chris Hanley
April 15, 2021 12:25 am

That should be 0.7C.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
April 15, 2021 12:39 am


…I would love to know how they measured global SSTs to fractions of a degree back in 1850 ! 😉

Chris Hanley
Reply to  fred250
April 15, 2021 1:30 am

You are right of course, but strategically rebuttals of the alarmist nonsense like this needs to be on their terms unfortunately, IMO.
The UAH linear trend since 1979 exactly matches the HadSST trend over the period, UAH being the most reliable data set.
Any rebuttal has to be based on something otherwise ‘they’ gain credibility by default.
(the last sentence above should be ‘1.5C above pre-industrial …’).

Reply to  Chris Hanley
April 15, 2021 3:15 am

Just “accepting” made up data that is mathematically and physically IMPOSSIBLE…. plays right into their little games.

Again, where is the data from 1850 that allows them to make that statement ????

.. it either exists OR IT DOESN’T !

Even in 1950 there was less than 5% coverage of the southern oceans

comment image


And matching over a period when there was actually some small amount of data…

…. DOES NOT IMPLY any sort of accuracy over a period when THERE WAS BASICALLY NO DATA.

Last edited 1 year ago by fred250
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  fred250
April 15, 2021 4:51 am

models and tree rings? :-}

Jim Gorman
Reply to  fred250
April 15, 2021 11:06 am

Central limit theory can do wonders!

April 15, 2021 2:52 am

I don’t see why Australia needs to do anything what we do isn’t going to make any difference we are such a small emitter. Unless you are a greentard and want to discuss emissions per capita but that is stupid we are a world of nations why should it matter what your population is. When Australia competes at the Olympics or any other world event we don’t get special rules because we are only 26Million people … we get treated the same as US, China and every other country.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  LdB
April 15, 2021 4:53 am

Well, once China rules the world – your population will explode- the Chinese will need all that empty space.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  LdB
April 15, 2021 5:49 pm

China is hungrily eyeing all of Australia’s vast uranium deposits, bauxite, iron ore, coking coal, natural gas and for them… just few people to defend it.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 15, 2021 8:48 pm

Australia is labeled “New China” on CCP world maps.

Matthew Sykes
April 15, 2021 4:09 am

another 0.6 C in 9 years? impossible.

Joseph Zorzin
April 15, 2021 4:23 am

“or they will look stupid when we do hit 1.5C, and nobody can tell the difference”

Or many of us will say, “praise the Lord for warmer temperatures and longer growing seasons”.

April 15, 2021 4:45 am

Tell that to my Grapefruit, Lemon, Orange and Tangerine trees in Houston. No life left in any of them.

April 15, 2021 6:18 am

I was going to say they made the classic blunder of a prediction too soon in the future but you beat me too it. I am going to love it when 2030 comes along and nothing has happened. Of course they’ll say nothing happened because of some tepid mitigation effort that occurred and of course they’ll push the prediction down the road a bit but I’m still going to laugh and laugh and laugh.

don cameron
April 15, 2021 6:44 am

My first question is, if we keep having year after year heat records, how come the last record minimum Arctic ice was almost 10 years ago, the Antarctic is setting record highs? Like Ice in your drink the warmer it gets the less ice we have.
My second question is if this is the warmest temperatures in thousands of years, why are the retreating glaciers exposing human remains, Roman coins and “Viking highways”? These artifacts suggest it was warmer in recent times and a colder recent climate covered them over.
Why is homogenizing the temperature data the correct way to show the temperature record, wouldn’t the raw data average out the outliers?

Shoki Kaneda
April 15, 2021 8:18 am

And, we really mean it this time. It’s your last chance.

Clyde Spencer
April 15, 2021 8:33 am

it’ll be an exciting decade

To paraphrase the old Chinese curse, “May you live in exciting times.”

Pat Maher
April 15, 2021 8:39 am

Is there any place I can bet against this happening? I should get odds because supposedly 97% of scientists disagree with me! 10-1 seems fair

Steve Z
April 15, 2021 9:33 am

The Australian Climate Council report says that “the world will break through the…target of 1.5 C by 2030”. What they don’t say is since when would this warming occur, and how much of it has already occurred. I’ve seen reports of 0.8 C warming since 1900, but that would only be an average rate of 0.067 C per decade–why would that suddenly accelerate to 0.7 C over the next single decade?

They also show a graph showing nearly exponential growth of global CO2 emissions at a rate of 1.65% per year. Australia has only about 0.32% of the world’s population (25.5 million out of 7.86 billion in the world in 2020), so even if Australia zeroed out its CO2 emissions in a single year, the increase in emissions from other countries, particularly China and India, would overwhelm the decrease from Australia. It would be like trying to empty out a bathtub with a teaspoon when others are pouring gallon jugs of water into it.

[QUOTE FROM ARTICLE]“The point is, it’s going to be a tough decade, no doubt about it,” he said. “There’ll be some disruption soon, but it’ll be an exciting decade and it’ll set us up for a much brighter future after 2030.”[END QUOTE]

If they go through with this, the “much brighter future” in Australia in the 2030’s will resemble the 1930’s in the USA–a severe economic depression.

As for the comparison with World War II, it became obvious by 1940 and 1941 that Nazi Germany and imperial Japan were very real existential threats to the rest of Europe and the USA, and had to be defeated at all costs. It’s not at all obvious that a 2 C warming of the climate would threaten anyone’s life.

April 15, 2021 10:32 am

the climate ‘endgame’

the new terminology of the climate crooks.

April 15, 2021 10:46 am

Article writer seems almost giddy at the prospect of millions acting on his whims, sacrificing their quality of life (and probably actual lives) to unite to fight the phantom menace. Australia’s high emissions!?!?! Just puff of smoke in a forest fire.

Richard M
April 15, 2021 1:20 pm

With the end of the El Nino dominated warming from 2014-2020 the bottom has just fallen out of the global temperature. As the UAH data shows we are now back down to the level of the original pause.

With no new El Nino in sight there must be some panic going on in alarmist quarters. I haven’t seen new SST temperatures in two months. Usually, when we see this type of delay you can expect more data tampering.

If a new round of major data “corrections” start showing up it won’t be difficult at all for them to claim another .5 C of warming.

Rich T.
April 15, 2021 4:27 pm

Question ? Will the so called Co2 reductions they keep trying to make up ever catch up with the actual Co2 emissions of China and India?

April 15, 2021 11:55 pm

what does 1.5c even mean in terms of all temperatures at all points of the globe? Temp varitions are extreme – from minus 50 in the arctic to plus 45 in the sahara. With those temperature extremes, the goal of 1.5c becomes meaningless.

Bill Everett
Reply to  spock
April 16, 2021 8:56 am

If the temperature pattern evident since the 1880’s continues then the temperature in 2035 will be no higher than in 2005 and the only lengthy period of continuous warming in this century will be from 2035 until 2065. The periods from 2005-2035 and 2065-2095 will be regarded as periods of pause in temperature rise.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights