Aussie PM Scott Morrison Brandishes a Lump of Coal in Parliament

Aussie PM Pushback Against UN Code Red Climate Declaration: “I won’t be signing a blank cheque”

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison appears to be finally showing some backbone, in the face of outrageous UN demands he gut the Australian economy by halting all coal and fossil fuel exports.

‘No blank cheque’ on net zero carbon emissions target, Prime Minister says, as global ‘code red’ issued

By political reporter Jake Evans

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has again refused to commit to a target of net zero emissions by 2050, after an international “code red” warning on climate change was issued by global leaders.

Key points:

  • Scientists warn catastrophic warming is set to occur this decade
  • The Prime Minister says the government will continue to use technology to address the issue, not a carbon tax
  • He has refused to commit to a legislated net zero emissions target

“I won’t be signing a blank cheque on behalf of Australians to targets without plans,” Mr Morrison said.

“Blank cheque commitments you always end up paying for, and you always end up paying in higher taxes.”

Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-10/ipcc-scott-morrison-climate-change-net-zero-2050/100364476

I want to support Scott Morrison, but sadly in my opinion he frequently disappoints, appears to try to play both sides.

I applaud Scott Morrison’s spirited public defence of Australia’s economy, but if he tries to make a backdoor deal, to appease greens by introducing even harsher climate action measures, that could be almost as damaging to the Australian economy as the outright end to fossil fuels demanded by the United Nations.

Let us hope that on this occasion at least PM Scott Morrison maintains his firm opposition to economically suicidal climate demands from globalists.

4.9 23 votes
Article Rating
106 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mike
August 10, 2021 10:05 pm

He is playing both sides a bit. He’s got one eye on the next election. If he wins it, I think the global warming focus will become ….more out of focus. I hope it will!
Meantime, it’s so much fun listening to the hysterical blathering from the left (the ABC) about his ”disgraceful non-commitment”.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Mike
August 10, 2021 11:05 pm

NSW state elections have been held off for a second time due to COVID-19 restrictions. And what I hear from my contacts in the health sector this will go on for a long time beyond 2023 making a Federal election unlikely.

Jock
Reply to  Patrick MJD
August 10, 2021 11:34 pm

Patrick, the NSW state election is in 2023. It is legislated. Same time every 4 years. The fed election has to be held before April 2022. Its in the Constitution. It can be brought forward, but not delayed even for health pandemics. We had elections during the war.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Jock
August 11, 2021 12:14 am

The Constitution?

You think our “Experts” are concerned about some insignificant document they didn’t write?

Fauci Flu management in Australia stopped being rational and pragmatic back in March 2020. Everything now part of being seen to be doing enough to keep the voters believing they are being kept safe, crossed with the growing fear the destroy small business class now hate them with a vengeance.

Skim read the Sunshine and Unicorns we get issued. Here in South Oz we got a wonderful little email telling us how grateful we need to be that restrictions are in place because without restrictions Premier Marshall would have nothing to lift as rewards for obeying.

“Hi! I’m Steven Marshall and you will do what I say because NSW and Victoria are worse!”

The Constitution will continue to be abused because our Ruling Class have the power of ‘State of Emergency’ to unlock Cheat Mode and every time an Australian meekly agrees go along with the latest restriction they are silently taking a knee and telling our Experts and Ruling Elites they are not willing to question the process.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Craig from Oz
August 11, 2021 1:00 am

Well said. The Australian Constitution is one of the most abused, disrespected and ignored documents ever written.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Jock
August 11, 2021 4:09 am

Watch for this;

Keep an eye out for this bill:

Defence legislation amendment bill 2020
“…and provide ADF members, other Defence personnel and members of foreign forces with immunity from criminal or civil liability…”

Constitution my ass.

Ed Hanley
August 10, 2021 10:06 pm

Here’s his chance to make history. He can be the hero, or he can be the goat.

Reply to  Ed Hanley
August 11, 2021 2:11 am

But he can only be a hero for a few years, the IPCC is part of a concerted effort to cancel dissenters, it is only a matter of time before Australia falls into line.

August 10, 2021 10:24 pm

Scott Morrison would be foolish to try to do back-door deals with the Greens. The slightest sign of weakness by Morrison would only encourage the Greens and Labour to make even more outrageous demands for insane schemes. Appeasing the Greens is like appeasing crocodiles. You may not even be eaten last.

Tom Bostock
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
August 11, 2021 12:52 am

Scott Morrison is at least raising the problem that so-called less developed nations like China and India, whose CO2 emissions already outweigh those of the OECD nations, are not required to make emissions reduction commitments under the Paris agreement, and have indicated that they do not intend to do so in any serious way. They still have millions to lift out of poverty. That will render nugatory whatever emissions reduction commitments the OECD nations are silly enough to give.

AntonyIndia
Reply to  Tom Bostock
August 11, 2021 6:56 pm

Again a blind bundler! China is not an economically less developed nation since years, but India still is, hence their 400% less emissions than China.
Should Indians start bundling Australia with Argentina? Both are Southern an have a big land mass.

Peter K
August 10, 2021 10:27 pm

Scott Morrison, has already been briefed that if he shuts all coal power stations down in Oz, it will make no change to global temperatures. The opposition lost the last election on their “green policy”.

H B
Reply to  Peter K
August 10, 2021 10:55 pm

and stuff the economy

Patrick MJD
Reply to  H B
August 10, 2021 11:02 pm

The state premiers are doing a fine job ruining their economies without a singe helping hand from the PM.

Last edited 1 month ago by Patrick MJD
H B
August 10, 2021 10:53 pm

So if it cools this decade the IPCC is history along with the rest of the left lets hope it continues to cool

Jordan
Reply to  H B
August 10, 2021 11:08 pm

If it cools this decade, earlier decades will be cooled a little bit more.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Jordan
August 11, 2021 12:53 am

The UK Wet Office has an answer to such events that don’t fit the desired trend, they say things like, “this is exactly how our understanding of Climate Change works, not every year will be warmer than the previous year!”. Simples!!!

Gerry, England
Reply to  Alan the Brit
August 11, 2021 8:20 am

It will be interesting to see how they handle EVERY year being colder than the last. I suppose they will be running the ‘global warming means cooling line’ to a dwindling audience.

TonyG
Reply to  Gerry, England
August 11, 2021 1:47 pm

“how they handle EVERY year being colder than the last”

We’ve always been at war with EastAsia

Redge
Reply to  H B
August 10, 2021 11:36 pm

If it cools in the coming decades, the watermelons will claim Giai has been appeased and demand for sacrifices on the altar of the Green New Deal

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  H B
August 10, 2021 11:37 pm

Sorry to disagree, they will just double down.

John Endicott
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
August 11, 2021 10:31 am

double down? they’ve done that. Tripled, quadrupled and quintupled down as well. I think they’re up to sextupled at least.

MarkW
Reply to  H B
August 11, 2021 3:58 am

Cooling this decade will only matter if the public hears about it.
Whether it warms or cools, the media will hype how much it has warmed since (pick a point in the mythical past) and that proves CO2 is going to kill us.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  MarkW
August 11, 2021 5:29 am

Not only that, but they’ll just ignore the decline in temperatures while hyping to death every “bad weather” event as supposed “proof” of the “climate crisis” – as if “bad weather would never happen absent human CO2 emissions.

The real joke being that “bad weather” will become more frequent not because of warming of the climate, but because of cooling, so if cooling does occur, they’ll still have the “bad weather” to blame on fossil fuel use.

Rory Forbes
August 10, 2021 11:46 pm

The man is clearly a fool. Nothing good or useful will ever happen on his watch.

Voltron
August 10, 2021 11:51 pm

Morrison is far too left of centre leaning to be a true conservative. He should have dismissed the IPCC report out of hand and having been in government for quite some time now, should have also defunded the ABC back to a subscription model. Having the Liberals win the next election is only preferable to Labor getting in.

griff
Reply to  Voltron
August 11, 2021 12:38 am

!!!!!!

Reply to  griff
August 11, 2021 9:01 am

??????????????

Patrick MJD
Reply to  griff
August 11, 2021 9:36 pm

I think this is the most credible post you have made, EVAH!

Greg
August 11, 2021 12:11 am

ABC: “Scientists warn catastrophic warming is set to occur this decade”

NO, that is a lie, that is nowhere in IPCC ARS. If the situation is as bad as they claim why do they need to lie all the time, wouldn’t honest, factual reporting be sufficient?

IPCC decided years ago 2 deg C would be “safe”. Paris Agreement said 1.5 would be nice, if we could do it. It did NOT say 1.5 deg would be “catastrophic”

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Greg
August 11, 2021 9:17 am

When you get right down to it, there is no catastrophic warming; there is only catastrophic cooling. The notion of “catastrophic warming” is based on the science fiction of warmer climate leading to more “extreme” weather. Which is diametrically opposed to reality.

Craig from Oz
August 11, 2021 12:17 am

You sit on the fence and all you get is splinters up your bum.

Morrison will need to be careful walking past open fires with the amount of wood product he is carrying around at the moment.

You try and please everyone and you end up pleasing no one. Very dangerous political game to play as you play it for too long and someone new will rise up and steal a great chuck of your voter base.

Voters are only willing to compromise for so long.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Craig from Oz
August 11, 2021 1:15 pm

The voters don’t have an alternative. Hilariously, people are abandoning the Labor party because they fell into line to support the current government’s plans to reduce taxes for the rich. The Labor party have completely misread the reasons they lost the last election, and are well set to lose the next.

The Green party (*laughs*) is the only other alternative.

Last edited 1 month ago by Zig Zag Wanderer
Ed Zuiderwijk
August 11, 2021 12:24 am

Send him a letter, delivered in person, explaining to him that it is worse than he thought. That the whole caboodle is a hoax, pure and simple.

fretslider
August 11, 2021 12:35 am

At least he isn’t shacked up with someone like Carrie Johnson

pochas94
August 11, 2021 12:36 am

It’s time people come to realize that their own money is funding an attack on Western Civilization. Who benefits?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  pochas94
August 11, 2021 9:36 am

The wealthy, powerful, politically connected, and foreign nations who will benefit from the destruction of Western Civilization. The citizens of Western Civilization not fitting into the first three categories, no so much. Unfortunately too large a portion of them believes in bullshit.

lee
August 11, 2021 12:45 am

Our ABC -“IPCC scientists’ climate change report says rising seas will see Great Barrier Reef islands disappear”
Predicated on a 55cm increase in SLR. Fort Denison (Sydney) tide gauge -“The mean sea level trend is 0.65 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.10 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1886 to 2010 which is equivalent to a change of 0.21 feet in 100 years.”

Townsville shows a declining SLR trend of 0.77mm +/-0.21mm.

But I guess global figures are good enough.

Last edited 1 month ago by lee
Cecil S. Teddy
August 11, 2021 12:46 am

He’s a member of a Church that believes in speaking in tongues. He’s not worried about this planet because he’s on another one.

Loydo
August 11, 2021 1:49 am

The only path left for AGW deniers like Morrison is to ignore the latest science and politicise the issue. Thats exactly what Worrell does here; he can’t blame the scientists for his bedwetting (and certainly not Slomo – that wouldn’t do) but whatta bout them evil, suicidal “globalists”.

Lrp
Reply to  Loydo
August 11, 2021 2:19 am

What’s the latest science? Is it the same that failed every prediction for the last 50 years?

lee
Reply to  Loydo
August 11, 2021 2:43 am

You do understand climate models are not science? If they were there would be only one.

Last edited 1 month ago by lee
MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
August 11, 2021 4:01 am

Models are not science.
As to politicizing the issue, it has never been anything but political.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
August 11, 2021 4:44 am

Models are not science.

Models are science regardless of the fact that you and most members of this clown circus don’t understand them. Models are actually approximate, stepwise solutions for extremely big differential equation systems, nothing else. Approximate ‘cos they can’t be treated with other means. FYI orbital calculations are the same shit, approximate solutions to differential equations but on a much smaller scale. If you don’t understand even this simple fact, you are completely unqualified to assess anything scientific.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  nyolci
August 11, 2021 5:52 am

Models have their place, but:

Garbage in, Garbage out.

TonyG
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 11, 2021 1:51 pm

You can put good stuff in and still get garbage out depending on how it’s programmed.

What do you want your model to say? I’ll make it say that.

Reply to  nyolci
August 11, 2021 5:56 am

Models in climate science and many other fanciful science realms are self satisfaction displays of desire, not an approximation of forecast reality.

Nor are models expected to be of value beyond the immediate future. Expecting long term models, i.e. beyond 2 weeks to a month, to be accurate is insanity.

In the real world, models that fail to accurately portray reality must be explained. Often with the model designers and programmers standing on the carpet before their boss.

That is, every model component miss in a model must be explained in detail and the model corrected.

Only in government work are repeated model failures tolerated. Not only tolerated, but actively defended by those vested in the model, not reality.

Today’s models are tomorrow’s trash.

nyolci
Reply to  ATheoK
August 11, 2021 6:25 am

Have you noticed that you speak like a preacher? 🙂

Expecting long term models, i.e. beyond 2 weeks to a month, to be accurate is insanity.

This is beyond me how you deniers are unable to grasp this quite simple thing. Somehow you always get it wrong. Climate models are not weather forecasts. Weather is not climate. Climate modelling tells you the expected mean annual rainfall in 2050 with this and this error. It won’t tell you whether this and this location has rain on the 25th of April, 2050. If you can’t understand the difference between this, you should give up any scientific undertaking. For the bit more educated, modelling may give you the shape of the attractor, not the accurate point the system dwells in on this attractor at a certain date.

Last edited 1 month ago by nyolci
pochas94
Reply to  nyolci
August 11, 2021 7:12 am

So you admit that models are not accurate beyond a month, and yet they are useful for generating long term political policy?

nyolci
Reply to  pochas94
August 11, 2021 10:05 am

So you admit that models are not accurate beyond a month,

No. Models are not for these kinds of forecasts.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  nyolci
August 11, 2021 7:35 am

Look fella, stop dealing in lies & falsehoods, we “deniers” do not deny that the Earth’s climate changes, but peeps like you do just that, deny that the climate changes!!!, & as said recently, a 1.1 degree Celcius change over 150 years represents 7 thousanths of a degree per year over that period, not exactly frightening nor alarming!!! I fear for women in your desired world, the numbers of dunkings, drownings, & burnings will be horrendous, especially those women who know about herbal remedies & the like, the Neo-Dark Ages beckon the World!!!

nyolci
Reply to  Alan the Brit
August 11, 2021 10:28 am

we “deniers” do not deny that the Earth’s climate changes

No one claimed that. You deny science.

you do just that, deny that the climate changes

WTF??? Apparently, the usual denier confusion and convoluted thinking reached another tipping point 🙂

1.1 degree Celcius change over 150 years represents 7 thousanths of a degree per year over that period

This is extremely fast in geological timescales. Whether you like it or not.

Mike
Reply to  nyolci
August 11, 2021 5:38 pm

”1.1 degree Celcius change over 150 years represents 7 thousanths of a degree per year over that period

This is extremely fast in geological timescales. Whether you like it or not.”

And you know this because…….

Doonman
Reply to  nyolci
August 11, 2021 9:32 am

Every moment in time in the universe is unique. The Earth is part of the universe.

Think about that for a minute or two.

To predict the future of the universe using GCM models, which is what modelers are trying to do, all moments in time must be known beforehand. Since this is not possible, they can only assume that past moments are indicative of future moments.

I’m sure that you are aware that other modelers who use this method to attempt predictions disclaim any accuracy of their predictions beforehand. Climate modeling is no different except governments refuse to issue the disclaimer.

In other words, its all “Trust Us”. But we have seen already that the predictions are nonsense and therefore trust is lost. Yet you can’t accept that in your religion of true believers.

Think about that for a minute or two.

nyolci
Reply to  Doonman
August 11, 2021 10:25 am

To predict the future of the universe using GCM models, which is what modelers are trying to do, all moments in time must be known beforehand

Hilarious display of ignorance…

mikebartnz
Reply to  nyolci
August 12, 2021 10:58 pm

By you.
Unless you can up with some constructive arguments why don’t you just go away as your repetition is very boring

mikebartnz
Reply to  nyolci
August 12, 2021 10:54 pm

Quote “Weather is not climate.”
You twits are quite happy to say that when it suits you but the next day you point to some weather event to say see we told you so. You guys flip flop around like a fish on the beach.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
August 11, 2021 5:57 am

Models are at best experiments. They are not and can never be science.

Models can be accurate, provided they are properly written and calibrated.
Climate models on the other hand have been shown to be inaccurate and poorly written, but since they show what those who paid for them want to see, they are treated as gospel.

I love how those who know nothing about science actually seem to believe that because some models are accurate and useful, that therefore climate models are as well.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
August 11, 2021 6:15 am

Models are at best experiments.

Again, you’re showing off your ignorance. Models are approximate mathematical calculations in the mathematical models of science. Pls. note that the two models here mean two different things. Newtonian Mechanics is a mathematical model of Physics. Anything done in that mathematical model is, per definitionem, not an experiment but a calculation or, more formally, a deduction. Including climate modelling. Yeah, it’s getting a bit complicated for the dimwits like you but you should try a bit harder…

They are not and can never be science.

Again, you’re showing off your ignorance. Anything beyond extremely simple things are done with some kind of modelling. Orbital mechanics is a prime example, pls check the 3 body problem.

Climate models on the other hand have been shown to be inaccurate and poorly written

Why do you have to resort to bullshiting?

Alan the Brit
Reply to  nyolci
August 11, 2021 7:37 am

Sorry bud, you’ve lost your argument already by being so offensive & insulting on a personal level. Try learning some science, it may or not assist you!!!

Richard Page
Reply to  Alan the Brit
August 11, 2021 9:42 am

Learning ‘some’ science won’t help. Climate enthusiasts have learned ‘some’ science and therein lies the problem – they failed to learn enough.

nyolci
Reply to  Alan the Brit
August 11, 2021 10:34 am

Sorry bud, you’ve lost your argument already by being so offensive & insulting on a personal level

How on earth does the style of an argument affect its meaning, its validity? (I don’t deny being offensive, you deniers are making harder doing anything sensible, you fcukin deserve the ridicule and mocking you get.)

Try learning some science

MSc. Sorry, the problem is at your side, you genius.

Philo
Reply to  Alan the Brit
August 11, 2021 2:32 pm

Nyloci: “Models are approximate mathematical calculations in the mathematical models of science.”
That is the issue, “approximate”. Approximate to a couple of miles is usually fine for an orbital model. Final orbit is almost always fine-tuned while entering orbit around something.
“a couple of miles is not useful for a lightning strike or or a tidal wave.

LdB
Reply to  nyolci
August 12, 2021 8:49 pm

Try a scholar search on “differences between the physical model and the mathematics model” and lets discuss who is an ignorant scooter riding wannabe green activist …. aka zero science knowledge at all.

Last edited 1 month ago by LdB
nyolci
Reply to  LdB
August 13, 2021 2:40 pm

Try a scholar search on “differences between the physical model and the mathematics model”

Jesus, another idiot. A physical model of something and a “model of Physics” are two very different things. A physical model is a model made from physical objects, usually a miniature model. A real world model. A model of Physics is a mathematical abstraction. The famous F=m*a is part of Newtonian Mechanics, a (mathematical) model of Physics. Jesus Christ…

Last edited 1 month ago by nyolci
LdB
Reply to  nyolci
August 14, 2021 6:33 am

Which just proves you can’t read or are unwilling to learn … it must be something about being a climate activist that it involves getting a frontal lobotomy.

Last edited 1 month ago by LdB
Alan the Brit
Reply to  nyolci
August 11, 2021 7:29 am

Models are simply that, models! Would you want to sail across the Atlantic on a model boat, instead of one designed & engineered to survive such a journey, no I think not!!! Climate models are nothing more than glorified weather prediction models run on a longer scale, & we’re supposed to believe that so called scientificky peeps at the UK Wet Office & other similar institutions around the globe, that cannot predict the weather more than 3-5 days in advance, can make a far better job of predicting the Earth’s climate a 100 years in advance, I don’t think so!!! Structural engineering computer models are based upon known proven physical properties & behaviours of structures/buildings/materials, that have been demonstrated by good old fashioned hand calculations in the past!!! I always used to tell young engineering graduates to run a hand calc on a piece of calc-pad/scrap paper after reviewing the puter output, just so they can get a feel for that output as to whether the numbers look right!!! No such actions are taken where climate models are concerned, they appear to rely upon blind faith, very dangerous when Human life is concerned!!! I have known of young graduates, when challenged by experienced engineers over bending moments & shear forces produced by said puter output, they have said, “but that’s what the printout says!”. They, just like these climastrologists, MUST develop “feel” for what they are looking at, at least they would if said climastrologists were genuinely “independent” & “unbiased”!!!

nyolci
Reply to  Alan the Brit
August 11, 2021 10:42 am

I always used to tell young engineering graduates to run a hand calc on a piece of calc-pad/scrap paper after reviewing the puter output, just so they can get a feel for that output as to whether the numbers look right

We are already beyond that, whether you like it or not. Climate is so complicated, the state space is so big anything you may do on paper is a rough estimation of a rough estimation of a rough estimation at most.

that cannot predict the weather more than 3-5 days in advance, can make a far better job of predicting the Earth’s climate a 100 years in advance

They are concerned with climate, not weather. They run the models hundreds and hundreds times and then they do a statistical analysis of these results. So they can predict eg. mean precipitation in the future with a certain error. And these predictions are pretty accurate. In other words, they try to map the state space attractor of this chaotic system. They don’t want to predict the exact trajectory we are on, that would be impossible. But they are quite successful in mapping the state space.

Last edited 1 month ago by nyolci
LdB
Reply to  nyolci
August 13, 2021 7:35 am

ROFL they are pretty accurate but “they don’t want to predict an exact trajectory” … sure and I have a couple of bridges and state buildings for sale to anyone that buys that.

Good impression of an clown at a kids birthday party right there.

nyolci
Reply to  LdB
August 15, 2021 1:36 pm

Jesus Christ again, you’re so hilariously dumb you’re an outlier even in this not very bright company. You can’t predict the exact trajectory in a chaotic system, even most of the dumbasses here know that. That’s why even the very very best weather forecast is usually able to predict a week ahead or so. That’s the meaning of the sentence above. But I had the saddening feeling of wasting my time…

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  nyolci
August 11, 2021 9:41 am

Models are nothing more than the result of the input assumptions of the programmers. To the extent the input assumptions are wrong, the “results” coming out of the “models” are worthless nonsense, not “science.”

And the most important assumption in the “climate models” has no empirical support, and is therefore not “science.” CO2 has never been, is not now, and will never be the “driver” of the Earth’s “climate.” No matter what the stupid “models” say.

nyolci
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
August 11, 2021 10:46 am

Models are nothing more than the result of the input assumptions of the programmers.

Bullshiting again.

CO2 has never been, is not now, and will never be the “driver” of the Earth’s “climate.” No matter what the stupid “models” say.

Confusion again. At least get your argument straight. Do you claim that “CO2 is the driver of climate” is a built in assumption? Or do you claim that this is the result of modelling? Or do you claim that the in-built assumption is justified by the (inevitable) results? Or what?
See? It’s extremely hard to take you deniers seriously when one can only see these confused and convoluted arguments.

John Dilks
Reply to  nyolci
August 11, 2021 3:33 pm

After reading your comments, I have come to the conclusion that you do not understand the difference between models and reality. You have instead decided to pick the noisiest side and believe everything that they say, because it is easier than thinking for yourself.

nyolci
Reply to  John Dilks
August 12, 2021 1:00 am

I have come to the conclusion

And you’re wrong. Probably this is not the first time you’re wrong, so I think you’re used to it.

You have instead decided to pick the noisiest side and believe

This is science, it’s not a matter of belief.

LdB
Reply to  nyolci
August 13, 2021 7:39 am

Correction this is Climate Science ™ and you already confessed above .. lets quote your exact words.

“Climate is so complicated, the state space is so big anything you may do on paper is a rough estimation of a rough estimation of a rough estimation at most.”

So clarify is it a rough estimation or not and can a rough estimation be called science? Get the problem by your definition right there Astrology is a science.

nyolci
Reply to  LdB
August 15, 2021 1:32 pm

clarify is it a rough estimation

When calculated on paper instead of with the help of computers. You’ve already proved you’re unable to understand even the simplest things, so I reckon I waste my time explaining it to you but I try. Please appreciate this at least.

Erny72
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
August 11, 2021 11:13 am

but, the consensus…

99% of scientists agree.jpg
Reply to  nyolci
August 13, 2021 10:07 pm

Where is the code, if it is Science then I presume it gets published

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Loydo
August 11, 2021 7:14 am

You & your ilk are the true AGW deniers, by denying that the Earth’s climate warms & cools on a fairly regular basis, perfectly naturally!!! The Earth basically has two climatic conditions, tropical conditions, & ice-house conditions, & we are currently in ice-house conditions as we have ice at the poles!!! You & your ilk want nothing more than to extract power & money, mostly from the global taxpayer, the West in particular, so that your puppet masters can re-establish the role of the ruling elites & the privileged wealthy, they have an innate desire to impose their authority upon others, they cannot stand the fact that nobody tugs their forelocks in deference to their superiority any more!!! All I have ever denied regarding globul warming, is the alleged cause of it!!! Never mind Loydo baby, come the revolution, you’ll be amongst the first up against the wall, & I’m a pretty good shot, with a steady hand & a good eye, despite being an old git!!! Oh & try not to wet your own bed tonight, or any other night, but if not, I can recommend a good psychiatrist who specialises in such weaknesses!!! Oh & I can recommend a really good book on English grammar just for you!!!

John Miller
August 11, 2021 1:50 am

I think this propoganda can only work on young people.
Surely everyone over 40 remembers countless warnings that “it’s nearly too late to save the planet” and the serfs must revert to a 12th century lifestyle while the elite get on and enjoy themselves unemcumbered by the herds of the great unwashed.

I’m still waiting to be told the physics of how CO2 molecules trap heat.

Reply to  John Miller
August 11, 2021 6:04 am

I’m still waiting to be told the physics of how CO2 molecules trap heat.

Ditto.
Not only hold heat but also raise the temperature of 2,439 other atmospheric molecules along with a near infinite amount of Earth surface molecules.

Raven
Reply to  John Miller
August 11, 2021 8:06 am

I’m old.
But here’s a video from 1973 predicting our demise that was supposed to happen last year.

Doonman
Reply to  Raven
August 11, 2021 10:02 am

Realize that all these people in the video making predictions about 2020 are dead. I predict the same thing will happen to all the people making predictions today about what will happen in 2100.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  John Miller
August 11, 2021 8:11 am

Don’t forget there are very many people and institutions that may not actually believe in the “propaganda” but do see it as an opportunity to personally profit from it.

Peta of Newark
August 11, 2021 1:56 am

To my mind-blowing a truly World Changing opportunity is being missed/wasted.

Why:
Australia is quite effectively a desert – a pretty damn big one too but nicely placed in a Goldilocks zone ‘tween Tropic and Pole.

The Opportunity is to do what has been so childishly mistaken in all experiments demonstrating that CO2 causes Global Greening.
The experiments done inside glass-houses certainly
Inside those experiments, CO2 was forced into being the Liebig Limiter because ‘typical greenhouse compost‘ would have been used as a growing medium.
And extremely fertile stuff it is too.
It is also why the plant’s water consumption reduced, the high levels of nutrients & trace-elements meant they didn’t need to suck up (so) much water to bring in the nutrient they needed

The whole of Australia could run that experiment because:

  • It has the space
  • It has the nice Goldilocks placement on The Globe ##
  • It has The Potential to create really fertile soil such as used in glass-house CO2 experiments (lots of easily mine-able Basalt)
  • It is surrounded by water

By using that Basalt as fertilizer, Australia could then soak up truly gobsmacking amounts of CO2 while turning into a vast, green and pleasant place.
Starting now, inside 50 years the whole of Australia could be a whole new Amazon Rainforest.
And soooooo simple to do. The technology and materials are all there, already ‘on site’

And somebody has got to get there pretty damn pronto – certainly before the owners of any other Large Deserts work it out and the presently bounteous CO2 disappears like melting snow

## In fact as I recall from when the OCO2 gallery at NASA didn’t induce migraine, Australia already is a CO2 mopper-upper. A pronounced CO2 hole was a near constant feature in the skies over Aus.

(That WOULD be gorgeous – to watch the Climate (Duracell) Bunnies being wound-up and going crazy about CO2 Holes instead of The Ozone Hole – itself another bit of Pure Junk Science.

Last edited 1 month ago by Peta of Newark
ozspeaksup
Reply to  Peta of Newark
August 11, 2021 4:10 am

only one thing missing Peta
water
artesian isnt all useable for anything but stock in large part
salinity is a big problem
the odd semidecent drop but dont count on it

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  ozspeaksup
August 11, 2021 9:43 am

Desalination plants could solve that issue quite nicely, just saying.

Erny72
Reply to  ozspeaksup
August 11, 2021 11:35 am

Dr John Bradfield figured out a solution to that wee problem back in 1938. It’s an expensive way to re-route water from tropical storm precipitation to the interior, but when considered alongside the squander on ‘climate research’ (aka climastrology) and replacing a perfectly good electricity generation and distribution grid with yesterday’s technology tomorrow, the Bradfield scheme starts to look like chump change.
There have been continuing arguments about whether the expected river flows will be sufficient to overcome evaporation which deserves some consideration (since the world is apparently full of ex-spurt modelers, that task should be a walk in the park /sarc).
There seems little discussion about the likely affect on local climate; which would be to cool and moisten the presently dry air masses blowing out of the interior, which among other things give rise the high summer fire risk in the south and south east of Australia each summer not to mention driving up demand for irrigation water and electricity demand for air conditioning.
I reckon if money is to be urinated up a wall in the name of gullible warming, then Scomo ought to give serious consideration to declaring a modern Bradfield Scheme a climate mitigation project of national significance, so the Aussie tax payer gets some useful return on the ‘investment’ and he can point out to Gang-green that Australia continues to punch far above its weight in terms of ‘action on gullible warming’.

a happy little debunker
August 11, 2021 3:20 am

Given the way he has rolled over to the whims of his ‘National Cabinet’ in dealing with the current global pandemic (that kills 1/3rd less Australian per year than suicide) – I hold little hope that he would not bend like a willow in the face of similar pressure.
Pressure that is already being applied.
To repeat,
944 covid-19 deaths is a national tragedy that requires police-state lockdowns, enforced vaccinations, compulsory masking & extensive financial support for the many that have lost their incomes (ballooning government debt three fold)
Whereas, 1442 road deaths is just unfortunate happenstance…

WXcycles
August 11, 2021 3:55 am

“Scientists warn catastrophic warming is set to occur this decade”

Wish I had $10 for every time a bunch of grandstanding left-fringe quacks said the same thing every year since 1986.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  WXcycles
August 11, 2021 9:44 am

Wish I had a $1,000,000 for each time. Then I could retire this instant.

Serge Wright
August 11, 2021 4:03 am

Yes, he’s playing both sides, but at least he is highlighting the Chinese elephant in the room, unlike other western leaders. The reality is that if we make these big cuts to our energy and productive output, then we hand global supremacy to China on a plate.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Serge Wright
August 11, 2021 9:45 am

Not to mention the fact that the imaginary “crisis” would not be affected one iota, even if it was real.

ozspeaksup
August 11, 2021 4:06 am

half right
we DO have a seppo problem

Quilter 52
August 11, 2021 4:51 am

as an Australian, I’m glad he said it. The problem is that he has a spine made of jelly. Once he’s gotten himself over the line for the next election he will sell out the people that voted for him in a big way, based on his blathering over Covid.

The opposition is worse but honestly, our politicians are meretricious fools, every single last one of them party allegiance irrelevant.

When the lights go out, which they aren’t all that far away from in parts of Australia,they will all do what they’re doing over Covid, close borders and point at each other and yell “he did it”., backspace

Australia used to be one country. We have reverted to a collection of colonies. Embarrassing, frustrating and any politician stupid enough to turn up at my home seeking my vote will get a gobful.

BobM
August 11, 2021 5:02 am

For those of us not Australian, what does that mean?

nyolci
Reply to  BobM
August 11, 2021 5:51 am

You. Americans. Yanks > Tanks > Septic Tanks > Seppo.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  BobM
August 11, 2021 9:40 am

The “Mark ingraham” entity is not capable of coherent communication.

Raven
August 11, 2021 7:46 am

Balderdash . .
As an Australian, I reckon we’re fairly laid back about most things.
We’ve fought a lot of wars alongside our ‘Seppo’ mates . . maybe a few too many, but hey, we both know that.

And the term ‘Seppo’ isn’t even commonly used here.

garboard
August 11, 2021 8:01 am

NASA satellite co2 observations show Oz a co2 sink not an emitter . NASA doesn’t like to publicize data from its co2 satellite . it totally contradicts their pop, junk science . the industrial free equatorial zones are the biggest emitters

Last edited 1 month ago by garboard
Laws of Nature
August 11, 2021 10:32 am

“I won’t be signing a blank cheque”Why not? You and your kind was handing out money for this nonsense for decades now!

Russell Johnson
August 11, 2021 2:40 pm

None of these globalist fools can do anything about climate change. It’s dam well past time to make these idiots own their crazy ludicrous ideas. They must stop their totalitarian plans to force us to pay to reduce a nonexistent threat!!

Gary Pearse
August 11, 2021 3:02 pm

Morrison needs a lot of support. If there is a silent majority, they have to find a backbone and take their country back from Eurocentric globalist elite néomarxistes. Match protests with the useful fools ready to hand over sovereignty.

Geoffrey Williams
August 12, 2021 1:30 am

Hope Morrison sticks by his word . .

LdB
Reply to  Geoffrey Williams
August 13, 2021 7:41 am

If he doesn’t he will get rolled, it’s not about the politicians but how people will vote. At the end of the day Australian emissions are so small that what we do does not matter and that fact is not lost on the voters. It is not material if a voter believes in climate change or not the basic question comes down to am I going to bankrupt myself on a pointless gesture.

Last edited 1 month ago by LdB
%d bloggers like this: