Gina Rinehart, Climate Hero. Source Youtube

Aussie Mining Billionaire Gina Rinehart Warns Students About Climate Propaganda

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Iconic self made billionaire Gina Rinehart has warned school students against allowing climate propaganda to erode their critical thinking skills, urged them to guard against propaganda intruding on real education, and explained to Anglican School students the world heated and cooled on its own, long before before humans appeared.

Gina Rinehart warns of ‘propaganda’ in climate denial video to students

By Peter Milne
October 7, 2021 — 7.34am

Australia’s richest woman Gina Rinehart has said humans do not cause global warming and warned against climate change “propaganda” in a speech to students at her old school.

The iron ore billionaire said the students at St Hilda’s in leafy upmarket Mosman Park in Perth were “overwhelmed by media and propaganda” regarding climate change and urged them to “research for the facts”.

Mrs Rinehart said the girls should consider influences such as the sun’s orbit, volcanoes and “other scientific facts that I had the benefit of learning when I was at school”.

She said as the globe had heated and cooled in the past, global warming was not caused by humans.

Climate-focused non-profit organisation Climate Analytics’ chief executive Bill Hare said Mrs Rinehart’s speech was “shockingly wrong on every single issue she mentions”.

Read more: https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/gina-rinehart-warns-of-propaganda-in-climate-denial-video-to-students-20211006-p58xry.html

The following is the video of Gina speaking to students;

Gina cited Al Gore’s “An inconvenient Truth“, accusing Al Gore of making less than truthful statements about polar bears and other climate issues. Gina repeatedly criticised how students in West Australia had been forced to watch Al Gore’s film at school, in some cases four times.

Gina told students about Ian Plimer and Lord Monckton. Reminisced about a time Lord Monckton and Ian Plimer changed a 70% belief in the anthropogenic climate emergency into a 30% belief, after speaking at a school.

In my opinion West Australia’s Premier Mark McGowan is a climate hypocrite. He does not appear to want to kill the mining industry golden goose which funds his welfare programmes, but in my opinion he appeases his left wing supporters for allowing such climate sin on his watch, by giving them free rein to indoctrinate the school kids under his care, possibly including kids in Gina’s old school St Hilda’s.

Nevertheless Gina Rinehart has taken a substantial business risk by courageously speaking out against relentless indoctrination of kids – much of her fortune is invested in mining businesses in West Australia.

Gina challenged students to do their own research.

Gina accused governments of awarding one sided grants.

Gina makes plenty of other great points in the video, it is well worth watching.

Gina’s courage is a serious blow to climate propaganda efforts in Australia. A lot of people look up to Gina as an iconic female entrepreneur who turned her father’s bankrupt mining business into one of the largest personal fortunes in Australian history, in less than two decades.

Update (EW): h/t lee, Voltron – The school seems less than pleased with the speech by their most famous alumni. “St Hilda’s Anglican School for Girls principal slams Gina Rinehart’s global warming views in email to parents” ABC claims the school censored the video, only playing the first part. But given the video is available on the web, I’m guessing most of the students have seen the full speech.

4.9 35 votes
Article Rating
221 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 6, 2021 10:11 pm

Well-spoken, and let’s hope for many more following this lead.
Our only debt is to Nature and ‘What Is’. Environmental Pragmatism, Live and let live.
https://notthegrubstreetjournal.com/2016/11/10/our-only-debt-is-to-nature-and-what-is-environmental-pragmatism-live-and-let-live/

Mr. Gores 3 Strikes 
Of course, 3 strikes is almost a badge of honour in the Climate Beliefs Church and other narratives.
Neil Ferguson
Michael Mann
Erlich
etc.

October 6, 2021 10:11 pm

Gina Rinehart is not a self-made billionaire. She inherited a mining royalty stream.

n.n
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 6, 2021 10:25 pm

Seed capital.

She turned a company with severe financial difficulties into the largest private company in Australia and one of the largest mining houses in the world. When Rinehart took over Hancock Prospecting, its total wealth was estimated at A$75 million, which did not account for group liabilities and contingent liabilities. She oversaw an expansion of the company over the following decade, and due to the iron ore boom of the early 2000s became a nominal billionaire in 2006.
-wikipedia.org

Reply to  n.n
October 6, 2021 11:11 pm

It was not seed capital. It was a royalty entitlement to proceeds of iron ore mining in the Pilbara. Hancock Prospecting does not mine anything. It holds leases and collects royalties.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 6, 2021 11:23 pm

Sorry Nick but I feel I am missing your point.

Gina started with an amount of money, and now has a much larger amount of money. If the topic is “Is Gina wealthy?” then the answer is “yes” regardless of the path traveled.

I feel your question is really “How did Gina make her money?” which, in context, is less important.

The summary remains the same – Gina Hancock successfully increased her and her shareholder’s wealth. Ergo, successful.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Craig from Oz
October 6, 2021 11:28 pm

Hancock/Rinehart – you know who I am talking about 🙂

Reply to  Craig from Oz
October 7, 2021 12:04 am

Gina’s company has no shareholders, except for herself and family. Her wealth comes from royalties from leases taken out by her father in the ’60’s. The increase is due to the rise in volume mined and price achieved. Hancock Prospecting does no mining.

Duker
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2021 1:01 am

Roy Hill and Hope Downs are massive iron ore mines where Hancock Prospecting is the majority owner of the mining company.
Essentially it was Rina Rineharts industry and perservance that these mining enterprises came about.
The Royalties you talk about was what she started with and of course that revenue stream has increased and she has plowed the income back into new developments as well as expanding massively the cattle business which was her father’s original core business.

Dennis
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2021 1:36 am

You are obviously not well informed, you are right about inheritance but ignore her investments since receiving the inheritance.

That’s your problem.

DonM
Reply to  Dennis
October 7, 2021 9:02 am

That’s a problem.

His real problem is that he has a certain perspective and it will not change regardless of facts. He needs to nit-pick so he can continue his rationalizations.

That’s his problem.

Lrp
Reply to  Dennis
October 7, 2021 12:12 pm

His problems is Marxist infection

Duker
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2021 1:40 am

Roy Hill achieved her and her father’s long dream of owning and operating a mine.70% share
Hope Downs , mine operated by Rio Tinto but Rinehart has 50% share of profits
Hammersly mine owned by entirely by Rio Tinto but Hancock Prospecting has a 1.25% royalty stream only.
Apart from royalty stream and mining tenements on crown owned land she has expanded the business . Roy Hill was an unwanted BHP mine prospect.

SxyxS
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2021 2:02 am

She is a selfmade billionaire,as she was not close to be one when she started and she was responsible for the success.
Without her actions she wouldn’t be a billionaire.
And it does not matter wether she started at 0 or at 10 mio with a golden spoon in her butt.
Her achievements may be far below that of a billionaire who started from 0, but similar in scale to a selfmade millionaire.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2021 3:44 am

she also owns and recently sold massive cattle properties
shes not singleminded or a slouch in business
puts her money where her mouth is

Peter K
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2021 12:46 am

Sorry Nick, You missed the boat here. No one was talking about her wealth.

Reply to  Peter K
October 7, 2021 1:04 am

Eric’s article begins
Iconic self made billionaire Gina Rinehart has warned school students …”

LdB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2021 1:37 am

It is correct to everyone except Nick and his lets redefine what self made means … you are pathetic little troll.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2021 3:44 am

Bla, bla, bla – to cite your icone.

beng135
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2021 11:34 am

Post — A rather powerful and successful businesswomen makes some surprisingly common-sense remarks about climate-change propaganda during a university speech.

Stokes — Look at the squirrel!!!!

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 8, 2021 2:41 am

Does it bother you that a woman has succeeded in business and is also smart enough to see through the CAGW scam and speak out against it? Your ignorance is profound. We need a lot more smart people like Gina, unafraid to stand up and call attention to all the fraud surrounding CAGW.

Simon
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
October 8, 2021 12:20 pm

Does it bother you that a woman has succeeded in business …”
I think it would bother a few others here before NS.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2021 6:29 am

Her name is not Heinz.

Lrp
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2021 12:10 pm

Check out Roy Hill mining

John
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 10, 2021 8:45 pm

Nick
you are ill informed they have a large mine of there own Roy Hill
so go and sit in the naughty boy corner and come out when you have done the research Gina has told the students to do

Martin C
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 6, 2021 10:26 pm

That figure you would make that point, Nick. The issues isn’t about her being a self made billionaire ( i don’t care if she is or she isn’t . ), but Nick just HAS TO FOCUS ON THAT. Nick, you are a D – – – . . uh sorry, that was uncalled for.

NICK, COMMENT ON WHAT SHE WAS CHALLENGING HER STUDENTS TO DO ! ! ! To research this on their own. Which to me includes criitcal thinking, hearing both sides of the argument, to come to their own conclusion.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Martin C
October 6, 2021 11:19 pm

Well if the only points she has are students “should consider influences such as the sun’s orbit, volcanoes…” then it is just nonsense.

Neither the sun’s orbit (whatever she might mean by that) or volcanos have changed significantly over the last century and are not the cause of any warming.

The rest of the sentence ““other scientific facts that I had the benefit of learning when I was at school” is so vague as to be meaningless.

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Izaak Walton
October 6, 2021 11:44 pm

So what. She’s suggesting students check things before accepting them blindly. As against you, who thinks they should conform without checking anything.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
October 7, 2021 4:23 am

That’s not really the story though, is it? You’re being disingenuous. “Aussie billionaire tells students to do thorough research” isn’t the headline. The headline is “Aussie mining billionaire warns school kids about climate propaganda.”

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 7, 2021 4:37 am

Well, weakly rise. I was referring to the story and not the headline. Perhaps you might like to get together with Nick and discuss the font of the headline.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
October 7, 2021 4:49 am

The story is this person telling school kids that climate change is a hoax. Pretending as though it’s about nothing more than encouraging kids to do thorough research is utterly disingenuous. Such a statement would have been perfectly agreeable and uncontroversial but never would have made a single headline.

Teddy Lee
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 7, 2021 6:45 am

She suggested that the planet has undergone many very warm and very,very cold phases.
Prove her wrong!

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Teddy Lee
October 7, 2021 8:33 am

No one denies that the planet has undergone many warm and cold phases. She’s not merely pointing out that there have been warm and cold phases, this suggestion is also disingenuous.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Teddy Lee
October 7, 2021 8:42 am

She’s not wrong.

Everything Gina said was right on the money. The students should listen very carefully.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 7, 2021 9:02 am

I’m not really interested in debating whether she’s right or wrong about anthropogenic climate change, here. What I’m contesting is this narrative that all she was doing in her speech was encouraging students to exercise an inquisitive mindset, and therefore that if you disagree with her position then you are against being inquisitive and skeptical.

HotScot
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 7, 2021 6:56 am

She didn’t say climate change was a hoax. So much for your fact’s, they are about as good as your climate change hysteria.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  HotScot
October 7, 2021 8:47 am

That is fair, she does not say it is a hoax. She does explicitly suggest that climate research is being driven by financial motivations, not scientific ones:

Will leave you all to find the fourth, not so easy to find facts at times these days. Not helped when the government supports grants towards one side of the argument, making it less beneficial to consider the natural influences on our climate, distance from the sun as the earth orbits, which we should know influences summers and winters, volcanoes, including the many that erupt under the ocean, and other scientific facts that I had the benefit of learning while I was at school, indeed, that the earth lived thru many ice ages and global warming’s, pre man even being on this planet.

She further claims that she held a series of lectures for students intended to convince them that anthropogenic climate change is not real:

I brought Lord Monckton and Professor Ian Plimer, no speech fees, to address senior students and hopefully take away some of the emotional fear that was being spread around by such film and speeches. The first thing Lord Monckton asked the senior students, being aware “An Inconvenient Truth” had been shown repeatedly to students, was to put their hands up if they believed that climate change was human-induced. About 70 per cent or more of students put their hands up.

Lord Monckton and Prof Plimer were only given a comparatively short time to speak, during which they asked students to ask questions and check facts carefully, and then at the end of their speeches, the question re human-induced climate change was re-asked, and the hands changed, about 30 percent put their hands up.

So, again, this suggestion that her speech was merely encouraging students to exercise good research practices is completely disingenuous. She was telling the students that anthropogenic climate change is not scientifically supported. You can agree or disagree with her position there, but you ought at least to acknowledge that this is what her speech was about.

DonM
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 7, 2021 11:01 am

You completely missed her point (re Monckton).

Her point was that when kids were exposed to other information (that they usually aren’t allowed to see), only for a little while, it opened their minds and allowed them change their personal views.

She was telling the current group of kids that they may change views if they look further into all the available information. She was telling them that they should not trust people (like you) that don’t want them to be able to see all the available information. She was telling them that make up their own minds by looking at all the information …

HotScot
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 7, 2021 6:55 am

Gina didn’t write the headline.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Weekly_rise
October 7, 2021 8:40 am

I thought this was the headline:

Gina Rinehart warns of ‘propaganda’ in climate denial video to students”

ghalfrunt
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
October 7, 2021 4:28 am

I do not think many warmists say “do not check, just believe”.
I certainly have never just believed what I heard on social media without a serious amount of checking info from knowledgeable people!

The problem is who do you get safe real information from – is it the skydragons or climate scientists?

No youngling is going to understand enough to say whether the green house effect is simply caused by atmospheric pressure or by scientifically proven radiation from ghg molecules without referring to others.

You surely would not expect a student to be able to understand science to the same level as someone who has studied a subject for decades. And this is required for them to make uo their minds

By the way, To claim the suns orbit (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) is to be considered, is just ignorant of 400 years of science. Did she really say this?

Reply to  ghalfrunt
October 7, 2021 5:10 am

Showing fairly young children Al Gore’s blather is the opposite of teaching them science. Most of the “education” on climate is at the level of a catechism.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 7, 2021 9:48 am

Gina should have told the students what the English judge thought about Al Gore’s film.

The judge was rather harsh on Al Gore because of the misrepresentations in the film. The judge put restrictions on showing the film to English school children because of the misrepresentations.

HotScot
Reply to  ghalfrunt
October 7, 2021 7:06 am

What “climate scientists”? There’s not even a qualification for climate scientist as no one on earth has a Physics, and a Chemistry, and a Geology, and an Astrology, and a Meteorological, and a Biology etc. etc. etc. Degree, all of which contribute to analysis what’s happening around us.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as a ‘global climate’. A global average temperature, perhaps, but even that’s fraught with unknowns and criticisms.

By the way, To claim the suns orbit (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) is to be considered, is just ignorant of 400 years of science. Did she really say this?”

And you have never made an incorrect statement in your life. Sure thing………

Tom Abbott
Reply to  ghalfrunt
October 7, 2021 8:56 am

“You surely would not expect a student to be able to understand science to the same level as someone who has studied a subject for decades. And this is required for them to make up their minds”

I don’t think that is true. One doesn’t have to be a rocket scientists to be able to tell when they are seeing evidence of something, or not seeing evidence of something.

Go in front of a judge in a courtroom and tell the judge you have evidence proving CO2 is causing the weather to be more extreme.

The judge will rule against you in short order because the judge can recognize evidence when he sees it, and he can also determine when there is no solid evidence, just hearsay and assumptions and assertions, which is the only case the alarmists can present. The judge’s job is to determine what is evidence and what is not evidence. They are pretty good at it.

Try the Human-caused Climate Change case in court and it will fail miserably for lack of evidence.

The students should follow Gina’s advice and look into the subject for themselves rather than accepting someone else’s opinion for the state of the planet.

If you think Human-caused Climate Change would not fail a court challenge, then put your evidence here.

It would be fun arguing this case in court against a bunch of asserters. It would be pretty obvious to the judge that the alarmists have nothing to base their case on but assumptions and assertions, neither one of which will stand up in court as evidence of anything.

Logic would destroy the alarmist case in court. As it does now, in the outside world.

DonM
Reply to  ghalfrunt
October 7, 2021 11:06 am

“No youngling is going to understand enough to say whether the green house effect is …”

You show you arrogant ignorance every time you post.

And you and your kind are the ones that need to maintain what gets filtered into them?

aussiecol
Reply to  ghalfrunt
October 7, 2021 5:15 pm

”No youngling is going to understand..”

Oh yes they can, they would be able to understand the lies such as the plight of polar bear numbers, Arctic ice cap gone by 2014, GBR dying etc, etc, etc.

THOMAS ENGLERT
Reply to  ghalfrunt
October 7, 2021 6:15 pm

I’ve read on this site that Sun’s orbit influences Earth climate due to varying cosmic rays. True or not?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  THOMAS ENGLERT
October 8, 2021 4:22 am

The activity of the Sun influences how strong the solar wind becomes.

A strong solar wind reduces the number of cosmic rays that strike the Earth.

There is a lot of speculation about what cosmic rays do with regard to the Earth’s atmosphere and how they could affect Earth’s weather. Nothing definitive yet.

It’s a fascinating subject.

Vincent Causey
Reply to  Izaak Walton
October 7, 2021 12:09 am

Mrs Rinehart said the girls should consider influences such as the sun’s orbit, volcanoes and “other scientific facts that I had the benefit of learning when I was at school”.
She said as the globe had heated and cooled in the past, global warming was not caused by humans.”

She is saying that in the past – ie before humans – the globe warmed and cooled. This is a simple argument. If the globe warmed and cooled on its own throughout its history without human input…. well you know the rest.

Peter K
Reply to  Vincent Causey
October 7, 2021 12:49 am

Unfortunately the Teachers Union has taken all of that out of the curriculum, here in Australia.

Bill
Reply to  Peter K
October 8, 2021 4:06 pm

Welcome to the land where totalitarian rule is accepted by the citizens. If they don’t stand up to bullies they have no hope of ever living free again. They’ve given up the schools to the Marxists, which all Western Civilization has, and that is the beginning of the end.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Vincent Causey
October 7, 2021 2:59 pm

If the globe warmed and cooled on its own throughout its history without human input…. well you know the rest.”

Well actually what is the rest? The fact that the earth’s climate changed before humans evolved is logically distinct from the question about whether or not human activities are currently causing the climate to change.

For example people died before COVID but that doesn’t mean that COVID doesn’t cause people to die.

aussiecol
Reply to  Izaak Walton
October 7, 2021 12:13 am

Just like Nick, you are deflecting. The whole point of this topic is to challenge kids to do their own research and not take for gospel the long list of failed predictions, dubious climate modelling and one sided tutoring from their teachers. Another words, to have an open mind and not be indoctrinated by alarmism.

Ron Long
Reply to  Izaak Walton
October 7, 2021 3:22 am

Izaak Walton, would you please explain what causes the earth to go into and out of glacial cycles in this Ice Age we have been in for at least the last two million years? I am sure the explanation was the natural cycles Gina Rinehart was referring to.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Ron Long
October 7, 2021 7:19 pm

The usual answer are Milankovitch cycles. Which happen over timescales of 10’s of thousands of years not decades. They are nowhere near fast enough to explain the current climate change.

DonM
Reply to  Izaak Walton
October 8, 2021 10:07 am

If the current temp bump drops back to ‘normal’ there would be no indication in the future geologic historic record.

If there was a little 50 year bump 10,000 years ago, there would be no way to know about it … it would not show up.

Just because you see something for the first time, you should not assume that it is the first time that it happened. You (and people like you) are not that smart. You are not the center, and everything does not revolve around you. You are simply future dust, and you are wasting what little potential you have by deluding yourself. (I hope this helps …)

Derg
Reply to  Izaak Walton
October 7, 2021 3:35 am

I am sure you blindly believed Russia colluuuusion 😉

Reply to  Izaak Walton
October 7, 2021 3:45 am

Learn what examples are.

Editor
Reply to  Izaak Walton
October 7, 2021 4:46 am

Izaak – We have not yet established that the warming of the last ~350 years is caused in any way by anything that has changed within the last century. It might all have come from changes ~350 years ago plus of course some ongoing natural cycles and variations to put the wiggles into the charts.

ghalfrunt
Reply to  Mike Jonas
October 7, 2021 5:05 am

As requested I am sceptical of your statement and request that you help by publishing scientific facts to back up your statements – thanks

We have not yet established that the warming of the last ~350 years is caused in any way by anything that has changed within the last century.

so you are saying it could be due to something

It might all have come from changes ~350 years ago

you your thoughts are that changes occurred 350 years ago – what changes would these be?

plus of course some ongoing natural cycles and variations to put the wiggles into the charts.

What natural cycles last 350 years?

BobM
Reply to  ghalfrunt
October 7, 2021 6:45 am

There are clearly natural cycles that run the gamut from 24 hours to 100,000 years. Do you know that one or a combination of said natural cycles is not responsible for any part of the modest changes in climate we notice over time? In fact, they must be responsible for nearly every change we know of geologically and from human history. What proof do you have that natural climate change stopped recently?

ghalfrunt
Reply to  BobM
October 7, 2021 8:00 am

Ok so you do not know what causes the 350 year cycle (I know Milankovitch cycles – but theses are gt 350y).

your deflection to question me does not add to your answer. Remember you are trying to convince me that I should not worry about climate. where is your proof?

Janice Moore
Reply to  ghalfrunt
October 7, 2021 10:37 am

1. Your worry is based on no evidence at all. If you have evidence, cite it.

2. Do your own research.

*******

Null hypothesis re: human CO2:

All is well.

BobM
Reply to  ghalfrunt
October 7, 2021 1:01 pm

Nobody has suggested a 350 year CYCLE but YOU. Maybe there is one, maybe not. I didn’t suggest it nor have to prove it either way.

You are the one proposing an alternative explanation to natural climate changes, which can be shown are no different now than ever before. You have no proof, only an unlimited supply of conjecture based upon one flimsy supposition that atmospheric CO2 at a level of 400 ppm or higher is somehow dangerous NOW, when it has never been dangerous before in even higher levels.

As Dr. Patrick Moore said, “if there was proof it would be laid out for all to see”…

Show me the proof, the direct cause and how it precedes and produces the horrible effects to come. Please, not “the Science”, just the proof.

DonM
Reply to  ghalfrunt
October 7, 2021 11:08 am

He didn’t say anything about a 350 yr cycle.

Read it again … try it … unbiased.

Duane
Reply to  Izaak Walton
October 7, 2021 5:17 am

Doofus – the climate also has not changed significantly in the last century, or even the last 170 years since the end of the Little Ice Age, with total warming over those centuries of only about 1 deg C.

Her point is that over geological timescales, the planet has always had very large changes in climate, and always will, without any input whatsoever from anything mankind does or has ever done.

HotScot
Reply to  Izaak Walton
October 7, 2021 6:54 am

Her point was to have the children think critically and question dogma. The volcanoes and sun’s orbit were examples that contradict that dogma.

ghalfrunt
Reply to  HotScot
October 7, 2021 8:07 am

Are you taking about the suns orbit in the galaxy or thr earths orbut round the sun?

As suggested I asked questions about her statement. You provided no answers!

Wharfplank
Reply to  ghalfrunt
October 7, 2021 11:13 am

Both, obviously. They are what are called variables. They change, they, they are not the same from century to century.

LdB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 6, 2021 10:34 pm

Nick redefining the truth again .. she inherited around $75Million even a quick read of Wikipedia would have told you that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Rinehart

The section marked “Business career” is well worth a read.

By any non Stokes definition she is a self made billionaire.

Last edited 14 days ago by LdB
Reply to  LdB
October 6, 2021 11:07 pm

She didn’t inherit $75 Million. She inherited the rights to royalties (originally 2.5%) on iron ore mined in large chunks of the Pilbara. The company still gets 1.25% of the proceeds of Hamersley; the other 1.25% seems to have morphed into 50% of the proceeds of the Hope Downs mine, all run by Rio Tinto.

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 6, 2021 11:50 pm

Why do you care Nick? I don’t care how rich people are and how they got their riches. I’m only interested in their opinion of things. She’s rich and has common sense, you are poor and have none. You’re just a nitpicker. Something that simians are good at.

Vincent Causey
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2021 12:11 am

A straw man argument, no? What has that got to do with her arguments? Did she say in her talk anything about inheriting $75m?

Editor
Reply to  Vincent Causey
October 7, 2021 6:14 am

It appears that Nick will focus on the irrelevant wealth and funding inheritance to ignore the speech she made, maybe because he is trying to fog the thread up with distractions that doesn’t address the CONTENT of her speech which he hasn’t addressed at all.

Teddy Lee
Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 7, 2021 6:50 am

Nick is aggrieved that she is not marxist billionaire.

Independent George
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2021 5:48 am

To be so obtuse, so willing to grasp at unimportant straws in attempts to delegitimise that which hurts your religion, is truly remarkable.

You’re a ‘fact checker’ aren’t you?

Duane
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2021 11:34 am

The universe of wealthy brats born to billionaires losing it miserably is very large.

The biggest joke told amongst the truly wealthy whom I have known goes:

“You wanna become a millionaire? Well, you start with a billion dollars, and … “

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2021 12:41 pm

Nobody wastes a bunch of time going on about how Gore got his money, we just point out the blatant stupidity of his BS.

When you have no BS to point to, I guess you have to piss and moan about where somebody got their money instead.

TonyG
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
October 8, 2021 8:32 am

“When you have no BS to point to, I guess you have to piss and moan about where somebody got their money instead.”

Classic ad-hominem.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  LdB
October 6, 2021 11:22 pm

If you inherit a mining business just before a decades long mining boom becoming a billionaire is not exactly hard. And similarly is anyone surprised that somebody who has billions of dollars tied up in coal comes out against climate change.

Hasbeen
Reply to  Izaak Walton
October 6, 2021 11:39 pm

Do try to get something right Izaak Walton. Her interest is in iron ore mines, not coal.

As such her income will be increased by the huge amount of steel required in the building & instillation of windmills. Much less is involved in electricity production in coal, gas or nuclear plants for that generation which she is advocating.

Could it be that she hates seeing kids lied to by dumb activist teachers?

Reply to  Hasbeen
October 7, 2021 12:11 am

She has now quite a lot invested in coal, particularly in the Galilee (Qld).

Old Cocky
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2021 12:58 am

That rather contradicts your earlier royalty income stream argument 🙂

Ido agree that “self-made” may have been a bit of a stretch, so has rather distracted the conversation.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Old Cocky
October 7, 2021 9:56 am

People trying to make something out of “self-made” is what distracted the conversation.

Redge
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 6, 2021 11:03 pm

I assume you watched her video, Nick.

The lack of comments on her “rant” must mean you cannot find any faults.

Welcome to the darkside

Ron Long
Reply to  Redge
October 7, 2021 3:26 am

I wonder if Nick did watch the video of the Gina Rinehart presentation? If so, whereas my favorite part was Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Regan together, the scene may have induced a different reaction in Nick?

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 6, 2021 11:06 pm

Nit pickers will pick nits. This one is patently spurious. At least most of your nits have a grain of truth when you try to deflect from the point.

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 6, 2021 11:57 pm

Sometimes Eric’s whoppers seem to be just inaccuracy for the sake of inaccuracy. No-one who remembers the endless soap opera of the legal battles between Hancock’s wife and daughter over the inheritance of his mining lease rights and royalty stream would describe Gina as a self made billionaire.

Duker
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2021 1:13 am

Her father left mining royalties. She now has 50%share of Hope Downs mega mine and 70% share Roy Hill mega mine. That’s actual ownership of the mine not a royalty stream which continues for the separate Hammersly mega mine which Rinehart has no share of the business.
She has moved up the value chain

Ron Long
Reply to  Duker
October 7, 2021 3:28 am

Nick rejects capitalism and free enterprise because he supports the socialist CAGW nonsense.

Derg
Reply to  Ron Long
October 7, 2021 3:37 am

Nailed it

LdB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2021 1:47 am

Is that better or worse than redefining just for the sake of redefining … you don’t agree with the term “self made” many of us would … get over it. It basically boils down to Gina doesn’t agree with your position so you need to try to minimize what she has done in life.

The funniest story with Gina was when she got stopped at Perth airport because they suspected she may be breaching currency regulations by taking cash of more than several thousand dollars. She actually had brief case with millions in bonds and sureties which she had declared and was legally taking out. They probably looked about as stupid as your argument.

Last edited 14 days ago by LdB
Janice Moore
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2021 10:49 am

The claim was self-made BILLIONAIRE. All of your assertions attack a claim not made (self-made MILLIONAIRE).

If John D. Rockefeller turns $100,000 into $1 million, he is a self-made millionaire….. and so on…..

Reply to  Janice Moore
October 7, 2021 11:55 am

And if JDR inherits royalties of $100K/yr and is a millionaire after 10 years, is that self made?

Janice Moore
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2021 12:54 pm

Who was it that saved or wisely invested the $100K?

Was it someone else?

Lrp
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2021 12:41 pm

She’s made her own very large and complex investments and business decisions and shown exceptional leadership qualities

Herbert
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 6, 2021 11:26 pm

Nick,
Deflecting the issues raised by this post to a discussion of the source of Ms.Rinehart’s wealth does you no credit.
You will be aware that the comments by Dr. Bill Hare are wide of the mark in his claim that Ms. Rinehart is “shockingly wrong on every single issue she mentions”.
Dr. Hare states in the SMH –
“She also cites approvingly Margaret Thatcher, which is particularly egregious as she would have no truck at all with Rinehart’s arguments.”
Dr. Hare said Mrs Thatcher was the first global leader to fully recognise the threat climate change posed and said unless curtailed it would cause “ irretrievable damage to the atmosphere, to the atmosphere, to the oceans, to the earth itself”.
Dr. Hare is the one “shockingly ignorant”.
He is unaware or unwilling to acknowledge that Thatcher recanted her position on Climate Change, and came to see the nonsense it represents.
From her autobiography “Statecraft” (2002) reversing her September 1989 position-
“ The doomsters’ favourite subject today is climate change.This has a number of attractions for them.
First, the subject is extremely obscure so they cannot easily be proved wrong.
Second, we all have ideas about the weather: traditionally the English on first acquaintance talk of little else.
Thirdly since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale it provides a marvellous excuse for worldwide, supranational socialism…”
As to Gore’s movie, it was stated explicitly by Justice Burton in Dimmock v. Minister for Education to contain 9 errors (not “errors” as alarmists attempt to excuse) and was ruled by his Honour to be propaganda not science in breach of the UK Education Act unless distributed with corrective material termed “Guidance Notes.”

Lewis P Buckingham
Reply to  Herbert
October 7, 2021 1:18 am

This is embarrassing.
Principals should be across at least the facts.
Otherwise discussion becomes conjecture.
Perhaps this will stimulate a debate amongst the wider Anglican parent community about the method of teaching they want.

BobM
Reply to  Lewis P Buckingham
October 7, 2021 5:02 pm

Sounds like they need a new Principal.

Derg
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2021 3:31 am

Welcome back…there has been so much good news lately. It’s the warmest evah and you won’t need that extra blanket in winter you told us about and your heating bill will be going down.

Happy days are here again!

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2021 3:42 am

What, Nick, do you think was the goal of EW article ? The part of making the money or the content of her speach ?
Your comment is nonsense and without any interest.

Richard (the cynical one)
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2021 4:47 am

“There are none as blind as those who will not see”, Nick.

HotScot
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2021 6:52 am

It’s interesting you should criticise her means of wealth rather than her convictions on climate change.

Reply to  HotScot
October 7, 2021 9:10 am

I am not criticising her source of wealth. I am criticising Eric’s attempt to promote her as a self made billionaire, when she is nothing of the kind.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2021 9:23 am

And the articles goal is ?

Reply to  Krishna Gans
October 7, 2021 11:51 am

Eric is seeking to tell us that Australia’s iconic self made billionaire told a school that AGW is poppycock.

Lrp
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2021 12:45 pm

She is a self made billionaire. Eat your hear out

richard
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2021 10:11 am

Plenty of people have inherited and lost the business. She increased the wealth of the estate.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 7, 2021 2:02 pm

In this case Nick is right. Why mark him down?

Richard Page
Reply to  Patrick MJD
October 7, 2021 8:49 pm

Because in this case, Nick is being totally irrelevant and attempting to move the argument away from AGW and onto some meaningless and irrelevant discussion of semantics. To take just 2 words – ‘self’ and ‘made’ out of the entirety of the article and presentation, then to make an entire objection to both on the strength of those 2 words is ridiculousness almost to the point of insanity.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Richard Page
October 9, 2021 8:49 pm

But what he says is the truth.

John
Reply to  Nick Stokes
October 10, 2021 8:44 pm

She took a bankrupt business

so I dont agree

lee
October 6, 2021 10:16 pm

“St Hilda’s Anglican School for Girls principal slams Gina Rinehart’s global warming views in email to parents”
https://thewest.com.au/news/climate-change/gina-rinehart-slams-st-hildas-anglican-school-for-girls-for-censoring-her-views-on-global-warming-ng-b882030966z

Apparently they censored the video.

They only played 5 of 16 minutes about her time at the school. Of course the denier tag has been attached – “Gina Rinehart peddles climate denial to students in bizarre video rant”,

https://reneweconomy.com.au/gina-rinehart-peddles-climate-denial-to-students-in-bizarre-video-rant/

Last edited 14 days ago by lee
n.n
Reply to  lee
October 6, 2021 10:29 pm

It’s unseemly that a woman hold an opinion that denies the consensus.

That said, the Pro-Choice religion denies women and men’s dignity and agency, and reduces human life to a negotiable asset… denial of life deemed unworthy or profitable.

Take a knee, beg, good girl.

Craig from Oz
Reply to  lee
October 6, 2021 11:26 pm

Here is a thing.

We know Gina Rinhart by name, but the school principal by ‘principal’.

Well done, ‘Principal’.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  lee
October 7, 2021 12:08 am

I don’t think that word ‘rant’ means what they think it means

H.R.
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 7, 2021 4:16 am

If stating facts and challenging students to think for themselves is a rant, that principal is unprincipled.

Mike Dubrasich
October 6, 2021 11:11 pm

Go figure. The only real man left in Australia is a woman!

n.n
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
October 7, 2021 12:20 am

A feminine female woman, married, with children, at that.

Duker
Reply to  n.n
October 7, 2021 1:16 am

Don’t talk about the children . There is ongoing legal fights over the trusts which are the actual owners of Hancock Prospecting.

Lrp
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
October 7, 2021 12:48 pm

She’s an exceptional person

Craig from Oz
October 6, 2021 11:18 pm

Gina repeatedly criticised how students in West Australia had been forced to watch Al Gore’s film at school, in some cases four times.

Second take away from that statement – Australian teachers are willing to let the dvd player do the heavy lifting for them.

Loydo
Reply to  Craig from Oz
October 7, 2021 1:10 am

 “forced to watch Al Gore’s film at school, in some cases four times.”

Not just a little skeptical of that?

Dennis
Reply to  Loydo
October 7, 2021 1:41 am

Of course the students were warned before viewing that the film contains material that is questionable in terms of accuracy?

As a Court of Law ordered in the UK.

Alba
Reply to  Loydo
October 7, 2021 3:05 am

What, Loydo a sceptic? Who’d have thought it.

Derg
Reply to  Alba
October 7, 2021 3:41 am

Loydo thinks man didn’t land on the moon…crazy indeed

Loydo
Reply to  Derg
October 7, 2021 9:04 pm

and Derg is still a one trick pony.

Paul Jenkinson
October 6, 2021 11:23 pm

That’s a really ballsy thing to do at present in a “climate-mad” Australia,much more a girl’s school.
Well done Gina.

Craig from Oz
October 6, 2021 11:33 pm

Sydney Morning Herald.

So to them this is a damaging hit piece clearly describing how Gina is mentally irresponsible and – unwritten but clearly implied – that her fortune should be broken up and given to non-profit organisations for The Greater Good*.

The Left have hated Gina for years for just about everything. Not going to stop hating her now.

(*The Greater Good!)

cohenite
October 6, 2021 11:49 pm

Gina indeed does have cause to worry about the corrupt hypocrites running the mineral goldmine which is Western Australia. These communists took on another billionaire, Clive Palmer and actually brought in special legislation to influence the law case Palmer brought against them for breaking the Constitution.

Clive Palmer suffers blow in $30 billion damages claim against WA over Pilbara iron ore project – ABC News

However, Palmer is before the HC:

High Court adjourns to decide on ‘anti-Clive Palmer’ law (watoday.com.au)

Commies always punish their enemies.

Alan M
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 7, 2021 6:02 am

Come on, Clive is an even bigger “tosser” than Al, just

Mr.
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 7, 2021 8:19 am

I think Clive recognized Al for the useful idiot he is.

Al served Clive’s need for publicity at the time.

Voltron
October 6, 2021 11:52 pm

It should be added here, importantly, that her recorded comments were censored to remove any mention of climate change rebuttal.

The school, students, and anyone that called the left-leaning ABC radio, were very happy about this censorship. Can’t have the echo chamber making funny noises.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-07/wa-gina-ruffles-feathers-with-climate-speech/100520836

Alan M
Reply to  Voltron
October 7, 2021 6:06 am

What’s really funny is that this has turned into a Barbara Streisand moment

And the ABC interviewed a “real climate scientist” regarding this – Will Steffen haha “That’s funny right there” (sorry David)

Last edited 14 days ago by Alan M
Alan M
Reply to  Alan M
October 7, 2021 6:31 am

Meant to add that Steffen is actually a chemist so don’t know how he calls himself a “climate scientist”,(Not to offend any chemists out there), I’m an Earth Scientist but I have worked in the resource sector for 40 yrs therefore I would be disqualified I guess 🙂

gbaikie
October 6, 2021 11:57 pm

–Australia’s richest woman Gina Rinehart has said humans do not cause global warming and warned against climate change “propaganda” in a speech to students at her old school.”

Well, Humans are not doing enough to cause global warming.
Since we in Ice Age, it seems we should cause the average global temperature in increase
a few degrees.

Andrew Wilkins
October 6, 2021 11:59 pm

“Ms Rinehart could not attend so sent a pre-recorded video and only the first five minutes that “did not include specific messaging about climate change” was screened.”
The school chickened out and censored the video. The kids didn’t get to see someone tell them to think for themselves or do their own research.

Perhaps one of our resident thermageddonists can tell us if it was right for the school to censor her speech? What do you think Nick? (Once you’ve finished claiming that a billionaire didn’t actually make any money)

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 7, 2021 12:16 am

Come on, man! Don’t ask Nick to actually address the issues at hand. He doesn’t have time for that, he’s too busy picking nits!

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
October 7, 2021 5:24 am

A good dose of Ivermectin should cure his nit problem!

Lank
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
October 7, 2021 12:31 am

How ironic – the school prides itself on giving students a balance of views and encourages them to do their own research – yet they clearly don’t.
If I was Gina I’d demand the principal apologise publicly and show the full video to all students – if they want Gina to contribute future donations.

eo
October 7, 2021 12:20 am

Does anybody have comments on this great information or some may call disinformation by the Nobel Prize for Physics this year. The official website of the Nobel prize committee (Nobel.org) has this to say “”for the physical modelling of Earth’s climate, quantifying variability and reliably predicting global warming” . It seems to the Nobel prize committee global warming was settled a long time ago.

Just waiting for the Nobel Prize in the future for providing substantial proof that global warming is real to the Climategate scientists.

philincalifornia
Reply to  eo
October 7, 2021 12:11 pm

Yes, I had two thoughts on the subject. First, the hard scientific data was the same the day before their blather as it was the day after their blather and the seemingly go-to article on the blather was co-authored by Seth Borenstein, aka Seth Goebbelstein, at AP.

Accordingly, I didn’t have to waste any further time on the subject.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  eo
October 7, 2021 12:53 pm

reliably predicting global warming

ROTFLMAO.

That goes right up there with the “Peace Prize” awarded to Arafat.

Geoff Sherrington
October 7, 2021 12:21 am

Thank you, Gina Rinehart, you are an inspiration!

Take no notice of people who write “Mrs Rinehart has made most of her wealth through fossil fuels…” when nobody with knowledge considers iron ore to be a fossil fuel. The same reporter, Peter Milne, approves of Bill Hare, a German-inspired activist, claiming that Gina Rinehart was “shockingly wrong on every single issue she mentions” while providing no concrete examples, only his opinion.

Seems to me that Gina Rinehart has been more successful than her critics when dealing with logic, deduction, observation, gullibility and even financial expertise. Geoff S

Duker
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
October 7, 2021 1:31 am

Yes. I saw that and knew they were doing a hit job
They have changed it now, but a senior reporter making a error like is so……common.

Last edited 14 days ago by Duker
lee
October 7, 2021 1:08 am

It used to be Science was about “falsifiable hypotheses” Now not so.

Now with Climate Change TM, we have been told some regions will be warmer, some areas will be cooler, some wetter, some drier. Nothing falsifiable in any of it.

philincalifornia
Reply to  lee
October 7, 2021 1:08 pm

That’s because any falsifiable hypothesis the 10th-rate or lower “scientists” could come up with have already been falsified.

…… which, of course, is why this thread is a mental masturbation fest about definitions of self-made and Monbiot’s opinions and other miscellaneous tripe.

Loydo
October 7, 2021 1:21 am

“...influences such as the sun’s orbit, volcanoes…global warming was not caused by humans.”

Do you go along with: sun’s orbit and volcanoes but no human effect Eric?
Do you think her opinion might be little biased given her interests in CO2 producing products?
And are you ok with “elites” now, as long as they are right thinking elites?

lee
Reply to  Loydo
October 7, 2021 1:39 am

Do you understand past tense? “was” lol

Old Cocky
Reply to  Loydo
October 7, 2021 1:39 am

Loydo, old bean, you must have missed the early tellings of the joke.

Just as “carbon” has become shorthand for “carbon dioxide”, “elites” is shorthand for “self-styled elites”

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Loydo
October 7, 2021 1:41 am

As I am a CO2 producing product of nature I’m pleased she might be interested in me.

Alba
Reply to  Loydo
October 7, 2021 3:10 am

The article (not Eric, by the way) says: Mrs Rinehart said the girls should consider influences such as the sun’s orbit, volcanoes and “other scientific facts that I had the benefit of learning when I was at school”.
Are you denying that any of these has an influence?
Not also, she said ‘consider’. Not a bad idea for school pupils.

John Phillips
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 7, 2021 4:51 am

You keep repeating that claim. Trouble is, Gavin has already refuted it.

How then should we talk about these models? In my opinion, describing the properties of the multi-model mean or generalizing about the models as a whole is not sensible. Claims such as those made recently that the CMIP6 ensemble ‘runs hot’ are very easily misconstrued to imply that all CMIP6 models have too high ECS values (or indeed all models in general), when really it is only a subset. Discussions of the mean CMIP6 sensitivity is, to my mind, pointless, not least because the ‘CMIP6 mean’ is based on a somewhat arbitrary selection of models that doesn’t take into account model independence nor the fact that CMIP6 itself is a moving target as more models are still being added to the database. And given that all the temperature projections in IPCC are constrained projections, the raw CMIP6 mean and its properties are simply irrelevant for any of the AR6 conclusions.

It is true that *some* models have high ECS beyond what can be reconciled with our understanding of paleoclimate change, and in those models the cloud feedback particularly in the Southern Oceans is more positive than previously. But it is not the case that all the CMIP6 models ‘run hot’, nor is true that the model projections in AR6 are affected by these high ECS values. We should therefore avoid giving that impression.”

Should we believe what Gavin said, or what Eric says he said? Tough one.

HotScot
Reply to  John Phillips
October 7, 2021 7:48 am

Riiiight…..So we say something, figure it was a self inflicted trap, then return and cry “that’s not what I meant”.

FFS….alarmists tie themselves in knots all the time. Occupational hazard when lying.

John Phillips
Reply to  HotScot
October 7, 2021 8:27 am

Point is, he never actually made the statement attributed to him – it has been heavily ‘paraphrased’.

It is important to be accurate, no?

DonM
Reply to  John Phillips
October 7, 2021 11:22 am

It is important to be accurate, no?

Apparently that depends on your personal biases and financial perspective.

Is it important that the climate models are (not) accurate?

John Phillips
Reply to  DonM
October 7, 2021 12:06 pm
Meab
Reply to  John Phillips
October 7, 2021 8:24 am

Phishlips, you know very well that Gavin S. is stretching the truth to cover for the climate cabal. 95% of the CMIP5 models/model runs have predicted too much warming. The fact that a model hasn’t been invalidated by observations doesn’t validate the alarmist claims made from the model ensemble in any way. The remaining model that was not invalidated did not predict catastrophic warming.

John Phillips
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 7, 2021 4:29 am

Or if you prefer the primary source.

M15’s estimates of climate response and future global warming are not consistent with measurements and so cannot be considered credible.”

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11434-015-0806-z

HotScot
Reply to  John Phillips
October 7, 2021 7:51 am

What measurements? Climate models?

John Phillips
Reply to  HotScot
October 7, 2021 8:51 am

Models, yes. And also observations.

“Their low estimates of future warming are due to assumptions developed using a logically-flawed justification narrative rather than physical analysis. The key conclusions are directly contradicted by observational data and cannot be considered credible. ”

Paper is here.

Last edited 14 days ago by John Phillips
John Phillips
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 7, 2021 5:06 am

Here is Plimer ‘making a good case.’

HotScot
Reply to  John Phillips
October 7, 2021 8:03 am

Riiiight……Moonbat (the Zoologist, activist and ‘writer’ [not journalist]) claims ‘victory’ over Plimer, (Australian geologist, professor emeritus of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne, previously a professor of mining Geology at the University of Adelaide and the former director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies.) during a wide ranging discussion including volcanoes (which Moonbat knows nothing about) in a Guardian article (LOL) he’s employed to write for the entertainment of the witless left.

All very scientific, not……

John Phillips
Reply to  HotScot
October 7, 2021 8:35 am

Ad hominem and Appeal to Authority in the same post.

Factual rebuttal noticeable by its absence.

I’ll give you a hand. Was Plimer correct to claim that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activity? No. That warming peaked in 1998? No. That the radiosondes and satellites falsify GW? No.

Strange choice of hero, but hey.

Last edited 14 days ago by John Phillips
Richard Page
Reply to  John Phillips
October 7, 2021 9:00 pm

Actually yes on all counts. But there – right there has absolutely nothing to do with evidence, just opinion and ideology. Fine if you want to debate philosophy, I suppose.

John Phillips
Reply to  Richard Page
October 8, 2021 6:59 am

According to the US Geological Survey, “Carbon dioxide constitutes approximately 0.04% of the air in the Earth’s atmosphere. In an average year, volcanoes release between about 180 and 440 million tonnes of carbon dioxide”. That would be less than 1% of manmade emissions. The trend in global temperatures from 1998 to 2009, the date of the debate, is clear warming and the paper that Plimer cited as disproving global warming actually says “both satellite and in-situ radiosonde observations have been shown to corroborate both the surface observations of warming and the model predictions.”.

But then Plimer’s relation to facts has often been a distant one.

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/ian-plimer-op-ed-in-the-australian-again-presents-long-list-of-false-claims-about-climate/

Last edited 13 days ago by John Phillips
Richard Page
Reply to  John Phillips
October 8, 2021 1:36 pm

According to the US Geological Survey’s opinion, which is strongly ideological and heavily disputed by climate scientists. Again with using ideology and opinion to debate philosophical arguments. You and I both know that the amount of human caused CO2 in the atmosphere cannot ever be measured or attributed with exactitude – it has been guessed at, with varying degrees of ideology and opinion, but not measured exactly. Philosophy or religion will give you an ideology you can use but it won’t miraculously grant you an exact measurement.

John Phillips
Reply to  Richard Page
October 9, 2021 2:07 am

The measurement of CO2 emissions, like all measurements has an uncertainty.

You cannot possibly be arguing that those error bars are large enough to reduce 36 billion tonnes to under 440 million.

Can you?

John Phillips
Reply to  HotScot
October 7, 2021 11:00 am

Moonbat (the Zoologist, activist and ‘writer’ [not journalist]) claims ‘victory’ over Plimer

Not just George, most saw this …

About a year ago, the media was crowing about a new book by Australian geologist Ian Plimer. “Heaven and Earth” was heralded as a death blow to the manmade climate change consensus.

In his book, Plimer portrays the climate change lobby as a sort of religion (perhaps not entirely unfounded) and then appears to knock down numerous assertions by climatologists.

British climate journalist George Monbiot questioned some of Plimer’s claims. He checked some sources and discovered the book was riddled with errors and outright fabrications. He challenged Plimer to a debate, putting several questions on the table about black-and-white matters of fact. Plimer stalled and stymied at every turn.

I recently discovered that the debate finally did take place – on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) in December 2009.

For Plimer, it was an unmitigated disaster. He fudged and distracted at every turn like a senile old goat. In the end, he refused to answer a single question put to him by Monbiot or the moderator. His credibility – and that of his book – withered away into oblivion.

Peter Jackson

Editor
Reply to  Loydo
October 7, 2021 6:19 am

Does this mean you find nothing wrong with her speech?

Loydo
Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 7, 2021 9:16 pm

I find it bemusing anyone in his right mind would stand by an AGW denying, mining billionaire with all the levers of power at her disposal, someone who is ignorant enough to try and blame the “sun’s orbit”, and call her couregeous. Eric is the ‘couregeous’ one.

AlexBerlin
Reply to  Loydo
October 8, 2021 3:47 am

Missing a word there, surely you wanted to say “…anyone in his right mind wound NOT stand by…”. Always listen to those successful in real business. They must be doing something right, or they wouldn’t be so much wealthier than us. Being envious of that not only shows an evil mindset but also is a way of admitting your own total failure. Only those who are too degenerate to climb up engage in pulling others down.

Richard Page
Reply to  Loydo
October 8, 2021 1:39 pm

I find it amusing that you would use the word bemused in that way, dear. Are you bemused? Do you get bemused often? Are you perhaps bemused right now?

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Loydo
October 7, 2021 12:21 pm

Do you think her opinion might be little biased given her interests in CO2 producing products?

Iron ore is a CO2 producing product? Who knew, eh?

Dennis
October 7, 2021 1:32 am

She is a women to be admired and from all accounts she is a “normal” person who does not seek publicity and prefers to be with her friends and family privately. And she took a small fortune and empire she inherited and turned those assets into a very large fortune and empire.

With due consideration for the “woke” people now in boardrooms, banks and other businesses Gina Reinhart has again demonstrated her common sense approach and intellect.

Climate hoax and creatively accounted warming trend is all about politics and money and pretence that climate and weather are natural.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Dennis
October 7, 2021 12:59 pm

Think you meant “are NOT natural…”

Vuk
October 7, 2021 1:42 am

That’s all fine, the students will eventually come around to reality, which for us on this side of planet is of more immediate concern:
“The risk of power shortages this winter will be the highest in five years and there may be “significant price spikes” but the lights should stay on, National Grid has said.
Britain should also not run out of gas but must be willing to outbid other countries to secure scarce supplies, the company added.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/risk-of-power-cuts-but-lights-should-stay-on-this-winter-kc6lh3w3l
Yep, light will be on at least for few hours, for this latitude about 10am – 3pm for December & January. For rest of the time buy candles in good time. Old fashioned kerosene lamps might come to be useful again, you can just about run them on good quality vegetable oil.

Vuk
Reply to  Vuk
October 7, 2021 2:22 am

Europe wants more gas from Putin but wan’t let him use brand new pipeline which could more than double volume of gas flow to Europe.
Political lunatics are running Europe.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10067779/At-mercy-Putin-Russia-flexes-muscles-gas-supplies.html

HotScot
Reply to  Vuk
October 7, 2021 8:10 am

I’ve just taken delivery of a shiny new 8Kw standby generator to run essentials in the house like the heating, lights and fridge etc. over the coming few years.

A perfect storm brewing for Boris, right on the eve of COP26. You couldn’t make it up.

Peta of Newark
October 7, 2021 1:50 am

Quote:”Mrs Rinehart said the girls should consider influences such as the sun’s orbit, volcanoes and “other scientific facts that I had the benefit of learning when I was at school”

Oh dear hun, you are really rather dim ain’t ya, isn’t this your school you’re slagging off?
In a recorded video, a woman, supposedly with ‘the social gene’ ## and in a recorded video.

There’s just a few of the myriad wrongs…

Then we are pointed to this:
Headline:”Gina Rinehart peddles climate denial to students in bizarre video rant”from renew.aus.com

Never mind the story/article itself, go to the Comments
The people and thinking in there are straight out of Lord of the Flies, if not 1930’s Germany
Too true kiddywinks, Australia does need renewing but not in way you imagine it needs renewing.

What Total Ugly and Horrible Mess
what is happening here

## See the size/shape of her – see what sugar/booze/TV/Diabetes does for ya? (Mind you don’t get it. OK?)
Patently stressed out of her pretty little mind and with zero farming or outdoors experience – otherwise she’d know different.
Such the number of Australian volcanoes – is that what turned a continental size rainforest into a desert and kept it like that for 30,000 yrs?
And counting.
Are you counting hun?
What you counting, can I share?

Meanwhile, a truly lovely example of coercion and the deliberate frightening of people, poor people.
Watch out Mr Biden and or the UN, this is where your $100 Billion per year are headed.

Its a video report from the BBC, I hope you can see it.
(Maybe not hope actually but some of us like to tread where angels fear)

From the BBC’s 50°C Series, this one filmed in an Indian Slum.
Though you’d not immediately guess.
Beware, you are going to see more fat, seemingly well-fed people, made up like supermodels.
In A Slum. Remember that
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-58820950

The thing to note in the story is that The (slum dwelling) Heroine is fat, polished, jangling jewellery, mobile phone, made up like a Supermodel and wrapped up like an Eskimo in 50 degC heat.
(Its not her fault she is fat, she was told to eat starch and also, there’s nothing else to eat except that nutrient free mush)

Next, she has been frightened, scared and coerced, by her own government, into borrowing $135 to buy white paint for the roof of her slum.
In India
What sort of economy have they got?
She says on her mobile phone that she needs 20kg of paint, say = 20 litres

For $135 dollars. In India. lord help us.
Even in the UK at relative prices incl tax, £60 GBP will get you 20 litres of white exterior-grade emulsion. (Masonry paint)
half of her India cost

But but but, out there on ebay, £8 GBP will get you a 25kg sack, delivered incl tax, of Hydrated Lime.
Simply paddle that up with some water and you have ‘Whitewash’
Brilliant dazzling white stuff you simply slap on then patch/re-coat as and when needed
Being= lime, is also highly antiseptic/anti-bacterial

Eight quid at UK prices and that hapless woman in India has been railroaded into spending probably £200, by the time she’s ‘covered’ her loan, for an inferior and high maintenance product

UK farms, esp dairy/livestock farms, were covered in the lime based stuff when I was a kid (hello Gina, you still listening?)

It went by the name of Snowcem

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Peta of Newark
October 7, 2021 2:16 am

I learn a lot from brief, cogently reasoned comments on this site – sometimes more than from the articles themselves. However, it is easy to quickly recognize long winded rants that make no meaningful contribution to proper scientific discourse.

HotScot
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
October 7, 2021 8:13 am

Rearrange the words and phrases in any manner you wish, they can’t be tortured into making sense.

Michael in Dublin
October 7, 2021 1:58 am

Neither Climate Analytics’ chief executive Bill Hare nor St Hilda’s principal appreciate the point of good education and science is to ask hard questions and dig deep to find answers. These two would fit well in politics but they should not be allowed anywhere near education and science.

fretslider
October 7, 2021 3:02 am

In the UK she’d be an arch heretic and probably no-platformed

Dsystem
October 7, 2021 3:06 am

Go Gina!!

ozspeaksup
October 7, 2021 3:41 am

gina does tend to speak out and takes no crap
good onya!

Matthew Sykes
October 7, 2021 3:48 am

humans do not cause global warming” Thats the wrong argument.

Accept humans are partly to blame, but say the warming is beneficial, and the climate change we will get will be good, such as warming of the temperate zones, and greening of the deserts.

Say that adaptation is far cheaper, with infrastructure paid for by the rest of the world where and when it is needed.

That is the correct argument to take, one that is acceptable scientifically, economically, and morally.

It is very difficult to argue against.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
October 7, 2021 5:01 am

Agreed. I have often stated here that the correct course is to present the benefits of warming and not argue the how and why. Currently, the narrative is that warming is harmful, everything flows from that. Change the narrative to warming is beneficial and all the doomsdayers and climate change charlatans lose their power.

Stop Climate Fear, Warmer is better.

HotScot
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
October 7, 2021 8:18 am

When it’s not clear that CO2 drives warming (it’s the other way around isn’t it?) then it’s perfectly reasonable to state humans do not cause global warming”.

Conceding ground to the nutters is the slippery slope.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  HotScot
October 7, 2021 10:23 am

I agree with Hotscot.

It’s clear CO2 is a greenhouse gas and behaves the way a greenhouse gas is supposed to behave, but that’s just one step in the process and we really don’t know what exactly happens after that when including feedbacks in the mix.

Maybe it is net warming, or maybe it is net cooling. Whatever it is, it is not driving the Earth’s weather, as extreme weather is no more extreme than in the past, and the globe is currently cooling while CO2 increases.

So there is no evidence for *net* warming of the Earth’s atmosphere by CO2.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 7, 2021 11:54 am

But you will not win that argument (and so far you haven’t) with the common person because they do not react to facts, only to emotions. You don’t sell the steak, you sell the sizzle.
So far the fear factor is the motivation for people to believe in man made climate change, the “What if it’s true?” syndrome. Only when that changes to “warmer is better so no big deal” will the climate zealots cease to have any power or control.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom in Florida
October 8, 2021 4:35 am

I think an extended cool period is what will win the argument now. That’s about the only thing that can overcome the Alarmist Propaganda Machine and the Mass Delusion it causes.

Matthew Sykes
Reply to  HotScot
October 8, 2021 12:48 am

Who said ‘drives’?

Come on, if you are going to argue with me at least argue with what I said, not imagined.

AlexBerlin
Reply to  Matthew Sykes
October 8, 2021 3:55 am

I do think that teaching humans proper humility should be part of the lesson. The thought that anything humans do can alter the conditions prevalent on planet Earth in the long run is a pure delusion of grandeur. All human endeavour is so shallow and futile that we consider artifacts that are merely a few thousand years old as “ancient”, and hardly anything _usable_ remains now that is older than the Middle Ages, just ruins and fragments. No sign anywhere that humans have ever been capable to create or cause anything permanent, and no reason at all to worry (nor to hope!) that we can alter the atmosphere or the oceans by anything we do. All our “exploitation” is just a little scratching of the skin that doesn’t even leave permanent scars in the geological timeframe….

Last edited 13 days ago by AlexBerlin
Rockwa
October 7, 2021 4:44 am

Gina’s got balls, unlike good old Twiggy who’s inventing green schemes and sucking up to the climate change fanatics and MSM like there’s no tomorrow. Sure, attack what she says if you can refute it, but don’t try to diminish her arguments just because she’s rich. Who cares how she got rich? Go Gina!

Alan M
Reply to  Rockwa
October 7, 2021 6:20 am

As are Rio Tinto (my former employer) and BHP, a real pack of hypocrites, although Rio dividends are ok 🙂

Matthew Sykes
Reply to  Alan M
October 8, 2021 4:30 am

I got a great dividend off both of them last month.

Reply to  Alan M
October 8, 2021 5:32 am

I, too, have worked for both of them in my geological career. However I sold my Rio when they blew up the cave and just got rid of most of my BHP (for a while) a few weeks ago when the iron prices looked like they were going the wrong way.
They are both run by activist shareholders and hypocritical gutless and wokish CEOs. Very sad. Yes, the dividends were nice!

Thomas Gasloli
October 7, 2021 6:09 am

This is what industry should have said 20 years ago when the Antarctic ice core data was published. It is probably to late to stop the propaganda machine now.

GaryD
October 7, 2021 6:24 am

Hopefully the school’s reaction will have a large Streisand effect.
https://www.trustindex.io/streisand-effect/

ResourceGuy
October 7, 2021 6:25 am

Wow, I’m impressed. She changes my whole impression of Australia. I fear the U.S. is too far gone to listen or comprehend at this stage. HT to Australia!

Farmerphil
October 7, 2021 6:35 am

Free speech no longer welcome at St Hilda’s. Fancy suggesting that students should go and do their own research into “Climate change “. That is not what education is all about…….is it ?

Last edited 14 days ago by Farmerphil
Teddy Lee
October 7, 2021 6:42 am

I see the alarmist vampires are awake ,or just woke. Must be a full moon.

ResourceGuy
October 7, 2021 7:37 am

At this rate they will get into such topics as who pays the bills and who creates the jobs.

ResourceGuy
October 7, 2021 7:44 am

Critical thinking also extends to asking how much of the solar panels in their neighborhood were sourced in slave labor camps in western China. Maybe a class project on ocean temp cycles would be instructive also.

Charlie
October 7, 2021 8:13 am

On St Hilda’s website under ‘Our Values’ they have

Imagination // We are courageous and open our minds to possibilities.

In view of the email to parents, they might want to take that down now.

Tom Abbott
October 7, 2021 8:26 am

From the article: “A lot of people look up to Gina”

That will include me, now that I have read about her activities.

Go get ’em, Gina! Tell them the truth! The alarmists hate that.

And what did Gina tell the students? Nothing more than that they should do their own research on this subject. The alarmists hate that, too.

ResourceGuy
October 7, 2021 10:59 am

Gina should probably mention that the most powerful form of bullying that could harm students is the government and media-run variety.

Simon
October 7, 2021 1:17 pm

Never trust an Australian who covers her native accent with a fake upper class British one.

Patrick MJD
October 7, 2021 2:01 pm

She is not a self made richest Australian woman. She just happened to be the daughter of a mining magnate who decided to dig stuff out of the ground and sell it. She is just continuing that line of business.

MarkMcD
October 7, 2021 3:25 pm

Just one quibble – Reinhart is the daughter of Lang Hancock and inherited his company and fortune when he died, so hardly ‘self-made.’

To give her credit though, she did take a possibly failing company and turned it into a hugely successful one.

Jon R
October 7, 2021 3:55 pm

Is being honest with children allowed again?? Wow good to know.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Jon R
October 7, 2021 10:58 pm

Not in America Jon, that will get you branded a “domestic terrorist” by our attorney general. You’ll be kicked off social media and the FBI will show up at your house.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Hoyt Clagwell
October 8, 2021 4:41 am

Joe Xiden is a dangerous man. He’s a threat to the People of the United States, and no threat at all to the Bad Guys of the world.

The United States is being led by a crazy man.

tim maguire
October 8, 2021 8:05 am

<i>Australia’s richest woman Gina Rinehart has said humans do not cause global warming </i>

I cringe a bit at the certainty of this statement. My biggest issue with the alarmists is not that they’re wrong (the theory–we are changing the chemical make-up of the atmosphere, which will necessarily change how it retains heat–makes sense), but that they exaggerate the certainty of their predictions; they don’t have the data to back up their claims.

Rob
October 8, 2021 8:39 am

I see Nick Stokes has hijacked this stream again with a snarky comment based on the first quote. As a resident of Perth for 8 years, in the late 90’s I too reacted at describing Gina Rinehart as “self-made”, but this is an irrelevant point with respect to what she is saying and who she is saying too. A little research also showed how much her company has grown in the years then – clearly a very successful business person regardless of what her start was.

I really do feel people should just ignore ad hominem attacks instead of letting them take over the thread.

John
October 10, 2021 8:43 pm

Great to see a prominent Australian speaking out

need to see more of this

%d bloggers like this: