Essay by Eric Worrall
The Hilight – Professor Ian Plimer introduced his new book The End of the World, a book which analyses why so many baselessly believe the world is in danger.
CPAC Australia chairman Warren Mundine opened the event on Saturday with a strong statement on the importance of free speech.
Former British Prime Minister Liz Truss appeared, and painted a dark picture of how Net Zero was undermining Western economies. Truss made a strong case that the green movement is rebranded socialism.
There was a lot of praise for President Trump – I particularly liked Senator Alex Antic’s praise for Trump moving the Overton window, making it possible to have mainstream discussions which would have been unthinkable in most circles before 2016.
Senator Bridget McKenzie had a lot to say about the importance of free speech. But she still appears to believe that some form of watered down censorship is desirable, that the risks can be managed by appointing the right bureaucrats. A disturbing statement from a leading figure in Australia’s center right.
Senator Matt Canavan spoke of the importance of free speech.
Dan Wild – IPA – voice referendum – misinformation laws net zero china makes solar panels with Aussie coal
Legendary geologist Professor Ian Plimer spoke about the journey which had led him to write his books. If you ever have the chance I thoroughly recommend seeing Professor Plimer speak in person, he has an absolute passion for using the light of truth and reason to save the children of Australia and the world from the nightmare of climate anxiety. Professor Politer pointed out that all previous ice ages started when CO2 was higher than today. He pointed out that our current ice age, the Late Cenzoic Ice Age, started 34 million years ago, and still holds the world in its grip.
Many of us read Heaven and Earth, but he has also written many other books, many of them aimed at educating children. How to get expelled from school upset the Rudd government so much they actually funded a website to try to “refute” Plimer’s points. Not for greens, about how many inventions we take for granted in our high energy society literally saved our lives – such as how the invention of Stainless Steel cutlery replaced toxic alternatives which were literally killing the poor people who used such utensils. Climate change delusion and the great electricity ripoff, about the colossal environmental damage “green” energy causes. Green murder – actions of greens are killing people. His little green book trilogy, one of which is aimed at young children. And of course is new book – The End of the World, Climate Change and its anxieties.
MP Keith Pitt spoke about the catastrophic economic damage green energy is doing to the Australian economy. 13000 businesses have suffered insolvency since the current hard green administration came to power. To add to the irony, Coal is now Australia’s biggest export commodity, generating 300,000 jobs and over 100 billion dollars in revenue for the Australian economy. The same coal Australia’s governments are trying to ban at home, is going out the door as fast as we can dig it up. He mentioned coal a lot in that speech. He also mentioned nuclear – “I’m not going to talk about nuclear, we like it it works”.
Former Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce spoke about how Government make mistakes. The Dutch once thought you could run an economy on tulips. Governments do crazy things. Sadly now it’s our turn – companies are being forced to purchase unaffordable green energy, and are passing those costs on to consumers.
Battleground Melbourne reminded us of the horrors of the Covid lockdown. Many of those who got charged for defying lockdown laws are apparently having their cases thrown out of court due to excessive police brutality.
Right wing Glaswegian comic Leo Kearse spoke. He had the audience in stitches explaining why climate protestors who glue themselves to things doesn’t happen in Glasgow, “Within half an hour all their valuables would be stolen and someone would have their pants down and… “ I think you get the idea.
The Outsiders, a major Aussie Sky News talkshow, hosted a session at CPAC. Former British Prime Minister Liz truss demanded the repeal of the Climate Change Act.
Former Federal minister Gary Hardgrave spoke on the importance of values. Coal can deliver cheap energy, but way too many politicians in mainstream parties still think renewables are the solution.
My friends from Epoch Times were there, telling everyone who would listen about the importance of free speech.
At the end of the conference after I made a fun and interesting comment to the audience, Professor Ian Plimer said “They used to shoot people like you”. I’m sure he meant it as high praise, right?
There were many other speakers, and I’m sorry to those I haven’t named, many of whom criticised renewables and praised efforts to roll back green communism. But a few of the speakers said things which showed me and I think many others in the audience that we have a long way to go. I don’t think Australia is utterly lost, as many are starting to fear might be the case in Britain, but like the USA we Australians hang on a knife edge, and could still fall either way. Let’s hope enough people of good sense wake up and fight for what is important, before it is too late.
Update (EW): I forgot to mention two exceptional restaurants, well worth trying if you visit Brisbane Australia. We ate at Rothwells in Central Brisbane, a high end London style restaurant where you can order a steak fit for a T-Rex, and Tartufo in Fortitude Valley, where I ate the best seafood pasta I’ve had since I was in Rome two decades ago.
Update 2 (EW): CD in Wisconsin reminded me about “The Climate according to Al Gore” (see the trailer here). The trailer was hilarious, Film maker Joel Gilbert, who used to work for Al Gore, used Artificial Intelligence to make Al Gore answer questions about his climate claims. Gilbert also made some other interesting claims, such as claiming Al Gore plagiarised “Earth in The Balance” from “Our Plundered Planet” (1948). I’m looking forward to the film when it comes out!
Update 3 (EW) – Shout out to Emma from the Gold Coast, this was her first CPAC, and Lachlan who runs a political commentary site.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I opened up all the links and only found mostly books to buy. I was hoping for a link to a video of the remarks from Professor Plimer and others at the CPAC event. Did I miss it?
Possibly. It appears that most content must be purchased. https://www.cpac.network/speakers-2024
Yep. I was planning to publish the free videos if they become available. Bit ridiculous trying to get the message out from behind a paywall.
He is in some YouTube videos- I saw one or more in the past. Just go to YouTube and search on his name. If you find something, get back to us.
The first act of our shiny new lol lol Labour government:
So it begins. The UK’s new Labour government has been in power for less than a month, and it is already training its guns on freedom of speech.
Education secretary Bridget Phillipson announced yesterday in a written statement to parliament that the government will block the commencement of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, which was due to come into force next week. Under the Free Speech Act, which was passed last year with cross-party support, universities and students’ unions could face fines if they failed to uphold free speech
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/07/27/labours-war-on-free-speech-is-just-getting-started/
It’s a done deal
“could face fines if they failed to uphold free speech”
So you’ll be fined if you criticise free speech?
No, but then only a warped mind would conceive of that, Nick.
What a giveaway.
I like that you are free to make as many gormless, moronic comments as you like.
We get a true insight into your idiotology.
You know by now that leftism is a “package”.
Like all religions, leftism has tenets, dogma, that are sacrosanct, cause for crimes of “heresy” if denied.
Among the tenets of the leftism religious package are –
Reading is fundamental, Nick. Criticizing is not “failing to uphold”. Failing to allow free speech would be “failing to uphold”.
No, the Act is directed solely at the conduct of universities and student unions. It provides fines if they (for instance) ban from university property a speaker who some other group wishes to invite.
It has no bearing on speech itself, either inside or outside a university. It doesn’t have any effect on people anywhere advocating either speech restrictions or the opposite.
It regulates conduct, in which a university or associated body refuses the use of facilities to some people who are expected to, or have a track record of, advocating points of view which are perfectly legal in the UK, but unpopular with some. While allowing use of the same facilities to people advocating views on the same subjects which are in accordance with either the university or the associated body’s preferences.
Or if they take other actions which similarly have the effect of barring some speakers on the basis of their, perfectly lawful, points of view. There are already quite some restrictions on free speech in the UK, which is the reason for the ‘perfectly lawful’ qualification above. These are unaffected by the Act.
Its an attempt to change the situation in which no university society would be able to invite a speaker like (for instance) Kathleen Stock who doesn’t accept the current progressive consensus on gender. Similarly for climate and race. Many consider ‘The Bell Curve’ racist unpleasantness, though its published, on sale, and breaches no law. The Act would prevent a university banning its authors, on ideological grounds, from speaking at a student society which had previously invited lots of other speakers with no incident.
I suggest reading further about Kathleen Stock, and as an example consider the attempts to ban her from speaking at the Oxford Union. This is an example, there are many more, of what the Act was directed against.
Well, the Oxford Union is not funded by Government, nor by compulsory student fees. Why should it not be allowed to invite speakers as it wishes? Who should be able to tell them who to invite?
Yes, Nick, The Oxford Union DID invite Kathleen Stock to speak.
It was the rabble of the far-left trans-scum, that you support, that tried to stop her.
Who should be able to tell them who to invite?
The trans-scum apparently think they have the right.
In fact, I see that Prof Stock did speak at the Union. Many criticised this, some saying that OU should not have invited her. So who has offended? Did the critics breach the Act? Don’t they have free speech too?
I don’t think Australia is utterly lost, as many are starting to fear might be the case in Britain, but like the USA we Australians hang on a knife edge, and could still fall either way.
It is indeed unfortunate, and possibly true, that either choice still gets characterized as a ‘fall’.
How many like Stokes have you got?
Lucky man to attend this forum with so many very good speakers. Ian Plimer is such a great Australian.
“Increases in atmospheric CO2 is mainly from natural causes, like ocean outgassing, and not from humans who emit so little in comparison” IAN PLIMER
Source: Conservative Political Action Conference, Ian Plimer, 2023-10-03
The above claim is false
Ian Plimer is a fool
Anyone who takes him seriously is a fool
The ocean has been a net CO2 absorber for over a century. Nature has been a net CO2 absorber for billions of years. Nature includes plants, land, volcanoes and oceans.
Fools like Plimer are why conservatives rarely get taken seriously about climate science.
One might be led to believe the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has never changed. One would be objectively an idiot for believing such things.
“Nature has been a net CO2 absorber for billions of years” RG
It was clear in my prior comment that CO2 levels had been declining for billions of years. In the past 50 years CO2 levels have been in a rising trend from manmade CO2 emissions. NOT from nature, as Plimer claims.
More CO2 is very beneficial for our planet.
Claiming the recent CO2 rise is natural is what fools claim. Plimer makes that claim. Therefore, he is a fool.
And he doubles down again that humans are not natural.
I understand that CO2 capacity to excite atmospheric water vapor molecules to induce warming is logarithmic, and reaches a saturation point of effectiveness.
What is that “tipping point” where additional CO2 in the atmosphere has no detectable effect on water vapor molecules?
If we know what that point is, we can stop talking about atmospheric CO2 levels altogether, and just enjoy the already-observed beneficial effects of (slightly) more CO2 than there was at the Little Ice Age.
(Note that NONE of the so-far predicted deleterious impacts of higher CO2 has come anywhere near fruition).
So you’re your source? You stated something in your comment and we’re to accept it as you’re a famous expert on the subject?
Well, I’m glad you cleared that up; still need drop the ad-homs, though.
Yes indeed. Richard doesn’t grasp the fact that by has dismissive abrasive comments, he’s poisoning people to the actual truth. Allies who already believe that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY! are driven into pointless dissension and infighting.
The amount of CO2 produced by burning the amount of fossil fuel sold in the past century is roughly double the amount of additional CO2 found in the atmosphere over that period. The other half was absorbed by nature. Richard is correct about that. The basic math disproves the possibility that nature is the primary cause of increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Anyone who claims that the increase in CO2 concentration in the past century is due to ocean outgassing is not entirely wrong or a ‘fool’. CO2 is less soluble in warmer water and oceans have warmed slightly. That means that the warming oceans raised CO2 from 280ppm to about 295ppm. They grasp a true point, but they are mistaken about the significance of that effect. The remaining jump of 130ppm up to 425ppm has been due to fossil fuel burning at a rate higher than nature can absorb it.
But here is the important point. CO2 is critical to all life on earth, so the increase should be seen as a good thing. That is whether or not there is a warming effect from enhancing the natural greenhouse effect. And the empirical evidence is that any enhanced greenhouse effect has been modest and beneficial. There is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!
“The amount of CO2 produced by burning the amount of fossil fuel sold in the past century is roughly double the amount of additional CO2 found in the atmosphere over that period. The other half was absorbed by nature. Richard is correct about that. The basic math disproves the possibility that nature is the primary cause of increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.”
I don’t see that logic working infallibly. Over the past 100-200 years, couldn’t another mechanism other than the oceans warming (independently of mankind), have outgassed a considerable amount more of CO2 than what us burning FF has done, and over that period nature has just absorbed more CO2 because there is more CO2 to absorb? Then consequently the increase would be from more than one source? If the sun is more active (warmer??) doesn’t that have multiple warming effects that can result in CO2 emissions.
and as you state somewhere, there is no climate emergency. just grifts
I hesitate to litigate this argument which as I’ve said is a distraction from the important topic of resisting climate tyranny. Nobody on the Left cares a hoot about science. They care about control, which uses propaganda referred to as The Science ™
The unfortunate reality of having people trying to deny that fossil fuel burning is the primary source of rising CO2 concentrations is that it harms the effort to persuade the persuadable. (Because that argument I made has been made by more qualified people than me, and is common sense to most people).
Nobody knows the motivations of others but it seems to me that some of my fellow climate realists cling to this error because it is perceived to be the Easy button. If CO2 rise is all natural then it doesn’t matter whether CO2 warms the climate, because we’re not doing it. That’s not really logical is it? If CO2 warms the climate and the warming is harmful then any amount we add to the ‘problem’ is harmful.
You need to argue that warming is beneficial and then whether or not CO2 enhances the natural greenhouse effect in a significant way or not, there’s no harm in it. That is the observable empirical reality so why get wrapped around the axle fighting with our ideological allies over an irrelevancy that can’t help in what is a political fight to persuade others that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!?
I didn’t directly answer your point earlier, so let me do that now.
It’s mathematically possible that by some unknown mechanism fossil fuel emissions are automatically and totally absorbed regardless of their magnitude while a mismatch between natural sources and sinks accounts for a rise in bulk atmospheric CO2 concentration. But there’s no plausible mechanism for such a thing and no evidence of it.
The physical processes that act as natural sinks (photosynthesis, diffusion into cold oceans, etc., cannot distinguish a CO2 molecule that entered the atmosphere as the result of fossil fuel burning from any other CO2 molecule. There may be some minor difference in isotopes of carbon between natural and fossil fuel sources, but there’s no logical explanation for how photosynthesis would ‘know’ to stop using up all available CO2 once it had exactly used up the CO2 that came from fossil fuel burning.
There are those who try to measure CO2 fluxes and then add them up instead of just looking at the net change of CO2 in the atmosphere. The only thing they can say is that the uncertainty of their measurements doesn’t preclude their preferred hypothesis. In other words if the quality of your measurements is bad enough, almost any conclusion is within the margin of error.
The most straightforward interpretation is that natural sinks cannot significantly distinguish among sources and therefore act on ‘natural’ CO2 in the same way as they act on CO2 from fossil fuel emissions. In that scenario, when the total source is increasing, the natural sinks are observed empirically to increase but only manage to absorb about half of the excess.
If you posit an unknown mechanism that cleans up all fossil fuel emissions but can’t touch volcanic emissions, then you might be able to argue that it is logically possible that CO2 rise is all natural. But given that there is absolutely no evidence of such a mechanism, you may as well posit a legion of CO2 fairies that sort the CO2 molecules.
The warming oceans since 1850 merely absorbed 15 to 20ppm less CO2 than they would have absorbed if the ocean temperatures had not warmed by about 1 degree C. You are wrong.
That’s funny rg, let me see now…295-280 = 15. So you’re saying I am wrong because I may underestimate how much ocean warming contributed to atmospheric CO2 concentration rise?
“The warming oceans since 1850”
Says who?
The world’s oceans are not like a bathtub where the whole volume is equally warm.
The oceans have warm spots and they have cool spots, so talking about “the warming oceans” is a distortion of the facts.
Phil Jones, one of the principal bastardizers of the global temperature record, said he was just guessing about the temperatures of the oceans, since he had no reliable data on the subject.
So where did you get your data about “warming oceans”? Methinks you are just guessing, too.
If dickie-boi says you are wrong, there is a high probability you are actually correct.
You completely refuted Pilmer without citation. Sources?
Ad homonym attacks are a sign of a lack of substance on your part, to put it kindly.
Manmade CO2 emissions since 1850 at least +250 ppm
CO2 atmospheric increase since 1850 at least +140[[[m
Therefore, nature is a net CO2 absorber as it has been for billions of years.
Provide an alternate explanation for why atmospheric CO2 increased +140 ppm since 1850, and where the manmade CO2 emissions went if not into the atmosphere, or stop flapping your gums.
I have asked these questions for five years and never get any attempt at an alternate explanation because there are none.
And you have been given the answers, but you refuse to accept them.
“Conclusions:
The global SST has been the main determinant of annual increases in atmospheric CO₂ concentrations since 1959. No human impact was observed. This result indicates that human efforts to curb CO₂ emissions have been, at least in the past, meaningless. Moreover, the theory that modern global warming and climate change are caused by human-emitted CO₂ is also wrong, irrelevantly to the credibility of the story that modern warming and climate change are occurring more dramatically than those in the past.”
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-Ato-Multivariate-Analysis-Vol.4.2.pdf
Maybe should should stop listening to the voices in your head.
The +140 ppm of increased atmospheric CO2 would have had to had +7 to +9.33 degrees C. ocean warming if ocean CO2 outgassing was the only cause. That did not happen.
Oceans (aka nature) have bee net CO2 absorbers fo billions of years
This website has a once a week Open Thread. If they ever add a Dumb Thread, you could be a contributor
The dumb thread already exists:
https://honestclimatescience.blogspot.com/
Only a complete idiot doesn’t realise that a warmer planet means a large increase in natural CO2 sources.
Human CO2 release is a small fraction of an every expanding carbon cycle, thanks to that warming…
… and as shown below, the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 is very closely tied to ocean atmospheric temperatures.
No human signature.
You should also read this and try to learn something for once, if capable of breaking through that hard-held wall of AGW-cult ignorance you love to so arrogantly display.
Mid 2024 More Proof Temp Changes Drive CO2 Changes | Science Matters (rclutz.com)
BNASTY IS FOREVER STUPID
A TOTAL FAILURE to counter a single fact..
Only person looking stupid here IS YOU, dickie-boi.
But why have you asked these questions? What is the point?
Why do you revel in riling up people who already agree that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!?
You could make the case for accurate understanding without belittling and alienating the very people who already grasp the most important fact, that the claim that there is a climate crisis is a scam.
The only thing you’re doing is hardening people in their errors.
Superiority complex.
CONSERVATIVES WHO CLAIM THERE IS NO GREENHOISE EFFECT, OR NO AGW OR CO2 IS ONLY 4% MANMADE ARE FOOLS WHO HAVE MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO REFUTE LEFTIST CAGW SCAREMONGERING.
Conservatives get fact checked.
Some hand leftists ammunition for easy fact checks. People like BNASTY.
They are the climate science equivalents of a Liz Cheney or Mike Pence — “Republican” supporting Kamaliar.
Someone has to tell the nitwits they are shooting themselves in the foot.
We can’t refire CAGW by claiming AGW does not exist.
How much Anthropogenic (human-derived) Global Warming (AGW) is there?
If it exists, it ought to have a number. Can you prove discernable AGW exists? Answer: No, you can’t.
That’s the problems you have. You keep claiming it exists but you can’t provide any proof for it.
Skeptics need some evidence before we climb on this train. So far, all we get from Climate Alarmists is speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions, none of which are proof or evidence of anything.
Just saying something is so, doesn’t necessarily make it so.
You can’t refute CAGW by regurgitating all the ignorance of the AGW-scam , as Dickie-boi loves to do.
Great to know I still have rent-free vacant possession of your mind. 🙂
STILL waiting for empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
STILL waiting for you to show us the human caused warming in the UAH data.
Your frustration at being totally incapable of producing either is showing. 🙂
And your petulant ego can’t handle it. It is really funny to watch. 🙂
That’s a delicious spelling error msg!
Ad homonym
Homonym is a word that sounds like another word with a different meaning. Same sound different meaning, for example there-their-they’re.
Hominem is a Latin word in the phrase Ad hominem meaning an attack against the man instead of the argument.
Hominem is a (near-) homonym of homonym!
Yes, I should be more careful when letting my phone autocomplete my data entry. Thank you for pointing out my mistake.
I’m sorry if it came across as trying to point out your mistake, I was trying to find something lighthearted in the discussion. It’s very true that the phones have an auto-corrupt ‘feature’!
“Increases in atmospheric CO2 is mainly from natural causes”
So why hasn’t it always been increasing?
I wrote that CO2 had been naturally declining for billions of years (until humans started recycling sequestered underground as carbon CO2).
Maybe you are replying to someone else.
Sorry, yes, I was meaning to reply to the main post (and agreeing with you).
There ya go dickie-boi.. Nick agrees with ..
So you can be totally assured that you are wrong. !!
“So why hasn’t it always been increasing?”
Well, it depends on what period of time you are talking about.
At times in the past, the CO2 levels were 7,000ppm and higher, as compared to the 420ppm of today.
CO2 increased naturally in the past to higher concentrations than today, so pretending that humans can be the only cause of an increase now is not based on history.
Not that it makes much difference since there is no evidence CO2, at current levels, is warming the Earth’s atmosphere. If it is, the warming is so small as to be undetectable.
There is no climate crisis at any level of CO2. There wasn’t a climate crisis at 7,000ppm and there is not a crisis at 420ppm, either.
Poor dickie boi, still hasn’t learnt the basic facts of CO2. So sad.
Sorry muppet, but Plimer is totally correct.
Human’s only produce 4% or so of the total CO2 flux, and the natural warming increases the natural part of the CO2 flux.
You are just jealous because you know that Plimer is 1000 times more a scientist that you would ever be capable of.
Nobody takes you seriously when you have your little AGW-cult brain-washed rants.
They all think you are a total nutter.
Did you know that the rate of CO2 increase follows the ocean atmospheric temperature very closely.. Even to having a spike in the rate of increase at El Ninos, and a step change in the rate of increase after an El Nino.. just like atmospheric temperature..
No human signature in that rate of change at all.
Just like as you have proven that there is no sign of any CO2 warming in the UAH data.
And just like there is no empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2 (as you have also proven)
“Fools like Plimer are why conservatives rarely get taken seriously about climate science.”
Anyone of any party who fails to sing the climate opera is not taken seriously – but should be based on science, not for singing that opera.
Once again, Richard Greene thinks that humans are not natural.
That must mean that he believes in divine intervention.
Why divine intervention refuses to stop humans from introducing CO2 pollution is then the next question.
Obviously, the intervention was designed to introduce more CO2 into the atmosphere.
Is it not the case that some parts of an ocean can be sinks at the same time that other parts are sources?
Of course that’s true. And also the same part can be a source in summer and a sink in winter.
What a pointless argument!
Nice work Richard, another thread where the important topic of resistance against climate-justified tyranny is diverted into a pointless argument with no practical implications.
Other than the fact that he has been taken seriously enough to have a number of books published. Can you point me to a link where I can buy a book that you have authored and had published? I’m sure it would be a riveting read.
I admire Ian, particularly for his passion and commitment to counter the terrible fear campaign directed at children over our future based on the lie of CAGW.
The world needs more outspoken, real scientists like Ian Plimer, that are not beholden to the climate cabals.
When was the last time, you contributed in a positive meaningful way in a discussion, absent of any ad-hominem attacks on people that have a genuine desire to help others?
Al Gore wrote a book
Hitler wrote a book
Mao wrote a book
So what?
Where is any climate science in your comment, Steve G.?
My contribution to the fight against the CAGW hoax is a website with over 900,000 lifetime page views. I publish a daily list of the best conservative articles i can find on climate and energy. Almost always listing some articles from this website. Free. No ads. No begging for donations:
The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog
Richard,
I get the impression you are reasonably well read and reasonably informed about the hoax that is Man Made Climate Change.
Sadly that is not enough to entitle you to make negative and pointless personal attacks on others, whether their position is in agreement with your climate change hoax views or not.
Can I make a genuine appeal to you.
Please pick up on the principles of ‘how to make friends and influence people’
If you manage to absorb the basic rules there contained, you will find life becomes far more enjoyable and far less conflicted.
Remember, it is always possible to be right without being a pain..
Nothing “honest” about that link.
All bent and twisted by the owner’s ignorance and AGW-cult prejudices.
So much for reasoned discourse.
You are a sad case, Richard. You should seek professional help. Lashing out at people who share many of your views is a self-defeating behavior that probably indicates a deep depression. If you think something is important and you want to persuade others, you should treat them with dignity and work from the areas of common ground. But you focus on minor points of disagreement and jump to calling people fools. Sad, so sad.
Also going on in Australia right now is the world premiere screening of a new movie by filmmaker Joel Gilbert which exposes Al Gore as one of the major driving forces (or THE major driving force) behind the faulty climate scare narrative. The trailer can be seen on the website linked below.
The Climate According to AI Al Gore:
https://www.climatealgore.com/
If the trailer is an accurate foretaste of the film, then both Al Gore and the climate alarmist narrative are going to suffer another serious blow to their credibility. Looking forward to its availability for viewing in the U.S.
________________________________________________________________________________
On that note, a redo from the other day. Besides, it’s a great Image of Al Gore:
That trailer is dynamite, especially when Gilbert evokes an AI version of Gore.
I am troubled about these AI fakes. They are great entertainment and supreme parody, but I worry that they may serve the enemy in three troubling ways.
Problem #1 – Justifying curbs on free speech
Problem #2 – Enabling denial of real past statements that should be damning
Problem #3 – Enabling false claims about innocent people
I can foresee that enough people might consider so-called ‘deep fakes’ to be a serious ‘threat to democracy’ that we end up with ‘throw the baby out with the bath water’ restrictions, losing free speech.
Already I see the serious risk that funny videos of Kamala Harris calling herself a DEI hire, etc. could convince people that she never really said she supports things as outlandish as paying to give illegal aliens sex change operations.
And how long before we see attacks on Trump or Vance or some Senate candidate that simulate a poor quality recording purported to be an undercover hidden microphone where the candidate says something damning?
Right on all counts- but, I had no idea it could be that convincing and yes, there are dangers with it. It’s just that if one side uses it- the other side will use it- so I’d think everyone will be cautious about this. If I wasn’t so lazy in my geezer hood, I’d get deeper into this topic. I suppose if you fake somebody doing/saying something, you may be subject to a libel suit so you’ll have to be prepared to prove it. So this looks dangerous for everyone. Meanwhile, I got a good laugh over it and look forward to seeing the full video.
It’s clearly a parody and is stated as such.
Yes of course it is in this particular case, but you have to see that there’s a prospect of abuse in other cases, as well as an erosion of evidence of scandals and crimes.
Some people will simply call all evidence against Democrats ‘deepfakes’. Look at how they tried to claim that Dementia Joe Biden wandering around in a daze and being led by the hand off a stage was a ‘cheapfake’ a deceptive attempt to play off people’s doubts about AI-generated ‘deepfake’ videos.
The genie is out of the bottle already, the question is how we’re going to manage the situation.
That doesn’t mean they all will be.
The more serious worry is that AI will be enable to make and implement binding decisions.
A disclaimer for such AI generated things should be required. No disclaimer, open to libel, slander, false advertising, lawsuits.
When TV shows such Saturday Night Live did political or other type of parodies to influence people with the goal of planting a false impression, the viewer knew they weren’t watching “the real thing” even if the false impression was successfully planted.
AI stuff needs to have at least a disclaimer in a banner running at top or bottom throughout the whole thing.
Thanks for reminding me CD, the trailer was hilarious.
Will it be screening near you, Eric?
No sadly. I was in Brisbane on the 3rd but I didn’t know about it. I’ll keep an eye out for general release.
Ouch
The Sun revealed Labour had offered company chiefs a chance to meet Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds over breakfast in exchange for £30,000.
After the story broke, allies of Mr Reynolds said he would no longer be taking part in the event, which was dubbed “cash for croissants”.
Former Labour leader Mr Miliband defended Mr Reynolds, saying he knew nothing about it.
He also said ministers were not interested in having businesses pay for access to them.
He added: “The answer is, whether it is me or Jonathan Reynolds, it is not about paying to have access. That is not what we are about, no.”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/30877252/ed-miliband-cash-for-breakfast/
Starmer’s chief Sue Gray has been demoted. It’s all going well
Just shocking.
Par for the course
Progress requires cheap energy. Those of us promoting cheap energy are the real “progressives”.
Indeed, the idea of shutting down civilisation over imaginary climate fears is truly absurd. But the more you look at history, the more you realise how often nations self destruct out of sheer stupidity, such as the collapse of China’s new trading empire, created by legendary explorer Zheng He, because the new emperor didn’t want his people having contact with foreigners. If China had persisted they could have had global trading empire much like the British Empire way back in the 15th century. But they chose to abandon it because the emperor didn’t like it.
So that will be the Ian Plimer who erroneously and somewhat carelessly said that volcanoes release more CO2 than humans? I would of thought that would have been a death blow to any thought he was a voice of knowledge on climate change. Obviously some are willing to forgive, or worse still, think he is right.
19,000 previously unknown sea volcanoes at least 1100m tall were discovered earlier this year.
https://www.science.org/content/article/it-s-just-mind-boggling-more-19-000-undersea-volcanoes-discovered
I don’t know if Plimer is right about CO2 emissions from volcanoes being greater than human CO2 emissions. But I think it’s fair to concede our knowledge of undersea volcanic activity is incomplete, and there is likely a lot more undersea volcanic activity than was previously believed.
Bear in mind the survey which just discovered 19,000 new seamounts could only detect 1100m seamounts. How many smaller CO2 emitting fissures and lesser volcanoes have still not been catalogued?
“I don’t know if Plimer is right about CO2 emissions from volcanoes being greater than human CO2 emissions.”
It’s not. I recall it being controversial at the time and that it was well and truely debunked. And we know from CO2 isotope analysis where it’s coming from and it is the burning of fossil fuels not volcanoes.
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/climate-change-qa/sources-of-co2#:~:text=This%20is%20because%20they%20can,fuel%20and%20land%20clearing%20emissions.
Volcanic CO2 would have an identical signature to fossil fuel CO2. Both have been buried long enough for the carbon 14 to decay.
Not even close…
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities
Certainly wouldn’t trust CSIRO propaganda unit to get a anything correct !
The most honest conclusion that can be made about all these questions is –
“we just don’t know”
Which is the answer a senior geophysicist whose lectures courses I recently attended gave to all such model-based questions.
“19,000 previously unknown sea volcanoes”
No, they discovered 19000 seamounts – just mountains under the sea. There’s no indication of which may have volcanic origin, and none are said to be active.
Not just volcanoes but all geothermal activity. HUGE amounts of CO2
… and humans only produce around 4% of the total CO2 flux.
Evidence that Plimer was not correct comes from climate scammer hell-bent on blaming humans.
Only someone simple and gullible would fall for it.