Essay by Eric Worrall
Great exploding watermelons! “… Powell doubled down, saying he was not “100% convinced of the human population’s role” in climate change. …”
Queensland environment minister stands by ‘scepticism’ about human-induced climate change
Andrew Powell first said he was not ‘100% convinced’ 12 years ago while holding the portfolio during the Campbell Newman era
Andrew Messenger
Wed 11 Dec 2024 19.31 AEDTQueensland’s environment minister has told parliament he stands by his comments more than a decade ago that he was “a bit sceptical” about human involvement in climate change.
Andrew Powell returned to the environment, tourism, science and innovation portfolio last month, having held it under the former premier Campbell Newman in 2012.
Speaking to ABC radio in June of that year, he acknowledged climate was changing, but said that he “was still to be convinced of the degree to which we are influencing that”.
At a media conference the following day, Powell doubled down, saying he was not “100% convinced of the human population’s role” in climate change.
…
During Wednesday’s question time, Greens MP Michael Berkman asked Powell if he “was still a bit sceptical of anthropogenic climate change” 12 years after the comments.
…
The environment minister then said “I stand by those comments”.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/11/queensland-environment-minister-andrew-powell-stands-by-scepticism-about-human-induced-climate-change
Berkman is still genuflecting to the need for reducing emissions, but in my opinion this represents a significant shift. Any senior Aussie politician pushing back against climate madness, even a tentative push back, is an encouraging sign.
The reality is the climate movement has been dead man walking for a while, it died the day their big tech sponsors realised they need an endless supply of cheap energy to remain competitive in the AI age.
The movement might stumble along for a while, some of our more intellectually challenged politicians still haven’t caught on. But within a few years even the slower politicians will catch on that all their green initiatives are withering and dying, that the money hose is now pointing in a new direction.
If you would like to know why AI needs such a crazy amount of energy, and why formerly green big tech companies are being forced to choose between embracing cheap energy or corporate failure, the following article delves into this in detail.
Three cheers for the Queensland Environment Minister Andrew Powell. May his influence spread far and wide in Australia.
Maybe he’s only 97% convinced?
The spectrum of skepticism runs from “none” to “some” with a huge margin of error. The fight comes when trying to narrow causation beyond what the science supports.
It takes extreme bravery for a politician to say they are 100% skeptical. Not many of those around.
Small progress, but still progress.
The BIG problems climate alarmists cannot hide or overcome are two:
Double failure does not inspire confidence.
3. Assuming human GHG emissions are at least partially responsible, nobody can show the problem is worse than the cure. Regardless, we are quite arguably better off adapting to a changing climate than trying to control the weather.
We also have the imperfect ice core data showing first the climate warms, then the CO2 goes up. Other data show a warm climate when CO2 is low and a cold climate when CO2 is high.
We can’t control the weather. It is hubris to the extreme to believe we can.
And if you can’t control the weather you can’t control the climate, the latter being the creature of the former.
The BIGGEST problem is in order to fight climate change you must first CONTROL THE WEATHER.
Climate alarmists insist that humans must do this by reducing CO2 emissions.
Climate alarmists insist that force is necessary for humans to reduce CO2 emissions.
Controlling the weather is impossible. You are being played to give up your freedoms.
The two problems are logically distinct and have nothing to do with each other. Sooner or later the world is going to run out of fossil fuels and society will have to make do with renewable energy. This is going to happen whether or not climate change is real or not.
Australia has enough coal for several centuries.
not if it is the only fuel source. It will run out very rapidly once oil and gas are gone. To put it in context there is enough coal in Australia to supply the current’s world’s energy needs for about 3 years.
What a load of total RUBBISH.
Australia has barely touched the know coal reserves.
There will also be large deposits of coals in many third world countries, that have barely been explored.
And, I think, America has more coal than any nation- a vast amount.
Scotland has enough coal to supply enough energy in Scotland for about 300 years.
Very true bnice, our main Permian black coal basins stretch from Townsville to Wollongong more than 2000km, then there are the younger steaming coal basins over 500km from Maryborough to Coffs Harbour. Plus the major brown coal basins in Victoria. We could be using these resource assets for a century as long as they are economic to mine and process into electricity or other required fuels, gas hydrocarbons etc.
Upgraded nuclear power-fission and eventually fusion will finally replace coal technology for power generation, but there is no need to rush this process, proper rational economic planning and better technology is required. This means we need better political and scientific management from our governments who have failed us over the climate science environmental scam about CO2 and resultant global energy chaos due to immature inefficient, costly, unreliable and environmentally damaging `renewables’ technology. Humans are not responsible for current global climate change and cannot control the weather. Anyone who thinks they can- belongs in a religious cult, not in a scientific team.
Australia is the only country with coal?
Mostly later. And then the proper solution is nuclear.
Nuclear doesn’t scale. Have a look at https://www.withouthotair.com/
There are only two possible sources of energy that can sustain the current rate of energy use for the next 1000 years. These are solar and fusion. The first we know how to do the second remains a pipe dream.
But the problem is, we do not know how to do solar in such a way as to sustain the current rate of energy use.
This is so obvious when you give it a moment’s thought. How much solar, and how much storage, would you have to have in order to meet current UK demand, which peaks regularly at about 45GW?
You have to reckon with about 10% capacity factor, on average. But this includes three months of the year when solar produces basically nothing. And you have to get through through the nights year around.
You’d be talking 100s of GW, and many TWh of battery storage. No-one has ever proposed running a modern economy on such a system. Not in any latitude, and certain not in the latitudes of the UK, Japan, Europe.
I cannot understand why people who think there is a climate energency seem almost always to think that wind and solar are viable national energy sources. The two are not connected. Even if there is a climate emergency, wind and solar are not the answer, because they simply do not work to deliver reliable 24 x 7 power.
Its like being sure that COVID is a repeat of the Black Death, and demanding we all stand on our heads every morning to avert disaster. Makes no difference whether it is the Black Death or it isn’t, standing on our heads is does nothing either way.
Solar panels last 10-15 years max, and are totally POINTLESS for large parts of the day.
They are the very opposite of a sustainable power supply !
Fusion is just a pipe dream
Nuclear is totally scalable, just add more units, you know, like France.
You really are displaying your total disconnect from reality today, Izzy-dumb !
Look at Florida, Texas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and England and tell me we can depend on solar farms.
Your link would be best described as.. “just hot air”
We don’t know how to do either properly actually, solar technology is still very immature and virtually useless without scalable storage- that we haven’t invented yet. I’me sure can get these technologies to work eventually, meanwhile let’s stick with coal, gas and nuclear fission for baseload.
Once there is no fossil fuels, there will be no more solar panels or wind turbines.
Both these useless erratic forms of junk electricity rely totally on fossil fuels at every step of the short useless environmentally damaging life-spans.
so what happens when fossil fuels run out? Whether you like it or not it is going to happen.
So why squander these resources for intermittent generators?
You have zero clue what is going to happen.
Plenty of coal, oil and gas for a long long time.
Plenty of time to develop and implement solid reliable nuclear energy.
Wind and solar are totally unsustainable and we should stop wasting time, money and resources on them…
and stop destroying the environment with them.
“will have to make do with renewable energy”
So you want people to “make-do”
Sure you are not related to Kim Jong Un?.
Sorry, but “renewables” are nothing but a fad/fetish of the totalitarian socialist far-left.
No western civilisation can ever exist on “renewables”.
why only “western civilisation”? Do other civilisations know something that we don’t?
Developing civilisations KNOW exactly what we know.
They KNOW that they need RELIABLE , DISPATCHABLE energy…
Wind and solar cannot provide this.
Only coal, oil gas, and hydro where appropriate, can, unless you want to go with nuclear.
It is woke, anti-CO2, anti-life, racist haters like you and your leftist mates that would deny them that energy..
Aren’t you ashamed of yourself.. no…. probably not
no time soon, though- lots of ff out there
Part 1.
Sooner or later the world is going to run out of coal and hydrocarbon fuels.
Likely but not certain. The same geophysical processes that produced those resources are still operating. It is doubtful we will ever run out, but it is likely that they will become scarce in the next 50-100 years.
Part 2
“society will have to make do with renewable energy”
As an engineer, I am always addressing the analysis of alternatives. It is not absolutely certain that the only solution is the mis-named “renewable energy.” We can not look into a crystal ball and forecast technologies we have not even begun to research.
As with everything, a simple, single answer to a wildly complex issue is just incorrect.
Minister Powell is no doubt relieved that stoning and/or burning at the stake are no longer socially acceptable.
And that being weighed against a duck is still not “settled science”.
I’m highly skeptical of fossil fuel emissions as a primary driver of climate change. Humans have surely influenced the environment, primarily through land-use changes, such as urbanization and deforestation.
The Urban Heat Island Effect is well-known and IMO, vastly underestimated by the climate mongers.
It’s not just your opinion, is a fact.
Hmmm. There have been more than a few Pollyanna posts here at WUWT breathlessly announcing that the dam is about ready to burst. But the 2009 release of all those ugly emails didn’t do the trick. RFK jr did do an about face so has Musk. Trump won a solid victory and now some guy nobody ever heard of before is a bit wobbly and I’m supposed to get my hopes up that this is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Well, it does have to happen, it can’t go on forever. Those us us who are certified octogenarians can only hope that they live long enough to see the collapse. Witnessing the hanging the last dog may take a bit longer.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/12/12/british-gas-power-is-supplying-europe-who-dont-have-much-wind-either/
This might be another nail in the coffin even and/or the last straw to break the camel’s back
UK is currently in a wind drought of two days.
Lucky they still have some nuclear and a whole lot of installed GAS.
Gee, major wind storm in Great Britain while there is a dunkelflaute in Germany. Maybe “climate” is local?
Micro climates are local.
IPCC repurposed the definition of micro climate and irrationally applied it to the planet.
Totally agree, Steve.
AI is the killer blow. Even teaching the 5 neurone AI how to drive in my example above takes around 10 minutes of your computer burning at least 100 watts. Non trivial AIs take terajoules of energy, sometimes petajoules of energy to solve intractable problems – but the solutions are so valuable, it is worth investing in supplying all that energy..
The network stuff I used to do would have taken 8000+ hours for a single multi-objective optimisation run on an i7 desktop computer.
Luckily we had access to a small server with some 250 processors, so you could send it to the server, and as long as no-one else was using the server at the same time, you could get results in a day or two.
Plenty of time for a surf… 🙂 unless you had some other work to do. 🙁
The minister’s perfectly reasonable and rational comment is about the degree of human involvement (although he will be labelled a ‘denier’), he could go on to question the assumption that no matter what the degree of human involvement ipso facto that it must be bad or harmful.
Story tip: BNZ in New Zealand calling in loans to petrol stations. No new loans and existing debt to be repaid by 2030.
They’re openly trying to queer the pitch, saying Finance was a “key lever to pull in order to shift the real economy”
https://www.interest.co.nz/banking/131205/federated-farmers-asks-commerce-commission-investigate-bank-cartel-climate-goals-bnz
Eric
As one of his constituents, you need to be ensuring he is 100% convinced the whole climate scam is a scam.
I have never had a satisfactory reply from CSIRO ACCESS team why their models show open ocean surface temperature perpetually exceeding 30C when it is known that it is physically impossible with the present atmospheric mass.
Story Tip
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/dec/13/ed-miliband-pledges-most-ambitious-reforms-to-uk-energy-system-in-generations
The man is totally barking mad, along with, apparently, half the UK civil service and the whole of the so called renewables sector.
Read the piece, I can’t stand to summarize such total nonsense. Only one small glimpse of reality is allowed to intrude:
The plans come as low wind and solar power generation forced Britain to rely heavily on burning gas and wood pellets. As of Thursday, about 65% of Britain’s electricity was being generated from gas and biomass, with only 5.3% coming from wind.
If anything this overstates the viability of wind. Have a look here and despair.
http://www.gridwatch.co.uk/wind
Now Gas is 64% of UK supply.. Wind and solar combined, only 5%.
A variant of the graph I just posted to “michel”.
Milliband (et al) want “us” to believe that the current (30-35 GW ?) fleet of gas turbines on the island of Great Britain can be reduced by 95% in the next 5 or 6 years with “Net Zero” consequences …
I also noticed “something odd” on he Gridwatch site on Wednesday, and watched it continue yesterday.
Attached is a graph for the last six (and a third) days, updated to 8:30 this morning.
Milliband (et al) think that increasing the wind “capacity” to 90 GW by 2030 will allow NESO to shut down 95% of Great Britain’s “fossil-fuel fired” CCGT fleet.
A week or two before the winter solstice they advance the conjecture that increasing the solar “capacity” to 40 GW in the same timeframe will also “help”.
“Have a look and despair” indeed …
Just checked the UK grid. We are currently getting just 6% of our electricity from wind. The extension lead from france is giving us 6.1%, so more than the entire colossally expensive wind fleet currently despoiling our once green and pleasant land. Meanwhile the devil gas power stations which the imbecile Milliband wants to close are giving us 65%..Yesterday was about the same.
[ Enter “annoying pedant” mode … ]
There’s no such thing as “the UK grid”.
The “island of Great Britain (GB) grid”, consisting of “England + Scotland + Wales”, is managed by the NESO (ex-ESO) operator.
The “island of Ireland grid”, consisting of “Northern Ireland + The Republic of Ireland”, is managed by the EirGrid operator.
[ Exit “annoying pedant” mode … as much as it is possible for this poster to do so … ]
.
After collecting the data for the graphs I just posted to the top-level post immediately preceding yours I also used them to check the split between inter-connector (ICT) flows for the last 6 (and a bit) days for the GB grid, from midnight on the 7th to 8:30 this morning.
The result is attached below.
Notes
– “France ICT sum” normally equals “IFA + IFA2 + Elec-Link”
– “Cont[inental] EU ICT sum” normally equals “France ICT sum + NEMO + Viking + Brit-Ned”
– Both the Elec-Link (via the Channel tunnel) and Brit-Ned links have been “down” for several weeks (/ months ?) now
– Over the last three nights, NESO has turned the GB grid into a “pipe” from Norway [NSL] to France and Belgium [NEMO] (and Denmark, via the Viking link ???), while adding some CCGT output to help out our European neighbours even more, but I have not had the time to check whether this is “unusual” or not …
At last a little common sense from our leaders. I hope he survives sticking his head above the parapet.