Tony Thomas
Top-tier climate scientists are pushing for the urgent establishment of a national climate agency. This agency will coordinate the science needed to harden up Australia’s response to climate change, get us successfully to net zero emissions by 2050 and put an end to those pesky droughts, floods, bushfires and storms.
This climate super-bureaucracy is the brainchild of Andy Pitman of UNSW, chair of the Science Academy’s National Committee for Earth System Science and director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes. He’s also the chap who let the climate cat out of the bag when he told an audience in 2019 that global warming doesn’t cause droughts, rather the opposite, since warm air holds more water.[1] He suggested the media were lying about this simple fact — but which of his fellow climateers had been briefing the media?
His truth outraged the alarmist crowd and Pitman had to pull his head in for a spell. But heavens, he now admits on behalf of the Academy that “we are building our climate policies on crumbling foundations” and there’s “critical gaps in our understanding” and “our knowledge is incomplete”. And even, “(W)e risk investments that lead to maladaptation, incorrect disclosure of financial risk by business, and erroneous assessments of national and regional risks associated with climate change.”
Andy, whatever you do, don’t share those qualms with Climate Minister Chris Bowen. The mad minister intent on spending trillions of the taxpayer coin on his renewables mirage. “Crumbling foundations” is not what he wants to hear, especially from the woke and Labor-captured Academy.
Pitman and his Academy are finally catching up with what sceptics have been pointing out since the start of the net-zero farrago: no amount of battery and hydro backup can offset the certain failure of renewables during sustained wind droughts and cloud cover across regions– which the ingenious Germans call Dunkelflaute or “dark doldrums”. In his Academy paper Pitman writes, in a masterpiece of understatement: “High impact events also include long periods of low solar radiation coinciding with low winds… these impact national strategies to achieve net zero emissions” (Decadal Plan, P4). Andy’s such a tease: he offers no solution.
Here’s what else he’s confessing – Tim Flannery and David Karoly’s Climate Council will have a meltdown[2]: Global climate models can’t predict whether natural disasters will become more or less common in the warming era (P17). Remember Pitman’s words when you next hear the ABC Climate Propaganda Unit and the Climate Council telling us that such-and-such storm or flood has been “climate-fuelled”.
♦“Earth system models omit crucial components, not by choice but due to lack of investment coupled with weak national coordination and no mechanisms to align investment with strategic challenges to answer critical Earth system science questions.” (P3).
So the multi-trillion renewables rollout by Minister Bowen is just government spending via fire-hose?
♦ “Current organisational and funding structures impede rather than enable our ability to answer critical questions. We therefore need to build and implement a strategically well-aligned and integrated national Earth System Science plan. Without such a plan and clear direction, our current strategies for observations, process-based understanding and the building of modelling systems will fail to answer the key questions that confront Australia and impede efforts to combat and respond to the risks of climate change” (P3)
Pitman’s advocacy for a top-level institute includes a 40-minute Academy webinar illustrating that whom the gods would destroy they first make mad. The Academy with its grand institute proposal must first kow-tow to Aboriginality. Climate Professor Julie Arblaster of Monash University kicks off by respecting the Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung people of the Kulin custodians of Academy edifices (not that the Academy plans to pay them rent). She pays her respects to Indigenous leaders past present and future – though I don’t know why past Indigenous leader and five-year ATSIC chair Geoff Clark, 72, deserves the Academy’s “respect”. He’s now doing six years’ in prison for stealing $1 million of Aboriginal funding from 2001-15.
Nor do I know why “future” leaders must be respected, since they might also be a mixed bag. The professor went on to respect Aboriginal knowledge “embedded forever” in Custodianship, which is also a mixed bag historically of ecological and survival knowhow, misogyny, sorcery and payback vengeance.
Arblaster handed over to Academy stalwart, ex-Chief Scientist and ex-ANU Vice-Chancellor Ian Chubb, whose acknowledgements were mercifully briefer. Chubb in turn handed over to Pitman, who was equally reverential, though he omitted – perhaps accidentally – to respect the “future” leaders. Pitman admired indigenes “rich history of knowledge about our continent” – but pre-colonial Aboriginal clans knew nothing about the “continent” per se. These Academicians need to catch up on last year’s referendum defeat and Trump’s election: wokeism is so yesterday.
Pitman uses language and assumptions in unusual ways such as,
We don’t actually know to what degree our terrestrial and marine systems will continue to support net-zero ambitions: they might turn out to be sources of CO2 and methane and undermine our net zero ambitions. (Webinar).
He also admits that he and fellow climate alarmists have no idea
♦ when and where so-called “tipping points” might arise (wow, so honest!)
♦ whether climate change will increase or decrease the Murray Darling water flows
♦ whether an increase in CO2 will cause more or less rain for a given location
♦ how climate change will impact cities and urban landscapes (Andy, stop upsetting the Melbourne and Sydney city councils’ climate crusaders)
♦ how wind droughts and heavy clouding might undermine renewables and net-zero targeting (via week-long blackouts).
In a repudiation of the “settled science” notion the climate crowd has pushed for 25 years, Pitman now acknowledges that despite decades of study, the catastrophists still have no idea if Australia will see more El Nino, rather than La Nina, climate events, or even whether more vegetation will reduce or increase greenhouse emissions (so much for tree plantings offsetting emissions). “These are not easily solvable but offer profoundly different futures for Australia,” he admits (p13). Odd that we are to invest trillions in net zero when we have no idea what’s what.
Other profound unknowns include, according to Pitman, include sea-ice extent, cloud processes, ice-sheet dynamics and urban and agricultural landscape impacts (p22). He lets another cat out of the bag with news that between March 16 and 18 of this year, a giant 70-billion tonne snowfall hit East Antarctica, contributing to a net ice gain in Antarctica reversing the 20-year trend of ice loss. Climate models remain too crude to handle the key processes of atmospheric rivers around the Antarctic which created that startling reversal, he says (p25). This is quite a hiccup to the orthodoxy of Antarctica contributing to sea rise, a typical manifestation of boffins’ “incomplete” knowledge and “major gaps”.
Pitman even concedes that current climate models can’t predict whether natural disasters will become more or less common in the warming era. Remember his words when you next hear the ABC or Climate Council claiming that such-and-such storms and floods are “climate-fuelled”.
As for global climate models, Pitman says they aren’t fit for purpose as they can’t catch “key processes in all spheres of the climate system.” With the globe divided into 100-square-kilometre units, models can’t represent “critical weather systems” such as Southern Ocean. Nor can they predict weather-disaster processes such as the lead-up to the Lismore 2022 floods. He wants resolution improved down to 1 square km, “overcoming a long-recognised Achilles heel in climate modelling.” (p17). The super-computing cost? He doesn’t say.
Pitman also threw the climate dogmatists under his Uncertainty Bus with these further remarks:
♦ Climate predictions are built on very old science. The quality of the science is as good as we can do with the systems in place, but are nowhere near as good as if we genuinely address the Australian organisational environment for earth system science (Webinar, 14mins).
♦ The uncoordinated, duplicated and overlapped science effort is currently no-one’s concern, he complained, lamenting how “we’re investing heavily in things that won’t happen and not investing in things that will. (17.30)
He wants ample two-tiered taxpayer funding for his Institute: its core funding plus centralised taxpayer funds to dole out to approved third-party researchers — a system that might operate somewhat like top-directed ARC Grants. The Institute’s power of the purse would force the myriad climate grifters and know-alls in their risibly-named Centres of Excellence to further the Institute’s priorities. I hope that would also cut out entirely the bottom-feeders like Sydney Environmental Institute’s hard-line feminists and wokesters and their “sustainability” and “anti-colonial” lookalikes throughout the wretched university sector.
In webinar questions, one-time Academy president Suzanne Cory[3] asked: “Is there any appetite in government for establishing this institute? If not, what is the Academy doing?” Ex-Chief Scientist Chubb’s response: “The last federal budget announced a strategic examination of Australia’s R&D, but not yet the terms of reference or panel names to conduct it. It’s a good sign, we in the Academy have been arguing for this a long time. The appetite is greater now but we need a much more root and branch review.”
Meanwhile Pitman blasts the “fundamental lack of strategy from the [Albanese?] Australian government”, the differing priorities of universities, CSIRO and BoM, and poaching of funds from basic science to “climate services and products”. he writes: “Either we establish a national strategy, or we lose our national capability to deliver robust climate intelligence in support of reliable decision-making and effective investment in climate adaptation.” (p5). He also writes of “many other crucial research fields where foundational science is prioritised, lauded and appropriately resourced” (p8). Clearly his climate crowd doesn’t get enough of that “lauding”. I’d recommend reward cards in their breakfast cereals.[4]
And he laments that Australia has no key climate think-tanks like the Max Planck Institutes in Germany, the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in the US, and the Hadley Centre in the UK. I’m amazed he would cite the discredited Hadley Centre, epicentre of the climate data frauds, vendettas against sceptic scientists’ careers and perversion of the peer-review systems, all revealed in the massive Climategate email dump of 2009. For some gory detail see here and here.
The Hadley Centre has been deeply involved with the crucial HadCRUT temperature datasets for many years. Melbourne’s Dr John McLean published his 2018 PhD audit of the outfit’s HadCRUT global temperature series on which Western climate policy is largely based, the first such audit in 30 years of government use. He found the series riddled with errors and absurdities, such as three stations recording monthly mean temps of 67-90degC, compared with their single-day records of around 55degC.[5] At Bulawayo-Goetz (Zimbabwe), the May mean temp was 16.29degC but for May 2013 it was given as minus 16.3deg. In the tropical Pacific, the Truk WSO/A station found an average January temp of 27.09deg but in January 2012 the Pacific divers’ paradise was recorded as an icy zero degrees. At Apto Otu station (Columbia), the mid-year average was about 27deg but for 1978 it was recorded as 81-83degC – probably someone forgot to convert from Fahrenheit. It was noticed neither by the HadCRUT4 compilers nor the governments that use the data.[6]
Pitman agrees on the webinar (30mins) that overseas climate models “don’t work great” here, given Australia’s unusual parameters: “You can’t do it [modelling] by importing 1.5m lines of code from somewhere else and assume it’s OK, it really doesn’t work that way.” He should have mentioned that our universities are hosting myriad climate centres for which this flawed and inappropriate overseas modelling is their daily bread. He writes, unhelpfully to the academics:
Using current CMIP [global] models, or indeed the regional models that rely on them, therefore risks fundamentally wrong projections of future climate and its variability.
Alarmingly, he concedes that Australia has no funded mechanism to audit climate models’ veracity and their flaws. I’d say first step would be a public check on the models’ forecasts versus actual readings. In coded understatement Pitman says:
Such a mechanism could lead to targeted research to resolve these issues and enhance the national capability to answer critical questions…Australia is investing to increase resilience to climate change. Decisions are based on climate projections that are far more uncertain than they need to be, particularly for our cities. Australia risks investing in ineffective adaptation strategies because of limited modelling capacity. (P24).
Pitman wants to “manage the exposure of our cities to climate extremes”. Another tip for Andy: a simple check of heatwaves over our big cities in past 140 years[7] shows no increase in their intensity (other than Melbourne and Adelaide, where the BoM three-day heatwave count shows a barely-significant positive slope). All this chatter about rising city heatwaves is garbage, why can’t Andy just look up the BoM data?
He does offer taxpayers carrots as well as sticks, claiming his climate crowd can help with health, financial resilience, economic well-being and agriculture. My own take is that he’s dreaming:
♦ Health: Our important indices have remained positive through the warming era. Life expectancy (males): up 13.7 years since 1973 to 81.3 years (females, up 11.2 years to 85.4). Warming has saved huge net numbers of lives through its reduction of deaths from winter chills, as multiple studies show.
♦ Financial resilience and well-being: To the contrary, net-zero will demolish our economy and living standards, in disasters cascading from shutdown of $175b in fossil fuel exports.[8] Net zero-crippled Australia would wind up as a colony for Xi Jinping, who’s building coal-fired power like there’s no tomorrow.
♦ Agriculture: Output has soared to record levels with 2024-25 forecast to be the second-best year ever in value, namely $88b. A grievous threat to agriculture is lawfare by the Greens and Pitman’s climate crowd, with their obsessions about farting cows and purported environmental vandalism, while farmers weep over Aborigines’ escalating land and heritage demands. Our entire export sector depends on cheap energy and cheap transport, both of which will disappear under net-zero penalties.
Pitman also bemoans the scarcity of Australia’s earth sciences researchers. To train one earth scientist takes ten years, he says, and that person is then apt to disappear after one phone call offering better-paid commercial work. And on a related note, he deplores that the future science workforce suffers from science teaching by non-science-trained teachers. These not-so-numerates ignore that weather, climate and earth system knowledge is science, technology, engineering and maths-based. He even wants universities to transfer “earth system” i.e. “climate” work to their maths and physics departments. That would turn many or most of the incumbents into McDonald’s burger-flippers.
He’s put forward a list of five multidisciplinary questions that Australia’s present science infrastructure and expertise cannot answer. Even with infrastructure reform, “Each might take 10 years to answer, a scale of endeavour that requires a new national structure with a long-term capacity to plan” (P3). These aims sort of dovetail with the Labor government’s research priorities.[9]
1/ How can terrestrial and marine systems be managed to support net zero ambitions and positive environmental outcomes?
2/ Where is Australia at risk of abrupt changes in weather and climate, including but not limited to tipping points?
3/ Where is freshwater availability in Australia resilient to climate change, and where does it require adaptation strategies to ensure supplies for human consumption, agriculture and natural ecosystems?
4/ What exposure do urban areas have to climate change, including climate extremes and air quality interactions?
5/ Where will changes in high impact weather events support and/or undermine net zero ambition and where can associated risks be managed effectively?
I’d say the first job for Andy and his super-institute should actually be to set the record straight for the UN’s socialist Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Antonio says “global boiling” (100degC) has arrived, but of Melbourne when I last checked, the water’s only 18degC, so CO2 emissions aren’t boiling our oceans away, as Guterres’ mate Al Gore claims.
There seems kinship between Andy’s would-be super-institute and Germany’s horrid Potsdam Institute (PIK). Out of the PIK came that infamous 2010 quote of Dr Professor Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of IPCC Working Group 111:
“…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”[10]
The Potsdam crowd – also climate advisers to the Pope — laid the theoretical foundations for Germany to run itself over the renewables cliff, with sky-high power prices gutting Germany’s famed manufacturing and bringing winter misery to consumers. Hence the rise in Germany, as in Italy and Netherlands, of the rational Right parties.
Australians owe Dr Pitman a large debt for his extraordinary candour. We suffer a daily media deluge of climate lies and fantasy while in Canberra maniacal ministers think nothing of spending billions on Snowy 2.0, windmills to devastate our rainforest ranges, and interminable “fixes” and subsidies to the electricity grid they’re busy destroying. Pitman’s analysis – notwithstanding his faith in net zero – is truly a tipping point in the struggle for rational policy.
Tony Thomas’s latest book from Connor Court is Anthem of the Unwoke – Yep! The other lot’s gone bonkers. $34.95 here
[1] Pitman: “…as far as the climate scientists know there is no link between climate change and drought.…there is no reason a priori why climate change should make the landscape more arid…this may not be what you read in newspapers…”
Moreover, he continued, Australian droughts are not increasing, and there’s no drying trend in one hundred years of data.
[2] Here’s a Dec 5 sample of the rubbish Karoly’s emailing me from the Council:
| The weather forecast for this summer is in—and it’s not pretty. We’re facing hotter, wetter, and more chaotic months ahead in Australia, with heatwaves, powerful cyclones, bushfires, and flooding possible [or not]. It follows what the Bureau of Meteorology confirmed earlier this week as our hottest spring since 1910.” So, David, it was damned hot in 1910 in the pre-modern era? |
[3] When I interviewed Academy President Suzanne Cory, a molecular biologist, in 2012 for The Integrity of the Academy of Science, she readily agreed (“Exactly!”) that climate science was not “settled” . She had no idea what a heresy she was committing.
[4] Pitman’s colleague Julie Arblaster In 2014 won the Anton Hales Medal for research in earth sciences by the Australian Academy of Science. In 2017, she won the Priestley Medal from the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. Academy colleague Ian Chubb AC was 2011 ACT Australian of the Year.
[5] The stations were Diego-Suarez (Madagascar), Oruro (Bolivia) and Wad Medani (Sudan).
[6] After McLean published his book ‘An Audit of the Creation and Contents of the HadCRUT4 Temperature Dataset’, which built on his earlier thesis, a new version of the HadCRUT temperature dataset was published, correcting many but not all of the problems that he identified but which others, with many years of experience with this data, had failed to notice.
[7] Sydney, Perth, Hobart, Darwin, Brisbane, Alice Springs. Top 40 heatwaves since about 1880-90
[8] 2024: Coal exports $A 91 billion, Oil and Condensates, $13b; Gas $69b; Uranium $1.4b. Total $175b (minor forward estimates involved).
[9] Australia’s national research priorities under Labor are
(1) transitioning to a net zero future [while the US, China, India and Russia go full-steam-ahead on prosperity from coal, oil and gas]
(2) supporting healthy and thriving communities [motherhood]
(3) elevating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’ knowledge systems [maybe these Aboriginal savants should run Pitman’s Institute?]
(4) protecting and restoring Australia’s environment [motherhood]
(5) building a secure and resilient nation. [net-zero and imminent grid blackouts are doing the opposite].
[10] Google’s algorithm strives to bury and refute this Edenhofer quote but I’ve even checked it back to the original in German.
Should Australia spend money on net zero on on some other cause, such as:
Australia’s Homelessness Crisis Outpaces California by 12-to-1: 10,000 Australians Become Homeless Each Month Amid Housing Shortages and Rising Immigration
Australia’s Homelessness Crisis Outpaces California by 12-to-1: 10,000 Australians Become Homeless Each Month Amid Housing Shortages and Rising Immigration | The Gateway Pundit | by Guest Contributor
Australia should NEVER waste money on anything to do with Net-Zero. !
This is a head scratcher. This guy (Pitman) acknowledges and points out many pitfalls of current climate science yet clings to net zero. I don’t get it. I think there are four things we have to address to the average guy.
Number one CO2 is not the primary greenhouse gas, water vapor is. Water vapor is far more important than CO2.
Number two CO2 does not act like a blanket or a greenhouse. I see it more like a filter slowing down the escape of long wave radiation from the troposphere.
Number three the effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas are not linear. The first 50 units of CO2 slow the escape of LWR more than the second 50 units and the second 50 units are more effective than the next 50 units and so and so on. At some point the range of LWR that CO2 acts on becomes saturated and adding more CO2 doesn’t cause more warming.
Number four since adding more CO2 isn’t the problem we have been led to believe there is absolutely no reason for net zero or a fossil fuel free society. Even if we didn’t use fossil fuel for electricity and transportation we would still need fossil fuel to power industry and use its derivatives for clothing, plastics, medicines, fertilizers, cosmetics and on and on.
The average guy can easily understand this message, you don’t need piles of science or fancy language just straight talk.
“I see it more like a filter slowing down the escape of long wave radiation from the troposphere.”
Calculations of the free mean path for CO2 show that energy passes from surface to tropopause in less than 5 milliseconds. This is almost speed of light, so delay is negligible.
I think you are misunderstanding what he said. I agree with Bob that it “delays” because the radiation doesn’t just pass through to space, but instead it takes a number of absorptions/conversions/emissions until, in some form, the sky above is transparent to that radiation and the radiation escapes.
Consider a strong absorption band like the 15um band of CO2. Radiation is almost fully absorbed in 10 or 15m of travel. This absorbed energy doesn’t stay permanently with the CO2. Instead a range of processes like collisions with other molecules, re-radiation, and so forth move that energy up and down in the atmosphere.
Near the surface even direct collisions of atmospheric molecules with the ground surface produce a conversion. Once radiation is absorbed by the solid (condensed) matter at the surface that 15um radiation has lost any memory of its original form. The re-radiation from the solid surface takes place over a thermal continuum. Parts of that continuum are at wavelengths where the atmosphere is totally transparent.
Where I live at 2,200 meters above sea level, the atmosphere is about 25-30% transparent to the thermal continuum. In the tropics transparency is only about 10%.
The whole process frustrates the passage of radiation from lower levels, especially the surface, to higher levels. I see that as a delay of sorts.
There is no real evidence that CO2 or methane have any effect on our global climate system. There is plenty of scientific rationale to conclude that the climate sensivity of CO2 is effectively zero..The AGW hypothesis is bassed on only partioal science and is so full of flaws that it cannot be true. The AGW hypothesis has been falsified by science. for some of the details try reading “The Rational Climate e-Book” by Patrice Poyet which one can cownload for free from the author’s web site.
“the climate sensitivity of CO2 is effectively zero”
Thanks willhaas 🙂
Sorry, there’s no science that supports that nonsense. None.
The argument is essentially:
“The car’s air conditioning is almost imperceivably warmer than it used to be – We must replace the entire drivetrain”
“Honestly I don’t mind the difference”
“Think about the damage that will result to the upholstery and my frame of mind!”
“But shouldn’t we at least give the air-con a moment to work?”
“You fool! Its far more complicated than anyone could imagine. We must replace the entire drivetrain now and then pay me to spend the rest of my life to understand the problem!”
Love it!
One should have a doubt about anything Andy Pitman says. This at WUWT https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/10/30/climate-scientist-in-hot-water-over-climate-drought-link-statements/ gives some criticisms. Also he was involved in the “Ship of Fools” antarctic expedition that got stuck in ice and had to be rescued by a Russian icebreaker.. I think he is trying save his credibility and research money flow.
Pitman points out gaps in mankind’s knowledge. But the fundamentals are well known.
Water vapor is indeed the most prevalent gig, but since it condenses out, it does not accumulate like CO2, which is the main cause of global warming.
finally, your claim that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere doesn’t cause the planet to warm is a favorite Denier trope. it’s simple balderdash,
Condenses out, eh? Doesn’t that negate the whole Alarmist concept of WV amplification? And if it doesn’t, why hasn’t the ‘natural’ GHE already spun out of control? After all, over 70% of the Earth’s surface is covered in water to a depth of over a mile.
“Doesn’t that negate the whole Alarmist concept of WV amplification? “. Of course not. Amplification requires only the presence of H2O.
“Already spun out of control?” Why so? Positive feedback does not imply instability unless the feedback becomes large enough.
your comment on earths oceans is irrelevant
Oh, I get it now! Water evaporated from ocean surfaces warmed by the burning of fossil fuels results in additional surface warming, whereas water evaporated from ocean surfaces warmed by water vapor doesn’t result in additional surface warming. Maybe you should publish a paper on how molecules of liquid water discern between the radiative warming effects of water vapor and CO2.
No, not quite. Here’s a better explanation than the one i gave you before: “Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas overall, being responsible for 41–67% of the greenhouse effect, but its global concentrations are not directly affected by human activity. While local water vapor concentrations can be affected by developments such as irrigation, it has little impact on the global scale due to its short residence time of about nine days. Indirectly, an increase in global temperatures cause will also increase water vapor concentrations and thus their warming effect, in a process known as water vapor feedback. It occurs because the Clausius-Clapeyron relation establishes that more water vapor will be present per unit volume at elevated temperatures.”
It is a daring approach. Admit that all that has gone before was mostly meaningless because even more money is needed to find out what is really going on, and he should be in charge of the checkbook.
Google’s algorithm strives to bury and refute this Edenhofer quote
Yes, and many others. I can no longer locate the quote by the UN Environmental (?) official in 1976 who stated, with respect to the impending mini ice age, that it was unknown if CO2 was the cause, but CO2 was something that could be quantified and taxed.
Just another money grab for taxpayer funding perpetuating the utter nonsense that humans are capable of controlling Earth’s climate.
Stories that their Australian ABC never cover:
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/east-asia/south-korea-seoul-record-snow-november-flights-4773716
https://www.petoskeynews.com/story/weather/2024/12/02/how-much-did-it-snow-in-northern-michigan-this-weekend-record-totals-reported/76700754007/
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/weather/meteorology/white-christmas-snow-prediction-as-647-mile-arctic-bomb-to-blanket-britain/ar-AA1vwWd7
The idea that UK buying Chinese made wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and BEVs will alter Britian’s weather is so stupid. How do they think all that junk gets manufactured? Hint – China’s coal consumption is heading for 5,000,000,000 tonnes in 2024.
“Australia risks investing in ineffective adaptation strategies because of limited modelling capacity.”
We’ve been doing this for decades!
Nobody talks about the tens of billions of dollars wasted on unused white elephant desalination plants in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, and Adelaide anymore.
We didn’t need the catastrophic failings of Covid ‘science’ to wake us up, we already had ample evidence that what ‘Experts Say’ is virtually meaningless, and that government doesn’t have a clue what it’s doing.
Well said, Brian 🙂
I hate to break this to Mr. Pitman, but a climate model with 1-km resolution will still have no capability to reliably diagnose or predict surface temperatures or any other metric of interest. Is there a conceivable observing system which can produce reliable measurements on the same grid, for confirming the skill of the model? Think about precipitation, for example. No way.
And think of the AC electrical power needed to supply computers large enough!
There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on our global climate system. The AGW hypothesis has been falsified by zero. Going to net zero will hanve no effect on the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events. This is all a matter of science.
I get very suspicious when a climate science uncertainty lament ends in ‘send more money’.
Sending more $billions every year hasn’t fixed anything relating to climate science. Doubt it ever will. We have been told that ‘settled climate science’ says:
Net Zero isn’t even a “fix” or remedy. It is now a goal in and of itself, something to be achieved independent of anything other than vanity.
With twenty-five years off, it isn’t even something attainable before retirement and pension collecting for those who are advocating it so when it fails, they aren’t there to be blamed (not that anyone in government, public policy or NGOs tangent to the goal ever accept responsibility for failure or criminal behavior).
This is pure rent seeking. Declare an absurd, sadistic and punitive goal and then get paid, feted as a celebrity, travel the globe on someone else’s budget and wield power until hoi polloi rage against it or until its time to enjoy one’s retirement.
Another post filled with casual racism. For example “farmers weep over Aborigines’ escalating land and heritage demands”, which is basically arguing that thieves should get to keep what they stole. All of Australia is built on stolen land and the sooner people acknowledge that the sooner the damage can be repaired. Insisting that the Aborigines should give up claim to their ancestial lands with no recompense is just perputating the injustice.
Racism seems to be inbuilt into your imagination and your whole being…
… you are one of the most RACIST people I have ever encountered.. you must be a far-leftist.
If you are American, do you think the whole of the USA should belong to the American Indians?
If in the UK, should it all be handed back to the Celts ?
Your wacked-out and moronic far-left virtue-seeking idiotology is pitiful and sad.
ps.. Everything Tony says about the idiocy of “Welcome to Country” (invented by Ernie Dingo, actor) and everything else about Aborigines is totally correct.
If you think factual information is racist.. that is purely on you. !
In Australia, once we get citizenship, we are all Australians.. irrelevant of race.
We do not need to be “welcomed” by woke and racist Aboriginal ceremonies to any part of Australia.
Stolen land. Riiight. It’s called conquering. It was a thing for a long time. Look it up. If the stone aged tribes couldn’t defeat the invaders, well, sucks to be them.
I’m trying to read it the way you’re presenting it and it’s not easy. Are you sure the writer meant what you’re saying?
Take it up with King Charles and Keir Starmer.
Isaac W,
What land was I born on with 4 preceding generations also born here?
Have we no land to which we can attach or declare our own?
How are we in Australia any different to anyone else alive today, all of us born on land that someone else lived on before?
Are we drifters forever, like Marie Celeste? Geoff S
Bloody blow-ins 🙂
We’re sorry, you race card has been declined due to insufficient funds.
Look boofhead in 1788 census of Brits there were 1030 and 753 of them had no choice coming in chains as the forerunner of 160,000 odd similar assortment of rogues thieves footpads and sundry crooks. Best estimates of the nomadic stone age hunter gatherers put them at around 300,000 largely in the SE Murray Darling valley region and unlike the interlopers they would subsequently be severely impacted by diseases like smallpox and flu for which they had little natural immunity. If it wasn’t them it would have been the French who were sniffing around with La Perouse or the Dutch or most recently the Germans or Japanese perhaps.
Skating over the 1850s gold rushes the post WWII migrant boom Vietnamese boat people yada yada we’ve had 650,000 new immigrants in a 12 month period post covid so where are you going with your delusional dreamtime feller? Emigrating away from your stolen land and the Robert Torrens global Land Titles system are you?
You can read about ancient history here via Watkin Tench Izaak- gutenberg.net.au/ebooks/e00084.txt
Here’s a sample of the times from it-
and not much had changed for aboriginal women some 90 years later-
The Mistreatment of Women in Aboriginal Society – Quadrant
So much for idyllic man and Nature but the First Fleet nearly starved to death and what of their womenfolk-
But what of civilised Europe I hear you ask? Well in 1789 it was the beginning of the French Revolution and the Terror recalling Louis before losing his head asked ‘Any news of La Perouse?’ which we now know the expedition all perished off Bouagainville. Ah yes the tumbrils and the guilotine with the knitting ladies followed by the slaughter and starvation of the Napoleonic Wars that wouldn’t end until the 1812 Overture. Yes children they were very different times although Syrians and Ukrainians mightn’t think so just at present.
Lame, even for you.
Canada is stuffed with ninnies like you.
Soon Trudeau and everyone like him will be kicked to the curb like Kamala was.
a glorious day that will be
“that overseas climate models “don’t work great” here” (Australia)
And the Australian CSIRO model is far worse than any of them.
If someone takes a position that warming is dagereous and caused by co2 emissions
then they learn that warming is beneficial
should they advocate for increased co2 emissions with the same vigor with which they advocated for decreased emissions?
Ah, the veneration of the wisdom and knowledge, no, the science and technology of the Aborigines. And there was me wondering why we had not found aboriginal artefacts on the moon.
Or if there really are any tipping points on the warming side.