IN THIS ISSUE:
- Australia’s Not Quite All in on Net Zero
- Elephant Seal Sites Show Lower Antarctic Ice Extent in the Past
- Poll Shows Americans Still Skeptical of Climate Disaster Claims
Australia’s Not Quite All in on Net Zero
Environmentalists are up in arms over the Australian government’s apparent backsliding on its “net zero by 2050” commitments and the interim targets it set. Although the government hasn’t formally rescinded its commitments, green critics of recent decisions say its actions are speaking louder than its words.
For example, an article in The Conversation says,
The federal government’s decision to extend the life of Woodside’s North West Shelf gas plant in Western Australia has been condemned as a climate disaster.
… the science is clear: no fossil fuel projects can be opened if the world is to avoid catastrophic climate change.
In particular, the government has extended the operational life of the Karratha natural gas plant, part of the enormous North West Shelf liquefied natural gas project, until 2070—20 years past the 2050 net-zero deadline commitment. The Karratha extension is not the only gas project the government has recently greenlit, having approved six more large, heavily capitalized, multibillion-dollar natural gas projects, extending some projects already in operation (including new pipelines and trains to ship gas for LNG exports), and some completely new operations.
The projects all have operating lives extending beyond 2050. Two of the projects would cause 450 and 850 new gas production wells to be brought online, respectively. Collectively, the projects would result in billions of additional tons of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. Most of the gas would be produced for export, but it doesn’t matter where the gas is burned if one believes CO2 emissions are causing warming; the key is not using it at all, The Conversation points out.
Adding insult to injury from a CO2 emission perspective, in late 2024 Australia’s Labor government also approved four new coal mining projects, working largely under the radar, despite publicly committing earlier in 2024 to disallow any new coal operations.
Australia seems to have a unique way of going net zero: significant expansion of fossil fuel production. Since the current Labor government took power in 2022, it has approved the expansion or creation of 10 new coal projects. Commenting on Australia’s big coal expansion, the World Socialist Web Site writes,
These approvals are just the most recent in a series of decisions that completely contradict Labor’s supposed commitment to take “more ambitious action on climate change.” . . .
Together, the production output from these mines could total 350 million tonnes of coal. The lifetime climate emissions of the three mines are estimated at approximately the equivalent of 936 million tonnes (Mt) of CO2, which is worth over two years of total annual Australian domestic emissions.
That brings the number of coal mine approvals by the Albanese government since taking office in May 2022 to ten. These include the previous approvals for four entirely new coal mines, and expansions to three NSW mines in October. Collectively, the ten approvals will result in an estimated equivalence of 2,449 Mt of CO2 emissions over their lifetime.
It seems that Australia, like many other countries, talks a good green game while recognizing the absolutely critical natural of fossil fuels to job creation and economic growth. They will continue to make up as much as 80 percent of the world’s energy use for decades to come, according to repeated International Energy Agency forecasts. Australia evidently wants its cut of the action. Good for them! It’s time for the Australian government to quit green virtue signaling and follow President Trump’s lead and reject net zero publicly. That would put them on the wrong side of their green constituency, but it would put them on the right side of history and stop opening the government up to claims of hypocrisy.
Sources: World Socialist Web Site; The Conversation
Elephant Seal Sites Show Lower Antarctic Ice Extent in the Past
A recent study of the DNA of Adelie penguins in the Ross Sea and Antarctica has produced some surprising secondary findings about climate conditions there over the Holocene.
Elephant seals breed only in the subantarctic Southern Ocean in waters free of sea ice. It seems that while researching the genetic history of Adelie penguins, scientists found elephant seal DNA from an apparent breeding site on Cape Hallet, more than 2,000 kilometers south of the southernmost viable, active breeding site for the seals during the present day.
Based on copious elephant seal remains found on Cape Hallet, it seems they bred and apparently thrived there during the Roman and Medieval warm periods approximately 2,500 and 1,000 years ago, respectively. This means, of course, that the area was free of sea ice then, which it isn’t now. Based on radiocarbon dating of the remains, the researchers write,
Southern elephant seal breeding colonies are currently restricted to islands within the subantarctic region of the Southern Ocean. However, the discovery of desiccated pup remains and hairs preserved in sediments indicate the species formerly moulted and bred along the Victoria Land Coast from Campbell Glacier in the north to Marble Point in the south. Radiocarbon dating of elephant seal remains from the Victoria Land Coast indicates that reduced sea ice extent between ~ 2500 and 1000 years ago allowed elephant seals to breed at these southern latitudes and attain a large local population before experiencing a local extirpation event that began in the south and progressed northwards as sea ice expanded. The Cape Hallett sedaDNA record provides evidence for a further late Holocene breeding colony site, the northernmost known from the Ross Sea.
This research confirmed findings from a paper published in the journal Marine Mammal Science in 2019, which also found elephant seal remains in the Antarctic region thousands of miles south of where colonies are currently viable because of sea ice conditions.
Antarctic sea ice extent today being greater than in the past is not what is commonly claimed in the mainstream media, but research indicates that’s the truth about the climate in Antarctica, which continues to buck climate model projections and claims of doom.
Source: Nature Communications; No Tricks Zone
Poll Shows Americans Still Skeptical of Climate Disaster Claims
Despite decades of doomsaying about climate change and the catastrophic results that are supposedly inevitable if humans don’t quickly cease the sin of using fossil fuels, it turns out Americans’ attitudes about climate change haven’t changed much over the past 25 years.
As Fox News and The Daily Caller both reported recently, CNN’s data chief expressed surprise recently at the results of a recent Gallup Poll that finds only 40 percent of Americans are greatly worried about climate change. This represents a six percentage-point drop in concern since 2020 (which was the highwater mark in Gallup’s more than 35 years of asking the question), equal to the amount of concern expressed 25 years ago. In a CNN segment, Harry Enten, the outlet’s senior data reporter, said,
Are Americans concerned of climate change, and the answer is, Americans aren’t afraid of climate change. Climate activists have not successfully made the case to the American people. I want you to take a look here. ‘Greatly worried about climate change.’ We have data going all the way back since 1989, and look at it then, it was 39%. In 2000, it was 40%. 2020, 46%. In 2025, 40%, which is the exact same percentage as in 2000, despite all of these horrible weather events. The percentage of Americans that are greatly worried about climate change has stayed pretty gosh darned consistent.
Commenting on the survey result, Heartland Institute Research Fellow Linnea Lueken noted while mavens of the mainstream media continue to express surprise at such polling results, they shouldn’t, as poll after poll over the years has shown the same thing: most Americans believe that the climate is changing somewhat, for some reason, but they just aren’t that worried about it.
And rightly so, it seems. Lueken and others at Climate Realism have repeatedly pointed out “the 21st century is by far the best time to be alive in terms of survivability from natural disasters.”
“Over just the last 100 years, human deaths attributed to weather related disasters around the world have declined by over 99 percent,” Lueken writes.
In addition, food supplies are more plentiful than ever before in history, with hunger having declined sharply during the past century and a half of modest warming, in part due to higher carbon dioxide levels and better growing conditions. Also, because 10 times more people die from cold than heat, deaths from non-optimum temperatures have fallen dramatically, rather than having increased as the mainstream media would have one believe, as the Earth has slightly warmed.
With all this good news, facts instead of hype, it is easy to see why polls show so many people seem unalarmed about climate change. The real question is why those who are worried about it are worried in the first place. To my thinking, it is due to the tremendous sustained propaganda scare being pushed by opportunists in academia, the media, and by politicians, various anti-growth (population and economy) environmental NGOs, and corporate profiteers.
Sources: Fox News; Climate Realism
Recommended Sites
H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., is the Director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy and the managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
But but methane is 82 times more damaging than CO2. /s
From the article: “… the science is clear: no fossil fuel projects can be opened if the world is to avoid catastrophic climate change.”
Somebody better tell China!
Yes, they could use the laugh.
Not only.China but the whole Asia-Pacific region.
According to the Energy Institute’s latest ‘Statistical Review of World Energy’ coal reached a global record of demand in 2024,165EJ, and was 83% centred on the Asia-Pacific region. China was responsible for 67% of that.
The Asia-Pacific region also saw 68% of global energy demand increase in 2024 and the region now accounts for 47% of total global energy demand.
Meanwhile, India’s coal demand is now equivalent to that of the 9 former members of the Soviet Union including Russia, South and Central America, North America and Europe combined.
From theBased on copious elephant seal remains found on Cape Hallet, it seems they bred and apparently thrived there during the Roman and Medieval warm periods approximately 2,500 and 1,000 years ago, respectively. This means, of course, that the area was free of sea ice then, which it isn’t now. Based on radiocarbon dating of the remains, the researchers write, article: ”
Don’t you just love it! Antarctica supporting the Roman and Medieval warm periods.
Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick chart doesn’t show these warm periods. Here’s more evidence Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick chart is wrong and does not reflect reality.
“Based on copious elephant seal remains found on Cape Hallet, it seems they bred and apparently thrived there during the Roman and Medieval warm periods approximately 2,500 and 1,000 years ago, respectively. This means, of course, that the area was free of sea ice then, which it isn’t now.”
Come on now. EVERYONE knows that the RWP and MWP were localized events at both Roman and Viking airports in the Northern Hemisphere.
All of Africa will be joining the “Fossil fuelled” fraternity of nations soon, despite the strenuous efforts of the “Great Resetters” trying to forbid it. It won’t change the climate though.
Maybe they are gunning for the “Colossal Fossil” award at COP30. Although, there will certainly be some stiff competition for that. But good luck anyway.
yes, there will a few countries shunned, huddling in their little groups on the sidelines of the main conference, while the zealots spit disdain on them with insults such as “splitters!!”
Check this out. I used Grok to scrutinize the Hockeystick:
The only mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is through the thermalization of outgoing longwave infrared radiation of peak 15 microns. According to the Mann-Hockeystick Chart, temperatures take an abrupt reversal of a downtrend and rapidly begin increasing starting precisely in 1902. The accepted climate model is that temperature is a function of CO2, with temperature being the dependent variable and CO2 being the independent variable. Nothing changed with the trend in CO2 or the quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule in 1902 to cause such an abrupt reversal in temperatures. By what mechanism could temperatures have abruptly accelerated upward in 1902 if neither the trend in CO2 or quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule changed?
Grok’s Answer:
Your question challenges the causal link between CO2 and the abrupt temperature increase around 1902, as depicted in the Mann-Hockeystick chart, by pointing out that neither the CO2 trend nor the quantum mechanics of CO2’s interaction with longwave infrared radiation changed at that time. Let’s break this down systematically, examining the mechanisms involved, the validity of the claims, and possible explanations for the observed temperature shift.
### 1. **CO2’s Role in Climate Change**
You correctly note that CO2 affects climate primarily through absorbing and thermalizing outgoing longwave infrared radiation, particularly around the 15-micron wavelength, corresponding to the vibrational modes of the CO2 molecule. This absorption reduces the amount of infrared radiation escaping to space, trapping heat in the atmosphere and contributing to the greenhouse effect. The quantum mechanics of CO2’s absorption spectrum have not changed, as these are fundamental properties of the molecule.
The climate model you reference, where temperature is a function of CO2, is a simplification. While CO2 is a key driver of long-term climate change, temperature is influenced by multiple factors, including other greenhouse gases (e.g., methane, nitrous oxide), aerosols, solar activity, volcanic eruptions, and land use changes. The relationship is not strictly linear, and feedbacks (e.g., water vapor, albedo) amplify or modulate CO2’s effects.
### 2. **The Mann-Hockeystick Chart and 1902**
The Mann-Hockeystick chart, from Mann et al. (1998, 1999), reconstructs Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the past 1,000 years, showing relatively stable or slightly declining temperatures (the “handle”) until the 20th century, followed by a sharp rise (the “blade”). The claim that temperatures abruptly reversed a downtrend in 1902 requires scrutiny, as the Hockeystick chart does not pinpoint 1902 as a precise inflection point. Instead, it shows a gradual warming trend starting in the late 19th to early 20th century, accelerating later.
To verify, I’d need to examine the specific dataset or figure you’re referencing, but the original Mann et al. reconstructions (e.g., MBH98) use proxy data (tree rings, ice cores, etc.) with decadal or multi-decadal resolution, making a precise 1902 reversal difficult to confirm. Instrumental temperature records (e.g., HadCRUT) show global warming beginning around the late 19th century, with 1902 not marking a distinct breakpoint. If the chart you refer to shows an abrupt 1902 shift, it may be a stylized or misinterpreted representation of the data.
### 3. **CO2 Trends in 1902**
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations in 1902 were approximately 295–300 ppm, based on ice core data (e.g., Law Dome) and early measurements. This was a modest increase from pre-industrial levels (~280 ppm in 1750), driven by early industrialization (coal burning, deforestation). The rate of CO2 increase was gradual, with no significant acceleration around 1902. Keeling Curve data, starting in 1958, shows a clearer exponential rise, but in 1902, CO2 growth was slow and steady.
If temperatures abruptly increased in 1902 without a corresponding CO2 trend change, other factors must be considered, as CO2 alone does not explain short-term temperature shifts.
### 4. **Possible Mechanisms for a 1902 Temperature Increase**
Since neither CO2’s trend nor its quantum mechanics changed abruptly in 1902, alternative mechanisms could explain a temperature uptick. Below are plausible factors, based on climate science:
4. Possible Mechanisms for a 1902 Temperature IncreaseSince neither CO2’s trend nor its quantum mechanics changed abruptly in 1902, alternative mechanisms could explain a temperature uptick. Below are plausible factors, based on climate science:
5. Critique of the CO2-Temperature ModelYour assertion that the “accepted climate model” treats temperature as a function solely of CO2 oversimplifies modern climate science. Climate models (e.g., CMIP6) incorporate multiple forcings (CO2, CH4, aerosols, solar, volcanic) and feedbacks (water vapor, clouds, ice-albedo). CO2 is a primary long-term driver, but short-term temperature changes often result from other factors or natural variability. The radiative forcing from CO2 in 1902 (~0.5–1 W/m² above pre-industrial) was sufficient to initiate warming, but not to cause an abrupt 1902 reversal alone.
6. ConclusionThe claim of an abrupt temperature reversal in 1902 is not clearly supported by the Mann-Hockeystick chart or instrumental records, which show a gradual warming trend starting in the late 19th century. No evidence suggests a significant change in CO2 trends or its quantum mechanics in 1902. Possible mechanisms for an apparent 1902 temperature increase include:
Without a specific change in CO2, the most likely explanation is a combination of reduced cooling (e.g., fewer volcanic aerosols) and natural variability, amplified by early CO2 increases. To confirm the exact timing and magnitude of a 1902 shift, I’d need the specific chart or dataset you’re referencing. If you can provide it, I can analyze it further for accuracy.
If you’d like a chart of historical CO2 vs. temperature data to visualize their relationship, let me know, and I can generate one using available data (e.g., HadCRUT temperatures and Law Dome CO2), ensuring no speculative numbers are used.
Geez, for so-called “settled science” (oxymoron alert!), there sure are a lot of “unsettled” factors.
“While CO2 is a key driver of long-term climate change,”
Based on what, Grok? This is an unsubstantiated assertion. There is no evidence CO2 is a driver of climate change. It’s pure speculation.
Grok is presenting pure speculation as established facts. Grok must have been trained by a Climate Alarmist.
“Catastrophic climate change” , no less, not just the regular garden variety. Australia’s actions in extending and/or adding new fossil fuel projects shows it is joining the rest of sane world who have come to realize it’s convenient to pay lip service to unattainable goals like Net Zero while proceeding with whatever works. This is what developing nations realized long ago; i.e., that economic development, poverty alleviation, raising living standards and energy security take precedence over pie-in-the-sky schemes to save the planet and civilization into the bargain.
‘Australia’s Not Quite All in on Net Zero’
When it’s so simple and cheap to go net zero-
The two subsidy-free wind farms that are returning millions of dollars to consumers | RenewEconomy
Why can’t they be like we are perfect in every way?
Oh what’s the matter with the States today!!
There was a much more significant ruling by the Federal Court last week that has sent shock waves thru the green blob is taking climate cases to court in Australia is dead
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/jul/17/what-happens-next-after-torres-strait-islands-climate-case-against-government-dismissed
The key ruling it found the federal government did not owe Torres Strait Islanders a duty of care to protect them from global heating and by extension it therefore owes no person a duty of care.
It basically says it’s a political issue and needs to stay within the parliament system and you can’t use the courts to try to push a political issue. It effectively ends the climate warfare in Australia because you run up against a federal court precedent.
You will now see dozens of cases in state courts either thrown out or immediately appealed if they try to use climate duty of care as a reason for seeking to use the courts.
Piss off Bowen and go and annoy the whales with them-
‘Who wants to live next to that?’: Farmers strongly reject NSW wind turbine plan