JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Half of America doesn’t even want to spend $1 a month extra on green electricity or fuel

Everyone knows what they are supposed to say, but one in four Americans won’t even say it.

The CEI has done a new poll of 1,200 regular US voters. Supposedly 71% of Americans claim they are very or somewhat concerned, but it’s just a fashion statement for half of them.

CEI poll, Climate change, Concern, graph. October 2021.

Click to enlarge.

When it comes to spending their own money to change the global climate, they don’t want to.

Americans can’t be too worried about “climate change” if they don’t want to fork out more cash on gasoline and electricity to save the world. Fossil fuels might be destroying life on Earth, but 4 out of 10 Americans don’t want to spend an extra red cent on gas and electricity. That’s annually — a whole year of power and fuel bills.

And remember, it’s only a theoretical question. Anyone can say they’ll spend a lot.

CEI poll, Climate change, cars, spending, Concern, graph. October 2021.

Click to enlarge.

When will politicians realize that they are being gamed by all the inadequate meaningless surveys that only ask “do you believe”? Those surveys are apparently not designed to find out what the punters think about climate change. For all the world, their main purpose looks like being a tool to frighten and fool politicians.  And if that’s the case, their vagueness is a feature, not a flaw.

Americans say “give me my gas guzzler”

Only a quarter of people in the US want to spend more swapping the old car for an EV.

Americans don’t want to be told what kind of car they should buy. Except for the baffling 1 in 7 people who want the government to choose their car for them.

Perhaps they’re the ones who already own an EV, and what they really want are the government to force EV’s on everyone else.

….

CEI poll, Climate change, cars, spending, Concern, graph. October 2021.

Click to enlarge.

Sensibly, while people don’t want to pay to change the climate, more are willing to spend money to reduce the impacts of climate change. Presumably they are thinking of sea walls, trees and flood levees.

But even then, half of the population don’t want to spend more than $10 a month. It’s tiny.

CEI poll, climate change spending, Oct 2021 USA.

Click to enlarge.

A more telling question would be “what do you spend to reduce the impacts of climate change”. That would reveal how much people are donating to green groups and weather changing charities. But the CEI didn’t ask.

The Washington Times

Not one dollar: One-third of voters unwilling to spend anything to counter climate change

h/t Marvin W

…..

REFERENCE

CEI National Poll, October 2021, https://cei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/CEI-National-Poll-Final.pdf

9.9 out of 10 based on 67 ratings

269 comments to Half of America doesn’t even want to spend $1 a month extra on green electricity or fuel

  • #

    Note that 33% would pay $41 or more a month, 21% $91 or more. That is a lot of votes. You don’t need a majority to make policy. The alarmism movement has solid numbers.

    332

    • #

      Which makes them dangerous.

      401

      • #

        It’s all caused by a media that promotes confirmation bias driven lies about what the science and data is actually saying combined with climate change science becoming highly political. The Biden administration even considers green to be it’s most supportable cause, which says a lot about the rest of their agenda.

        Most of the 33% are gullible partisans who blindly believe what their party is telling them. The real danger is the collusion between the Democratic party and the media acting as their secret police by controlling the ‘truth’ the party wants to project and recently this has gone far beyond lies about climate science.

        420

        • #

          But David note that the largest single voting group is the 40% who aren’t even buying the scare for $1 a year. These are implacable, immovable skeptics. It was this group Trump appealed to, but almost no other politician with a shot at power even tries to speak for this group. Who represents them?

          251

          • #
            Ian

            Jo You ask

            “Who represents them?

            Why people like you and Judith Curry and Jennifer Marohasy and Anthony Watts and John Christy and Lord Monckton and James Delingpole and other climate doubters

            Unfortunately News Corp has recently turned away from them and in Australia Peter Dutton now supports zero emissions by 2050 but there is still a significant hard core of supporters of this 40%

            215

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              More like 22.69%

              11

            • #
              truth

              The supporters of the sceptics have to get into government…and here …even when they do…the vote can be vetoed as we saw in 2015 and the government that represents the majority view taken over by the representatives of the Global Socialism/one world government cabal.

              Turnbull had zero mandate when he ratified the Paris Accord…Australians had always voted against it when it was on the agenda.

              The clout that scientists should have has been severely diminished when they don’t comply in this corrupt post-truth world as we see with Peter Ridd and many others.

              And I think it almost certain that Dutton was persuaded in the end by the realization that the international bankers and moneylenders hold the trump card over Australian governments and business.

              Likewise Newscorp….that needs investors too.

              Our resources are worthless in situ…they only become valuable after investment is secured and the money poured into getting them out of the ground.

              10

            • #
              JB

              And some of us have turned away from Sky News.

              00

        • #
          Deano

          The climate cult tries to present opinion as fact in a casual way as if their claims are accepted universally. Check out the Wikipedia explanation of ‘False Balance’ and note the examples they offer –

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance

          They want donations to allow them to continue to provide unbiased information.

          10

      • #
        Simon

        or sensible. In reality, there is a mitigation / adaptation tradeoff. Refusal to mitigate increases the need to adapt, through shifting crops and protecting against changed weather probabilities. Unfortunately, those who pollute least are also often the least able to adapt.

        048

        • #
          R.B.

          Sensible is to check that you have not been sold a pup.

          330

          • #
            Deano

            “Ere sonny, pay $70,000 for this electric car. It has no exhaust pipe so you can be sure it produces no emissions”

            50

        • #
          shortie+of+greenbank

          Lomerg’s original look into the ‘science’ and ‘economics’ used in the 2007 IPCC report using the best case examples in favour of the IPCC (i.e. their worst fears were realised in ‘dangerous’ warming and sea level rise etc) still found that the attempt to mitigate now is 50x more expensive than those outcomes. Adaption is the key here.

          220

        • #

          There is at least one advantage for adaptation: If you realise the announced danger you are told to adapt to doesn’t show to be a danger, i.e. SLR,temperature increase, you can stop adaptation or not even start it -> saved money 😀
          Mitigation is blowing money in the wind.

          290

        • #
          el+gordo

          ‘ … adapt, through shifting crops and protecting against changed weather probabilities.’

          Adaptation is fine, but ENSO is the main driver in a land of drought and flooding rains. Nothing unusual is happening with Australia’s weather after 40 years of global warming, best not to build on a flood plain.

          200

          • #
            Mal

            Nothings changed
            Build on a flood plain, expect to get flooded
            Build on coastal dunes, expect to get coastal erosion
            Build in the bush Expect to be burnt
            Nature works in geological time frames
            Humans think in their own ego centric time frame
            Who can remember the last ice age, the Roman and medieval warm periods, the maunder minimum and little ice age
            If humans don’t recognise these, then who are the climate deniers

            10

        • #

          Simon,

          Sensible means making sense. Under what circumstances does it make sense to destroy economies by crippling the energy industry while wasting trillions of dollars on green nonsense attempting to fix a climate that isn’t broken just so some far left lunatics can feel better about themselves?

          The ‘green’ solutions being pushed by these lunatics wouldn’t even make sense if the IPCC was right about the effect of CO2 emissions, and they are so wrong it’s an embarrassment to all legitimate science. Of course, they have to be wrong, otherwise they have no reason to exist.

          340

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            CO2 INE
            A great comment, but be careful, telling it like it is may be dangerous now in 2021.

            130

          • #
            Mark Allinson

            “Under what circumstances does it make sense …”

            Here is the circumstance – Communism, and the UN-supported move to a Global government.

            At the end of the Communist Manifesto we read:

            Communism abolishes the present state of things.

            The Communists openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forceful overthrow of all existing political and social conditions.

            Marx goes on to quote from Goethe’s Faust – “Everything that exists deserves to perish.”

            There’s your sense.

            180

            • #
              Graham Richards

              Old Communism called for the total control of resources, labour & distribution! Very cumbersome way of doing things especially in today’s industrial economies,

              Today’s Communists call for a much simpler way of controlling all facets of modern lifestyles by simply owning & controlling the energy that the modern economies rely on!

              Much easier to control because the modern way is not see what’s going on or use one’s imagination but to simply & blindly do what’s the “experts or scientists or social engineers “ suggest you do. Of course breaking down & destroying society, especially the family unit is the key to the controls! IN A NUTSHELL!

              120

          • #
            clarence.t

            The climate variability we experience today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control.

            There is actually no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the conclusion that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.

            Hence all efforts to reduce CO2 emissions will have no effect on global climate.

            There is no climate crisis.

            There is no action that any countries can take to stop Mother Nature from doing what She will with Earth’s climate..

            …change and variability that has been taking place since the beginning of time.

            Mankind does not even know what the optimum “global climate” actually is, let alone how to achieve it.

            The very concept of a “global climate” is scientific nonsense…

            … hence, so is the term “global climate change”.

            130

        • #
          clarence.t

          Mitigate what ?

          CO2 is the basis of all life on Earth.

          It does not affect the climate except in models.

          When it comes to CO2 , there is absolutely nothing to mitigate..

          The only affects so far, of vain efforts to carry out this totally unnecessary “mitigation”…

          … has been to cripple once reliable power supply systems using an extraordinarily high waste of funds that could have been used productively somewhere else.

          171

        • #
          Raving

          Great Green quote Simon!

          Unfortunately, those who pollute least are also often the least able to adapt.

          30

          • #
            yarpos

            adapt to what I wonder? the plethora of imaginary imminent future demons the AGW crazies keep throwing up

            adapt to accelerated sea rise that never happens?
            adapt to permanent “new normal” dams will never refill drought, like Australia today?
            adapt to never seeing snow again, except in winter of course
            adapt to perverse do gooder westerners ramming unreliable power down their throats?
            adapt to the impacts of the opportunity costs of billions wasted on so called “RE” , desalination plants and sending hundreds of delegates to climate boondoggles when that money maybe could have done something useful (or maybe not, as PNG still seemed to have plenty of money for government Maseratis)

            100

            • #
              Chris

              Desalination plants, Western Australia has two and they have been essential for our growing population.

              Israel has five and two on the board. That is why they can grow food in the desert , even for export whilst their neighbours grow rocks.

              40

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                Hi Chris, In some areas they’re the only option but for the rest of Australia they were similar in function to the infamous Victorian roads construction of a few years back: a wonderful source of income for laba votas.

                Dams are much cheaper and actually do supply water.

                80

              • #

                Victoria has one, and for the vast majority of time, it produces the same amount of fresh water as it would if it didn’t exist! But it has a huge, well-paid staff (measured on a per-litre of output basis), whose fingers are poised above the start button, in case output is suddenly required. Meanwhile, the shadows of the staff’s vehicles protect the carpark’s surface from any outbreaks of rampart global warming that might cause melting!

                30

    • #
      Mark Allinson

      The belief in CAGW; the acceptance of white racial guilt; the demand for more laws supporting abortion and euthanasia; the blind rush to get an experimental “vaccine” with no long term studies; widespread terror at the “danger” of a 99.7% survivable virus with an average age of death higher than life expectancy – these are all signs and side-effects of a moribund culture seeking its suicide.

      250

      • #
        Steve of Cornubia

        Note that these are all predominantly driven by the Left, which makes them non-negotiable and inevitable.

        150

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          And by definition, if you are protesting about an issue, then you obviously aren’t guilty of That.

          The Grine Left is pure and uncorrupted.

          In their own minds.

          100

      • #
        Deano

        Beautifully put Mark. As Jo says “A perfectly good civilization is going to waste…”.
        We worry about individuals committing suicide quite rightly, but when an entire system of society which has proven itself to be the most successful ever by far is willingly marching off the cliff, the media encourages them.

        40

    • #
      Ian

      the headline shouts “Half of America doesn’t even want to spend $1 a month extra on green electricity or fuel”

      But the true figure according to the article is “4 out of 10 Americans don’t want to spend an extra red cent on gas and electricity. ” That ain’t half is it?

      The converse of that, which, unsurprisingly, is not mentioned, is 6 out of 10 of Americans don’t object to spending “an extra red cent”.

      Based on the 2020 census which stated there were approximately 258 million Americans over the age of 18, around 155 million Americans don’t object while around 103 million do object. A very substantial majority of over 50 million are OK with spending a red cent

      The link to the Washington Toimes shows an even greater difference in the numbers.

      “Not one dollar: One-third of voters unwilling to spend anything to counter climate change”

      Naturally, the converse that 66% or around 172 million Americans are not unwilling to spend is not mentioned for of course, a headline ” Two thirds of voters are willing to spend to counter climate change” has much less resonance.

      As in Australia it seems the majority of Americans are not too unhappy to accept the climate is changing and are prepared to do something about it

      125

      • #
        clarence.t

        Let those you want to, waste their own money.

        Leave the rest of us out of it.!

        160

      • #
        clarence.t

        “and are prepared to do something about it”

        And do “what” precisely?

        Nothing we do in Australia (or anywhere else for that matter) will make one iota of difference to the natural variability of climate.

        CO2 does not affect climate, so all the anti-CO2 nonsense is totally pointless anyway.

        All it will achieve is a huge drop in quality of life as electricity supplies become erratic and very costly.

        120

        • #
          Ian

          “Nothing we do in Australia (or anywhere else for that matter) will make one iota of difference to the natural variability of climate.

          I agree with you that anything Australia does will not make one iota of difference but not so sure of “or anywhere else for that matter” as if China and India and America and Indonesia and other countries all went to zero emissions that, possibly, might make difference.

          But making a difference isn’t really what this zero emissions by Australia and Australian businesses is all about. It is about being seen to be a good global citizen/company.

          That’s why Peter Dutton and News Corp have joined the zero emissions band wagon. If Australia is thought not to be doing enough this may make a significant difference to our trading with other nations which could seriously damage the Australian economy.

          010

          • #
            clarence.t

            “It is about being seen to be a good global citizen/company. “

            No, its all about buckling to a meme/agenda that they know is fake.

            Once the cooling trend starts to bite, they can then ignore all these weak virtue-seeking promises and get back to a more realistic agenda.

            The only difference CO2 emissions make is to plant life.

            They have no effect on the climate.

            70

      • #
        el+gordo

        ‘ … the climate is changing and are prepared to do something about it.’

        Folly of the first order, climate change is beyond our control and mitigation is not an option.

        150

        • #
          Simon

          On the contrary, mitigation is essential. Global surface temperatures will continue to rise until net greenhouse gas emissions are less than or equal to zero.

          023

          • #
            clarence.t

            There is no scientific evidence that CO2 causes warming

            You have been asked many times to pin point that evidence you say is in the IPCC junk science productions, but you continue to fail utterly.

            I don’t think you have a clue what is actually in that propaganda tome.

            The coming cooling trend will show just how empty the conjectures behind the AGW scam really are.

            160

            • #
              Simon

              You seem to have some issue with the underlying fundamental physics. This is a good introduction to climate modelling by
              Syukuro Manabe, who won a Nobel Prize last week for his work.
              https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16000870.2019.1620078

              012

              • #
                clarence.t

                “using one-dimensional, radiative-convective model, in which the heat balance of the atmosphere and that of the Earth’s surface are maintained through the close interaction between radiative and convective heat transfer. Using the model, they obtained the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere in radiative-convective equilibrium not “

                ” In the experiment, the coupled model….. “

                Seems they think radiation and convection are the only way energy moves in the atmosphere. Really?

                And that the atmosphere only has one dimension.. now that’s funny

                This is not the Earth as any rational person knows it.

                “Changes in other forcing agents such as man-made and volcanic aerosols, and insolation were ignored. “

                Oh dearie me !!

                Figure 7 LOL !!

                Measured reality… absorption levels off at 280ppm…

                https://i.postimg.cc/8CjbPNRp/eggert-co2.png

                Models all the way down.

                And if you knew anything about science…

                … you would know that models based on assumptions and vague parameterisatons ..

                are never evidence.

                Yes the Nobel prize has been greatly abused by awarding it to such low-level stuff.

                60

              • #
                clarence.t

                “Climate models have become the most powerful tool not only for predicting climate change……”

                The first words of the abstract make a mockery of the whole paper.

                https://i.postimg.cc/662fhTJB/Christy-JR-20210121-v2-CMIP6-models-UAH-2021.jpg

                50

              • #
                clarence.t

                “Assuming that the Earth-atmosphere system radiates as a blackbody…..”

                Does it ? Nope ! Certainly not at the surface, which is where they apply it.

                So again, wrong from the first assumption.

                Not a very scientific paper is it ! 😉

                50

              • #
                David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

                I think you’ll find that clarence.t is talking about the physics, not the modelling. And the IPCC models use guesses as to the climate sensitivity, or outputs from the models earlier runs. A bit circular?
                Get real.
                Cheers
                Dave B

                80

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                “Syukuro Manabe, who won a Nobel Prize last week for his work.”

                Having looked through the link it confirms everything we know about the IPCCCCC concept of Katastrophic Anthropogenetic Unbelievable Wobal Glorming.

                The “work” talks around the subject in a monstrous mountain of misinformation that bears no relationship to true modelling.

                80

              • #
                Chris

                Simon, You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to work out the climate. A four year knows if you have a cloudy day it’s going to be cool. A sunny day is going to be warm. If they are dark clouds it’s going to rain. If you can see the stars at night it’s going to be a very cold night.

                Clouds are a mystery to your climate modellers.

                90

              • #
                Simon

                If any of you had read the article you will see it covers the basic science and a review of the literature. This science has been uniformly agreed for over fifty years.

                011

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                Simon,

                The sciency bits may have been known for 50 years but they have all been put together incorrectly to create a gigantic mess.

                70

              • #
                clarence.t

                ” it covers the basic science”

                The non-science of speculative agenda-driven modelling/computer games,..
                … which have provided “projections” that are totally unrelated to reality.

                “This science has been uniformly agreed”

                Con-sensus.. is not science.

                Climate science is mostly “Con”, with zero sense or science behind it.

                And no, real science does not agree.

                40

              • #
                clarence.t

                “If any of you had read the article you will see it covers….

                …a litany of false conjectures, unrealistic modelling, and scientific faux-pas…

                30

              • #

                You know that Manabe told about models ?
                Models don’t have any value as they are unable to replace facts and collected data. And his estimates were far lower than that BS from IPCC.

                60

              • #

                If any of you had read the article you will see it covers the basic science and a review of the literature. This science

                Climate is a bit more sophisticatet as only basic science. Tpersture incrrase by 1k per doubling CO2 may be basic science, what follows is in parts guess, speculation etc, not more and mostly not proven by observation, as there are clouds, humidity, and what ever named positive or negative forcings.
                Maybe are you able to explane it ?
                No ?
                Aren’t you ?
                I doubt it you are. 😀

                50

              • #
                William Astley

                Simon,

                Catastrophic AGW Science is not really science. And green energy is a scam.

                The IPCC models have been proven to be incorrect.

                https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/certaintychannel_ipcc_reality.png

                The regions of the planet that have recently warmed and have stopped warming, are the same regions that have warmed and then cooled cyclically in the past. The past warming and cooling was not caused by CO2 changes.

                This cyclic warming can be seen in the Greenland ice sheet core data, from Richard Alley’s paper.

                Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. As this graph indicates the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years.

                http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif

                The Greenland Ice Sheet analysis found that the Northern Hemisphere warms and cools cyclically. The past warming and cooling has not caused by CO2 changes. It has caused by solar cycle changes.

                http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2003GL017115.shtml

                Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock by Stefan Rahmstorf
                Many paleoclimatic data reveal a approx. 1,500 year cyclicity of unknown origin. A crucial question is how stable and regular this cycle is. An analysis of the GISP2 ice core record from Greenland reveals that abrupt climate events appear to be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably stable to within a few percent; with 95% confidence the period is maintained to better than 12% over at least 23 cycles. This highly precise clock points to an origin outside the Earth system; oscillatory modes within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period.

                10

              • #
                Simon

                This is what the Richard Alley paper really says: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1081056
                Stefan Rahmstorf also warns of the consequences of anthropogenic global warming.
                Read the actual papers, not some barstardised out of context summary.

                12

              • #

                The models are never used retrospectively, so proving them useless and fraudulent. For instance you could pretend that you are living in 1980, and then produce a computer model from 1980 to 2020. Then check the results with the real weather & climate from 1980 to 2020.

                But obviously if they did that, then the whole multibillion-dollar house of cards would fall down.

                Only computer models using Kepler’s laws of planetary motion are reliable when using retrospective computer runs. But as far as I know, the global warming fraudsters don’t even mention retrospective computer runs.

                The only time I have ever heard anyone mention this on the telly was by a British Member of Parliament and Scientist called Peter Lilly.

                10

              • #
                Raving

                @Simon

                This science has been uniformly agreed for over fifty years.

                Any person who says such a thing is politicing. Sciensts doing science, don’t talk this way

                00

              • #
                Raving

                @Simon

                Read the actual papers, not some barstardised out of context summary

                And that is reason that the press, science advocates, and even the IPCC should be avoided. All have strong background agendas to grind.

                Don’t forget that the whole purpose of the IPCC is to argue the strongest case possible for AGW

                00

              • #
                clarence.t

                Richard Alleys paper is full of baseless supposition form the start.

                It is obvious that you didn’t even read the abstract !

                Stefan Rahmstorf has been provably wrong with every mindless conjecture he has ever made.
                He may as well have warned about the consequences of the big bad wolf or the shortbread cottage. Either has more relevance to science that his rantings. !

                10

              • #
                sophocles

                Simon:

                You said: Read the actual papers, not some barstardised out of context summary.

                There is one tiny little problem: those papers were written with the assumption of a warming climate:
                Unfortunately, the climate has been cooling for over a year now, and will be for at least a couple of
                decades, so they are now wrong and therefore irrelevant.

                You need to keep up with the times, old bean. A GSM (Grand Solar Minimum) lasts for a while. The last was the Dalton Minimum (1790 – 1850) so if you want to see what the weather was like, go read Charles Dickens’ books — they were written during that period.

                (PS: it’s bastardised, not barstardised )

                20

              • #

                OK Simon, if you think you understand the physics, then explain how the climate system can tell one Joule from another such that the average W/m^2 of solar forcing results in 1.62 W/m^2 of surface emissions while the next one results in 4.4 W/m^2, as required by the IPCC to achieve the nominal 0.8C temperature increase they claim.

                You may be tempted to say “it’s the feedback’, so how can feedback tell the difference between Joules of forcing so that it only applies to the next one? Otherwise, the surface would be close to the boiling point of water!

                Of course, I doubt you have a handle on any of the physics, for if you did, you would necessarily be a skeptic of the IPCC rather faithfully accept the anti-science nonsense they proselytize.

                10

              • #
                Richard+C+(NZ)

                Simon >”Stefan Rahmstorf
                ….Read the actual papers”

                Like Foster & Rahmstorf (2011), cited by IPCC AR4 ?

                ‘Global temperature evolution 1979–2010’

                Unfortunately, using their rationale of filtering out ENSO, their trend has not continued past 2010 once 2015/16 El Nino is filtered.

                Even sadder post 2016 through to 2021.

                Tamino, Real Climate, and Skeptical Science were all abuzz about that paper through to 2013. Nada now.

                The actual real climate has booted Rahmstorf.

                00

              • #
                Richard+C+(NZ)

                William Astley: Re “Certainty Channel” graph (IPCC – Hayden).

                Too funny.

                00

              • #
                Richard+C+(NZ)

                Alley et al (2013) as linked by Simon:

                Abstract
                Large, abrupt, and widespread climate changes with major impacts have occurred repeatedly in the past, when the Earth system was forced across thresholds. Although abrupt climate changes can occur for many reasons, it is conceivable that human forcing of climate change is increasing the probability of large, abrupt events. Were such an event to recur, the economic and ecological impacts could be large and potentially serious. Unpredictability exhibited near climate thresholds in simple models shows that some uncertainty will always be associated with projections.

                In light of these uncertainties, policy-makers should consider expanding research into abrupt climate change, improving monitoring systems, and taking actions designed to enhance the adaptability and resilience of ecosystems and economies.

                # # #

                This is not science. It is an exercise in speculation designed to influence policy, back in 2013.

                Seriously, why are you even presenting that paper in this thread ?

                10

              • #
                Richard+C+(NZ)

                Manabe (2019) as linked by Simon:

                2. Greenhouse effect of the atmosphere

                “Because Earth’s surface behaves almost as a blackbody, it has an absorptivity that is close to one, absorbing almost completely the downward flux of longwave and shortwave radiation that reach Earth surface“.

                # # #

                Infrared spans both solar (IR-A/B) shortwave and terrestrial (IR-B) longwave spectrums.

                Manabe, like all CO2-centric climate scientists, is devoid of knowledge and understanding of radiation-matter interaction in respect to infrared radiation and water in particular.

                He makes no distinction whatsoever between IR-A/B in the solar spectrum and IR-C in the terrestrial spectrum. There is 3 orders of magnitude difference in energy-per-photon. IR-A/B is measured in electron Volts, IR-C in milli eV.

                This is the difference between real and apparent radiative power. CO2-centric climate scientists think IR-C is real power – it isn’t. It is not harnessed anywhere on earth.

                I’ve already addressed this IPCC scientific fraud in a recent thread in response to Simon and he knows all this from another blog anyway but there are none so blind as will not see.

                10

              • #

                Rahmstorf isn’t a scientist anymore, he is activist, a neurotic one.

                10

      • #
        Lance

        What nonsense.

        55% of USA are unwilling to pay USD 50 / mo for climate change fantasies.

        Your argument is empty.

        Here’s a suggestion, Ian: Let the Fearful Minority pay all they wish. Yes, do that. But don’t burden me with your folly.

        Have a grand day.

        210

        • #
          Ian

          “What nonsense.

          “55% of USA are unwilling to pay USD 50 / mo for climate change fantasies.

          Your argument is empty”

          My argument may be empty but, unlike yours, it does give the origin of the supporting data namely the article heading this thread which is given as “4 out of 10 Americanss won’t pay a red cent ” Where’s the supporting evidence for your claim that “55% of USA are unwilling to pay USD 50 / mo for climate change fantasies.”??

          Sorry Lance but not having any evidence to support your claim makes your argument not just empty but a wasteland of conjecture and prejudice
          :

          09

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            That may be so but conversely, when you look at the inverse assessment it often comes out remarkably similar to the starting proposition.

            50

      • #
        yarpos

        I dont think most people have any idea how they will be shafted by these wonderful initiatives, just like they really have no idea about how electricity is produced and the issues around maintaining that stable supply they have taken for granted all their lives.

        70

      • #
        Mal

        There is nothing man can do about climate change
        If the West want to commit economic suicide, then the Chinese, Russians will fill the vacuum and become the dominant culture
        Climate change is just a diversion/misdirection from the real agenda of the U.N. which is the destruction of industrialised western culture
        Its happening in front of our eyes
        In Australia, the rapid descent into rule by thuggish dictators eg,the Talidan,using the brutal Vicstapo all for our own good just shows what sheep we’ve become
        Net zero will finish us off
        There will be no middle class only serfs and slaves
        All the green energy will off course evaporate and we will have useless broken down windmills and solar panels with no ability to replace technically, or financially as the country will be bankrupt

        10

    • #
      Strop

      What does $91 (or more) a month buy?

      In Aus there was an estimate the other day that it’s one trillion dollars for us to get to net zero by 2050. (I don’t know if that’s true net zero or just zero from electricity production). That’s closer to $300 per month per taxpayer for the next 29 years.

      I think the better question in the survey would be one that has not just a dollar estimate value but also a power reliability component.
      e.g. Are you willing to spend X and have intermittent power during the day and likely no power at night?

      60

    • #
      Lawrie

      66% don’t want to spend $360 a year but we are already paying far more that that now in higher charges for household electricity plus all the on costs in food production, distribution etc. When household electricity went from 10 Cents per kWh in 2006 to 39 Cents per kWh now that equates to far more than $360 a year which makes me think that if people were told what the cost of climate action is already costing them they would revolt. No wonder governments refuse to tell consumers the true costs of climate policies. They don’t tell because they know people would be very angry.

      10

  • #
  • #
    OriginalSteve

    CC is a scam….and behind it is the same globalists with a belief system that drives other population damaging agendas like covid.

    Its a multifaceted attack on global populations but all fleas on the same dog.

    371

  • #
    Zigmaster

    It’s interesting how the loudest proponents now are corporates, billionaires and societal elites who are the real climate activists. They can afford to waste it and usually they find a way to make themselves beneficiaries of the Government largesse. For those in the elite class it’s an investment for everyone else it’s an expense

    360

  • #
    TdeF

    Temperatures plummeted last year. The gas/oil/coal shortage means no reserves because it was a long, cold winter. With the global shutdown, there should have been excesses of everything. People were not driving, aircraft were not flying.

    There is another cold winter coming.

    It’s the beginning of the end of man made Global Warming because even a blind person can feel it’s getting colder. Fast.

    And all this talk of Climate Change caused by Global Warming caused by CO2 caused by internal combustion will be meaningless.

    Natural gas has gone up x10, coal x4 and there are massive shortages of everything. No fertilizer. Not even CO2 to preserve food.

    Why pay a fortune and suffer so much to prevent warming when warming is what everyone needs? Freezing is the catastrophe.

    And CO2 just keeps going up steadily because it’s not connected to human activity, which should be self evident by now.

    440

    • #
      TdeF

      No one lives South of the Tropic of Capricorn, about 2%.

      40% live near the equator and most could not get hotter because of massive water moderation or these countries are monsoonal, heat and rain.

      60% of humanity lives in the top third of the planet and the summers are fine, some better than others, but the winters are killers. And an extra 1.5C does not cause bushfires. That’s just absurd.

      So who cares about the temperature of the whole ‘planet’. Who cares about the extent of ice coverage at the North Pole? The precious cuddly polar bears are fine.

      But all last year the reports of terrible, devastating winters kept coming in. So why are Western Democracies being crippled by order of the UN/IPCC?

      Who controls the UN? That is the question. The same people who control the WHO.

      470

      • #
        OldOzzie

        No one lives South of the Tropic of Capricorn, about 2%.

        I like being in the 2% – when I look up at the blue sky (providing no back burns in Sydney) the air is crystal clear – when I went to europe (not since 2019) I saw haze and pollution in the skies.

        180

        • #
          yarpos

          Was coming back from a work stint in Asia one morning , descending into Tullamarine from the north. It was a crisp clear autumn morning in Melbourne and you could quite clearly see the cooling towers and the steam plumes out in the Latrobe Valley. Very unlike were I had been for the previous month. It was a reminder how lucky we are in our every day environment in Oz.

          90

    • #
      Ronin

      CO2 should have dropped off a cliff during the global shutdown but it didn’t and remember the 9/11 shutdown of aircraft, the temp actually went up because of the cleaner air and no contrails.

      180

      • #
        yarpos

        the grand practical experiment that isnt discussed much. Never mind , there are probably many hand waving rationalizations why it is super sensitive going up and resistant to change going down. Clearly this demonstrates why we must try harder and freeze even more poms in the current months.

        50

    • #
      Lawrie

      Aint it wonderful? Nothing like freezing in the dark to convince those climate worriers that the Earth does not care what they do.

      70

  • #
    another ian

    “The California Version of The Green New Deal and an October 16, 2020, EPA Settlement With Transportation is What’s Creating The Container Shipping Backlog – Working CA Ports 24/7 Will Not Help, Here’s Why
    October 14, 2021 | Sundance | 40 Comments”

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/10/14/the-california-version-of-the-green-new-deal-and-an-october-16-2020-epa-settlement-with-transportation-is-whats-creating-the-container-shipping-backlog-working-ca-ports-24-7-will-not-help-here/

    130

    • #
      Ronin

      So the Caliclowns have EPA’d themselves into a hole, wonder when they’ll stop digging.

      120

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      Thanks a i,
      This paragraph summarises it rather well:
      ” The trucking issue with California LA ports, ie the Port of Los Angeles (POLA) and the Port of Long Beach (POLB), is that all semi tractors have to be current with new California emissions standards. As a consequence, that mean trucks cannot be older than 3 years if they are to pick up or deliver containers at those ports. This issue wipes out approximately half of the fleet trucks used to move containers in/out of the port. Operating the port 24/7 will not cure the issue, because all it does is pile up more containers that sit idle as they await a limited number of trucks to pick them up. THIS is the central issue. ”
      Cheers
      Dave B

      120

      • #
        yarpos

        Surely at some stage they will stop landing containers in Ca if it just gets to hard. Probably academic while everyone is getting smashed but seems like an opportunity for the other west coast States and Canada.

        50

        • #
          David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

          G’day y,
          My guess is that a combination of a lack of suitable sites for a big port north of CA, and the difficulty or road transport over the Rockies would put a new port outside the US completely.
          True?
          Cheers
          Dave B

          30

  • #
    Robber

    People are still being deluded with MSM reports that electricity prices will drop with “renewables” and that “net zero” won’t cost a penny.
    Of course no “journalist/activist” asks the obvious question: If net zero is so wonderful, why must governments dictate the pathways?
    As the influencers realised batteries and intermittent wind and solar wouldn’t cut it, now we are being deluged with stories about “green” hydrogen.

    370

    • #

      Indeed Robber!
      The “invisible hand” of the Market is the best way to move forward. People moved to cars from horses when it was cost effective to do so and the benefits to them personally were clear.

      Batteries are astronomically expensive. Renewables are unreliable and intermittent. Hydrogen is no solution. Hence why subsidies are demanded by the rent seekers who want to get involved here. They are not a solution at all, and there is, as we know, no problem.

      Let the market come up with cost effective actual solutions – not pompous ideologically compromised bureaucrats.

      130

    • #
      TdeF

      Quite without all the problems with hydrogen storage and distribution because liquid hydrogen requires a temperature of -253C, only 20 more than absolute zero, there is the insanity of using hydrogen to avoid making carbon dioxide. You don’t.

      And where do we get this miraculous gaseous hydrogen? We use CH4 (methane) or C2H6(Ethane) or others and take out the Carbon as Carbon dioxide and keep the hydrogen. Hydrocarbons in, hydrogen out and CO2 out.

      So you get exactly the same amount of CO2 but throw all that combustion energy away.

      And assuming the hydrogen energy is efficiently used it means a lot more CO2 is required for the same amount of energy!

      It’s almost the definition of commercial and energy insanity. Where do we get elephant’s tusks? Take them off the elephant tusks and throw the elephant away. And they call this Green energy. It’s criminal waste to support a total fantasy.

      Then you can claim high efficiencies for hydrogen as a fuel say in a fuel cell, but you have already thrown 100% of the energy of combustion of the carbon, because everyone hates carbon.

      But that carbon combustion is what powers 7 billion people on the planet right now. It’s what is powering your body, your muscles, your brain and it is evil. You should run on Hydrogen, the clean element. As I wrote, fantasy.

      CH4+2O2→CO2+2H2O ΔH0c=212 kcal mol −1

      C+O2→CO2 ΔH0c=94 kcal mol −1

      2H2+O2→2H2O ΔH0c=68 kcal mol −1

      So of the 212 kcal per CH4 molecule, you throw away 60% of the energy by forming CO2 anyway. You are left with only 40% so you will need 2.5 times as much methane to power the same car and that’s 2.5times as much CO2. Just to be Green.

      180

      • #
        TdeF

        It’s the same with Green electric cars. They end up generating more CO2 than hybrid petrol cars because of the losses in electricity distribution. So virtue signalling is actually ignorance signalling. But you need to be upper middle class to rich to afford one and because you really do not need to go to work. And you signal this by paying up to 10x the price of a hybrid that goes further with less CO2.

        90

      • #
        Lawrie

        I thought the idea was to use electrolysis to separate hydrogen from water. That way a stand alone wind farm or solar farm could generate hydrogen without carbon by-products. Hence Twiggy talking about a plant in western Queensland. From my limited knowledge it would take much of the generated power to firstly separate the hydrogen and secondly cool/compress it and then there is the cost of transporting it presumable in electric trains or hydrogen powered trucks to where it can be used. Efficiency issues aside will there be any power left over? I suppose Twiggy and co are saying we just work out what we can sell and then instal enough turbines to cover it. But what about the CO2 in the concrete and steel plus the pollution generated by the extraction of the rare earths? Maybe there are rare earths in far western QLD and Twiggy is going to mine it.

        60

        • #
          Maptram

          A couple of months ago I read about a proposal (a thought bubble really) for a facility in the Pilbara to extract hydrogen from water. The water would need to be desalinated before the hydrogen is extracted so there is more energy required to produce the hydrogen. As well, the desal plants already in existence don’t seem to very successful in doing what they are supposed to do.

          70

        • #
          TdeF

          Yes, but why use the electricity to produce fuel to produce power when you already have electricity? It’s prima facie nuts.

          And what are you going to do about concrete?

          Sure it could be used with smelting metals, hydrogen to heat them and hydrogen to grab the oxygen. A whole new process. But you would have to produce it on site and in enough quantity and if you had that sort of energy, why do you bother? This just goes around in circles. All because we are not allowed use carbon because it makes carbon dioxide, which is allegedly deadly.

          100

      • #
        Raving

        Use electricity to smelt aluminum. Transport the aluminum metal and burn at the other end
        Something like that …

        There have to be better energy storage schemes

        30

        • #
          TdeF

          That actually has been my idea for decades. Because aluminium/aluminum is 90% energy by cost, it is a battery. And it is cost effective with coal/oil/gas. And portable, storable and has many other uses. So it is the wonder metal of the 20th century and totally recyclable. My idea was engines which ran directly on aluminum and boats which took alumina one way and brought back aluminum. Aluminum could be stored safely in your backyard. It is not a source of energy but makes a lot more sense than oil.

          However once again, when you generate aluminum, like all smelting, the Oxygen from the oxide is removed with carbon for carbon dioxide. So again you are trapped by chemistry if carbon dioxide is forbidden. So we have to develop new smelting technologies using hydrogen to remove oxygen. To all those dreaming of a carbon free world, good luck with that.

          And the very idea that humans and all life on earth are built almost entirely with carbon and oxygen, banning carbon dioxide must be the silliest idea ever presented as real science.

          90

      • #
        yarpos

        Doesnt matter hydrogen is the bandwagon du jour with assorted States and countries assertion they will be energy powerhouses. Will they be heroes or hot rocks? time will tell. I await the real world outcomes with interest , just like the Singapore extension cord.

        40

        • #
          KP

          It will be great until the first car crashes occur with a cylinder of hydrogen under the back seat at 300bar, or 4500psi for older folk.. The explosion that can follow will dwarf the electric cars that catch fire and can’t be put out. Seeing they would ban petrol if it was discovered today because it too dangerous, I can’t see how they will allow hydrogen.

          I’m still amazed at the picture of the petrol pumps in that Washingtontimes article… Not only is their most expensive petrol in America dirt cheap at 94c/L, but their octane ratings are absolute crap. 85octane! You’d need a 6L V8 to make anything go!

          40

  • #
    another ian

    “Where Have All The Disasters Gone?”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/10/14/where-has-the-damage-gone/

    A hole in the social cost of carbon

    130

    • #
      RickWill

      “Where Have All The Disasters Gone?”

      The prime cause of the rise in disasters was mobile phones with cameras. Having a camera at hand meant any weather even can be recorded and posted on via social media. Within minutes of being recorded it is in news headlines.

      Like all fads, the interest in capturing weather events on the phone is waning. The gloss is wearing off.

      110

  • #
    PeterS

    Yes, but that won’t stop the evil elite and their puppet politicians from continuing on with their Greta Great Reset. Make no mistake about it. They intend to do whatever it takes to complete their plan.

    190

    • #
      GlenM

      Procure and protect what you can. It will start by fuel deprivation- we have little security; buy up diesel and ammo big time. Anyway. as Klaus says we’ll all be in the cooler soon. Also get out Bush!

      90

  • #
    Geoffrey+Williams

    We have seen similar graphs in the past and I don’t really put much credence in them.
    1200 regular voters is a very small number and should be at least 10x to have any significance.
    However the first diagram showing 71% are concerned about climate change tells me all I kneed to know about the sentiment of most people in the West.
    Personally I don’t believe we have a hope in hell of preventing the alarmist movement from controlling the world. They have been in the ascendancy now for far too long and I don’t see them losing their political control or changing their ideas any time soon.
    In my experience most (young) people believe the leftist climate catastrophe idea. Powerful media and education processes of recent generations have ensured that. And though people may say that they dont want to spend money on the climate that means little when they have voted for a green leftist government, because they will spend the money for you.
    My advice; dont hold out any futile hope of change in the near future.
    Sorry but it is doom and gloom.
    GeoffW

    170

    • #
    • #
      PeterPetrum

      I am beginning to believe that you are correct and we are going to have to go through the disaster that will be the journey to Net Zero before we can climb out of it. Unfortunately, I will not be alive then but my grandkids will be (hopefully). They are all in for a very hard time but look at me with condescension when I try to explain why. They all know that renewable energy is free so it must be cheaper than coal, so why wait!

      100

    • #
      Steve of Cornubia

      To make matters worse, many of those same young people (who believe the AGW nonsense) also see no harm in the world going full-on socialist, so we sceptics pointing out the eventual economic consequences isn’t going to change their minds, “So what if everything is going to be super expensive? We need to cut consumption anyway!”

      Of course, being young and never having experienced a recession, much less a depression, it’s almost impossible for them to actually imagine what that level of poverty actually feels like. They ‘think’ they will cope without a TV or smartphone, but of course they won’t. It will be too late by then of course.

      100

    • #
      el+gordo

      Nihilism is becoming endemic, its not a good look. I’m hopeful the young will one day see and revolt against the paradigm.

      50

  • #
    Neville

    Remember the SH ( 0.8 billion) is the NET SINK of co2 and the NH ( 7 billion) is the NET SOURCE. Here’s the quote from CSIRO Tassie Cape Grim site AGAIN and the link.

    My estimate is the entire SH emits about 7% of global Human co2 emissions and of course that ends up in the SH sink hole.

    https://www.csiro.au/en/research/natural-environment/atmosphere/Latest-greenhouse-gas-data

    “Seasonal variation”

    “Carbon dioxide concentrations show seasonal variations (annual cycles) that vary according to global location and altitude. Several processes contribute to carbon dioxide annual cycles: for example, uptake and release of carbon dioxide by terrestrial plants and the oceans, and the transport of carbon dioxide around the globe from source regions (the Northern Hemisphere is a net source of carbon dioxide, the Southern Hemisphere a net sink)”.

    91

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Neville:
      Obviously CO2 from the Northern Hemisphere is coming south and being ‘sunk’. The Southern Hemisphere is a grand ‘carbon sink’ or a grand way of reducing Northern emissions.
      IF OUR FEDERAL POLITICIANS HAD THE BRAINS OF A RASPBERRY SEED Australia could set up a Carbon Offset Certificate scheme. Issue Certificates for say 4% of the area (including territorial waters) and sell them to those in Europe and California who want to seem to be Green.
      We could issue these Certificates to our coal and gas burners as a way of claiming to have lowered emissions to Net Target etc. (much cheaper and lower emissions than burning wood).
      Other countries might join in, Brazil, South Africa, Argentina and Chile might also like the idea of “money for nothing” from the North. Even New Zealand (or whatever its called now) could avoid criticism about exempting agricultural emissions.

      130

  • #
    Rosco

    But money isn’t the real problem.

    What no-one ever discusses is just how they expect to achieve Net Zero with an expanding and industrializing Asia and Africa let alone maintaining Western countries.

    Electricity generation is about 1/3rd of the “problem” and then they want to generate about 10 times as much electricity as present to fulfill the “wet dream” schemes currently proposed and yet no-one mentions this paradox. Electric vehicles and hydrogen require huge increases in electricity production.

    What about agriculture, mining and international trade and transport ?

    In 2019 Roger Pielkie Jr showed that Net Zero by 2050 required a new nuclear plant every day or 1,500 wind turbines every day.

    It also required the retirement of the equivalent existing coal or gas plants as new renewable or nuclear plants are brought online.

    It is NOT happening anywhere.

    His simple analysis shows just how stupid these acolytes really are – just slogans and virtue signalling.

    320

    • #
      PeterS

      The zero emissions mantra is just fodder for the masses. They will come up with something else (apart from the so called pandemic) to keep on feeding scams to the masses if they all wake up to that particular scam about CAGW. I am certain they have a number of ideas already and will use whichever one is necessary to keep to their long term agenda to try and turn us all into slaves. Resistance is futile in the short term because the evil elite and puppet governments hold so much power and it’s increasing, but longer term things will turn against them. It just takes time. It also means it will get a lot worse before it all ends. We just have to live with it for now.

      160

  • #
    el+gordo

    The average brain washed Australian would be happy to contribute $200 per annum to save their grandchildren.

    ‘More than 54,000 Australians took part in the nationally representative Australia Talks National Survey, and the number one thing they said was keeping them up at night was climate change.

    ‘When we asked how much more they’d be personally willing to spend to help prevent climate change, the numbers varied.

    ‘Some people wouldn’t spend anything more (21 per cent) and some were happy to spend thousands (9 per cent) — but most of us sit somewhere in the middle. On average, we’re willing to chip in at least $200 each year*. (ABC 2019)

    100

    • #
      David Maddison

      I suspect the survey was framed in such a way as to bias the response. Such surveys always are.

      230

      • #
        PeterS

        Yes, there is that element to it but there is also the fact that too many people are clueless or don’t give a damn because they believe almost everything they see from the MSM and officialdom. I know a couple of my relatives who still watch and believe whatever is broadcast on the ABC news. I keep telling them it’s very biased, myopic and often fake news but all they do is look back at me with glazed eyes. On occasion they use the same arguments against me when I mention something that’s actually true from some other news source, which is proof they are worse than clueless; they are fools.

        150

    • #
      Ronin

      $200 a year, that’s less than a cup of coffee a week. LOL

      70

    • #
      Gary S

      The survey participants were ABC viewers. Say no more.

      110

    • #
      clarence.t

      Maybe if they offered to pay me to replace my V8 Commodore with and EV or hybrid with the same range, same refuel time, same engine feel… etc, etc… 😉

      10

  • #
    OldOzzie

    percentage of qantas customers who select carbon offsets

    Qantas has previously been recognised as having the world’s most successful carbon offsets program, with 10 per cent of passengers choosing to negate the emissions from their flight by paying a small amount towards reforestation and other environmental projects.

    140

    • #
      David Maddison

      I suspect a large number of those purchases are for government or virtue signaling corporations.

      Government always purchases airline tickets from QANTAS with the “carbon (sic) offsets”. Your taxes at work…

      190

    • #
      David Maddison

      They say 10% choose “carbon (sic) offsets” but fail to mention the converse i.e. 90% REFUSE THEM.

      210

      • #
        another ian

        In similar vein but O/T

        I heard a radio ad for the Toyota agency that “covers the biggest agency area in Australia”.

        In the spirit of Mad Magazine’s “Complete the ad” one could wonder –

        “Does that mean the least service per square metre?”

        60

  • #
    David Maddison

    I think conservatives and other rational thinkers are fighting this the wrong way.

    Leftists keep saying that the unreliables are cheaper than reliables, when obviously they are not.

    So, if they are cheaper, then say to them, “you can have your unreliables which you say are cheaper, so let us pay more and have our reliables”.

    Since unreliables are supposedly cheaper then there is no need for subsidies or forced purchase of unreliables and reliables such as coal, gas, nuclear, gasoline, diesel etc. will become obsolete due to market forces.

    Naturally, this all has to be done in the context of a free market which shouldn’t be a problem for Leftists because that is what they claim will destroy the reliables.

    As far as domestic or industrial electricity consumption goes, smart metering can be programmed to ensure Leftists get only the “cheaper” solar and wind they want whilst rationalist thinkers can be supplied with only “more expensive” reliables.

    130

    • #
      yarpos

      Nice fantasy but the real goal is forcing their choices down your throat. They and only they are correct and you should and must comply.

      I think the best thing to do is encourage them to bring it on and bring it on hard, and let things blow up. The whole process is so fraught with stupidity they will never change course until smacked in the face by reality. Even then it will take multiple blows, and even then it may get papered over. Like SA that some people see as an “RE” success, but at least people have reliable power now while the gas turbines spin and the interconnector is up.

      60

  • #
    David Maddison

    The Australian Government is now committed to “green” hydrogen.

    The route chosen is from brown coal:

    3C (coal) + O2 + H2O → H2 + 3CO

    CO + H2O → CO2 + H2

    Apparently the morons in our government, the greens, the Sheeple and other assorted fools have forgotten to ask what happens to all that CO2? (Or they are simply too stupid to ask.)

    Well, it has to be sequested FOREVER of course, somewhere in Afdanistan so just when you think people have come to understand carbon dioxide sequestration is not economical or practical, it is again back on the agenda.

    Sorry Australia, you have done it AGAIN!

    281

    • #
      GlenM

      Pumped up Hydro too. Deluded.

      170

    • #
      Ian1946

      David, correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the storage and transportation of Hydrogen not only difficult but also very dangerous. Where is this Hydrogen going to be used, how about the energy used to manufacture it. Unless the return is greater than 90% then surely this is just another highly expensive green scheme just waiting to fail.

      190

      • #
        David Maddison

        Ian, it doesn’t have to work or be practical. It’s only purpose is to pretend to be saving a “dying planet” which is in perfect health anyway, at least as far as atmospheric CO2 is concerned.

        190

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Ian1946:
        Hydrogen storage and transport is difficult and very dangerous.
        So much so that some enthusiasts have said it should be converted into liquid ammonia.
        Check out what happens when ammonia leaks, people are hospitalised, suburbs evacuated and those in enclosed spaces are likely to die.
        Hydrogen is colourless and odourless and with a very wide explosion range in air so if it leaks (and finds a spark) you have a choice of being burnt to death or blown to bits.
        Further the turkeys who believe in the hydrogen economy have no idea of practical matters; they think it is simply a substitute for natural gas. To take the case of transporting it as a liquid; natural gas is shipped as a cold liquid, with some of it allowed to evaporate (absorbing heat) and as gas fed into the ship’s motors. Liquid hydrogen is much colder hence higher energy use to condense it, higher evaporation rate and poorer combustion behaviour. More energy in to get less energy out.

        70

    • #
      another ian

      A useful quote if told that carbon dioxide capture is the answer

      “Kemper Coal Gasification & Storage Plant Imploded (Obama’s climate ‘centerpiece’ bites the dust)”

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/10/14/kemper-coal-gasification-storage-plant-imploded-obamas-climate-centerpiece-bites-the-dust/

      80

    • #
      Pulltheotherone

      A link to articles regarding hydrogen some may find interesting.
      https://saltbushclub.com/category/hydrogen/

      50

      • #
        TdeF

        This was our Chief Scientist “Finkel has a Bachelor of Electrical Engineering (Honours) and PhD in Electrical Engineering from Monash University.” A very successful entrepreneur in the medical electronics field, I cannot see how he can spruik hydrogen as a viable fuel source. Here is his letter.

        His two pathways are

        1) electrolysis for which you need energy anyway. So he says solar and wind. Now that means using our electricity to make hydrogen. Really?
        2) Chemistry. Except you start with fuel gas but he says you ‘sequester’ the CO2 and presumably throw away half the energy.

        These are not solutions.

        Our Chief Scientist does not even question whether CO2 levels are man made or man controllable. Not his job apparently.

        In this political world a ‘Chief scientist’ is not a scientist at all because he does not question what is presented as fact without proof. And no one has ever proven that CO2 levels have any connection with fossil fuels or that CO2 is warming the planet. These are both conjectures and after 33 years of this, transparently not true. And as I have pointed out, demonstrably false.

        91

        • #
          yarpos

          “A very successful entrepreneur in the medical electronics field”

          It wasnt all that great for Axon share holders.

          30

    • #
      Lance

      It would have been more efficient to simply burn the coal.

      After the reactions, and the sequestering of CO2, the compression of H2/ storage/transport/etc, it costs more energy to produce the hydrogen than it contains as available energy.

      Yeah. I’ll give you a dollar if you give me 3 dollars. That’s about how it works.

      100

    • #
      TdeF

      True. Coal is usually taken as 85% carbon based on dry mass but coal is far from pure carbon but a whole mix of hydrocarbons. “The chemical formula of coal is reported as: C135H96O9NS. That’s 135Carbon atoms, 96 Hydrogen atoms 9 oxygen 1 Nitrogen and 1 Sulphur. On average across a witches brew of rotted ancient plant matter.

      Pure carbon from coal is called Coke. This pure carbon revolutionized steelmaking where early blacksmiths had to make do with charcoal from wood. Coal saved the forests of Europe and now it is vilified. And it ushered in the industrial revolution because we had mastered carbon.

      You can get pure carbon by heating the coal enough to drive off all the hydrocarbons, mainly methane. So the first move releases a lot of methane which we used to call Town gas. And this contains a huge amount of energy. Melbourne in Victoria ran on coal gas before the discover of natural gas which is now running out. So we lose both when we lose our brown coal industry. Gasometers were landmarks around Melbourne.

      Also beware that measuring Carbon content by weight is misleading because Hydrogen is weight 1 and Carbon is weight 12. So when the coal is said to be 85% by weight of carbon that is only because Carbon is much heavier. Or put another way you have to throw 85% of the coal/gas/oil away and half the energy just to get pure hydrogen.

      It makes much more sense to just burn the coal, but that is forbidden so we have to extract the hydrogen because its a miracle fuel. The problem is that it does not come on its own because photosynthesis produces carbohydrates which become hydrocarbons.

      So the whole idea of running on pure hydrogen is just nuts. The only way to get it is to produce Methane or CO or CO2 or something else and throw over half the energy away. And then you get a sainthood for being Green.

      100

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        TdeF:
        Not quite right. Heating coal drives of a lot of other chemicals notably Cresols (old name cresylic acids from their corrosive nature)**. Yes, there is also some methane and other flammables but coal gas was made by reacting hot coal with steam and forming a mixture of CO2, hydrogen and carbon monoxide (the toxic component).
        These ingredients could then be reacted to make many chemicals and mixtures esp. by the Germans who built their chemical industry on coal (and made a lot of diesel fuel during WW2).

        **Hence coal tar soap and Scott’s Phenyle which used to amuse me every time I saw it advertised in Green magazines as a disinfectant for
        toilets “Used for 70 years, natural, free from chemicals” etc. That we were using cresylic acid as a booster for paint strippers might have had something to do with my amusement.

        40

        • #
          TdeF

          Agreed. Yes, I am aware of the other fractions, the creosols. Carbon monoxide reacts quickly with oxygen. My point is that you are better off burning the coal than chasing hydrogen for power. It is glorifying one element, hydrogen against the other element, carbon. This is religion, not science.

          50

    • #
      yarpos

      Maybe its play for the CO2 market which is struggling a bit at the moment

      I’m sure its all been figured out. Just send money.

      10

  • #
    David Maddison

    What is so shameful about gratuitous energy consumption anyway? In a free market, entrepreneurs work to supply large amounts of cheap energy at prices everyone can afford. No need to freeze in the dark.

    There is a very strong correlation between standard of living and energy consumption on a national basis.

    Until the last several decades, that is, when “carbon” (sic) became a political weapon of the Left to reduce the standard of living for the people (but not the Leftist Elites who still fly to climate conference in private jets etc.).

    100

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      “What is so shameful about gratuitous energy consumption anyway?”

      Well, by way of comparison and based on my own observations of those around me, I notice young girls as young as 8 see pictures of photoshopped whippet thin models in the supermarket and start thinking they are “fat”. It drives me bonkers that kids are made feel bad by corporations who target kids.

      By the same way, climate propaganda in primary schools does the same thing – makes them ashamed to be the wonderful normal people God created them to be. Instead the globalist jackals mess with our kids heads to feel guilty about a lie.

      So people should feel righteous indignation when these lying hounds who flog the climate snake oil and lies peddle thier busted and crippling message that makes kids feel like they falsely are a “burden” to the planet.

      Thats psychological abuse of children.

      140

    • #
      yarpos

      I guess we should get ready to say goodbye to all those “burning fossil fuels just for fun” activities like power boats, motor sport, skydiving and general aviation, trail bikes etc soooo yesterday

      30

  • #
    Neville

    In 2015 ( Paris COP 21) co2 levels were about 400 ppm and today that has increased to about 413.7 ppm.
    So from 2015 to 2021 co2 levels have increased by a further 13.7 ppm or about 2.3 ppm per year.
    The global increase from 2020 to 2021 is HIGHER or about 2.56 ppm, when most of the world was in lock down. Here’s the NOAA global data.

    https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/global.html#global

    90

    • #
      Ronin

      Maybe they should ratio it to the world population, population goes up, CO2 goes up.

      60

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        Whatever the change is, we humans contributed only about 4% of any change.

        In the most recent annual increase we would be guilty, mainly Chyna, of about 0.1 ppm as the nominal human contribution.

        10

  • #
    David Maddison

    And despite the economic destruction extensive use of unreliables is causing Western nations, there is no discernible change in the curve indicating the natural rate of CO2 increase, not even during lockdowns as you say.

    80

  • #
    David Maddison

    That was a reply to Neville above.

    50

  • #
    garry b

    Why is it that aviation fuel is taxed at 3.5c per litre, but tax on petrol for motorists at 42.7c per litre? Is this not a subsidy by Aussie residents to the hypocritical globalist elites flitting around the world, and then abusing us for our alleged sins?

    160

    • #
      PeterS

      One of their arguments is that the cost of planes is much higher than the cost of a car so they need to have as much financial incentive as possible. I would say, so what? With modern technology we have a lesser need to travel abroad than ever before. Those who want to take holidays overseas can do so at their own cost, not to some extent at tax payers cost. Besides, local tourism could do with a boost.

      60

    • #
      David Maddison

      1) Because the preferred transport mode for Leftist Elites is private jet.

      2) Because the Australian Government, as high taxing as it is, has to strike a balance between how much tax than can screw out of the aviation consumer as opposed to international airlines flying into Australia with as much fuel as they can in order to minimise their purchase of high taxed Australian fuel. They might refuel in Fiji or NZ etc. It would be an interesting fuel management problem striking the optimal balance of fuel to bring in and where to purchase it.

      60

    • #
      Ronin

      Maybe because they don’t have road construction and maintenance, kerb and channeling, traffic lights, speed cameras, stop light cameras, highway patrols, etc, etc.

      60

    • #
      Dennis

      Short answer is that there are not roads to maintain in the sky.

      Fuel excise or tax is for roads maintenance and off road vehicle and other fuel users not for road use can apply for rebates of the fuel tax. The renewables fans often claim that this is a subsidy but clearly it is no a subsidy for profit purposes that renewables businesses are given via governments.

      20

    • #
      Hanrahan

      Not paying a tax is not a subsidy. Ruinables don’t pay a royalty on their wind and sun so are we subsidising them?

      10

    • #
      yarpos

      Aviation is taxed in different ways, fear not they dont miss out (I used to own half a 182 Cessna)

      10

  • #
    OldOzzie

    Google/Youtube ban ‘climate change deniers’ from receiving advertising revenue

    Working closely with outside experts, we regularly review and update our ads and monetization policies to help ensure a brand-safe environment for our advertising partners and to better protect users from unreliable claims, such as fake medical cures or anti-vaccine advocacy.

    Addressing climate change denial

    In recent years, we’ve heard directly from a growing number of our advertising and publisher partners who have expressed concerns about ads that run alongside or promote inaccurate claims about climate change. Advertisers simply don’t want their ads to appear next to this content. And publishers and creators don’t want ads promoting these claims to appear on their pages or videos.

    That’s why today, we’re announcing a new monetization policy for Google advertisers, publishers and YouTube creators that will prohibit ads for, and monetization of, content that contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change. This includes content referring to climate change as a hoax or a scam, claims denying that long-term trends show the global climate is warming, and claims denying that greenhouse gas emissions or human activity contribute to climate change.

    When evaluating content against this new policy, we’ll look carefully at the context in which claims are made, differentiating between content that states a false claim as fact, versus content that reports on or discusses that claim. We will also continue to allow ads and monetization on other climate-related topics, including public debates on climate policy, the varying impacts of climate change, new research and more.

    In creating this policy and its parameters, we’ve consulted authoritative sources on the topic of climate science, including experts who have contributed to United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Reports. As is the case for many of our policies, we’ll use a combination of automated tools and human review to enforce this policy against violating publisher content, Google-served ads, and YouTube videos that are monetizing via YouTube’s Partner Program. We’ll begin enforcing this policy next month.

    From the Comments

    Quote “well-established scientific consensus” Don’t these idiots understand over time a lot of what were considered sound scientific ideas were later proven wrong.

    What is considered right now could be proven wrong in the future.

    Basically setting them self up as judges of what truth is.

    Screw Google.

    130

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    If you just spent another dollar lowering your carbon (sic) footprint … you were just mugged by reality …

    China plans to build more coal-fired power plants – deals blow to COP26 ambitions

    https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/12/china-coal-fired-plants-uk-cop26-climate-summit-global-phase-out?__twitter_impression=true

    80

  • #
    Neville

    AGAIN the global growth rate trend for co2 levels fell from 1988 to 2000 and then INCREASED over the last 20 years.
    So much for all those WASTED TRILLIONS of $ since Dr Hansen’s APOCALYPTIC, SCARY talk in Washington in 1988.
    Here’s the NOAA co2 level DECADAL growth rate graphs 1960 to 2021.
    When will these donkeys WAKE UP?

    https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gr.html

    91

  • #
    Old Goat

    Climate change will only be “important” in an afluent society. When things get tough and there is no fuel and intermittant power that will go out the window . If current trends continue that will occur . Google won’t feed you or keep you warm . A return to reality is coming and it will hit the woke harder that enyone else as they ( due to denial ) will be the last to react . Practical peparation for the crunch will make a big difference and that is where your “climate change contribution” should be going.

    120

  • #
    OldOzzie

    Biden Administration Plans Wind Farms Along Nearly the Entire U.S. Coastline

    Interior Secretary Deb Haaland announced that her agency will formally begin the process of identifying federal waters to lease to wind developers by 2025.

    Oct. 13, 2021

    WASHINGTON — The Biden administration announced on Wednesday a plan to develop large-scale wind farms along nearly the entire coastline of the United States, the first long-term strategy from the government to produce electricity from offshore turbines.

    Speaking at a wind power industry conference in Boston, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said that her agency will begin to identify, demarcate and hope to eventually lease federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico, Gulf of Maine and off the coasts of the Mid-Atlantic States, North Carolina and South Carolina, California and Oregon, to wind power developers by 2025.

    The announcement came months after the Biden administration approved the nation’s first major commercial offshore wind farm off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts and began reviewing a dozen other potential offshore wind projects along the East Coast. On the West Coast, the administration has approved opening up two areas off the shores of Central and Northern California for commercial wind power development.

    Taken together, the actions represent the most forceful push ever by federal government to promote offshore wind development.

    “The Interior Department is laying out an ambitious road map as we advance the administration’s plans to confront climate change, create good-paying jobs, and accelerate the nation’s transition to a cleaner energy future,” said Ms. Haaland. “This timetable provides two crucial ingredients for success: increased certainty and transparency. Together, we will meet our clean energy goals while addressing the needs of other ocean users and potentially impacted communities.”

    Mr. Biden has pledged to cut the nation’s fossil fuel emissions 50 percent from 2005 levels by 2030 by designing policies to promote the use of electric vehicles and clean energy such as wind and solar power. In particular, the administration has pledged to build 30,000 megawatts of offshore wind in the United States by 2030.

    In Congress, Mr. Biden is pushing for passage of a major spending bill that includes a $150 billion program that would pay electric utilities to increase the amount of electricity they purchase from zero-carbon sources such as wind and solar, and penalize those that don’t.

    60

    • #
      KP

      So.. they’re going to pour millions of tons of concrete into the ocean along the ENTIRE coastline to support their wind towers…? Well, I’m sure that’s good for the environment. Certainly stop the ocean acidifying, although the Co2 released in making all that cement might hurt..

      40

    • #

      Start with the Delaware foreshores!

      00

  • #
    Peter+Fitzroy

    Is the importance of this post that the majority is wrong?

    how would you change that?

    19

    • #
      Ronin

      A change in education.

      100

    • #
      David Maddison

      Peter, it’s difficult to fix the education system when it’s dominated by Leftists who are committed to the destruction of all values of The Scientific Revolution and The Enlightenment, two of the very basic foundations of Western Civilisation.

      When people are being taught such nonsense as anthropogenic global warming is an incontestable fact, that there is such a thing as “settled science”, that you can “choose” your gender and there are more than two, obviously untrue statements such as The Great Barrier Reef is dying, that atmospheric CO2 is “dangerous” at current levels, that Western Civilisation and Judeo-Christain values on which it is based constitute the most evil society etc etc, there seems little hope.

      Leftists have to take themselves back a few hundred years and learn something they were never taught in modern schools, 1) The Scientific Revolution and 2) The Enlightenment then also read such works as Adam Smith, John Locke, Friedrich von Hayek, Frédéric Bastiat, Herbert Spencer, Ludwig Von Mises, Milton Friedman etc..

      It won’t happen, but we can fantasise.

      130

      • #
        Peter+Fitzroy

        So you are saying that education is ideological?

        “dominated by Leftists who are committed to the destruction of all values of The Scientific Revolution and The Enlightenment, two of the very basic foundations of Western Civilisation.”

        Are you suggesting that the west is no longer producing scientists who understand the scientific method?

        this is a very slippery slope

        416

      • #
        OldOzzie

        Grandkids parrot non stop climate change pushed by teachers and education dept – they have been brainwashed and I always say to them how will you charge your iPads and Iphones when the wind does not blow and there is no backup power.

        Regarded as a Dinosaur.

        171

        • #
          Peter+Fitzroy

          Are you saying teachers are not using the curriculum?
          Are you saying like, david, all science is ideological?
          I do not understand your assertion

          212

          • #
            el+gordo

            In NSW the teaching fraternity is composed of left leaning female teachers who get a say on the curriculum. The maternal instinct is strong with them and they have absorbed AGW propaganda without a fuss, being clueless on the science.

            A teacher friend said the students are coming back to school and because of the lockdown and Squid they have gone ‘feral’. The headmaster sent a couple home for extremely bad behaviour.

            80

          • #
            David Maddison

            I didn’t say science waa ideological. It is not, but the perverted form of science now taught and practiced in many places is.

            For example, Leftist ideologues in science deny objective scientific truth such as in the examples I gave. E.g. Leftist ideology of anthropogenic global warming becomes incontestable scientific fact.

            Also, good luck being a scientist in a major organisation trying to “deny” climate change.

            130

            • #
              Peter+Fitzroy

              “Leftist ideology of anthropogenic global warming becomes incontestable scientific fact” does not equal “I didn’t say science waa ideological”

              you are making baseless assertions

              013

          • #
            yarpos

            dripping with faux ignorance

            yes its an indoctrination machine, simple enough?

            80

        • #
          RobB

          Hello OldOzzie
          Back when I was a kid in the early seventies, I regarded my grandfather as a dinosaur too. It was the time of arab oil embargo. The newspapers were full of stories of how oil would run out by the year 2000. My grandfather told me I was wrong, that I was being lied to, and that there was really plenty of oil. Having been in WW2 (on the German side) he knew all about bullshitters I suppose. Now its 2020 and there’s too much oil. He was right, I was wrong, but I knew better….

          50

          • #
            Mal

            The Russians say that oil and gas are adiabatic ie naturally created geological proccess in the depths of the mantle and will never run out
            They are not fossil fuels
            If so will this overturn the settled science or will there be a whole new generation of science deniers?

            10

    • #
      Lance

      Let the minority pay all direct and indirect costs for being wrong.

      40

  • #
    Ronin

    “Climate change will only be “important” in an affluent society. When things get tough and there is no fuel and intermittent power that will go out the window”.

    It is happening now as govts scramble to get anything that will burn to keep the lights on.

    80

  • #
    David Maddison

    Some people keep forgetting, and most probably never knew, that before the current natural rebound of atmospheric CO2 levels, the level was becoming dangerously low.

    Most Leftists would be unaware that plants consume CO2 and generally they need a minimum of about 150ppm although the minimum depends upon if they are C3 or C4 plants.

    We came dangerously close to the extinction of plants and therefore almost all life.

    Anyway, fortunately the level is improving but there’s a long way to go yet to get out of the danger zone.

    180

  • #
    Ross

    You know the best way for Aussies to move towards that mythical Net Zero or “fight climate change”? Go out and buy a hamburger. Using relatively low CO2 fixed /ha figures and rounding off for ease, here are the details. Wheat production area in Australia =12m Ha (2018 ABS stats). Wheat fixes about 5.5t CO2 /ha per year. So total wheat fixes 66M t CO2 annually. Pasture figures are 340m Ha area & 1.3 t/Ha CO2 fixed. Total for pasture = 442m t CO2. Add them together you get about 500 m t CO2 fixed per annum. There’s your hamburger bun and pattie. (wheat for bread bun and beef for pattie) Australia’s total CO2 emissions are 570 m t annually. Forget wind turbines – go to Maccas. 🙂

    91

    • #

      Yes, so I will get a Government Grant to develop a Computer Model showing that all of the CO2 emitted from burning fossil fuels here in Australia is taken up by all of the Trees, plants and crops grown in Australia that need the CO2 along with the Oceans surrounding Australia that act as carbon sinks. I bet I could prove that Australia is a net USER of CO2 so we can keep burning fossil fuels until the cows come home (pun intended). My fee for the research would only be a minimal A$10,000,000 pa…………….QED

      Now, who do I phone in Canberra to get my balls rolling………..LOL

      50

  • #
    Bruce

    Want “climate change”?

    Drive from the Texas coast to northern Wyoming in mid-January.

    100

    • #
      Ronin

      Or Cairns to Canberra, in July.

      70

      • #
        Ross

        Geez, I can drive 30 km north in Central Victoria and the climate changes. 3˚C warmer and sunny.

        30

        • #
          OldOzzie

          Sydney – Suburbs Seaforth to Penrith 50.98km on a hot summer’s day – 10C difference

          10

          • #
            yarpos

            yes , but good grief why would anyone do that?

            00

          • #
            PeterPetrum

            I used to drive from the Northern Beaches in Sydney to Paramatta and Penrith in western Sydney in the 60s, 70s and 80s and I can affirm Old Ozzie’s claim. And in the 60s And 70s car air conditioning was few and far between. Average temperatures … rubbish!

            30

  • #
    Phillip+Charles+Sweeney

    Just wait for a few more extremely cold winters and an ongoing energy crisis as the planet enters the next “Little Ice Age” – How much will people be willing to pay then to combat “global warming” and to prevent the planet’s temperature rising by 2 degrees?

    110

    • #
      Dennis

      Obviously the climate hoaxers know that cooling is underway and are desperate to sign up every nation to net zero emissions agenda before many more of the general public realise they are being deceived.

      120

  • #
    Dennis

    Most here understand the shortcomings of Electric Vehicles, particularly in Australia if the objective is to lower emissions because over 70 per cent of the grid electricity is from coal fired power stations most of the time, some from gas and off the grid diesel generators of various sizes.

    The more I compare EV to ICEV strengths and weaknesses the ICEV is well in front including being far better value for our money, in fact typically an EV will be priced at least double the equivalent size ICEV.

    I have more confidence in Hybrid technology and the present models with petrol engine generators to charge the batteries and drive the motors and offered at retail pricing not much higher than for conventional ICEV equivalents.

    The most sensible transition, if that was really necessary and not a climate hoax based politically motivated agenda, would be to work within the free enterprise system and allow markets and buyers choose based on convenience of operation and value for their money.

    80

    • #
      Ross

      Dennis, the main thing I learned about EV’s this week was that they are more dangerous on the roads than the old petrol guzzlers. EV’s are generally heavier compared to ICE vehicles. I assume because of all the batteries. Hence, in collisions and pedestrian accidents they are way more likely to cause increased injury or death. I think already there are more pedestrian accidents with EV’s ( and hybrids) – they’re so quiet, you cant actually hear them approach you.

      130

      • #
        Dennis

        I read very recently an article about a new South Korean manufactured EV about to be released for sale in Australia, a competitor for the Tesla 3 EV and with a retail price that is similar, depending on model over $70,000 for a small-medium size 4-5 seat sedan.

        I have a diesel 4WD model that can be purchased for around $10,000 less that seats 7 people in three rows, a much bigger vehicle with far greater range and towing capacity.

        The point is that the new EV weight is about the same as my 4WD because of the weight of the batteries, the diesel fuel tank plus a full load of diesel weighs considerably less than the EV batteries and provides far greater range, more than twice the real EV range (as compared to the theoretical range ignoring variable energy usage factors and available energy at recommended regular charge level of 10-80 per cent and loss of 30 per cent of battery capacity). Compared to the real range potential my 4WD has a real on highway range of almost three times what the EV would achieve on average.

        I also read that the motor racing industry is concerned about future long distance car racing with EV because of the heat generated in the electric motors and batteries, for example at Bathurst NSW racing circuit with a long hill climb. Many of the improvements for road vehicles have been developed from car racing experience so concerns about heat must be a point buyers need to consider. Maybe that is not a major problem for the average motorist?

        80

        • #
          Ross

          I’ve always liked the hybrids better- but I think they might even be phased out eventually? No range anxiety. I acknowledge EV’s “might” be better for inner city stuff or short daily commuting. But, you just know with an EV on the day you forgot to recharge it and you have to drive that extra place on a hot summers day with the AC turned on – will be the day you run out of power on a busy freeway. No thanks!!

          50

        • #
          yarpos

          long distance car racing with EVs, thats funny

          maybe the technology will change and such a thing can be contemplated

          00

      • #
        Mal

        Because of the extra weight, they would have a longer stopping distance from any speed, assuming same sized tyres
        Pure physics

        00

    • #
      Ronin

      And the EV retained value will drop like a rock because of the battery life being such an expense and because each new model will have more and better widgets.

      130

      • #
        Dennis

        And if our politicians in governments continue to get their way and force an EV transition from ICEV the ICEV trade-in value will drop considerably and in many cases become scrap metal value.

        Another hidden cost of converting the fleet to EV, add infrastructure costs, grid supply costs including local area grids, removal of liquid fuel supply depots and service station equipment, and more.

        And the cost to taxpayers of the subsidies, the Turnbull Government allocated $300 million to be paid to vehicle leasing firms to enable them to provide leasing incentives to fleet operators.

        What happened to free markets, free enterprise that has provided developed nations with prosperity, let the markets and consumers choose winners and losers based on merit.

        30

      • #
        yarpos

        but batteries have been getting cheaper for so long now, surely they must almost be free

        20

  • #
    Phillip+Charles+Sweeney

    In Australia (apart from Tasmania), if you trade in your petrol power car for an EV you are in realty switching from a petrol-powered car to a coal-powered car!

    That makes a lot of sense!

    75% of electricity in Australia is still produced from Coal, with even South Australia importing electricity from Victoria,

    110

  • #
    Phillip+Charles+Sweeney

    A quote from Electroverse.net on the power crisis

    Moreover, this power crisis isn’t just confined to China — it is global.

    From India to Europe, politicians are struggling to understand how the situation could have gotten this bad. But we realists understand all too well: politics bedded those ‘green ideals’ a little too eagerly, followed the AGW Party line a little too closely, and as a result they’ve been burned–not by the anthropogenic global warming boogeyman, but instead by the unfolding of a genuine climatic crisis: global cooling.

    90

  • #
    John Galt

    The rich in Commiefornia are Soooo concerned about the climate, they won’t buy electric cars unless the taxpayer gives them $5,000.
    Spending anything at all is a waste of scarce resources.
    Now if you want support for jailing and executing everyone in the Dark Center, I imagine you’ll find a lot of people making donations voluntarily.

    70

  • #
    Neville

    A very good video from the GWPF of Dr Roger Pielke jr.
    All the data etc of extreme weather events.

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/04/29/watch-roger-pielke-on-extreme-weather/

    50

  • #
    OldOzzie

    Queen ‘irritated’ by world leaders missing Glasgow climate talks

    The Queen has blasted world leaders who are yet to commit to coming to Glasgow for the COP26 climate change summit, saying she is irritated by politicians who “talk, and don’t do.”

    In an extraordinary public intervention, the 95-year-old monarch has joined Prince Charles and Prince William in pushing for greater attention climate action ahead of the November conference in Scotland.

    Scott Morrison is likely to attend COP26 as he tries to seal a net zero emissions deal with the Nationals, but is yet to commit publicly and the Queen’s intervention will add more pressure.

    The leaders of major polluters like Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi have also not said if they are going to Glasgow.

    Speaking to members of the Welsh parliament in Cardiff on Thursday, the Queen was caught on camera expressing her dismay at world leaders.

    “Extraordinary isn’t it. I’ve been hearing all about COP, [we] still don’t know who is coming, no idea,” the Queen said.

    “We only know about people who are not coming and it’s really irritating when they talk, but they don’t do.”

    The Queen and other members of the Royal Family have been billed as British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s trump card for the Glasgow summit, and all senior royals will attend.

    US President Joe Biden, French President Emmanuel Macron and Canadian Prime Minister Emmanuel Macron are all attending.

    But the list of leaders not attending includes pro-environment prime ministers like Japan’s Fumio Kishida and New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern.

    Prince Charles – the heir to the throne – earlier this week called out the Prime Minister over his wavering commitment to attending COP26.

    The Queen’s comments come after Prince William – the second in line for the crown attacked billionaires like Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Tesla chief Elon Musk for pursuing space travel rather than focusing on climate change.

    “We need some of the world’s greatest brains and minds fixed on trying to repair this planet, not trying to find the next place to go and live,” he told the BBC.

    Mr Morrison had previously cast doubt on his attendance of both Glasgow and the G20 summit in Rome, due to the amount of quarantine it would require and the fact Australia is beginning to reopen post-pandemic.

    But Mr Morrison is now more likely to head to Glasgow with NSW to introduce seven-day home quarantine for international travellers from early November.

    From the Comments

    – Had respect for the queen. No longer. Just adding to the republican cause. Viva le Republique.

    – Just when you think we’ve reached peak virtue signal … How many outsize houses does one need before one is concerned about one’s carbon footprint?

    – Has the Queen, Charles and William looked at their heating bill and carbon foot print recently.

    – Just stick to talking about the Corgi’s okay Liz.

    – Disappointing. I know that Charles has always been a space cadet – but the queen?

    150

    • #
      Ronin

      Remind me how many palaces and castles she lives in, how about her fleet of Bentleys and Rolls, they get what, about 10mpg, oh please Betty, you’re better than this.

      140

      • #
        Serp

        Now that Prince Philip has gone there’s nobody to keep the queen’s thoughts on an even keel innit? Poor old devil is easy prey for her demented first born; at least her favourite is off the Epstein hook.

        80

        • #
          Dennis

          Apparently the voice of reason and common sense in that family is her daughter Princess Anne who is a climate sceptic and understands that climate variation and weather is natural, and has lectured her brother accordingly.

          160

    • #
      Len

      Read recently that the Bildebergers are basically the Rothschilds and the Rockefellars families and the British and the Dutch Royal families plus others. How true this is I don’t know.

      00

    • #
      Ronin

      “We only know about people who are not coming and it’s really irritating when they talk, but they don’t do.”

      I wonder if that was a Royal ‘we’, or is she in on this climate jerkery.

      50

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        I suspect she was put up to this by Charlie and PM Boris.

        It doesn’t matter, after all previous Climate Conferences the CO2 level just kept going up.

        40

    • #
      Raving

      The source is paywalled but this part is juicy ..

      US President Joe Biden, French President Emmanuel Macron and Canadian Prime Minister Emmanuel Macron are all attending.

      30

    • #
      KP

      Well, you can see what marrying your cousins does to the family line. Sad really, they’re mean to have a longer viewpoint and be above political fads rather than the brainless slobs we vote into power. Old age rots everyone’s brain.

      20

  • #
    Ronin

    Why don’t these billionaires and movie stars instead of spending millions for a ten minute ride into space, get together and spend some millions on a way to clear plastic pollution from our rivers and oceans, I see this as a much bigger problem than a bit of naturally produced CO2.

    80

    • #
      David Maddison

      Nearly all plastic pollution in the ocean comes from people in the Third World dumping their rubbish directly into rivers.

      Typical:

      https://youtu.be/XeDY3I841q0

      https://youtu.be/pmryr65iTwM

      The Left are silent of course. They don’t care about the environment. They just want people of the West to stop using convenience products like plastic bags and packaging even those they are almost always properly disposed of in Western countries.

      10

  • #

    Speaking of the money to ‘pay for all of this’, and the meme that electrical power is getting cheaper, (and meme is all it is, because it isn’t getting any cheaper at all, as ….. WE are the ones who are paying for it) notice that no one has even mentioned that all these new so called advances in renewable power are, ALL OF THEM, net consumers of the very thing they claim to provide, electrical power.

    Batteries, Pumped Hydro, and the latest one, Hydrogen, and note how Mr Forrest is now referring to his hydrogen output in ….. MegaWatts. (Huh! What does that mean?)

    The power that they deliver is actually less than the power they consume to (a) charge up the batteries, (b) pump the water back ‘up the hill’, and (c) manufacture the Hydrogen.

    So, they now have to find a dedicated power source to fulfil those three things. They have to purchase the power to do those three things, and then sell that power (less power) back at times of greatest need, eg, the usual evening Peak, at around the same time EVERY day. (around 6.40PM now)

    Soooooo, that time of Peak power consumption is the same time (who would have thought eh!) that power costs the most, and here I mean, always costs the most.

    In fact, they are relying absolutely on that Peak time costing the most, and it will ALWAYS be the case.

    So now, they have to purchase the power when it’s at its cheapest, and then sell it back when it’s at its most expensive.

    See the point here?

    This isn’t a ….. NEW power source delivering power, as it consumes fore than it delivers.

    The ONLY thing it is ….. is a source of making money out of it.

    It’s not a power source. It’s a money source, and yes, WE are the ones paying for it.

    For every new Battery, for every new pumped hydro, for every new Hydrogen plant, they NEED, hand on heart. an existing supply of power to do that.

    They cannot use wind or solar plants, because they already do NOT deliver enough power to even augment the grid in the slightest. And here keep in mind, that you either use the power as it is being generated, OR use the power to charge the battery, resupply the pumped hydro with water, or ‘make’ the Hydrogen. YOU CANNOT DO BOTH at the same time.

    Now, take away fossil fuels (75% of all power generation) and that’s what is being touted as ….. Nett Zero, and there is no power to do those three things for the new renewables.

    They are absolutely relying on power costs remaining high, or now to pay for all of this, to go even higher, as it’s the only way they can ….. make money.

    They are money generators, not power generators.

    And THAT’S what we will be paying for.

    But shhhhhh! Don’ ever tell anybody that, eh!

    Tony.

    170

    • #
      John+R+Smith

      They don’t seem to be that worried about meeting future demand.
      Maybe they know something about future demand they’re not telling us.
      Maybe Pol Gates, I mean Bill Pot, has some insight.

      20

    • #
      Len

      I understand that Twiggy received a Ph D recently. To do so he would have to mix with the ultra woke at the University. Most of the students for Masters and PhD degrees become radicalised into left agendas.

      60

    • #
      Raving

      Tony, You were the person who so eloquently pointed out that siting and transport of energy dense resource was key to electric power. That is why coal gas hydro and nuclear play the roles that they do.

      Wind power and PV are more in the form of a distributed network. Along with that disbursed network comes the cost of maintenance replacement and distribution. Low density has higher cost.

      30

    • #
      RickWill

      At 1515 hours, 15 Oct, anyone operating in the wholesale market would be paid to consume power in 4 out of the 5 jurisdictions in Australia. South Australia is at minus $51/MWh.

      Energy is often at negative price in the NEM wholesale market. It reflects the high costs involved in taking coal fuelled generators off line.

      Australia has got to the point where rooftops are pumping out more lunchtime power than black coal. Last Saturday at midday, rooftops were 8.4GW and black coal 7.3GW. Black coal are willing to offer a chunk of energy more negative than the price of an LGC so the grid scale intermittent voluntarily curtail. So it is quite predictable when the price will go negative and it can be charging a battery earning about the value of an LGC, getting paid $40/MWh to charge. Then they can sell the power back in up around $300/MWh during the inevitable evening peak demand.

      Grid scale wind and solar are often curtailed this time of the year. It occurs most days. It is not just free energy, it basically gets the value of an LGC thrown in. You can be paid to use the power.

      The economic solution for power supply has conventionally been base load generation produced from high capital cost plant but low operating cost and low capita cost, higher operating cost plant for peak lopping. In the present circumstances, batteries are an economic prospect for peak lopping. The grid usually has a generation surplus and batteries permit load shifting to suck in power when the price is negative and send it out when price is high.

      The base load is being eroded by rooftops. Last Saturday the midday demand was 14.9GW while the 3:30am demand was 17.3GW. Base demand for coal plants is being decimated by rooftops.

      30

  • #
    Ronin

    Yep, robbing Peter to pay Paul.

    70

  • #
    AndyHce

    It isn’t (wasn’t) the same issue, but back in the 70s, Federal standardization regulations were proposed to save insurance companies money. The only particular I remember was to require all automobiles and small trucks to have the same bumper height, which would supposedly protect auto bodies in collisions and thus reduce repair costs.

    I worked in a large office. A sizeable debate ensued one day, with most people (as I recall) objecting to government intervention into what they would be allowed to buy. One pro regulation fella expressed himself explicitly: “When I go to buy a car all I can see is whether or not it looks good. It is the government’s responsibility to ensure that I don’t buy a bad car.” He was somewhat defensive about his viewpoint but quite adamant.

    50

  • #
    OldOzzie

    ‘No money in being left behind if the world won’t do business with us’

    Welcome to the column where you provide the content. On the vexed question of net zero emissions by 2050, Peta Credlin posed a question of her own: How can something be dead wrong two years ago – in the words of Scott Morrison, “a reckless target … P (that) will come at a tremendous cost to Australians” – but now be absolutely right?

    Russell reckoned:

    “We have a real world example where Gina Reinhart has attempted to make a station property in the north of Australia energy neutral but with all her capital intensive capacity from Iron Ore profits has not been able to make it viable and would require substantial government subsidies to make it economic.

    “Net zero based on assumptions is simply a pipe dream that is only going to be possible without the taxpayers funding it. It is OK for Twiggy Forrest to get behind it and throw in his support but then he is heavily invested in the renewable sector so he gets a win win. He makes money either way with the taxpayer making sure he makes a profit no matter what.”

    Paul proclaimed:

    “Net zero by 2050 is only possible in Australia with the introduction of low cost, comprehensive, base load nuclear and/or clean coal power. That way, Australia could afford to re-industrialise, and continue exporting mining and agricultural products. The Coalition could seek a mandate for this policy at the next federal election.”

    PeterG surmised:

    “Closer alliance with the Americans, have to roll with their current crazed policies.”

    Rodney’s request:

    “ ‘I believe in miracles’ – well ScoMo, I want to see a miracle eventuate whereby you clearly and concisely explain to the electorate exactly what nett zero means, no beating around the bush, for I cannot accept this folly until the electorate knows how it will be achieved, how much it will cost me and more importantly, how it will effect the futures of my children and grandchildren. If you can’t do this, miracles will not save the Coalition.”

    Andrew added:

    “Let me answer the question you pose in the first paragraph. It was right two years ago, just as it is today. Morrison knew it then as he does now. Two years ago there was political mileage to be had from campaigning against net zero. Now public opinion has shifted so he is onboard. It’s all about winning elections. Nothing else.”

    Australian Citizen asked:

    “Everyone is arguing about something that has not been properly defined, at least in the public mind, the concept of NET ZERO. What exactly does it mean? In an operational sense, how do you know that you have reached this particular endpoint of being NET ZERO?

    “Give us the parameters, give us examples, and give us the engineering solution on how we are to arrive at this point. And tell us the reason, in quantitative terms, what is the specific benefit? Until this has been dealt with, upfront, all we have is handwaving, argumentation and confusion.”

    Faithful Servant said:

    “Voters are being asked to trust that new and not yet invented technologies will help Australia achieve net zero by 2050. Naturally, our leaders cannot explain to us what they will be, as they are not yet proven to work or don’t yet exist.

    “CSIRO has calculated a net zero by 2050 policy will cost Australia one trillion dollars over 20 years to implement. Nobody in politics is doubting or denying this figure, despite a noticeable reluctance to discuss it publicly. I did the calculation, based on the current population of 25 million Australians, it would cost each man, woman and child on average $1,300 per year to pay for this policy. On average $25 per week for each member of each family in Australia for the next 30 years. Yet, voters are being asked to approve of this policy at the next election. I’m going to need a lot more persuasion before I would agree to voting for this.”

    40

    • #
      Dennis

      I have been involved in producing many financial year budgets for a manufacturing, warehousing, distribution business with many branch sales offices and warehouses and five year plans. Producing a one year budget is difficult to achieve but producing forward estimates over the following four years is impossible to achieve with any confidence in the figures produced.

      So please explain how the Business Council of Australia that opposed net zero emissions during 2019 now supports that objective and has produced computer modelling to predict a boost to GDP economic growth and many new jobs?

      I suspect that the usual positive factors were used and negative factors all but ignored to produce a sales pitch model?

      Like the original IPCC climate change and warming modelling that did not stand up to scrutiny when mathematician Christopher Monckton audited those rubbery figures and produced an audit report revealing the “errors and omissions” it contains. As a result the IPCC banned him from addressing their conferences and meetings and attempted top smear him, including claiming he is not a scientist, but he never claimed to be.

      When will the Australian Federal Government release an economic model explaining what net zero emissions would look like in 2050 and allow it to be reviewed?

      71

    • #
      RickWill

      This is the time that I remind people that 0.6% of Australia’s annual energy production comes from the weather. That impressive figure has been achieved in just 2 decades after spending more than $50bn – hard to get an exact figure but it is a big number.

      So in two decades Australia has done the easy bit and achieved 1/166th of the objective. Using simple maths, we can deduce that the goal will be met in 3,300 years. Before then, two things are more likely:
      1. The world will run out of fossil fuels to build the weather energy collectors.
      2. The present era of glaciation will be moving into obvious mode requiring all existing port infrastructure to be moved from inland locations to water edge.

      Maybe there is a third – it will be realised that CO2 is the basic building block of life and humans will be trying to get more into the atmosphere to keep crop productivity high.

      31

    • #
      Maptram

      It seems that the people who believe in net zero emissions think that all that needs to be done is to keep building more and more windmills and solar panels

      The law of diminishing returns probably applies here as it does anywhere else. From economics, the law of diminishing returns (also known as the law of diminishing marginal productivity) states that in productive processes, increasing a factor of production by one unit, while holding all others production factors constant, will at some point return a lower unit of output per incremental unit of input. I assume that in selecting sites for solar panels, sites are not equal in terms of the amount of usable solar energy that reaches the site, and that the best sites have been or will be selected first, so future sites to make up the coverage required to achieve net zero, will probably be less productive than existing sites.

      40

  • #

    I doubt so many people are willing to spend that much on global warming.

    If you go to the poll’s link, you will see that climate change is the #11 issue among voters. I think that is a more accurate assessment of concern that “concern.”

    60

  • #
    Robber

    Pick your preferred climate:
    February is the hottest month in Singapore with an average temperature of 27°C and the coldest is January at 26°C.
    January is the hottest month in Cairns with an average temperature of 27°C and the coldest is July at 22°C.
    January is the hottest month in Sydney with an average temperature of 23°C and the coldest is July at 13°C.
    January is the hottest month in Hobart with an average temperature of 17°C and the coldest is July at 9°C.
    July is the hottest month in London with an average temperature of 19°C and the coldest is January at 5°C.
    July is the hottest month in Beijing with an average temperature of 27°C and the coldest is January at -3°C.
    Oh no, the world is burning, it’s an emergency. Where exactly?

    100

  • #
    Lance

    I should like to propose that everyone who is afraid of the future, ought pay heavily in the present.

    It has worked for politicians and religions for thousands of years.

    Let’s not lose faith in what has always worked. eh?

    50

  • #
    TdeF

    I have a simple observation on the 50% increase in CO2 which is causing this huge mess. Let’s say it is really man made.

    In 1900 the world population was 1 Billion. They did not have cars or planes or electronic or electrical devices. Electricity did not exist.

    In 2020 we have 7 billion people. And we have cars and planes and mobile phones and electricity runs everything.
    And CO2 should scale with the human population because from breathing to farting to phoning, we generate CO2 and methane.

    So why isn’t the CO2 7x higher than in 1900. Why is it as low as 50%? And if we halve our CO2 output, why should CO2 levels change?
    We increased by 7 and it only increased by 0.5.

    CO2 and humans are not connected.

    And as the temperature measured by satellite hasn’t changed much in the last 40 years and is within 0.7C of the temperature 40 years ago, nor has the climate anywhere, why does it matter anyway?

    100

  • #
    OldOzzie

    Sun Cable setback as power retailer folds

    The $30bn Sun Cable power project backed by billionaires Andrew Forrest and Mike Cannon-Brookes has suffered a setback after a Singapore buyer that lined up for supplies closed its operations amid soaring energy prices.

    Singapore’s largest independent electricity retailer, iSwitch, has shut its retail arm, blaming “current electricity market conditions”.

    The green retailer had touted itself as the first major foundation customer for Sun Cable, saying its involvement would make the giant project a more bankable and commercially attractive development.

    A second retailer, SilverCloud Energy, is also poised to leave the market while three more electricity companies will no longer take on new customers, Reuters reported.

    The project received support from Scott Morrison with Indonesia approving the route of the power project through its territorial waters.

    During his visit to Singapore in June, Mr Morrison directly raised the Sun Cable project with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, which he said could “see homes powered here … from solar panels in Australia”.

    The project is expected to be promoted by Australia to illustrate the importance of ASEAN partnerships in reducing emissions in the Indo-Pacific region.

    Spot LNG prices in Asia have soared to a fresh all-time record amid a global scramble to secure supplies, with China rushing to grab volumes to fix its energy crisis and low inventories in Europe spurring competition for the fossil fuel.

    That’s hiked wholesale energy prices and retailers reliant on the spot market have been hit with massive volatility that’s roiled profits.

    Sun Cable aims to provide up to 15 per cent of Singapore’s needs by 2028 by exporting electricity from the Northern Territory to Singapore via a 4500-km subsea cable, creating a $2bn annual renewable export industry.

    The venture aims to send 20 gigawatts of power from the world’s largest solar farm near Tennant Creek to Darwin and would also feature a giant battery as part of the project.

    Despite the loss of iSwitch and growing volatility in power markets, Sun Cable chief executive David Griffin said the facility still stacked up and it was confident of finding alternative customers.

    “What it actually highlights is that so many markets are going through this issue at the moment around the world and it highlights the need to diversify away from fuel sources that are volatile in their pricing,” Mr Griffin told The Australian.

    “From a perspective of trying to have a market with long-term, stable-priced electricity supply, you need to have more supply coming from generation sources that don‘t have wild fluctuations in their inputs. And that’s renewables.”

    Sun Cable gained major project status from the Major Projects Facilitation Agency and support with both federal government, state and territory approvals. The NT government also awarded the development major project status on July 20 amid hopes it will give a major boost to the nation’s renewable investment, which has taken a hit in the last year.

    Mr Forrest, chairman of major iron ore producer Fortescue Metals Group, invested through his Squadron Energy unit, which is also backing Australia’s first gas import plant in Port Kembla.

    50

  • #
    RoHa

    COVID petitions.

    https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN3285

    https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN3381

    https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN3375

    Try your luck with those. When you have filled in the blanks and clicked the buttons, you are supposed to get an email to confirm. I have tried several times and not received any emails. You might succeed.

    Or they are just gathering names for the list of dissenters.

    50

    • #
      Serp

      Did you wait for a reply before despatching each form? I seem to remember somebody cautioning petitioners to observe that rule a couple of months ago.

      40

    • #
      OldOzzie

      You did tick I abide by these terms?

      Received all confirmation emails

      20

  • #
    OldOzzie

    PM Scott Morrison to attend COP26 conference in Glasgow

    Scott Morrison has confirmed he will attend the Glasgow climate change conference that will take place later this month.

    Talks between Scott Morrison and Barnaby Joyce are continuing, as the Liberals and Nationals attempt to strike a net-zero deal before the summit.

    Speaking on Friday afternoon, Mr Morrison said overnight he had confirmed his attendance.

    “I’m looking forward to attending,” he said.

    “It is an important event. The government will be finalising its position to take to the summit. We’re working with our colleagues and I look forward to those discussions.”

    Mr Morrison assured reporters that the Coalition’s position on a net zero plan would be finalised before he departed for Glasgow.

    From the Comments

    Any Australian official who attends this must be a masochist.
    They will be up for a gut kicking from some of the most hypocritical countries and rent seekers the world has seen.
    Examples are Great Britain and the EU, where burning woodchips apparently is a renewable source called bio-mass. China the world’s biggest polluter. The US another big polluter, developing nations looking for handouts whilst continuing to increase their own pollution levels.
    NGO activists from around the world waiting for the free kick into Australia.
    And finally but not lastly Mr Turnbull a strident critic of Australia and the Australian government.

    Why bother going.

    So this PM is advocating no more coal mines , no more gas , no more oil consumption , no more farting cows, sheep, pigs, chickens etc so no more diesel powered 4WD’s etc. I will be long gone but he has got to be kidding. This is a joke and being traded off for nuclear subs being delivered in 2040 and beyond. China will probably be all over us in the next 10 years and our subs will still be coming.

    A waste of taxpayer money.

    Of course he is. He can meet up with his leftie climate loving mates. This from the man who bought a piece of coal in to parliament. All theatrics.

    Surprise, surprise!

    Sucked in

    The national interest taking yet another back seat without a seat belt. Why did we ever vote for this clown?

    60

    • #
      robert rosicka

      Will be embarrassing for him if he attends without an agreement with the nats and makes a promise he can’t keep , I notice his language has slightly shifted to acknowledging that net zero is not necessity for a deal.

      50

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      “They will be up for a gut kicking from some of the most hypocritical countries and rent seekers the world has seen.”

      A good description of the absolute creepiness involved.

      50

  • #
    Peter+Fitzroy

    In Sweden more think that the temperature has not changed than 19 years ago, and more think that Swedes should not go it alone than 10 years ago

    13

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      We don’t know what the temperature really is, all we’ve got is a collection of air temperatures and even that is doubtful.

      Have you read Callendar’s original 1938 paper? The Royal Society published it in their proceedings, yet 25% of those questioned disputed that the world had got warmer in the last 25 years. Yet Europe was undoubtedly warmer in 1938 than in 1913 (although the Heat Wave in 1911 may have caught the attention of some).

      20

    • #
      el+gordo

      Its been warm.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Sweden#/media/File:Sweden_Temp_(1750-2013)BE.jpg

      Somebody should inform the people of the MWP and then ask them how much they want to contribute to stop the climate changing.

      30

  • #
  • #
    Kalm Keith

    “Syukuro Manabe, who won a Nobel Prize last week for his work.”

    Having looked through the link it confirms everything we know about the IPCCCCC concept of Katastrophic Anthropogenetic Unbelievable Wobal Glorming.

    The “work” talks around the subject in a monstrous mountain of misinformation that bears no relationship to true modelling.

    70

  • #
    Dennis

    LONDON (Reuters) -Chinese President Xi Jinping will not attend the COP26 climate summit in person, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has been told, The Times newspaper reported.

    Britain, which hosts the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties, or COP26, in Glasgow on Oct. 31-Nov 12, is seeking to get big power support for a more radical plan to tackle climate change.

    “It is now pretty clear that Xi is not going to turn up and the PM has been told that,” The Times quoted an unidentified British source as saying. “What we don’t know is what stance the Chinese are going to take.”

    The Times said British organisers fear that Xi’s decision to stay away could be a prelude to China refusing to set new climate change goals amid an energy crunch.

    The Chinese embassy in London could not be reached for immediate comment.

    50

  • #
    mondopinion

    They all willingly switched from incandescent light bulbs to the less healthy, more expensive energy-savers. And all that gain for the environment could be erased by ONE US military exercise. The people would sacrifice if their leadership was true.

    10

  • #

    SCOMO should argue from a position of strength, in that the vast majority of participants at COP26, whether attending or not attending, will be arguing from a position of failure to make actual reductions in their CO2 emissions since the much-vaunted Paris Accord talkfest of 2015, and prior COPs, at which so many virtuous participants kicked various cans down the dirt tracks/lanes/roads/streets/avenues/boulevades. Wood chips, anyone? Whereas Australia is ahead of its Paris targets. So much hypocrisy, so few “saints”!

    10