Uncle Pabai Pabai, Boigu, in their video from The Australian Climate Case
By Jo Nova
Two men from a Torres Strait Island spent four years trying to sue the Australian government for “its duty of care” to change the global weather. Both sides agreed climate change will be a disaster, so the science was never debated in court. Despite this, Justice Michael Andrew Wigney said he accepted “many of the factual allegations” upon which the case was based, even though the claims were never tested, no one spoke against them and they didn’t get a fair trial, or even any trial at all.
Thus Justice Wigney issued his prophecies of biblical hellfire, no doubt raising anxiety levels of the Torres Strait islanders even further, but who cares about their mental health right? They are just the mascots used by The Blob:
Shock result handed down in Torres Strait climate case
By Jack Nivison, The Australian
The Australian government has no duty of care over the people or the islands of the Torres Strait with regard to climate change, even though there is a “real risk” the land could disappear entirely, the Federal Court of Australia has found.
I’ve accepted the scientific evidence … concerning the devastating impacts that human-induced climate change has had, and continues to have, on the Torres Strait Islands and on the traditional inhabitants … their culture and way of life,” Justice Wigney said.
“Severe erosion, the salination of wetlands and previously arable land, the degradation of fragile ecosystems … has become more frequent and more severe in recent times,” he said. “There is a very real risk that the worst fears of the applicants will be realised.”
The defendant*, The Australian Government — could hardly disagree with “the science”. It is spending hundreds-of-billions to protect us from the climate gorgons, after all, so it can hardly argue that climate science is skill-less, unfalsifiable and based on unverified junk simulations. So the whole legal show is mere pantomime theater, and in the end, the ABC and other junk media get to breathlessly tell the world that in a smashingly big climate case, even the Judge has found that climate change is real. Gnash! Gnash! Gnash!
Judge as Weather Prophet
So the Judge is reduced to doing free advertising for The Blob. And perhaps that was the whole point of the case, since it was always ridiculous, in a democracy, that a judge should be the one to set national energy policy.
The islanders have been shamelessly wound up by activists, the ABC and CSIRO lobbyists to serve their own purposes. They were set up to expect something they could never get, and thus their crushing disappointment was just the third act in a badly written play.
The Guardian, with no hint of irony, or any sense of what a democracy is, asked How can governments be held to account on climate? It’s like voters are irrelevant, eh?
But the other point about this case is the way the science debate gets sidestepped yet again — so the judge issues his judgment, but makes a lot of wholly unnecessary statements of climate assumptions that were not tested in his court. And not only do these become free advertising on prime time TV but they will be used in subsequent cases as if they mean something. “Quoted as fact” they may also influence policy and legislation, and help to cement the profoundly unscientific “consensus” and all the Blob institutions that feed off that. So the world just got more cluttered. Science shrank, and everyone, bar the Blob, got poorer.
The Blob pretends to care about the world while it uses and abuses the mental health of the Islanders in a quest to increase their own power and income.
And The Blob pretends to care about “science” even as it destroys the tenets of the Scientific Method.
The antidote, as always, is to tell the world and pop that smug-bubble in public.
Their case is being supported by the Grata Fund, an Australian “strategic litigation funder” and the Urgenda Foundation, a Dutch group that uses lawfare to “help” the renewables transition. Obviously if giant industrial renewables firms and bankers, or the Chinese government were donating to these groups (with the best of intentions) we probably would never know. It’s not like The ABC will ask them hard questions like that, is it?
*Not the plaintiff in this case!
REFERENCES
Surely real sea level rise is within their collective cultural memory?
Why don’t we hear “dreamtime stories” of the real 110m sea level rise they surely experienced from 14,000 to 6,500 years ago?
What’s the big deal with the small imagined amount alleged to be happening now?
I am pleasantly surprised the court decided like this. Taxpayers were lucky they didn’t get an activist judge which would have cost us billion$.
460
In the meantime, Tim “Flatulence” Flannery has a house on the banks of the Hawksbury River Estuary in NSW. Blackout Bowen has a ‘Beach’ House at Bawley Point, NSW, by the Tasman Sea..
Obama has a house on a low level island in NY USA with the North Atlantic Ocean close by.
And there are many other examples.
Oh, the hypocrisy.
371
Wealthy climate change / anti-energy activists love their multimillion dollar beachfront / sea level properties.
There are others besides the ones you mentioned.
Gates
John Kerry (Martha’s Vineyard)
KRudd https://www.realestate.com.au/news/therese-rein-buys-rafters-17m-sunshine-coast-pad/
Allegra Spender (Teal, https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/climate-activist-mps-found-to-own-at-risk-waterfront-properties/video/61ce59519391e8a57aca74c0bd00d28b)
Tony Burke (Labor, see above link)
Zoe Daniel (Teal, see above)
Anthony Albanese (PM, see above, his property was top of cliff but they also claim enhanced coastal erosion)
If it were not for the staggering hypocrisy of the Left they would have no standards whatsoever.
310
Thunberg’s address is secret but she’s known to live in Stockholm which is a coastal city. I wouldn’t mind betting she’s bought herself a waterfront property with all her climate and Pally ca$h.
210
The alarmist elite’s hypocrisy is rife and grotesque.
As for the judgment (sic) it is not only the rote ignorance of this judge (sic) but the absence of any counter science put forward against the assumption that global boiling is real. For instance in a prior definitive Judgment in Sharma by her litigation representative Sister Marie Brigid Arthur v Minister for the Environment [2021] FCA 560 Bromberg (yes that Bromberg) accepted the expert (sic) testimony of Dr Karl Mallon who presented at length every trope and failed aspect of global boiling science:
https://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/non-us-case-documents/2020/20201209_VID-389-of-2021-2021-FCA-560-2021-FCA-774-2022-FCAFC-35-2022-FCAFC-65_na.pdf
The then minister for the environment, Sussan Ley (yes that Sussan Ley) presented NO counter evidence and merely relied on the drop in the ocean defence that Australia’s contribution to harm from CO2 emissions is too small so as to justify the penalty sought and that Judicial intervention in what were policy decisions exceeded judicial power. The Appeals Court agreed with this position by the minister but also ratified Bromberg’s reliance on the unchallenged piffle/evidence presented in the original hearing:
https://www.smh.com.au/interactive/hub/media/tearout-excerpt/6084/Judgment-summary—VID389.2021-(002).pdf
This position by Ley demonstrates that the libs are similarly affected by global boiling hysteria and little or no relief would be gained by them in power. As for the Judiciary….
40
Timmy sold up there years ago, everyone knew where he lived and it was getting uncomfortable.
70
He was just being paranoid.
Or he did it for marketing reasons to “prove” how “dangerous” “climate change deniers” were thus emphasising the critical importance of his “work”.
70
“I am pleasantly surprised the court decided like this.”
I’m not. I think he was an activist judge, which is why he went all Prophet of Doom. He couldn’t have got away with declaring the government did have a duty of care, but the lawfare still scored a win in propaganda, and in getting “the climate threat” decreed in a Federal Court. Maybe that was the point all along? The rest was a gambit.
I don’t see why the case was even allowed to waste the courts time. Do we live in a democracy? If the islanders want the people of Australia to change their entire lifestyle to stop a 2mm annual sea rise, which is sinking no inhabited island on Earth, shouldn’t they just convince the voters, and then the good people of Australia will be persuaded?
110
Good points well expressed, I find it interesting that whenever the government don’t wish to be held accountable for their actions they pull the old “duty of care” card.
They send out the pagan witches to scare the public to death over the climate boogy man but when the public has a panic attack based on the results of the latest goat entrail readings the government declare “not my problem”.
The same happened with the vaccine injury case, the pagan witches scare the bejeesus out of the public so they would line up like sheep to be injected with an experiment but as soon as they started getting sick etc the government says “not my problem”
70
This article from the SMH/The Age displays some of the colourful language used by journalist and judge. Justice Wigney used phrases such as “climate harm” and “climate refugees” in his summary.
Commonwealth not liable for ravages of climate change in Torres Strait
“Justice Michael Wigney said in a summary of the judgment that in setting emission-reduction targets in 2015, 2020 and 2021, previous governments had failed “to give any real or genuine consideration” to available scientific evidence, about how much Australia should cut emissions to contribute fairly to global efforts to limit warming to as close to 1.5 degrees as possible in order to prevent the worst impacts of climate change.”
So, while the Handsome Boy cavorts around China, by far the world’s highest emitter of CO2, a local judge implores our government to make changes that will have no significant bearing on global CO2 levels (and therefore no immediate local effect).
Bearing that in mind, one of the applicants in the case stated:
The last few decades are littered with climate change predictions that failed to manifest and the statement above will likely join them. In the meantime, it drums up sympathy in MSM readers.
30
Not NY. Obama’s house is on the edge of the Edgartown Great Pond on Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts.
41.360754, -70.546316
60
My apologies.
00
“Surely real sea level rise is within their collective cultural memory?” The sea level rose after the end of the last ice age by about 120 metres and the Tasmanian Aboriginals were marooned in Tasmania. Imagine that, a massive change in the climate and the World didn’t come to an end and in fact carried on as if nothing had happened. I mentioned this to my University brainwashed oops I mean educated niece recently, and was astonished to realise, by the expression on her doomsday accepting face that she had no idea of the fact.
210
Anthropologists have collected many dream time stories of SLR, but that is not so important. We know from the science that sea level was a metre higher during the Roman Warm Period.
https://notrickszone.com/2025/07/14/new-study-africas-atlantic-coast-sea-levels-were-still-1-meter-higher-than-today-2000-years-ago/
We have to argue that sea level rise is natural and CO2 is innocent of charges laid against it.
71
Still, at least the lawyers got rich.
So it wasn’t just a couple of uncles? 4 years. That’s a bill I’d like to see.
160
“The Torres Strait Islands were formed when rising sea levels at the end of the last ice age flooded a land bridge that connected Australia and New Guinea, approximately 8,000 to 10,000 years ago. These islands are essentially the remaining peaks of that land bridge.”
So the loss of many 1000s sq. miles is entirely natural, but the last 200 or so is stuffed by AGW.
That means nature is 99% to blame, God must accept that proportion of the liability.
Laugh out loud stupid.
440
Facts being that aside from the activism involved , nothing much has changed over the last 50 or so years. King tides cause inundation and erosion – so what. Overall sea level changes are not evident and the locals are living in the best of all possible worlds. Note correlation with Pacific islands when climate change porno’s get in on the disaster trip.
260
A book by a marine pilot who worked on ships out of Weipa has interesting historical mentions. When Torres went thru the Straits he described many small island communities. There are now only the Local group which are hills of the Great Dividing Range, Western group of Moa, Badu, Nagi (uninhabited) plus another smaller community 20 km north. Central group of sand/coral islands with one inhabited hill, Yama. Nearby Yama, another hill poking out of sea, uninhabited except for pigs. The Eastern Group which are recent volcanoes. Murry #4 still does the rare gas discharge into sea in its flooded crater.
Did something wash away the small islands centuries after Torres, reducing them to the numerous low lying reefs with a bit of sand building up such as Double island ? Maybe a big volcanic eruption ?
Further north near Papua are the last hill, Duaun with to the north and NW, mudbank mangrove islands on dead coral reefs, attributed to Fly River Delta building. These are eroding because the fringing mangroves were removed near villages allowing wave erosion. Normally mangroves very slowly raise sediment levels.
00
Is there no consideration of the fact that these islands are near the leading edge of the Indo-Australian tectonic plate which is moving towards Asia at a rate of 7cm per year?
The northern edge of this plate is sub-ducting so that sea levels are giving the appearance of rise, but not due to the dreaded gerbil warming. Similar tectonic movements affect part of the coast of Fiji which the blob attribute to SLR, however do their myopic brains wonder why SLR is selective and not widespread all around these islands?
310
No. They believe in a static and unchanging earth. Any change in the earth system is alarming to them and they don’t recognise the sun as a variable star.
210
“with scant regard for the best available science.”
This is the consensus argument, which is utterly wrong. Nothing is proven. And like the Doctor’s oath of do no harm, it is essential that everything is proven not on the balance of probabilities but beyond reasonable doubt. And no one has actually proven there is a man made problem. It is not for judges to take sides.
It’s not that a lot of people think there is a problem and that the problem is with fossil fuels, it is essential for someone to prove that man made fossil fuel CO2 is in the air in substantial quantities, that the Co2 is NOT in equilibrium, that the increase in CO2 causes the warming and that the warming is dangerous and that anyone can do anything about it.
In all these cases, it is the UN and their attempt to provide a higher court which is being used to justify bypassing any question of wrongdoing. No one elected the UN. It is a political forum body, not a legislative body. It has no authority over sovereign countries.
Sure, various governments of the day sign up to endless UN dictates, but they have no force in law. At best this is a statement of intent of the government of the day but it is not mirrored in law. And none of these agreements are binding, no matter how strong the wording. The UN is not a government of elected members with delgated authority mirrored in the laws of any country. In fact few countries take any notice of these vapid self important pompous rulings, so referencing the UN as a superior court is just virtue signalling and attention seeking by activist judges.
As for people like former PM Scott Morrison signing us up for nett zero, no one voted for that. Who agreed to that? These are games played by people who want to secure their own future or see some personal advantage on their CV or their vision of themselves. Maybe a cosy UN job like NZ PM Helen Clarke after bringing in her carbon tax and promptly losing the election. Morrison in particular had no business signing up to something to which the people who voted for his party disagreed. And he lost too.
Australia’s Labor party made it clear repeatedly “there will be no carbon tax in a government I lead” and then proceeded to bring in some of the world’s most insidious and massive carbon taxes, like the 35% tax on CO2 in the appalling and wrong Safeguard Mechanism. Carbon credits. Tree farms. Green certificates. Massive off budget spending not approved by parliament! Of which few Australians are aware. And no one in the press comments on our massive hidden CO2 ripoff. It is destroying Australia. Obviously as intended. We are treated like mushrooms.
The huge UN is a disaster, 80,000 greedy people who spend their days inventing new world ‘taxes’, like the $42Billion they now demand is paid to them for the use of oil for international shipping. Without any alternative available! So just a massive tax on all international trade, not an incentive or a solution. And these are people who think Trump is being unfair with tariffs on the same trade?
It would be far cheaper for Australia to give the Torres Strait islands to PNG, free of charge. They were seized by the State of Queensland in the 1880s and the 3,400 ungrateful people who live We have given them a flag in every foyer and Nationhood and respect for their elders past, present and emerging and 53% of Australia. They are not aborigines. And they can look after themselves because we want our country back. I would suggest tourism for income, if any island is big enough for an airport. No, we are not paying for it.
410
An important outline of what’s going on at their ABCCC and beyond.
It’s apparent that there are no ethical boundaries within the “blob”.
An interesting bit of translation?
The uncle, pictured above says:
“I’m a Guda Maluyligal man”.
Does this translate to;
“I’m a qualified Maluy Solicitor”?
While we can be appalled by the judges endorsement of the climate science, we must give credit to the 45,000 years of
wisdom that’s behind the claim.
Poor fella my country.
180
Again, our Holocene today in 2025 is cooler than the early Holocene optimum and that period was warmer for thousands of years.
Also PR studies have shown that the previous Eemian interglacial was 8 c warmer than our Holocene and SLs then were 6 to 9 metres higher than today.
Even Wiki accepts this and yet we still have these stupid court cases claiming our temperatures are too high?
Again why have the majority of Coral islands today increased in size or are unchanged for the last 40 years? See Kench studies etc.
This BS doesn’t even pass the pub test. When will they wake up?
310
Exactly.
110
Here’s the Co2 Coalition’s reference to a PR study showing the previous Eemian interglacial was 8 c warmer than today.
And the Polar Bears didn’t disappear and SLs were 6 to 9 metres higher during that period.
And only a few hunter gatherer Humans existed 130 K to 115 K years ago. This data can be found in just 5 minutes, so what’s their problem?
So why do Labor, the Greens and the Teals still want to WASTE 7 to 9 TRILLION $ for a guaranteed zero return? Again, why is it so?
https://co2coalition.org/facts/the-last-interglacial-was-8c-14f-warmer-than-today/
220
Sadly, it’s not only Labor, the Greens and Teals who need to wake up,the Coalition (with some notable exceptions) needs to wake up too. What I find really frustrating is the willful ignorance of so many politicians. There are some who rail against the cost of nett zero but I would really like them to challenge the ‘concensus’ which, as has been shown above, would actually be quite simple to do.
91
They won’t…not while there’s money to be made.
110
When looking at matters of policy I believe thay we should all follow the SCIENCE. That is global warming is supposed to be caused by global GHG emissions. At least as far as CO2 is concerned it is based on cumulative emissions since 1850. According to IPCC AR6 WG3 table SPM.2 cumulative emissions 1850-2019 were about 2840 GtCO2 give or take 20% at the 95% confidence interval. For a 50% chance of reaching 1.5C by 2100 2020-2100 need to be about 320 GtCO2, of which 510 GtCO2 2020-2050 and -190 GtCO2 (minus 190) from 2050-2100. This is what Australia and some developed countries have signed up to. Those countries accounted for around 15% of global CO2 emissions in 2019. By my rough calculations, if all countries kept their emissions constant at 2019 levels warming would be 3.5C in 2100. The marginal impact of developed countries following the 1.5C pathway through to 2100 would reduce global warming by 0.32C to 3.18C. If Australia were to follow the sensible lead of the USA and keep its emissions constant at 2019 levels, global temperatures would be around 0.02C higher in 2100 than if Australia followed the 1.5C pathway. Allowing for IPCC uncertainties (far more limited than actual uncertainties) this is no difference whatsoever.
The conclusion is that Australian policy has nothing to do with climate change. Therefore an Australian Court has no jurisdiction on climate mitigation matters.
190
And, the important addendum, atmospheric CO2 does not cause atmospheric “heating”.
That’s the true thermodynamics here.
What the IPCCCC claims about CO2 is deliberately complexified junk.
230
My calculations are below.
https://manicbeancounter.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/marginal-impact-of-1.5c-policies-short.png
40
These guys thought they were going to have an Eddie Mabo moment. But I suspect , along with the Mabo verdict it was more due to the people backing them. Trying to achieve fame via blob warfare. (for those wondering who Eddie Mabo was, I would suggest a quick internet search)
110
The Mabo case was inappropriately extended to the mainland.
Unlike mainlanders, the Torres Strait people, who are totally unrelated to mainlanders and a completely different people, had a recognisable system of land property rights, rules of inheritance, plots of land designated by stone markers etc..
A map was produced to the court:
https://digital-classroom.nma.gov.au/images/hand-drawn-map-mer-murray-island-eddie-mabo
This system of property ownership was completely consistent with European ideas of property ownership.
It was completely inappropriate, and an act of activist judges, to apply those Torres Strait ideas of land ownership to mainlanders who had no such concepts of land ownership or any concept of ownership at all.
The amount of economic destruction that decision has caused Australia is even worse than the climate change scam.
360
“It was completely inappropriate, and an act of activist judges, to apply those Torres Strait ideas of land ownership to mainlanders who had no such concepts of land ownership or any concept of ownership at all.”
They didn’t. They did not decide that Terra Nullius was wrong, but that it didn’t apply to Eddi Mabo as a long term farmer on the Torres Strait islands.
Eddie Mabo’s entire argument was that he was NOT an aboriginal. He and his friends were Melanasian farmers who had farmed his tiny island for centuries. It is truly tiny with 400 people, maybe a mile across. He was right. Terra Nullius did not apply to him. He was not an aborigine. The judges were right.
The real infamy was with Paul Keating who then decided arbitrarily and without justification that the decision should apply to ALL black coloured people and on mainland Australia. And so passed his own law overriding the long accepted idea that nomadic unsettled people do not own the land they wander across. Nothing to do with judges. And if anybody created this appalling situation now reaching 53% of Australia, it was Paul Keating.
There was no sovereignty, no Nation or ‘Nations’ or kings or mayors or government. The people were nomadic, without clothes, manufactured materials, industry, farming, underpants. Even items like the boomerang and didgeridoo and other odd things were not National at all. The societies were no more than tribal at best with no structure. There was no substantial language and they could not count to ten anywhere. And there was certainly no rule of law as they indulged in endless internecine slaughter almost as sport. Which is why there were so few aborigines in a land where they were top predator. In total contrast Eddie Mabo’s existence was modern, like so many Pacific Islanders, themselves recent arrivals in the last thousand years after the invention of ocean going catamarans.
So we were ripped off by Paul Keating, not the judges. So often Canberra just writes laws for which no one has a mandate. And hides what they do. Plus the left wing media ignore it and spread this Mabo myth.
The only reason we were asked by National Referendum about The Voice is that the arrogant politicians wanted to change the Constitution and give themselves vastly more power, bypassing parliament, judiciary. All power to unelected ‘black’ politicians. Now the autonomous Canberra mob will do by legislation what was refused by the people. Which means the next government can repeal the destruction of our democracy. Except that no one will do so in Uniparty Australia because it is a politicians playtime with zero accountability by the media or to the people.
We are still suffering greatly from Paul Keating’s total arrogance as he presumes to negotiate directly with China as King of Australia, ahead even of our Prime Minster who is toady communist enough for anyone.
320
Paul Keating’s story is that we should break away from Britain, as they abandoned us in Singapore. And now from America as it is the age of China. He should know as appointed to the Chinese Government Advisory Bank.
“In January 2022, Keating accused British foreign secretary Liz Truss of making “demented” comments about Chinese military aggression in the Pacific, saying that “Britain suffers delusions of grandeur and relevance deprivation.” In 2023, Keating went on to call the AUKUS pact “the worst deal in all history” and lambasting the Labor government for being “incompetent” and stating that the decision was the worst by a Labor government since Billy Hughes attempted to introduce conscription during World War I.
In 2024, Keating criticized AUKUS, claimed Taiwan is “Chinese real estate”, and that Taiwan is comparable to Tasmania ”
So which side is Paul Keating on? It seems in his view that comparable in population to Taiwan in population but much larger in area, Australia is also just China’s Tasmania? President Xi could declare Terra Nullius.
220
If anybody suffers delusions of grandeur and relevance deprivation, it surely is Keating.
110
They also had a stab at it being a Greta Thunberg moment. Laughed out loud at this point (1:46) in the ABC coverage the other night.
100
Gold Star to Swanny for consuming anything from the ABC. He goes courageously where many not dare to wander.
100
Ross,
Thanks. A whole ABC News is pretty hard to stomach. I usually catch the headlines (which this was in), and try to tune back in to get Tom Saunders giving us the weather report. Love the way he gives the latest unprecedented statistics in the manner of someone trying to sell you a dodgy watch.
As for the heroism of consuming anything from the ABC, they still manage to put on some good stuff despite themselves. If you really missed Utopia, here’s an example of what you missed. Up with the very best of Yes Minister.
100
ABC news programs are unwatchable propaganda dribble.
I’ll agree that their ABC manages to show some good stuff. Not much though.
Is it worth $1.3 Billion per year for those few shows?
110
No. It’s worthless. The ABC outbids the commercial channels with our cash. Especially good stuff like Peppa Pig from the UK. They claim no ABC, no Peppa Pig. No wonder they are sympathetic with Hamas. And various great UK detective shows. They use these shows to make out they and they alone provide good stuff, when in fact we would see them all without paying top price for them. And we would have choice, not the ABC directors.
90
Jo says “The plaintiff, The Australian Government — could hardly disagree with “the science”. It is spending hundreds-of-billions to protect us from the climate gorgons,”
Is it possible that in this simple factual statement lies a solution? That tremendous government expenditure damages every tax payer if it accomplishes nothing. The scientific evidence that it is useless for weather improvement would have to be part of plaintiff’s arguments if the damaged people formed a class action suit against the government to stop the wasteful and useless spending.
120
DMA,
Have to point out that Jo got the term wrong. The action was brought by the islanders; the government is the defendant.
[Oops! Thanks Robert. Fixed. — Jo]
80
I missed that Jo had called Australia the plaintiff but her point is solid-the government couldn’t defend themselves with good science in this suit while claiming they were trying to fix the islanders weather. My point is to turn them into a defendant for harming every Australian with these useless policies and wasteful spending.
50
The expert evidence in this case was overwhelming.
https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/pabai-v-australia
This issue is that there is no legal avenue for recourse. That can change.
From little things, big things grow.
222
Australia has ‘no duty of care’ because CO2 does not cause global warming or sea level rise, that won’t change.
222
You clearly didn’t read the evidence presented: https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/pabai-v-australia
19
Ah, Simon, facts don’t work here, nor does asking for evidence.
Still, its always a laugh seeing the evasion from the ‘burden of proof’ demand.
010
The only proof we need is pointless morons like yourself who have nothing to offer but terminally vacuous comments, insults and no proof at all. You are the “living proof” that the whole climate scam is real when things don’t go your way and you can only resort to name calling.
21
Are you OK ?
I didn’t call anyone names ???
Why are you hiding your evidence so well ??.
03
Miasma (are you a bot?) said “Ah, Simon, facts don’t work here, nor does asking for evidence”. which is a form of name-calling, implying everyone here is a brainless idiot. You don’t answer our questions, never supply evidence yourself, merely take cheap, probably AI generated, drive-by pot shots. I presume your only purpose is to wind people up. So, enough, neither you nor Simon have ever supplied any evidence despite it supposedly being “overwhelming”.
No more from you until you show you are at least a higher order AI bot or a real person, that knows evidence is “observations” and can answer the question, what observations show that CO2 causes catastrophic warming? Obviously climate simulations aren’t “evidence”. Over to you…
And if Simon had a clue what evidence was he wouldn’t link to a Gish Gallop of legal documents. He would just name the instrument used to make the observations, except he can’t, because it’s a religious faith for him, not a scientific belief.
160
Simon actually raises some very good points, the government has declared they have no duty of care, therefore it does not matter if AGW is real it’s not the governments problem.
It does not matter if the sea level is rising and it does not matter why the sea level is rising because it’s not the governments problem.
And as such no legal recourse, therefore every half baked tin pot nutzero zealot will never be able to sue the government over make believe AGW
20
From the expert evidence
The increase in a greenhouse gas concentration due to anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions of such a gas contributes to an instantaneous ‘radiative forcing’. The radiative forcing is the imbalance in the Earth’s energy budget at the top of the atmosphere
between the incoming solar radiation energy from the sun and the reduced outgoing energy due the additional greenhouse gas concentration. This is illustrated on the righthand side of Fig.1 above. The imbalance in the Earth’s energy budget leads to an accumulation of excess energy, heating up the Earth’s oceans, land surface and the lower atmosphere slowly in response to the radiative forcing. The warming of the surface temperatures increases the outgoing energy emitted to space, offsetting the reduced outgoing energy due to the extra greenhouse gases. Hence, the global warming in response to the enhanced greenhouse effect gradually restores the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere between the incoming solar energy and the outgoing energy from outgoing infrared radiation.
I remain unconvinced. “The Earth’s Energy budget” – what even is that, it sounds made up?
10
I would not say the budget is made up but I do question our/their abilities to actually measure it, describe it, predict it or explain it in any meaningful way.
20
It is clear that they sued the wrong party – the Australian government – when they should have sued the CCP. They still shouldn’t win though.
00
And even if CO2 did cause global warming, the Govt would not have a duty of care because there is nothing they can do to change the outcome. The Aust Govt does not have a control switch for CO2.
110
None of the claimed experts have produced anything of value in their entire lives. The Australian Government as defendant could never seek expert opinion from non-believers. Their defence relied primarily on lack of material damage. You cannot make claims for loss when they are predicted rather than actual. You have to demonstrate actual loss not fear of loss.
In fact the plaintiffs should have targeted their ABC, their CSIRO and CCCs like Karoly for their fear mongering – the garbage you seem to peddle Simon. That is all they have – fear of some future loss.
The Australian plate is moving north at about 80mm/year and subjecting in the process. The subduction is almost an order omg magnitude higher than the rise in sea level.
I do not see even the all powerful Albo stopping plate tectonics by throwing taxpayers money at it.
All this case has done is kept the lawyers in thew lifestyle they are accustomed to and thrown a few dollars at true believers to offer their bovine manure. Overall an appalling waste of taxpayer money.
121
David Karoly says in his evidence “15 to 40% of an emitted CO2 pulse from human activities will cause an increase of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere for longer than one thousand years‘
Utter rubbish. It’s interesting that this is presented in evidence as an accepted fact when it is nothing of the kind.
Here is a 2023 paper summarizing 36 papers in Table 1 who agree that the time is 10 years.
But it seems if you are contributor to the IPCC, you must be right and just claim whatever you like as proven fact.
And radio carbon dating gives the amount of fossil fuel CO2 in the air in 1958 and now in 2025 as 2.0%. It is in rapid transit into the ocean, 30 more soluble than O2/N2 and much heavier.
100
Groan. Residence time of individual molecules, is not the same thing as net flux.
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm
Come back later once you understand the basics.
113
Loved the groan. You have no idea what you are talking about. And what else is there but individual molecules. Enlighten us.
140
Here’s what your Artificial Intelligence site says
“Individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short life time of around 5 years in the atmosphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they’re simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean. The final amount of extra CO2 that remains in the atmosphere stays there on a time scale of centuries.”
Now that’s hilarious. So the gaseous equilibrium at the surface boundary is always a one to one ratio? How do the individual molecules organize that? Do they have a union? Is it like doubles tennis? Maybe a visa system? Gaseous equilibrium is about ratios, not individual molecules.
Whoever writes this rubbish needs to go to high school and learn about equilibrium in Chemistry. And what’s this stuff about ‘flux’? Where did you get that?
I am so sick of Google warriors with zero comprehension, zero science. They should fear for their jobs when AI takes over. Real intelligence is something else.
171
TdeF, you comments on carbon dioxide molecules and how they enter or leave the oceans reminded me of the agreement between Starmer and Macron over lillegal immigrants crossing the English Channel. Starmer used the phrase “one in, one out” regarding the return of illegal immigrants whereas it is more like 50 in and one out. Who is better at organising things? Western politicians or carbon dioxide molecules?
20
It’s statistical and based on pressure/population. There is no one for one. Equilibrium is an observation that a balance is finally struck when the numbers are equal. But add more to one side and the consequent unbalanced flow restores the balance ratio. Which is why the CO2 levels are constant from pole to pole, year to year and the balance moves a tiny 0.4% per year. If only inflation were this low!
50
Quoting skeptical science like it is a legitimate and reliable source? Do me a favour. These guys couldn’t even lie straight in bed. Their political bollocks has been laid bare so many times, it’s not funny. I wish Cook was my accountant. With his creative maths in his 97% consensus paper, I would not be paying any tax ever again. Anybody that can turn a real consensus of less than 3% into 97% has a magnificent imagination and a complete disregard for facts. And wasn’t it one of the Skeptical Science crew that stated that he wished Covid would wipe out all white people over 50 years old. Hate speech by any measure. Don’t come here quoting discredited and hateful little cretins.
110
Agreed.
10
The Cook paper is dated. More recent papers have the consensus at greater than 99%.
03
Really???? I read the Lynas 99% paper and that was an even bigger load of excrement than the Cook paper. How you get a 99% consensus from 3036 papers that stated
Explicit quantitive support – 19
Explicit non quantitive support – 413
Implicit support – 460
No position or uncertainty – 2140
Implicit rejection – 2
Explicit rejection without quantitative support – 1
Explicit rejection with quantitative support – 1
The only way you get a 99% consensus from that is to include “No position or uncertainty” as supporting the AGW hypothesis, and that is fraudulent.
Wake up and smell what you are shovelling
20
Simon says ‘This issue is that there is no legal avenue for recourse. That can change.
From little things, big things grow.’
A serf says ‘From little lies big lies grow.’
90
I thought a MOD wrote that bit?
.
[Mods do sometimes insert a bolded comment within a comment. But they’ll put it in square brackets [ ] and usually put their name to it. The bold text in Simon’s comment appears to just be his emphasis. – Raquel]
00
Ah yes now that you mention it i did not quite look the same, thanks for the clarification.
00
Global propaganda.At what price?
100
The climate change scam is imploding at an ever increasing rate, we are witnessing the death of the corrupt cadre of global elite cadre as they desperately try to row back to a safe haven. They are doomed, good riddance to all of them, I sincerely hope they rot in hell for their selfish greedy stupidity and all the pain they have caused around the world.
70
Luckily we have the Australian Government taking care of us.
10
And remember the Oregon Statement, from 30,000 scientists 27 years ago. Man made Climate Change/Global Warming is rubbish science. This has been buried by the press.
And the current statement before the UNITED NATIONS
It is critically important that courts do not start ordering reparations when there is not any proof of damage let alone due to Australia and Australia alone.
So why not sue China at the UN? Why Common Law in Australia in the Federal Court? Even the judges say it is completely inappropriate, pointless. I guess everyone is being paid somehow?
Or the Torres Strait islands could all get together as a Nation and secede from the Commonwealth, elect their own people. Create their own passports and pay for their own defence, health, education. Great idea. They could export their agricultural produce. Most Australians would support that. Total independence for the 3,400 people! Free the islands! From the sea to the sea. No more oppression. Stop the sea level rise!
The days when Australia might need a few very small flat islands for defence are long gone. They can keep the truly awful flag of someone bending over, as a free gift. And the leaders past, present and emerging can work out what to do with it. We have more of them than the population of the islands.
110
I actually resent that when I go into a public building in Melbourne, say a public hospital, we have to pay homage and recognize the great people of the Torrest Strait and their elders, past, present and emerging. So 26,000,000 people have to thank 3,400 people on islands in the Torres Strait for all they have done for us and will do. Why? It’s bad enough to thank aborigines for our public hospitals, civilization, sports arenas and anything we do, but it’s past appalling now. It’s morally wrong. When do the aborigines and the Torres Strait Islanders thank us for, not least, $42Billion in cash a year? As even the ABC admits.
And why should they be suing the people of Australia for the problems of living on flat sand in the middle of the ocean? Surely it was their choice? Didn’t someone explain the risks as the sea rose as it has done since the last ice age? I would find their contract of sale and sue the vendor or their real estate agents, past, present and emerging. And did they claim Terra Nullius when they colonized the islands?
120
The Oregon Petition left no more lasting impression than footsteps in the sand facing a rising tide.
Some of the greatest minds simply dismissed as crackpots.
30
I remember Edward Teller signed it, ‘father of the H bomb’. All qualified people who gave name and address and signature. What more can you do?
A few jokers signed Daffy Duck and the like to discredit it. But John Clarke’s absurd and ‘fake 97% of scientists’ agree was supported as fact and the Oregon petition ridiculed. That’s what happens with leftist media. Propaganda beats facts to create communist/eco fascist consensus. I don’t know any scientists who support this nonsense, certainly 37 years after instant Armageddon was announced. And with a temperature increase no one could detect without a thermometer.
30
Florida Bans Chemtrails
Florida has enacted legislation banning weather modification practices often referred to as “chemtrails” by conspiracy theorists. The bill, Senate Bill 56 (SB 56), was signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis on June 20, 2025.
This legislation prohibits the release of chemicals or substances into the atmosphere with the intent of altering the climate or weather conditions. It also repeals existing regulations that allowed cloud seeding, a form of weather modification used to increase precipitation.
30
Is “chemtr@ils” a naughty word?
00
On a similar theme, we had RSL mania evident in the UK last week where the main focus was on parts of the Essex coast that will be inundated due to “climate change”. Did it never occur for the journalists to understand that just across the sea are the similar “Low Countries” (Netherlands etc). Due mainly to subsidence the inhabitants have been building dikes since Roman times.
Well before the dreaded industrial burning of fossil fuels. Go figure?
40
I’ve run my own Business since 2002. I can barely hold my head above water – went under once in 2019, lost everything. I’ve fought all this climate Madness and socialist creep for all that time. Incompetence is everywhere and I’ve just about had enough, I feel so tired.
30
The goal by Governments to achieve this is employment…..in the government, hence they have their Public servants vote..they want to stay employed.
Pay them well, good holidays, not even 8 hour days…probably 4 at max….years ago i encouraged people who were unemployable in the real world….to get a Gov job for life,
looks like people were listening.
This is a W.E.F scheme as well, 50% of Western cabinets are W.E.F. MEMBERS A PROUD BOAST by Klaus SCHWAB.
00