JoNova
A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets To report "lost" comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support.jonova AT proton.me
Statistics
It’s bad enough that BMW has a subscription model for features like heated seats (now abandoned after huge backlash) and steering wheels with the hardware already built into the car but you have to pay to use it. Now they want to punish you for not plugging in your BMW plug-in hybrid in order for THEM to harvest carbon credits. I assume this proposal is valid for Australia as well as Europe.
Further info. at https://youtu.be/WnLtHsEjIqI
This BS might make the company go the same way of other woke companies like Jaguar.
400
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂Jawohl mein herr, anything you say mein heir!
Someone please tell BMW executives that those days ended with the last dictator!!
290
What’s that OLD saying?
Go woke, go BROKE!!!
190
Wer woke wird, wird bankrott!
140
Don’t blame BMW for trying to make money as the EU rules force them to.
The alternative is to go out of business ( which EU rule makers would see as a Net Zero win…)
160
They are getting like a certain farm equipment builder, you don’t own the car, it’s theirs and they just let you use it, even though you bought it.
230
Pre 2000, I thought they made nice cars, but its been a slippery slope ever since.
160
Ah yes, the infamous ( to BMW fans) “Bangle Mangle” , when they hired Chris Bangle, erstwhile super designer, to redesign their cars so they didn’t look like so much “Bavarian sausage” ( his words).
They’ve never recovered their BMW design language since.
60
Bavarian Motor Wokes…
70
Thanks for the heads up David. I won’t buy one and will stick with my Mazda CX5 ICE.
20
One of the first things, One Nation has to do if they get into power is to remove Australia from the Paris Agreement which the Liberals refuse to do.
Exiting Paris will remove any possible impediments keeping Australia attached to any renewables scam, whether Paris is legally enforceable or not. (Recall that Australia is fanatically committed to globalist policies and follows them to the letter.)
They then need to have a huge inquiry into the full extent of the renewables scam and what Australia has to do to extricate itself from it. The objective should be to restore Australia’s energy grid to how it was before Howard started dismantling it plus add free market policies into it.
Recall also that the nature of many recent projects is that they have a taxpayer-guaranteed return but the arrangements are secret so we don’t know the taxpayer liability.
Naturally such an inquiry shouldn’t cost the taxpayer any extra. It can be paid for by drastically reducing government expenditure including the downsizing of the public “service”.
610
The Acts tell us what has to be done..
The first object of this Act is to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, and avoid emissions of greenhouse gases, in order to meet Australia’s obligations under any or all of the following:
(a) the Climate Change Convention;
(b) the Kyoto Protocol;
(c) the Paris Agreement;
The whole business of “remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere” is absurd. It presumes that mankind controls the amount of CO2 in the air, which is ridiculous. Each CO2 molecule decides whether it leaves the water or enters the water. It is a statistical process based of course on pressure, concentration, temperature. Not Government policy. As a consequence, 98% of all highly soluble CO2 lives in the ocean. And 98% of all fossil fuel CO2. So the historic incease in CO2 from all burning of fossil fuels is 2%.
Lawyers and judges and laws and the UN and agrements cannot change physics. Whether extra CO2 produces heating is a moot point. And whether slight heating is a problem is silly considering that only 10,000 years ago, New York and half of Europe was under 1km of ice.
It’s all about the money. End the fake science, rip up the absurd agreements and appeal and bring down the wrong laws.
590
(a) The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the primary international treaty created to prevent “dangerous human interference with the climate system” by stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions. Established in 1992, it serves as the foundational framework for global climate cooperation, including the landmark Paris Agreement.
(b)The Kyoto Protocol was a landmark 1997 international treaty under the UNFCCC that legally bound industrialized nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
(c) The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change adopted in 2015. Its primary goal is to limit global warming to well below 2C — preferably to 1.5C compared to pre-industrial levels, to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.
231
(a) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was signed by Ros Kelly, who was the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment and Territories on June 4, 1992, at the UN Conference Rio
(b) Prime Minister Kevin Rudd signed the Kyoto Protocol on December 3, 2007.
(c)Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull signed the Paris Agreement 2016
(d) Australia’s net zero emissions by 2050 was adopted by the Morrison Government (Coalition) in October 2021.
(e) This goal was later enshrined into law and further expanded upon by the Albanese Government (Labor) through the passage of the Climate Change Act in 2022
The Australian Climate Change Act 2022 legislates the nation’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 43% below 2005 levels by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.
Governments without reference to any independent science advice have been signing us up to Climate Armageddon for 34 years.
460
2022 Climate Change Act
The objects of this Act are:
(aa) to advance an effective and progressive response to the urgent threat of climate change drawing on the best available scientific knowledge; and
(a) to set out Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets which contribute to the global goals of:
(i) holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre‑industrial levels; and
(ii) pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre‑industrial levels;
So the act is now based on “The best available scientific knowldedge”. And who decided that? The BOM? The CSIRO? Anthony Albanese?
And it all goes back to Paris..
(1) The Climate Change Authority must, if requested to do so by the Minister, advise the Minister on either or both of the following matters:
(a) the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets that the Climate Change Authority considers should be included in a new nationally determined contribution to be communicated by Australia in accordance with Article 4 of the Paris Agreement;
(b) the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets that the Climate Change Authority considers should be included in Australia’s nationally determined contribution as the result of an adjustment to be made in accordance with paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Paris Agreement.
Rip it up legally and this Act falls apart.
And who is head of the Climate Change Authority? The Climate Change Authority (CCA) in Australia is led by the Hon. Matt Kean, who serves as the Chair. Mr Kean studied business at the University of Technology Sydney. So he is across “the science’.
380
It’s all tied up legally, signing agreements with the UN, a closed collection of laws each depending on the last to put Australia in a Climate straightjacket. And the money flows like a river.
Can Australia control world CO2? No. That’s ridiculous. Have we agreed to pay to do so? Yes.
370
“drawing on the best available scientific knowledge”. Whose exactly? The UN politicians who run the IPCC and write the summaries? The ones who wrote the agreements we signed? The ones who just admitted their predictions were ‘implausible’?
It’s all a lie. The whole stack of cards. And all about power and cash, our cash. Australia is just a milch cow for the UN and China. And our politicians love it. Plus tens of thousands of Australians work for Climate Change bodies. We pay for the lot. And their jobs are all based on the simple lie that humans control CO2, which is nonsense. We don’t control H2O or O2 or CH4 or any other natural gas. In fact we control nothing. That’s just political opportunism and megalomania.
410
As Australia de-energises and shuts down what little remains of its industry (like aluminium smelters) and agriculture, we might actually get there.
250
That would be the Stone Age. We will have to ask the aborigines to show us how to survive. And develop a taste for kangaroo. And accept burning the grasslands and forests regularly. The Vegan Greens are going to love their new lives.
240
I’m sure they can do that.
SBS https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/the-first-inventors-premieres-on-nitv/sdkjkq46n assures us that they were the first scientists, engineers, doctors, inventors, farmers, astronomers, architects, chemists, navigators, aerospace engineers (no doubt they solved the Navier-Stokes equations in three dimensions) etc..
History being rewritten, right in front of our eyes, and at taxpayer expense.
240
“the world’s longest surviving culture” You have to redefine culture to make that claim. And set the bar to absolute zero. Or is lack of culture itself a culture? I doubt the first and only settlers, the British, would have considered they had made contact with a culture. Fabrics, Arts, architecture, science, religion, writing, language, administration. No common language, no writing, no industry, no housing, no metals, no fabrics,technology,tiny vocabulary, no one could count to ten,… Nothing to compare with France 32,000 years ago.
240
No you don’t. Culture is values, customs, behaviours. We have lots of the same equipment amongst different nations, but very different cultures.
Of course they had a culture. Having just a stick instead of a knife and a stick just means the culture they did have didn’t involve metal work.
They hunted Kangaroo. Europeans hunted deer. They both hunted. Over the years the Europeans developed better hunting tools, such as a gun. The Europeans also hunted as recreation. I have no idea if the Aboriginals only hunted for necessity. But sport/games were part of both cultures.
Both had spears. Europeans had metal at the tips of theirs. The Aboriginals had some weapons/tools that the Europeans didn’t have. Does that mean the Europeans lacked culture? No. If I hunt rabbits by trying to sneak up on them and catch them with my hands, verses shoot them from 30m away, I’m still hunting rabbits.
Both had dance. Both had music. The Europeans had more instruments. But whatever the music is that is the culture.
Both ate food. The Europeans developed cuisines for pleasure as well as necessity, while it seems the Aboriginals had a culinary culture more based on necessity. A hunter gatherer culture.
Both had rules/laws/justice/punishment.
Both had a culture of story telling. Europeans also put their stories into books.
Both had spoken words. You say “no common language” for the Aboriginals as if that suggests a lack of culture. Europe didn’t have a common language either. My expectation is that Aboriginal groups had languages in regions as Europe did. The Welsh have a different language to the English. The Germans, French, Spanish have different languages. Does that mean they both lack culture? Whatever anyone’s language, oral communication is the culture and that language is part of the culture.
Both had games.
Both had beliefs.
Both had medicine.
Both had territories/fought over land.
Both had homes/shelters. The European style were certainly more elaborate. But the idea of sheltering from the elements was in both cultures. But part of the culture here was to do without too.
There are a bunch of life aspects that are culture and common to “different” cultures. Just done differently.
We now have a huge range of equipment and tools that 100 years ago people didn’t even think possible. That doesn’t necessarily mean we have more culture now.
Manicured gardens was part of the European culture. Whether I use my hands to pick up all the leaves instead of a modern battery operated leaf vacuum doesn’t change the culture of manicured gardens.
I’m not saying this to defend the Aboriginal way of life. It certainly isn’t one that I desire as I prefer hunting and gathering in a supermarket. But I also would prefer to live now than in the 1800’s. I’ve often said that the longest surviving culture claim shouldn’t be a boast. It’s really just a sign of a lack of advancement. But to talk about needing to redefine culture, and to suggest needing to set the bar at zero (even if somewhat facetiously, if I’m being generous to you), shows maybe you haven’t really thought about what culture is and it’s application to various communities that you might consider either primitive or advanced.
811
So you have redefined culture as survival and mere existence. Survival as a culture,even civilization? Lions do most of that. Families and tribes. I could argue with most of it (had territories? They were nomadic, no fixed abode, for very good reasons) Culture is not just existence. Life was short and brutal and generally completely poihtless. The next generation was no better off than the last. Nothing was achieved, no wealth accumulated in 50,000 years. You are pushing language to a real limit and playing at semantics. These were stone age people. Rousseau’s the Noble Savage was wrong.
Even the Guardian had this to say “The “noble savage” is an idealized literary archetype of the uncivilized human, symbolizing innate goodness uncorrupted by civilization. While famously attributed to 18th-century philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, modern scholarship reveals this association is largely a historical misconception”
If you want to help people, you have to recognize the truth and start from there, not remagine what you see in your own image. I believe Austrlian Aborigines, like 20% of Japanese, have zero ability to metablize alcohol. It is lethal. And that most cannot handle carbohydrate, what we would call diabetic. But in the blind insistance that everyone is the same even medically, we insist on an imaginary story of accomplishment and sophistication which does not exist. Worse, as top predator in a mild climate of almost immediately extinct megafauna, there was no need to cooperate in any way. Infinite food. No lions, tigers, wolves, bears, lethal winters. And so cooperative group culture did not develop.
132
I haven’t redefined culture as survival and mere existence. I defined it as values, customs, behaviours.
Survival is an aspect of every culture. It just got easier over the centuries for many cultures that advanced how they operate. Are you saying that when survival in Europe was harder a few centuries ago that culture didn’t exist, or did but to a much less extent? I know you don’t think that. Which is why it doesn’t work to apply that as a measure for whether Aboriginals had a culture.
Mere existence. We have plenty of people in our culture doing that.
Correct. It’s a range of things that constitute how we go about life while we exist. Not existence itself.
You don’t hold the Aboriginal existence in high regard. That’s fine. But your low opinion of their existence doesn’t mean they had no culture.
You can make the argument that Aboriginal culture was one of “survival and mere existence”. But in doing so, you’re actually agreeing they had a culture even if that is your description of it. It wasn’t zero. But as I showed above. There are many aspects to culture that they exhibited. They just did it differently.
What is banging two sticks together to make a rhythm to dance to? It was part of their culture to do so.
They had ceremonies and rituals.
You might say that their music and dance was rubbish. It’s not my cup of tea. I always felt sorry for the Royals having to sit through “cultural displays” at their various stops. Boring. But not liking it doesn’t mean zero culture. It’s just different to the style you like.
Yes. Life for many cultures was like that. The world was a harsh place for most people. Even in the “civilised” western culture parts of the world. Things have improved a lot for many in the last two hundred years.
I’m all for the truth. That’s why I responded to you. You should try recognising the truth that while Aboriginal existence was harsh, and it wasn’t a paradise supposedly ruined by European arrival, that they had plenty of cultural aspects. Your not liking their style of existence doesn’t change that.
I’m certainly not making their existence any more fanciful than it was. I’m not Bruce Pascoe.
You’re pointing out an aspect of their culture.
62
Compared to banging two sticks together, this is a cultured fish. Real artistry. Survival.
And even insects have job castes, cooperative behaviour, social status and very complex rituals and imitation. That’s not culture. Again it’s survival by selection.
72
Will we need to adopt other Aboriginal practices to ensure survival? They had some doozies. Most of which the truth tellers don’t want to talk about.
30
Strop, despite denying it is equating aboriginal culture with modern Western ones. This is nonsense. The first people who came to Australia did so 47000 years ago:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312577659_Humans_rather_than_climate_the_primary_cause_of_Pleistocene_megafaunal_extinction_in_Australia
The people who came 47000 years ago were not the modern aboriginals; Manning Clark describes how Negritos were the first, followed by the Murrayians and then the Veda:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=OF06DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT11&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false
In between these main groups were many other different groups and cultures:
https://cairnsnews.org/2022/09/07/aborigines-possibly-the-tenth-race-to-have-inhabited-australia/
If you measure a culture by its achievements then the combined achievement of all these diverse, but uniformly primitive ‘cultures’ is 3-fold: extinction of the Mega-Fauna, the biggest man-made extinction ever; using their only technology, starting fires to burn the original forests and turning the landscape from a rain forest into an arid and semi arid landscape. Their third cultural achievement was continual warfare between the different groups and tribes which continues to this day in such places as Wadeye and is reflected in a tribal map of Australia.
Aboriginal culture which is not uniform but is as diverse as the tribal map was literally saved by British colonisation.
50
cohenite. I’m not making any contention about when or who came here, or how long the culture has existed. My point is simply that TdeF said they basically had no culture, and I’m saying that is wrong. I’m not pretending it was as complex or as sophisticated as other cultures. Just that whether culture is zero is not determined by the amount of equipment and discoveries that group makes. You are making a point which has nothing to do with my contention.
You mention culture a lot when talking about a group that TdeF says has basically “absolute zero” culture. I guess you and I agree.
01
You mention culture a lot when talking about a group that TdeF says has basically “absolute zero” culture.
I was being ironic. Keep guessing.
00
No you weren’t. And you specifically mentioned that warfare was part of the culture. So, not zero culture. 😉
And to be clear. I’m not equating Aboriginal culture to modern European culture in the sense that I’m saying they’re equal in terms of complexity or anything. My pointing out Europe has this, and Aboriginals had that, is to illustrate aspects of culture. You can make a judgement that one is better than another. But you can’t say one basically doesn’t have any culture.
Basically, the “zero” culture notion by TdeF was silly.
00
I find it amazing that Ross Kelly, B.Arts, Dip.Ed was across her portfolio of the environment enough to decide that Australia needed to sign up to the UN Climate Change agenda, binding the country in 1992 in Rio.
Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment and Territories. I suppose someone thought it was a good idea.
180
Roz is best remembered for her whiteboard and sporting grants.
10
TdeF you are not correct that the three agreements bound all nations. USA has a required in their constitution that any agreement with an outside party must be approved by the states (represented by their senate). The Paris Agreement was never put to the US senate as it was known it would be defeated. Trump has pulled out of the Paris Agreement giving the reason that the agreement was never entered legally. I suggest that China also did not legally agree.
20
I did not say that. Quite the reverse.
I wrote that the Australian writers of Australian Law had used these loose ‘agreements’ as excuses to pass their own Domestic laws. And that this was improper as the agreements were not binding. Also in the Australian Constitution, on international matters, the Federal Goverment has primacy. And where there is overlap in jurisdiction, Federal laws supercedes State law.
I wrote nothing about the USA. But I would suggest that the power break up in a Fededration is very similar. The Federal government has three main areas, defence, immigration, international business so currency/bonds/customs/trade/diplomacy. These are rights ceded from the States to a common Federal body. There are no duties between states. The States cannot maintain their own armies. If it’s not in the Constitution, you cannot pass laws.
All other matters including Health, Education, Police,.. etc. remain State matters. American law and others also allow City jurisdiction as a third level, which is why there are City based police deparments which do not exist in other countries like Australia. We have State police, no city Police and we had no Federal police except for Federal issues like immigration, trade, customs, defence.
The UN is playing a game that it is in the business of international diplomacy, so the exclusive realm of the Federal government.
This was relevant in the abortion precedent, Roe vs Wade 1973. The Federal government passed a law on a health matter, which was just overturned because the Federal government has no such rights under the US constitution. Australia is the same. And Trump is dismantling the Federal department of Education which also has no business as a Federal matter. The tendency of all bureaucratic organizations is overreach and some metastasize.
Boom areas are ‘ecology’ and ‘climate’. These are not mentioned in any old Constitution of any country because they did not exist. And the UN sees this as a way to bypass the legal system. These notional ‘agreements’ are simply tools to be used by local legislators. Signatories are told it doesn’t matter and then they are presumed to be binding and are used to write truly binding local laws and the agreements are interpreted locally by unelected judges to be binding. This is really evil stuff. And a way for the UN to get power and cash. Which is what you need with 80,000 employees overall. (for what you may ask?)
50
First things first. Here are some other regulations and protocols whose ‘binning’may reduce the use of fossil fuels.
(1) Montreal Protocol – bring back the refrigerants that work. The thickening of the ozone layer around the circumpolar vortex appears to continue unabated.
(2) Get rid of the law that makes people strap a piece of plastic to their head. Maybe Girls will ride their bicycles again without having to worry about ‘Hat Hair’. You may as well be an aircraft carrier wearing a strap around your neck, hoping not to catch the tail hook of a passing vehicle and have your neck snapped. Better to have a few stiches than be dragged underneath a vehicle. What are the statistics? Motorbikes wear full face helmets so their hospital ward has good looking heads.
(3) Let seat belt wearing be at the users discretion.
All three should reduce the use of fossil fuels. The last two will reduce vehicle traffic on the road, therefore less accidents? The football team can travel in 2 or 3 cars instead of 15 or 16 and cycling to work, school or the shop will be returned to the masses as a means of transport and not just the domain of the pelotons in lycra.
I would love to give links to statistics on the last 2 points, though unlike the ozone hole, the data is strictly controlled and difficult to ascertain as there is no control group and a huge number of people simply gave up riding as transportation. All I know is there are far less bicycle racks at the local schools and next to nobody turns up to training or games on a bike in any sport I have followed.
52
Maurice Strong, a UN socialist, responsible for setting up the forerunner of the IPCC, was also responsible for the Montreal Protocol.
40
” Recall that Australia is fanatically committed to globalist policies and follows them to the letter. ”
Not only do we fanatically commit to them, I seem to remember we gloated about doing so much better than required on one such commitment, might have been Kyoto.
100
It’s one thing to save the spotted bandicoot. Quite another to believe that unelected politicians in the United Nations control the world’s weather.
This was first realised in 1988 with the creation of the IPCC between Al Gore, NASA, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations. And has it worked incredibly well! Trillions of dollars.
First fly the ignorant Minister for Underpants to Rio and get her to sign anything put in front of her in 1992. Then the wheels start turning and the money starts flowing. Carbon Credits, the new black tulips, the new gold rush. And the money flows like a river, especially from rich lazy democratic country politicians who want to be seen to save the electric eels of Samoa and the Great Barrier Reef Ayres rock. Mt Arapiles. Hindmarsh island. All saved.
Even Malcolm Turnbull saw the light and as his last move as Prime Minster, gave without application or explanation then or since, $444 Million in cash, 7 tons of gold to his wife’s friends. Never to be seen again. Because if you are saving the ‘enviroment’ you are a Saint and the money is unlimited and unquestioned. No need for cost/benefit analysis. That would be offensive. Greens never have to apologise or explain. The Greater Good. Snowy II. The biggest failed project in world history. Maybe never to be finished or working or used, but who cares? It’s the vibe.
180
According to the recent conducted around Budget time recently and using a method involving 6,000 people contacted Labor would be returned to government at the next Federal election but with a reduced majority, and therefore by 2031 election Labor will have remained in government for 9 years! It is also likely Labor will be returned to government in Victoria later this year.
The preferential voting system is the key to Labor successes 2022 and 2025 and will be again in 2028 the number counting experts are saying.
The fixation with 2016 Paris is a distraction, as were the claims PM Morrison signed up to net zero emissions 2021 Glasgow, only Labor Green Teals in 2026 follow net zero agenda policies.
19
It had to happen! Libs say they’d cut health & education spending to save on tax cutting etc!!
I wonder if it’s crossed their teeny, weeny littlest brains to cut all green & related subsidies to save taxpayers money. Use the saved subsidies for real investment in Australians!! It’s not rocket science. The government would also earn much needed respect from Australians as well as REAL foreign investors!!
I suppose they’ll say the subsidies are contracted to foreign businesses. Simple solution
Is to dump them anyway & if foreign businesses involved in green BS projects want to sue, let them. Government could easily stretch court action to run for years or until the foreigners bugger off for good!!
Maybe they won’t do that because the politicians also have invested in green projects!
Any investigators out there???
130
Yes, all areas Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan have identified for major budget savings if elected to government.
13
‘ … dump them anyway …’
If you want the Coalition to lose the next election then that is the way to go about it.
Far better to let One Nation take the brunt of a hostile media and Coalition remain a small target, until we can convince the electorate that CO2 is innocent of the charges laid against it.
38
Withdrawal from Paris would give One Nation a boost in popularity, sustained by a sharp attack on the science.
The Coalition has gone weak at the knees because only three rogue states are out of Paris, the US and Iran are leading the charge.
Dan Tehan voted almost always against the Paris Climate Agreement, so his heart is willing but there are political hurdles to overcome. Essentially we have to get the MSM to debate AGW and sway public opinion.
72
I asked a reliable source about that and it was pointed out that part of the reason for not formally withdrawing and instead no longer participating, meaning emissions target set 2016 Paris and net zero agreement presented but not signed Glasgow 2021 and the answer was that surveys have shown that climate change politics is still believed to be necessary by at least 40% of voters, they might accept dropping net zero and removing renewable energy target subsidies and penalties against fossil fuelled generators if explained in terms of electricity price rising and not intermittent installations unreliable, and substantial budget expenditure savings potential already indicated through Budget Reply and National Press Club addresses.
14
Half the population think we should do something about the problem of global warming, no matter the cost.
https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/charts/climate-change/
We need a political champion who is unafraid of ridicule to enlighten the masses, carbon dioxide does not cause global warming.
91
Voter perceptions are very important and votes are lost easily when voters suspect their best interests are being adversely affected.
11
That is the true benefit of One Nation, gives the people a fresh voice to force the majors to consider their future.
‘One Nation would win as many as 59 seats if an election were held today, pushing Labor deep into minority government and wiping out the Coalition in all but three states and territories.
‘That’s the worst-case scenario for the major parties in a large-scale analysis of voter intentions conducted by Redbridge Group and Accent Research that underlines the seismic shift in Australian politics since the last election.’ (AFR)
31
One of the first things, One Nation has to do if they get into power is to remove Australia from the Paris Agreement which the Liberals refuse to do.
One of the first things ON, the Liberals, or anyone else trying to avoid the destruction of the Australian economy, has to do is repeal the Climate Change Act 2022. This legislative masterpiece locks in the current Net Zero 2050 Trajectory of Doom – and provides the hook for (OPM-funded) activist lawfare against any substantive change.
Oddly, the Liberal Energy Policy makes no mention of this necessary step.
If they like, they can leave the most pitiful clause in a heavily amended version, as an awful warning of what happens when legal draftspersons think they might be saying something technical in a meaningful way:
15B Simplified outline of this Part
The Capacity Investment Scheme Program must be implemented to achieve at least 23 gigawatts of renewable generation capacity and at least 9 gigawatts of clean dispatchable capacity.
Yes, indeed, Your Honour.
But how long for?
And what exactly is ‘clean dispatchable capacity’?
110
A puffer fish was mentioned above, I’m thinking the Libs are a bit like a cuttlefish- they can change their colour in reaction to immediate changes in the environment. If they won’t pledge to withdraw from the Paris Agreement or cancel the Climate Change Act- they’ll put off conservative voters. Maybe they want to play swinging voters and then change their colours once they get into office.
At least with ON you know what colour the fish is…
31
Having said that, I’d rather vote for an Orange Roughy than a Blue Groper.
20
A look at the disastrous new Star Wars movie.
https://youtu.be/3VOkI9e-zsU
20
It has to be better than Kathleen Kennedy’s progressive “put a chick in it and make her gay”
90
Went to see it the other day. Was OK as a Star Warsy bit of entertainment. Hardly a disaster.
20
I tire of commentators generating clickbait by criticising events like new movies. The Mandalorian Disney TV series was extremely enjoyable and I expect this movie will be the same. The other recent film “Project Hail Mary” was also criticised, but if you’ve read Andy Weir books you find the film is very good, Well, at least I did, But as I’ve learned over a long time, I’m not normal.
20
A look at the top 13 1950’s monster and sci-fi movies.
https://youtu.be/NOaViTXQGdU
20
‘On the Beach’ is missing, although I suppose it’s not quite in the same Aliens/Monsters/Totally weird sci-fi area.
40
Not having looked at the link, sure hope
ATTACK OF THE 50ft WOMAN
is in there: one of the most hilarious movie posters evaah! [soon to be updated / modernised into Attack Of The 50ft Virus starring Gay Chick & Brandon Dolt]. That’s entertainment …
70
One of my earliest memories as a child was being allowed to stay up late to watch The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits, with a treat in the form of my own little bottle of Coca Cola and/or a bag of crisps.
“There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image, make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. We repeat: there is nothing wrong with your television set. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to — The Outer Limits.”
My eyes would be like saucers in the darkened room 🙂
60
Yes great shows, both of them, especially when you consider the era. It seemed a long gap between them and Black Mirror more recently, but perhaps that was just me not paying attention.
40
I’m sorry I missed The Outer Limits. Sounds like quite a great adventure indeed. A TV version of a Grateful Dead concert I’d say.
00
Another one that scared me witless as a child was the movie “Night of the Demon’. Gave me nightmares, that one. The concept of an enormous, ravenous monster slowly emerging from the fog, coming to get you, made a big impression! A very good movie with great effects for its time, and a proper scary monster.
20
Video: Dr Philip McMillan looks at post pandemic cancer rates in Norway.
120
And surging rates of [cough!]
Broken Heart Syndrome®️
aka takotsubo cardiomyopathy
https://www.rnz.co.nz/life/wellbeing/what-does-broken-heart-syndrome-feel-like
A dear ex- of mine regrettably took 2 shots (against sage advice) and after the chest pains began she was diagnosed with B.H.S. – or as I call it, B.S.
Like many shotees [jabees?] she swears black-and-blue NO MORE!
80
These three links are all are about a drone attack by Ukraine against a school in Russia and Russia’s subsequent use of an Oreshnik missile against Kiev.
The first, by Alexander Mercouris, is about 87 minutes, includes a section about the attack on the school, and was published at about 3am Sunday.
https://rumble.com/v7aa2xa-russia-vows-starobelsk-retaliation-nato-says-russia-hijacking-kievs-drones-.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp_a
The second, an interview of Craig Murray, is 12 minute and is mentioned by Mercouris.
https://rumble.com/v7a85xk-nato-is-fueling-kievs-attacks-on-civilian-targets-craig-murray.html?e9s=rel_v3_rs
Both the above are about the Starobelsk attack, but before the Kyiv response.
And the third is the Australian ABC story of both events. Story timed at 2pm Sunday.
” Following a Ukrainian strike on a student dorm in the Russian-controlled Luhansk region of eastern Ukraine overnight on Saturday, Putin had ordered his military to prepare options for retaliation.
The head of the Russian-installed administration in the Luhansk region said that 18 people had been killed in the strike, with a further 48 injured and 10 still accounted for. ”
The Russian dead and injured all appear to have been students.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-05-24/kyiv-missile-strike-four-killed/106715836
Also from the ABC report:
” Ukraine has previously been hit twice by the Oreshnik missile by Russia: first in November 2024, and in January 2026. “
50
The ABC has a 3 minute story which mentions both events:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKGGxL-VcjU
And today’s Mercouris episode also covers both. 65 mins. Posted Sunday evening UK time.
https://rumble.com/v7abu1k-russian-massive-oreshnik-kiev-revenge-attack-stuns-ukraine-eu-zelensky-fear.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp_a
00
There must have been something deep underground Russia wanted destroyed, and it had no people in it that Ukraine will admit to, for the Russians to use an Oreshnik.
When the Ukrainians kill about 20 people at the college and the Russian retaliation is larger, but only results in 4 deaths, they are obviously aiming for different things…. or maybe the NATO members killed by Russia don’t get acknowledged by Ukraine.
There were a larger number of Medivac aircraft landing in Ukraine the next day, evacuating to Germany.
40
For any country that reduces its CO2 output, it is actually a proxy for deindustrialisation, shut down of agriculture and a reduced standard of living.
The Australian Government and Labor/Green/Teal and wet Liberals may be pleased with attempts to reduce CO2 but what their really saying is that we are pleased with our reduced standard of living (for non-Elites).
210
Why keep accusing the Liberals/Nationals of 2026 (in fact since 2019 in government until 2022) for things they opposed and as I have shown previously on record?
It reminds me of trying to explain areas of responsibility and powers of State governments during the 2019 bushfire blame Morrison period and then 2020 pandemic, same responses unwilling to accept other than what was blatant deceptive conduct smearing by Labor.
36
I specifically referred to wet Liberals, also known as “moderates”.
71
Dennis,
Why do *you* keep defending them? Their “opposition” to various things is mere words. Their actions have been very different.
Could there be a better example than the hallowed Tony Abbott? Pre-election: promise to wind back 18C. Post-election: backbone disappears in weasel words of “national unity”. Reading about it today suggests some Jewish “community leaders” wanted to keep the protections against anti-semitism. I hope they realise how wrong they were. *Words* were never the problem.
The party can overpower any of its spokesmen. You can quote what Morrison said, or Taylor, or whoever, but how can we be sure they won’t go to water when the party’s numbers men come and tell them to change their tune. This applies in 2026 just as much as it did with Abbott twelve years ago.
Having One Nation apply the blowtorch might change the equation for those numbers men. It was the old Democrats line: “keep the bastards honest”. Maybe it’ll work this time.
130
Because they are (still) the only viable alternative to labor.
But Tony DID stop the boats, DID axe the CO2 tax. Don’t throw out the good searching for perfect.
119
Hanrahan,
That would be fair enough if the Libs were offering something *good*. It seems the best they can do these days is less woeful.
Rephrasing my last para. above: We can hope ON will push the Libs to being a bit better than that.
It’s what ianl has been describing as a “cattle prod”. Even with that, I’m not expecting good, let alone perfect.
110
So you like labor? I don’t.
Hang on! You just said you want nothing to do with the libs. Make up your bluddy mind. Two bob each way doesn’t cut it with me.
My preference is for ON to replace greens as king maker at first and then see if they are worthy of promotion. I have said that I always give Pauline a vote in the senate but I’m happy with a nat as MP.
36
I understand why One Nation supporters feel the need to undermine Coalition, albeit with many past rear view mirror stories that are too often inaccurate and based on media and party political spin, however noting two new party leaders from early 2026 have been out and around explaining the basic policies to be developed for the 2028 next scheduled election (policy details are rarely handed out complete before an election date is announced) and now on record via Budget Reply in Parliament and next day National Press Club address by Opposition Leader Angus Taylor, by denying (or maybe not bothering to find out?).
Fact right now is One Nation has only two House of Representatives MPs, and not one of them elected as One Nation at the 2025 general election. And only four Senators. A minor party despite the opinion polls and mixed by election results, and South Australia State election Labor returned comfortably to government.
The latest comprehensive published opinion poll of 6,000 people is an impressive document and goes much further into details than the usual published polls of less than one third that number contacted. However note it was conducted before the Budget and resulting anger voters are displaying. And that 2028 election is two years away.
The bottom line, One Nation would gain many new seats but fail to get even close to the minimum of 76 MPs House of Representatives needed, to be safe and secure 80 would be much better. Labor now have 94 MPs.
And the scattering of preferences from all sources, Greens and Teals favouring Labor of course, but even One Nation intention to vote polled could preference Labor c candidates first.
Prediction by analysis that Albanese Labor would be returned to government 2028 or earlier if the election date changed.
My view – One Nation is already showing signs of instability and the leader is not comfortable when asked for details or other for her difficult questions.
I accept that One Nation support is rising, I also wonder how many farmers will realise that their land invasion for wind turbines and transmission lines is State Government regulations and laws?
16
‘Why do *you* keep defending them?’
I thank the honourable member for his pointed question, to kick the social democrats out of power the Coalition needs One Nation preferences.
In return we’ll offer them two seats on the front bench of a new Coalition government.
35
Won’t happen. ON is splitting the non water melon vote. Labor is so bad they are losing voters but I doubt disillusioned labor are attracted to ON.
10
The watermelons are in the cities and One Nation might not put up a candidate in those seats, but in the rural and regional areas I want to see the Nats and ON fight it out.
I’m assuming that Abbott would have purged the wets and the Liberals returned to a centre right position. Scraping off the green wet slime will require courage and conviction.
For the sake of democracy we should move away from the two party system and adopt the multiparty concept where loose coalitions form government.
33
We are already a multi party system, six parties plus independents. Get rid of preference voting and we will revert to just two parties.
00
Yeah but they don’t have much clout, beyond those middle weight contenders there’s a dozen splinter parties waiting in the wings.
One Nation has emerged out of that milieu to become a serious third force to upset the status quo.
https://notrickszone.com/2026/05/24/germanys-afd-party-calls-debunked-climate-scenarios-greatest-fraud-in-human-history/
11
Ok, let’s deal with Anti-Discrimination Act 1975 (Whitlam Labor) and Section 18C added later Hawke Labor Government that Abbott Coalition Government said they would repeal, they tried.
The House of Representatives legislation was blocked in the Senate by the majority in opposition of Senators, and they were supported by many groups including churches and human rights advocates, an impressive list of groups opposed to repealing Section 18C.
At that time faced with hostile Senate and dealing with terrorism issues, and legislating tougher anti-terrorism laws, Abbott Government decided to back off Section 18C and concentrate on anti-terrorism laws revisions, and they were successfully legislated into law.
Maybe research politics and how they play out, how often House of Representatives legislation is blocked in the Senate, how often Federal legislation needs support by Federation of states legislation that must pass Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council.
And going to 2019 bushfires and 2020 pandemic, look deeper into “the ingenuity of the spin has reached the point where we, as a general public, have never been lied to by such sophisticated means as now (John LeCarre 2003).
Consider also that Howard Coalition signed the 1997 Kyoto COP emissions reduction agreement with conditions, after November 2007 Rudd Labor ratified that agreement.
Coalition parties have not got perfect records by any stretch of the imagination, but Labor have a very bad reputation built on most often poor financial and economic management and reckless spending, etc. Labor are also very good at propaganda and twisting white into black.
25
Dennis,
Ok, Abbott made a promise, but “faced with a hostile senate” gave up on delivering. Setting aside that I’m not inclined to forgive people who make promises they can’t keep, when do you anticipate a future Liberal government having a senate that’s *not* hostile? It seems, from your viewpoint, they will have an endless get out of jail free card, where they don’t have to even try to deliver on their promises and you’ll stick with them. Good for you. Such loyalty is rare these days.
I suspect Abbott (in hindsight) regrets his backdown on 18C. His party went on to knife him anyway, and it would have had better optics if he’d gone down fighting. Meanwhile, his demise delivered the PM job to the odious Turnbull. I’m not sure the Libs deserve loyalty like yours.
80
Please explain how when House of Representatives legislation (as promised) is sent to the Senate for necessary Senate approval and the bill is blocked the legislation could then proceed?
04
Surely you know, Dennis? Politics isn’t only played at election time.
Thing is, he didn’t even try, did he? It was down to party numbers-men taking an “opinion poll” of senators. Then a wring of the hands and It’s all too hard.
Given that Abbott had just won a sizeable majority, and had gone with 18C as a well publicised promise, the threat of a double dissolution might well have worried some of those senators enough to support the amendments.
Conviction politics… you know? Bit of courage. Hand on heart, not hand on wallet.
50
The Australian Senate recently voted against proposed changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. This section addresses offensive behavior based on race, and the proposed amendments aimed to alter the wording related to what constitutes such behavior.
Key Details of the Vote
Date of Vote: The Senate voted on March 30, 2017.
Outcome: The changes were rejected with a majority of 31 votes against the amendments.
Supporters of the Change: The Coalition, One Nation, and some independent senators supported the proposed changes.
Opponents of the Change: Labor, the Greens, and other independent senators opposed the amendments.
Reasons for Opposition
Protection Against Racial Hate Speech: Opponents argued that the proposed changes would weaken existing protections against racial hate speech.
Public Support: There is significant public backing for maintaining the current wording of section 18C, with many Australians believing in the importance of protecting minority groups from racial vilification.
The Senate’s decision reflects a commitment to uphold protections against racial discrimination and maintain the balance between freedom of speech and the right to be free from racial hate.
20
You must have someone in mind who does? Name names.
He did keep his promise to stop the boats which he did brilliantly with his one-way life boats and he reversed the CO2 tax.
Two outta three ain’t bad. Someone should write a song. 🙂
31
Howard signed us up for Rio. He launched the first massive CO2 tax in his Renewable Energy(Electricity) Act of 2001, without either words “carbon” or “tax”. Morrison signed us up for Net Zero. The cost to Australia has been a trillion or two. Did he tell anyone he was going to do that, let alone the public? And the minister for Energy and Emissions was Angus Taylor, another who voted Tony Abbott out of office. But we are to believe this time that Angus Taylor is going to upset his friends in the energy consulting business he once enjoyed as a partner in MCKinsey?
The proven record of the Liberals since 1992 has been Climate Change cash, hidden from the public. Except for Tony Abbott who in two years actually stopped the boats and was about to stop the Climate Change Cash when he was fired.
We now also have had 1.3Million often incompatible immigrants flown into the country even since 2022. Who needs boats? Even Isis Brides, more on the way. Why? And how has that worked out for harmony in say Bondi or Caulfield? And hardly a peep from the Liberal/National parties. Especially Sussan Ley. People have had enough, as we saw in Farrer. And as the British just saw in Council elections.
The lies told by the Liberals/Nationals/Tories and for that matter the Democrats are just too much. The ordinary people want their country back. As we saw in the Referendum where the Liberals were within a whisper of supporting it and 2/3 of Australia rejected it. No, the Liberals/Country party are done. They have betrayed everyone, just like Labor. And in the UK the immigrants are voting Green, which is ironic. The least democratic people in the country. Who needs political parties when you have Sharia courts and Sharia law? (the UK has informal Sharia councils (or tribunals) that operate as religious arbitration and advisory bodies. For now)
90
Maybe fact check?
For example as I have posted with links several times Morrison did not sign Australia up for net zero emissions, he refused to sign the agreement at Glasgow COP 2021 and was criticised internationally and went against pressure applied by POTUS Biden and UK PM Johnson.
First to stop the boats was PM Howard – Pacific Solution – Rudd Labor abandoned after November 2007, Rudd Labor also ratified the 1997 Kyoto Agreement.
Migrants?
Timeline
2000-2007 (ABS statistics from 2000 not 1997 when Howard was elected to government) = 125,800 Immigration intake average per year.
2007-2013 Rudd Gillard Rudd Labor = 259,000 Immigration intake average per year (Big Australia policy).
2013-2022 Abbott Turnbull Morrison = 168,700 Immigration intake average per year.
2022-2025 Albanse Labor = 424,300 Immigration intake average per year.
42
Fact checking your fact checking
1 Fact check on Morrison. According to the BBC.
Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison signed Australia’s net zero by 2050 pledge on October 26, 2021. (Or at least Barnaby Joyce, Leader of the Nationals may have signed in his place)
2 You seem to disagree with the 1.3 Million but you quote “2022-2025 Albanese Labor = 424,300 Immigration intake average per year.”. 3×424,300 = 1,272,900. So I am out by 2.5%
3 Boat people. Yes, Howard made the first moves with Manus Island but it was fiddled by Kevin Rudd in 2007 and Gillard. The Tony Abbott government in 2013 massively expanded these measures under Operation Sovereign Borders shortly after taking office in September 2013.
You seem to want to exonerate Liberal leaders. Why?
70
Fact Check ABC?
I would have thought you would know better
02
I wrote BBC, not ABC. But the same thing.
And the video was the BBC chortling that our recalcitrant and Neanderthal Australian Prime Minister had finally agreed to sign. You could bottle the sneering.
The actual signature was Barnaby Joyce on 26 October 2021.
40
Morrison and Frydenberg absolutely did set Net Zero targets in Nov 2021. After they won an election with no such commitment. They didn’t do it for the voters…
And incredibly they also signed us up for the Under 16 Digital ID check. What were they thinking?
I really like Tony Abbott, who was brave and gave us the 90 seat win I quote all the time. In hindsight though he should have played the Double Dissolution card when Clive was bought out by Al Gore on the carbon tax.
And I am reminded even Abbott signed us up for mandatory school age vaccines — reducing the family allowance for anyone saying “No thanks” to even one vaccine on the schedule with no conscientious objection allowed, and no exemption for kids with Autism, allergies, asthma, and ADHD or other risk factors. Effectively it cost thousands to say no to the new gardiasil vaccine against a sexually transmitted disease at age 13. No Jab, No play. https://www.healthywa.wa.gov.au/Articles/N_R/No-Jab-No-Pay-changes-to-childhood-immunisation-requirements
For all his great points, it was … very disappointing. I can only assume he naively believed in the medical establishment at the time. So many people did.
Likewise Section 18C has no place in the policy list of a “Liberal” party.
110
The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 is a significant piece of legislation in Australia that was designed to promote the generation of electricity from renewable sources and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Although it received Royal assent on December 21, 2000, it officially came into effect in 2001.
Objectives of the Act
The Act has three primary objectives:
Encourage additional generation of electricity from renewable sources.
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the electricity sector.
Ensure ecological sustainability of renewable energy sources.
Key Features
The Act establishes a framework for tradeable renewable energy certificates, which are crucial for achieving its objectives. The two main types of certificates are:
Certificate Type Description
Large-scale Generation Certificates (LGCs) Issued for each megawatt-hour of eligible electricity generated by accredited renewable energy power stations.
Small-scale Technology Certificates (STCs) Created for the installation of small-scale systems, such as solar panels and solar water heaters.
Amendments and Developments
2010 Amendment: The Act was amended to split the Renewable Energy Target (RET) into two separate schemes: the Large-scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET) and the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme (SRES).
2015 Amendment: The LRET target was adjusted from a trajectory of 41,000 GWh to a fixed target of 33,000 GWh annually from 2021 to 2030.
Administration
The Act is administered by the Clean Energy Regulator, which oversees the accreditation of power stations, manages the Renewable Energy Certificate Registry, and ensures compliance with the Act’s provisions.
The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 remains in force, with both the LRET and SRES set to operate until December 31, 2030.
02
2010 Gillard Labor Government
2015 Abbott Coalition Government
01
That’s all non science. Using a lot of waffly words in structured legalize does not mean any of that makes any sense at all or is correct. Legal gibberish posing as serious Acts of parliament. No scientist wrote this rubbish.
And if you are right and these agreements are not binding, then quoting them in the acts as authority is pure deceit. Damning. By the government in power. Both Labor and Liberal. Or more likely the public servants in Canberra who have their own power agenda and feed the politicians stuff they do not understand. In which case it is the public servants, the Humphrey Applebees who are most deceitful and acting out of malice against Australians or to get more funding and power and promotions for themselves. None of which are admirable.
For example
“Reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the electricity sector.” So what? ‘Emissions’ are nothing to do with atmospheric CO2, Methane, H2O gas contents. That’s made up science. Everything goes into the ocean in rapid equiliibrium. And Ch4 turns into CO2 anyway and back in the ocean. The idea that fossil fuel CO2 is very special and remains in the air is fantasy, ignorance, deceit.
“Ensure ecological sustainability of renewable energy sources.” Check out the mass destruction of the national parks and farmland with completely unnecessary transmissions lines, another 30,000km of them solelyi for the windmill and solar vendors. All utterly wasted when the warranties run out in under twenty years. Ecological madness.
71
FWIW
Chiefio this morning
“Yeah, Oreshnik hit a different city nearby ( BELAYA TSERKOV ), not Kiev, but Kiev had a few hundred total hits including drones and missiles such as hypersonic Iskander and others. Military Summary channel has a type by type map of what from where went where. His accent can be a bit difficult sometimes, but his information is accurate and closed captions help.” Video.
And
“In other news:
It seems that after 45 years of telling us “The world will end in 12 years” the climate scare brigade has figured out it isn’t happening and we are not listening… so they are backing off a tiny bit…
From Sky News Australia:
“Reanchor to reality”: UN Backflips on climate change scare”
And video
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2026/05/17/w-o-o-d-17-may-2026-hormuz-still-stuck-ukraine-flailing-gas-groceries-getting-more-risky/#comment-181706
60
“Backflip” is misused. If you do a backflip you still face the same way. Many other words work.
20
H
Better read the UN “fine print” to check that it isn’t another word whose meaning has been flipped
20
Eric Bogle can tell you about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj4DoM_4gqk
00
FWIW
“SSP5-8.5: Garbage In, Doomcasting Out”
“You might have read about RCP8.5, which is now called SSP5-8.5. It is the most extreme future scenario proposed by the IPCC. You might also have read that it is being thrown in the trash can.
Finally, you may have seen claims from the usual suspects that the death of SSP5-8.5 is because we’ve been so gosh-darned successful in reducing CO2 emissions. Gavin Schmidt’s RealClimate blog (where I’ve been banned for a couple of decades now) mentions the effects of “the Montreal Protocol, the Clean Air Acts, renewable energy price falls, fracking, the Paris Agreement, actual climate policies”. ”
More at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/05/24/ssp5-8-5-garbage-in-doomcasting-out/
50
FWIW
But to keep your worry beads twirling
“Claim: Climate Change Increases Risk of Snakebites”
“Direct from the manual of “let’s run models and scare the world without checking actual data” is this recent piece from our favorite fear mongering news outlet, The Guardian, titled “Risk of snakebites increasing as reptiles adapt to changing world, says study.” ”
More at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/05/24/claim-climate-change-increases-risk-of-snakebites/
Looks like the snakes of Oz don’t get a mention.
50
Nah, we get our very own report. Apparently reptiles that depend on their very existence for hot weather can’t stand hot weather. These reports also ignore the fact that many reptiles, not just snakes, have very specific environment requirements. Brown snakes like open grass lands, tiger snakes live near water courses, desert taipans, well, require desert.
These creatures cannot just simply change where they live.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://citynews.com.au/2026/snakes-slithering-southward-due-to-climate-change/&ved=2ahUKEwiH4vr69dKUAxUcUWcHHSV_OksQFnoECBkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2KWDjQhYDhta5LcSwXulgD
50
If only snakes could talk –
oops, I mean walk.
50
FWIW
CFLs heading for “out”
“There is a quiet movement to ban certain fluorescent lights. Seems there should be a federal law protecting legal products.
Across the United States, a significant shift towards more sustainable lighting options is underway as an increasing number of states have either enacted or set to officially enact bans on the sale of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) and linear fluorescent tubes (T8, T5, T12).
Below is an active list of U.S. states enacting bans, as well as their respective phase out dates for the sale, offer, or distribution of screw-base, bayonet-base, and pin-base CFLs, as well as linear fluorescent tubes.
https://www.pecnw.com/blog/active-list-of-us-states-banning-fluorescent-lights/
Via a comment at Chiefio
10
Every single one of the states wanting to ban those globes is ruled by Dumocrats, plus Canada, also ruled by morons.
California
Colorado
Hawaii
Illinois
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Nevada (Democratic Legislature, Republican Governor)
New Jersey
New York
Oregon
Rhode Island
Vermont (Democratic Legislature, Republican Governor)
Washington
Washington D.C.
Canada
70
In Australia’s case, it was Turnbull as Environment Minister under the Howard Regime who banned very cheap incandescent light globes 2007-2009 and enforced much more expensive CFLs on us. Of course, CFLs are mostly obsolete now as well.
Incandescent globes have an advantage that their heat is not really wasted in winter, plus they are cheap and many prefer the more natural emission spectrum of incans.
The incandescent spectrum closely resembles sunlight because both follow a continuous blackbody radiation curve. However, an incan filament burns much cooler than the sun so its spectrum peaks in the infrared region, while sunlight peaks in the blue-green region.
CFLs emit a jagged, spiky spectrum concentrated at specific wavelengths, while LEDs display a distinct blue-light spike combined with a broad yellow/red band.
I wonder what subtle behavioural impacts living and working under CFLs and LEDs has?
210
David,
we replaced 2 Circular Kitchen Lights, each with double fluroscent tubes with Ledvance Orbis LED Oyster Light
32W (540mm)x 2 $129.90 now $139.90
LED has been excllent and very flat to Kitchen Ceiling and much brighter
30
When I moved into my townhouse, replaced all lights, including those in the garage, with LEDs. A great result – haven’t had to replace any light since.
00
Living in the tropics I have no use for the heat but living in the 1st world I can enjoy small extravagances without feeling guilty. One such extravagance is LED lights.
I have three round fluoros that I seem to be constantly buying new tubes for. Thanks Ian, I will check them out. [I don’t need a sparky to do the job]
20
IIRC sleep patterns get mentioned
10
I have always wondered if there was a net energy saving replacing incans with CFLs because there is a lot more “stuff” in CFLs compared to incans which have minimal “stuff” and only a few simple ingredients.
90
With the mercury in CFLs you would expect them to have been banned years ago.
Your comparison should include LEDs as well, they are complex to manufacture and have ingredients on the end of a long dirty industrial chain.
40
How many PPM would discarded CFLs be in landfill? Less than the 400 PPM I’d suggest.
00
CFLs never should have been introduced. Never seemed to have a Lo g life, contain mercury, break easily and are very dicey to handle when broken.
10
FWIW
“Driving Behind A Tesla”
https://hotair.com/headlines/2026/05/24/driving-behind-a-tesla-n3815240
10
FWIW
“UK Scientists Rushing to Create Ebola Vaccine Using COVID Jab Technology”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/05/uk-scientists-rushing-create-ebola-vaccine-using-covid/
40
Seems to be what we do these days with “vaccines”….rush
70
Just remember that, for animal use, it would have to be tested for at least 5 years, including for genetic effects.
10
Does the five years apply to human animals?
10
It seems only if you let your vet practice on you
00
Vets are far more qualified on diet than MDs are.
10
Ebola must be a terrible thing to be around it is so deadly but surely quarantine is the way to go.
10
This must be like the O.J. Simpson car chase. The rush that started circa 1976 has now moved to the “real rush” stage.
Ebola virus was first identified in 1976. By the end of that year, two related strains of the virus were known–Ebola Zaire and Ebola Sudan. Three other strains are now known to exist. Vaccine development began in the late 1970s: results from a test of inactivated Ebola vaccine in guinea pigs were published in Lancet in 1980. Because EVD outbreaks are rare and have been quickly controlled, commercial vaccine manufacturers have demonstrated little urgency in advancing vaccines through clinical trials. That changed in 2014: several vaccines previously tested only in animals are being fast-tracked into Phase 1 clinical trials.
40
New Ebola sub-strain jumped ‘from fruit bats’ to humans – as Congo records more than 200 deaths while Uganda confirms three new cases
The new Ebola sub-strain spreading through central Africa may have jumped from fruit bats to humans in the first incident of its kind.
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15844433/New-Ebola-sub-strain-jumped-fruit-bats-humans-Congo-records-200-deaths-Uganda-confirms-three-new-cases.html
First incident of its kind you say. 😎
20
JC you KNOW ‘jumped from fruit bats to humans’ is code for “developed in a biolab and escaped”. There’s a reason the Yanks have biolabs in the 3rd world and up against countries they consider enemies.
61
Yep. ” Mad DoG” McCain and Vicki Nuland – and others encouraged and set up bio-labs in Ukraine. Some say it’s misinformation, but I’m not sure.
20
Unprecedented, my foot.
Viruses that have jumped from bats to humans include rabies, lyssavirus, ebola, marberg, Nipah and Hanta. And maybe MERS-coronavirus. Bats live in damp caves where viruses survive. No UV shall destroy them. No rain washes them away. The airflow is weak. If you wanted to preserve a virus sample, it’s a good choice.
So bats collect the worst of the worst. There is much we can learn from their immune systems which are unbelievably good at holding back the tide of the mega-nasty infectious kingdom they live in. But playing with bats is a dangerous game.
Rhabdoviridae”
Paramyxoviridae (Nipah and Hendra)
Coronaviridae (MERS)
Filoviridae (Ebola and Marburg)
Orthomyxoviridae (Influenza H17N10 H18N11)
Bunyaviridae (Hanta)
Reoviridae
Then there are the bacterial infections…
50
I have a distinct fear that Hanson has caused her own peak by incautiously suggesting she could be Prime Minister. Hubris caused from manipulated poll “results”, I think.
ON’s real value is as an electoral cattle prod to force the Libs and Nats to change policies on mass immigration and AGW/energy. I do not think that a sufficient majority of the electorate regard Hanson as a potential Prime Minister. When she persists with this fantasy, she is undermining ON’s value.
I’ve noticed that the opinion polls, especially those pollsters known to be sympathetic to the left, are pushing high ON poll numbers, but without specifying the full questions being asked in these polls and without supplying demographic breakdowns of responses. They are deliberately producing these very high numbers generated by manipulating replies/demographics after polling in order to scare people, causing the ON vote slice to begin to wither.
Unhappily, Hanson is primed to want to believe these polls – understandable after the 30+ years of ad hominen abuse she’s received. The Farrer result was in fact weaker than the polls had forecast.
Pollsters regards themselves, as do most journos, as players, not reporters. When this is pointed out, their cry is “conspiracy ideation” while persistently refusing to publish full information.
81
There may well be a ON PM eventually, but it won’t be Pauline.
52
There are three flavours of the UN-party – red, blue and green. Australia does not want any flavour of the same impoverishing agenda. ONP is the only party that offers voter sovereignty.
The fact that LNP (blue flavour) has not condemned the Paris accord is proof that they are still the same UN-party. Barnaby Joyce could no longer put up with being conflicted. Two years more of Labor and a lot more will see where Australia is being taken. ONP will gain momentum and support every day as the mess unfolds.
Australia’s credit rating is now on watch for downgrading. When the downgrading occurs, it will be another pointer for the approaching financial doom.
121
The refusal to exit the Paris Accords is at the heart of the woes of the Liberals and means they are not truly committed to pro-energy policies and also that they believe in nothing and fight for nothing.
How does their claim of abandoning Net Zero but refusing to abandon the Paris Agreement even make logical sense?
More fence sitting by the Liberals.
And to pre-empt Dennis, I know Paris is not legally enforceable, but it’s abandonment is important to demonstrate their pro-energy credentials, assuming they have any, but I don’t believe they do.
Net Zero is not even “aspirational” as the Liberals used to claim and possibly still do. It’s just a disaster. The Liberals seem incapable of seeing that.
170
‘The refusal to exit the Paris Accords is at the heart of the woes of the Liberals …’
One Nation’s party platform says nothing about CO2 being a harmless trace gas.
https://www.onenation.org.au/climate
ON should push ahead and say definitively that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming. The socialists and green teal running dogs would go berserk and it will be a propaganda bonanza for the MSM.
Only a radical populist party can pull this off.
33
Malcolm Roberts has fought a lone fight against the UN Climate Change™ hoax. His actions are far more powerful than any policy statement. But you will find his views expressed in videos and on the record.
Barnaby Joyve has also been vocal about the hoax since crossing to ONP and able to express hid opinion rather than following the UN-party line.
80
Malcolm lacks the ability to communicate effectively and Barnaby knows zip on the science.
One Nation is in desperate need of a charismatic personality in the House of Reps who can debate the science.
13
My worry about ON is two fold; they will contradict each other through lack of discipline (they need a stockwhip) and they lack a genuine mouthpiece who is articulate and convincing. My God, they have to win a swathe of outer suburban seats. I just hope they can organise themselves and get cracking.
10
The outer suburban seats are full of new Australians who are un-phased by in-articulate politicians, they are more concerned with the hip pocket nerve.
One Nation could recruit someone like Andrew Gee, who holds the seat of Calare as an independent. Not sure what he thinks on the subject of climate change or immigration, but he is the perfect candidate to lead ON in the Reps.
10
But as Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce supported!!!
Deputy Prime Minister Liberal National Coalition in government.
01
Always thought Australian poli-ticks was a nasty, brutal theatre but NZ’s Labour (with a ‘u’) shows they can be just as childish and hypocritical: the link explains all –
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/596227/labour-s-barbara-edmonds-apologises-for-calling-nicola-willis-duck-faced-horse
As I often say, always carry pen & paper in case you forget the question. What?
20
In Victoria our dear Labor premier, Jacinta Allan is now referred to as Jacinta Andrews.
For those not in the know, the previous premier was Daniel Andrews who left the position to Jacinta a couple of years back.
Most people just regard Jacinta as Daniel in a dress (or pant suit) because, well, she is just following the same playbook the past Dictator used anyway. She also tells big fibs like her predecessor. Or should I say she fabricates mis- truths.
The State Electricity Commission (SEC) was resurrected by Daniel Andrews prior to a recent state election to manage the renewable energy transition. Let’s bring back the good ol’ SEC, said Daniel. This body was privatised back towards the end of the last century and closed down.
Dear old Jacinta was lamenting on the weekend that her dad lost his job when the Liberals (Liberal National Party under Jeff Kennett) closed down the SEC, because they’re BAD. Except there’s a wrinkle. The privatisation process of the SEC was actually started by the Labor government in 1991 under Joan Kirner. Yes, the LNP did actually finally extinguish the old SEC (1992-96) but they were only finishing the job. Ah, politicians, how do you know they’re lying……
100
Same situation as privatisation of electricity assets, it began in NSW by Carr Labor Government and after Carr left replacement Premier Keneally sold the first tranche of assets and the next Coalition state government was handed the privatisation process underway. Similar process began by Labor VIC and then SA followed. Not all power stations were sold, some were closed and demolished.
And it was Rudd Federal Labor after 2007 that revised the renewable energy very low target without incentives to a much larger target and subsidies system. It seems as if privatisation was the beginning of Labor’s long term plans for the transition to renewable energy and away from fossil fuels.
20
Rudd Labor ratified the 1997 Kyoto COP emissions target agreement after November 2007
20
Much excited commentariat chatter today about the Teals coming out of Simon’s closet and forming a party of their very own.
Naturally the Miserable Ghost of Wentworth is front and centre, rattling his chains and moaning through the Liberal keyhole.
Turnbull denies active involvement in setting up teal party
“The former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has denied any involvement in the talks between the teals to set up a party, but says that there “is a vacuum for an alternative centre party” which the teals could be a part of.
Turnbull’s name has been swirling around the rumour mill in recent days on the issue. He has previously talked up Allegra Spender’s credibility as an economic voice.
Joining the ABC’s RN Breakfast, Turnbull says:
I think there is a vacuum in Australian politics at the moment because the Liberal party has moved so far to the right and in doing so is diminishing. It’s done itself enormous damage.
I think there is a vacuum for an alternative centre party. The teals would be obvious people to be part of that or to do that. And I’ve talked to them about that publicly. I mean, going back some years. But whether they actually decide to do so is up to them.
So I’m not involved with any plans to set something up.”
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2026/may/25/teals-new-party-gaza-flotilla-activists-anthony-albanese-jim-chalmers-labor-angus-taylor-coalition-one-nation-budget-capital-gains-tax-estimates-ntwnfb
A review of voting patterns 2022 to 2025 shows that the Teal members consistently vote along with the Greens: on around 78% of votes. With the Coalition not so much: on around 20%.
https://www.tealsrevealed.com/facts-about-teals
And red hot on renewables (and those who benefit from them).
So, obviously, an absolutely ideal grouping to occupy the centre of Australian politics.
Clearly Turnbull hasn’t lost the deft touch that brought us Godwin Gretchen and Jobson Grothe.
80
A Tea(l) Party ?
10
I asked Gulag AI what Government (taxpayer) subsidies Turnbull’s private projects received.
Note to our American friends. Our ex-PM (who has severe TRUMP Derangement Syndrome) is even harvesting YOUR taxes (item 3).
70
Turnbull was Prime Minister for 3 years, late 2015 to late 2018 and Opposition Leader for 1 year 2008/09 and when replaced by Morrison late 2018 he resigned and left, that is now 8 years ago, and since 4 years of Morrison Government (and changes in direction posted by me several times here) and since 4 years of Albanese Government.
As shown, Barnaby Joyce was Deputy Prime Minister with Prime Minister Turnbull and he supported Paris Agreement and Snowy 2.0 Project approval for Snowy Mountains Hydro Limited company. Also State involvement in the decision making including development of land, Snowy Mountains National Park. And the original funding was part from government balance raised by the company, a for profit company that pays dividends to Federal Government.
Snowy 2.0 was also voted for in Parliament by Labor Opposition and now Albanese Labor Government continue their support, indeed they changed the contract payments to contractor system before the costs began to well exceed estimates. They also closed down ABCC – Australian Building Construction Commission union and industry watchdog department.
15
Major breakthrough in plastics recycling
Breaking down something that was manufactured to last forever has proved wildly challenging, but one innovator has developed what it calls a “gamechanging” depolymerization technology that transforms plastic waste into its chemical building blocks in just minutes.
Roughly 90% of plastic waste is not recycled. It’s rarely recycled, and if it is, the products quickly become unusable, and the recycling process itself results in high carbon emissions.
Traditional recycling melts plastic, which degrades its quality over time and struggles to handle mixed or contaminated materials. In contrast, Denovia’s process breaks plastic down to its original molecules, removes impurities, and produces output that can be reused at approaching virgin-grade quality.
Most chemical recycling processes take 30 to 180 minutes and require high temperatures, which limits throughput and raises costs. Denovia’s reaction operates in minutes, enabling faster breakdown and significantly higher throughput, which translates into more material processed over time, lower energy use per batch, and greater overall output per system.
https://finance.yahoo.com/sectors/technology/articles/tech-could-turn-plastic-waste-000000463.html
Current methods allow recycling once then it’s landfill, so this is quite a breakthrough.
40
Sounds too good to be true! The first question in my mind was what the products of this process are (other than nicely recycled plastic). So I ran it past grok. I was disappointed that grok didn’t ask what I thought was the key question. Anyway FWIW…
Overall Assessment
The article is lightweight promotional journalism that serves investors and the company more than readers seeking balanced analysis. Plastic waste is indeed a massive problem, and chemical recycling (especially for PET) has genuine potential as part of a broader strategy including reduction, better design, and mechanical recycling. Denovia’s approach—rapid, lower-heat depolymerization—sounds promising if the claims hold up under scrutiny.
However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. History is littered with recycling tech that worked in the lab or pilot but failed to scale profitably. True breakthroughs will be proven by consistent, audited commercial output, not press releases.
Bottom line: Promising direction, but approach with skepticism. The real “trillion-dollar opportunity” likely lies in systemic changes (policy, business models, material design) rather than any single silver-bullet technology. Worth watching Denovia’s progress on independent metrics like long-term operating costs, output quality, and actual emissions reductions.
20
Forrest Gardener:
I worked for a company that recycled PET bottles into plastics by several tons at a time. The “quality” of the bottles got worse and worse with all sorts of extraneous rubbish.
The reactor had to be caustic washed (at high temperature) after each lot.
A a cost
B further ‘cost’ with the reactor out of service for some time – meaning less output of better products.
Eventually they stopped.
I don’t know Denovia but I wouldn’t put any money on them.
30
Thanks G3. As much as anything else my interaction with grok confirms my impression that it can’t do science (or chemical engineering).
As a matter of interest what were the waste products from the PET recycling? And for that matter what did the useful plastic look like when it was recovered?
10
Under our Constitution, unless the substance of an international treaty signed by Australia is also enacted in Australian law, that treaty has no legal hold[15] over domestic behaviour.
No federal government – Coalition or Labor – has embedded Australia’s emissions-reduction targets in law. Most recently, in 2018, then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull sought to do so as part of the proposed National Energy Guarantee. Internal party tensions forced him to dump[16] that legislative plan – but not soon enough to prevent him being dropped as leader.
33
That’s an interesting observation. The constitution requires Australia to enact legislation supporting the treaty.
I don’t think any government has ever not enacted supporting legislation.
And for that matter I don’t think any government has ever watered down or repealed supporting legislation. Of course the High Court would strike down any legislation which does not give effect or ran contrary to the treaty but it’s an interesting thought.
10
Why are you playing these games? It is deceitful. A simple internet search will correct you.
“net zero has been put into law in Australia. The federal government enacted the Climate Change Act 2022, which legally mandates a target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
“While the bill itself doesn’t provide an outline for how the country will meet its targets, it puts in place a framework that holds the government to account, and ensures regular reviews are held to ensure targets reductions are on track. Importantly, the government has given the Climate Change Authority – an independent statutory body – the authority to oversee the country’s progress on meeting target emissions reductions.”
What you are doing is painting a picture that because the law does not set targets, that the Statutory Body, the Climate Change Authority” does not have the power to enforce the law. Pull the other leg.
80
I have posted links supporting my comments
03
No federal government – Coalition or Labor – has embedded Australia’s emissions-reduction targets in law.
Except for Labor’s Climate Change Act (2022), which provides:
10 Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets
(1) Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets are as follows:
(a) reducing Australia’s net greenhouse gas emissions to 43% below 2005 levels by 2030:
(i) implemented as a point target; and
(ii) implemented as an emissions budget covering the period 2021‑2030;
(b) reducing Australia’s net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050.
Note: The achievement of a target involves reducing Australia’s net greenhouse gas emissions to a level that is at or below the target. Accordingly, nothing in subsection (1) limits Australia’s ability to reduce its net greenhouse gas emissions beyond 43% below 2005 levels by 2030.
(2) Subsection (1) is to be interpreted in a manner consistent with:
(a) the Paris Agreement; and
(b) Australia’s nationally determined contribution.
[…]
(5) If the Commonwealth prepares and communicates a new nationally determined contribution in accordance with Article 4 of the Paris Agreement, the new nationally determined contribution must represent a progression beyond:
(a) Australia’s then current nationally determined contribution communicated in accordance with Article 4 of the Paris Agreement; or
(b) if that nationally determined contribution has been adjusted in accordance with paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Paris Agreement—that nationally determined contribution, as adjusted and in force from time to time.
(6) If the Commonwealth adjusts Australia’s nationally determined contribution in accordance with paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Paris Agreement, the adjusted nationally determined contribution must represent an enhancement of Australia’s level of ambition.
https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cca2022109.rtf
Without repealing or amending this legislation, any material departure from Labor’s plan for Year Zero – or failure to comply with the Paris Agreement – runs the risk of almost certain activist lawfare.
The Liberal Energy Policy doesn’t seem concerned enough to make mention of this. So, one might reasonably assume that a future Coalition Government intends to have Australia truck along the road to perdition – while whistling bravely about lowering power prices by investing in “game-changing technology”.
Top Men.
20
No wonder there are so many perceptions and opinions regarding Paris Agreement and binding or not, my research of which various findings have been posted here recently indicate not binding, however this fact check is interesting information for consideration and does explain the most recent end of net zero (no agreement signed Glasgow COP 2021 only aspirational goal with conditions attached by PM Morrison) by both Liberal and National Coalition partner parties announced by both leaders recent times;
https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/is-australias-net-zero-emissions-target-actually-binding/
34
We should stop all this hand wringing and take the US Governmen’s actions as a guide to whether international agreeements, treaties and laws actually mean anything at all, if you dont want them to.
40
It’s not a question of whether these agreements are binding. That’s debatable and sophistry, argumentation.
What’s not in question is that the Acts passed quote the Paris Agreement, Kyoto and Rio as binding and as adequate justification for the laws passed. If you are right and that is common knowledge, what we have here is egregious deceit by public servants and politicians. The politicians can claim ignorance, incompetence, lack of appropriate skill. But not the people who wrote these laws and advised them. And profited from them as all these laws create departments and employment and pay rises and career paths.
I have quoted these verbatim before and above. This is how it works..
(2) The first object of this Act is to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, and avoid emissions of greenhouse gases, in order to meet Australia’s obligations under any or all of the following:
(a) the Climate Change Convention;
(b) the Kyoto Protocol;
(c) the Paris Agreement;
(d) any other international agreement.
Whether these agreements are legally binding or not, the Laws of Australia are binding and they are embedded as total and adequate justification for those laws.
Again, why are you playing these games to exonerate Liberal governments? Or are you defending the backroom department operators who wrote the laws and convinced politicians that this was all necessary?
71
This is very bad news. It’s more important than ever that Australia extricates itself from the Paris Agreement.
70
This High Court case is significant and coming up now is not a coincidence.
https://cpa.org.au/guardian/issue-2190/first-climate-case-reaches-the-high-court/
31
It is a very slippery slope into energy scarcity and impoverishment. All based on a fairy tale.
The sooner the UN is defunded, the better.
The UNIPCC is already walking back on its scare tactics. Another round or two of heads rolling and Trump will have the UN endorsing his executive orders and making claims that carbon combustion is highly beneficial to the environment.
The UN exists primarily through the philanthropy of the POTUS of the USA. Upset the source of your income and you may as well shut up shop.
90
Beijing would be more than happy for the UN to set up shop in Hong Kong.
‘The UNIPCC is already walking back on its scare tactics.’
Yeah I saw that, too bad the MSM doesn’t make it front page.
Whatever the POTUS does now will most likely be overturned some time after November.
04
Lol. Let’s see the UN reprimand hina then.
Pigs might fly as they say.
50
China I meant…….
20
So, will Australia stop exporting coal?
This is what the Government voted for.
10
Doesn’t Paris insist we stop – ages ago?
Why are we still exporting? This madness must stop!
10
The UN is a toothless tiger. International Law is a joke. More honored in the breach. Why not pass a law against nuclear missiles or viral weapons and war itself? Better to lock up elected leaders like Netanyahu and Trump.
But as established above, it gives UN people a notional right to demand cash and their opposite numbers on the inside in goverments the excuse to pay it. That’s a conspiracy. Like Climate Change. It’s how the 80,000 people in the UN get their funding. Complicity in conspiracy and criminality. With a veneer of obligation which is entirely fraudulent.
60
So on a different note you agree that UN is a toothless tiger and International Law is a joke.
And therefore Paris and Glasgow COP signed and unsigned are unenforceable as I have posted and as references I have provided confirm
13
For the third time, I agree with you. Unenforceable. So what? Very useful, deliberately useful for the writing of local Australian laws which are enforceable. This is extremely devious and calculated.
So if you take these Australian Laws to the High Court, the question of enforceabilty becomes moot. The High Court would likely not act and would treat these agreements as valid and outside the action. In their view the laws should not have been passed in the first place. To that degree they are right
The only way to bring down these laws is for the Australian Goverment of the day to refute them, withdraw formally. The laws are then void but they have placed a trap in their list,
“(d) any other international agreement.” Who knows what people have signed. It’s hard enough for us to work out the big items.
40
So on a different note you agree that UN is a toothless tiger and International Law is a joke.
And therefore Paris and Glasgow COP signed and unsigned are unenforceable as I have posted and as references I have provided confirm
03
I am not a member of any political party and I have not been since I was in my early twenties a very long time ago, I am however interested in politics and current affairs, and getting rid of Labor governments of the Federal and VIC State far left factions dominated socialist (Marxist-Trotsky-Fabian).
It does concern me that so often there are debates and arguments that are based on political propaganda spin tactics – eg; 2019 bushfires, pandemic period from 2020, signed up to net zero and many others.
Uniparty by One Nation is tactical but not factual.
16
Then you have been wrong for a very long time. And you are the one spinning.
61
That is the problem, denial, I remember the attacks when I pointed out the 2019 bushfire deception, the 2020 pandemic misleading allegations, even the repeal of Section 18C.
And I have posted many references and links explaining for years past.
04
I must disagree there, Uniparty is the best description of the main parties by far! If the Coalition was any different to Labor we wouldn’t be where we are… and here we are! They are not an opposition at all, they are a laughable bunch of fence-sitters, like the Right in any Western country, just interested in gaining power and screwing the country for their own benefit.
When was the last time any of those clowns took a serious interest in freedom of the individual, small Govt, fewest laws and deleting the Nanny State? They are wedded to overarching power of Govt to oversee every detail of your life and make sure you behave as they tell you to.
Dennis, your view of politics belongs in the 1950s, when people fooled themselves that one party meant more to them than the other. Since your early 20s, a long time ago you should have seen that they are not different parties fighting each other, they are the same people just wanting power over you.
60
So you agree that Barnaby Joyce twice National Party of Australia Leader and Deputy Prime Minister was part of the problem perceived by Uniparty description. And Cory Bernardi and others now One Nation the minor party at this time, possibly growing larger in elected members in future?
02
Of course he is! Look at them! They can’t lie straight in bed! They say one thing now, change their minds later.. that is not a philosophy, an ingrained idea of how to behave, that is political expediency for advantages at the time… easily thrown away when the effect wears off.
At least with the Left we know what they are about, and they hold their values honestly. They will cripple the wealthy, destroy the economy and throw money at the most undeserving, but they always do that and that’s what we expect. The connivers on the right have shown they cannot be trusted, they have no values and they are the ultimate fence-sitters.
30
I’m sure you could do better. Get off ya bum and stand.
00
I wouldn’t be allowed to H, I’m not even allowed to vote, I’m a furriner…
I still haven’t learnt to say sex after five.
20
BoMs winter forecast is flawed.
‘Rainfall for the 3-month period from June to August is likely to be below average (60% to 80% chance) for south-eastern Queensland, eastern Tasmania, most of New South Wales, Victoria, southern and eastern South Australia, and south-western Western Australia.’
21
Looking at 45S, which drives advection in the SH, 2026 has experienced up to 1W/m^2 more daily average sunlight than 2025 through SH autumn. That is offset by spring being a similar amount lower solar intensity. I expect more late winter to spring rain in 2026 than 2025.
The change from 2018 to 2019 that resulted in the 2019 – early 2020 bushfires was 3W/m^2 down in autumn offset by the same up in spring so the reverse direction and 3X greater than the 2025 to 2026.
2025 to 2026 sunlight change at 45S is almost identical to 2019 to 2020, which resulted in good rain in 2020 after the bushfires in late 2019 and early 2020.
Given that Australia now has enough atmospheric moisture over it in late spring to support local convective instability, I expect NINO conditions to be less important in driving precipitation over northern and eastern Australia. By late November, Australia is now seeing large areas of low pressure over the country:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2025/11/30/0500Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-229.14,-17.65,589
So this makes it more like the Amazon. It also means early and mid-season cyclones are reducing because convective potential over land is creating a monsoon trough across northern Australia reaching as far south as Alice Springs.
The liked chart shows how much the atmospheric energy has increased due to moisture uptake this century:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/image-106-720×405.png
The peak between 15S and the equator is indicative of the increased moisture over northern Australia particularly in late spring. The increase with peak at 45S is due to increasing advection so generally more rain in higher southern latitudes as well.
There are some really good climatic conditions emerging for Australia. More rain and lower extreme temperatures.
On a less positive note, 2026 to 2027 has almost identical shift in daily solar at 45S as 2018 to 2019 that resulted in the spring-summer bushfire of 2019/20.
I also expect El Nino to be established by December but this shift is losing its impact on Australia as it shifts to an Amazonian climate due to the rising moisture content in the atmosphere..
30
FWIW
“Oreshnik Post-Strike Analysis”
And the piece that starts at “Lastly, a memorial of confirmed victims of Ukraine’s attack on the Starobelsk college in Lugansk:”
“Note the many Ukrainian names of the deceased above. These are the same ‘children’ the West was claiming Russia “stole from Ukraine”, and was so adamant about protecting and returning. Yet when they get slaughtered by those very Ukrainians, suddenly there’s not a peep.
The West’s top press agencies had no interest to visit the crime scene:”
More there
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/oreshnik-post-strike-analysis
31
FWIW
“Photo ops are easy, turning the wheels is another matter”
Concludes
“Canada feels like it is hosting similar rumblings down underground, tremors before an earthquake. But what we are getting is not change. It was a lunge at a comfort blanket, a smooth central banker – Stability! Calm! A Statesman! – and we got all that, but what we didn’t get was real change. A grand agreement that, after more than a year, permits the construction of an oil pipeline is not revolutionary, it is something that needs to happen in a few months. And they aren’t even close to actually approving it yet! The application has not even been filed with the lumbering beast, and despite the chance of a new pipeline being central to this whole whoop-de-do, it won’t even hit the Major Projects Office for another half a year. If all went perfectly well, construction would start in the fall of 2027, about two years after Alberta and the federal goverment took to the stage to announce their MOU that included public disclosure that a new oil pipeline was part of the agreement. The original Trans Mountain pipeline would have been nearly completed before this one can even start, in the best case scenario.
The world is wobbling crazily as current events threaten to dismantle decades worth of supply chain stability. There is a palpable sense among regular people that action is required. Because those regular people are voicing such thoughts, it is political instinct to reflect them back just like a parrot.
But we need more than that. The alternative is to wait until things are so bad that we welcome a Canuck Trump or Milei with open arms.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/05/24/photo-ops-are-easy-turning-the-wheels-is-another-matter/
Oh Canberra too
20
Two points;
1. Tony Abbott will be the new National President of the Liberal Party of Australia.
2. Malcolm Turnbull is not a member of the Liberal Party of Australia.
11
How do you know Malcolm Turnbull is not a member of the Liberal Party of Australia. That is very interesting. The internet says the opposite but no evidence I can trust.
40
What was amazing is that they accepted him when his mother was Labor Royalty in the UK. Her father was at a time head of UK labor and split it down the middle. But the Australian Labor party would not have him, so he joined the Liberals with the clear intention of doing a lot of mischief. He had registered a Trademark of Turnbull’s Liberals as a clear prelude to his secret pact with the Greens, at one stroke wiping out both Labor and the Liberals.
The black hand survives in some members of the Liberal party today, friends of Malcolm. Angus Taylor in particular with his busienss background in Energy consulting is very suspect, especially as one of the people electred with Tony Abbott only to vote to get rid of him. And Minister for Energy and Emissions in the secret men’s business of signing us all up to Nett Zero. The Liberal party is awash with old friends of the Black Hand.
As in the UK and US, Australia needs a clean sweep of the treacherous Liberals and openly communist Labor members like Albanese. And the Greens are all communist. Not an actual genuine ecologist Green among them since Bob Brown. And he was ejected from his own party.
50
A little thought on what happens after there is peace in Ukraine.. From ‘English Outsider’ on Moon of Alabama.
“In the Russian films of the 2000’s and 2010’s the memory of that old struggle is reinforced time and again. In the most famous of those films, the White Tiger, the central character, a mysterious tank commander supernaturally created out of the fire of war, insists on maintaining and re-arming his tank even after the final Russian victory in Berlin. It’s not over yet, he insists. They’ll be back, sooner or later. And when they are, we’ll be ready for them. And he climbs back into his tank to get ready.”
“We in the West have our own heroic national myths – the Battle of Britain, Bastogne, Iwo Jima – but for all the attempts to call in aid those national myths and relate them to the present, we have nothing of that potency today. Our soldiers will slip back from Ukraine quietly, unheralded. They weren’t supposed to be there in the first place so will occupy no national pantheon of heroes. Our practitioners of “dirty war” – it was a very dirty war, our war against the Russians in Ukraine – will remain for ever in the shadows. Their soldiers, though, will march back as “Heroes” and as graduates of the “Time of Heroes” programme will form the leading cadres of the Russia that will grow out of this war, linked for ever with icons of the near and distant past alike.”
A bit like Roberts-Smith it seems..
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2026/05/ukraine-open-thread-2026-107.html#comments
01
FWIW
Starmer seems to be getting a holiday from attention
00
Not so much a holiday as waiting anxiously to see whether Andy Burnham gets up in the Makerfield by-election (18 June).
Whatever his public position, Starmer will be spinning the prayer wheels for Reform to clean Burnham up and avoid an instant leadership challenge. Interestingly, Reform’s chances have been made harder by Restore standing a candidate in the election, which very early polling suggests will drag enough hard right votes away from Reform to let Burnham through the FPP gate and into Westminster.
Burnham is also helped by the Greens candidate withdrawing after being sprung as an anti-Semite.
30
Not so much a holiday as waiting anxiously to see whether Andy Burnham gets up in the Makerfield by-election (18 June).
Whatever his public position, Starmer will be spinning the prayer wheels for Reform to clean Burnham up and avoid an instant leadership challenge. Interestingly, Reform’s chances have been made harder by Rupert Lowe’s Restore standing a candidate, which very early polling suggests will drag enough hard right votes away from Reform to let Burnham through the FPP gate and into Westminster.
Burnham is also helped by the Greens candidate withdrawing after being sprung as an anti-Semite – so, presumably he will benefit from the public servant Palestinian enthusiast vote.
10
Sorry.
Double post courtesy of my mobile phone.
10
FWIW
“UK sustainable aviation fuel mandate to cost RAF £1bn”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/05/25/uk-sustainable-aviation-fuel-mandate-to-cost-raf-1bn/
00