By Jo Nova
Politico doesn’t even know what “Culture” is (or Science)
They were paid millions by the USAID Blob as a fake news outlet, but even Politico has finally been dragged by its fingernails to admit something, anything, is not quite working for them in climate politics.
But make no mistake, this is not a mea culpa, it is just damage control, years after they really lost the culture war. After all, two years ago in March 2023, fully 60% of American voters already thought Climate science was more like a religion. And in any case, Donald Trump called climate change a hoax in 2016, and American voters elected him President.
But here the Blob Media are, trying to sell themselves as the firemen hosing down the global inferno.
h/t to Climate Depot
As if they give a damn about “Culture”:
“‘We’ve lost the culture war on climate” they say, but in the article they say nothing at all about culture and everything about federal regulators, funding for junkets, tax breaks and incentives. Culture is apparently just about The Money, The Rules, The Blob.
The big news here is not that Politico is reporting something meaningful, it’s that its role is shifting to “damage control”. This article is the closest thing they can think of for an excuse. They won’t admit they lost the science debate, or that the experts were wrong, or that CO2 is free fertilizer, or that Net Zero targets were futile. Instead, years too late, they’re pretending to care about culture while they demonstrate they just care about the money.
President Donald Trump’s latest climate rollback makes it all but official: The United States is giving up on trying to stop the planet’s warming.
More than 15 years after federal regulators officially recognized that greenhouse gas pollution threatens “current and future generations,” their most ambitious efforts to defuse that threat have been blocked in the courts and by Trump’s rule-slicing buzzsaw. Wednesday’s action by the Environmental Protection Agency would extend that streak by wiping out a Biden-era regulation on power plants — leaving the nation’s second-largest source of climate pollution unshackled until at least the early 2030s.
“Culture” is just an excuse to cover up a complete backdown on a stupid policy:
“There’s no way around it: The left strategy on climate needs to be rethought,” said Jody Freeman, who served as counselor for energy and climate change in President Barack Obama’s White House. “We’ve lost the culture war on climate, and we have to figure out a way for it to not be a niche leftist movement.”
So to avoid being irrelevant, they need to do what the skeptics said all along, “use gas”:
It’s a strategy Freeman admitted she was “struggling” to articulate, but one that included using natural gas as a “bridge fuel” to more renewable power — an approach Democrats embraced during the Obama administration — finding “a new approach” for easing permits for energy infrastructure and building broad-based political support.
Basically, this is Politico trying to show the Bloblings and climate fan-boys how to frame a big backdown as if it’s just a shift in “the culture war” not an admission that they were wrong.
The truth is that they lost the science war long before they lost the culture war:
It’s been bad for believers ever since the ice cores showed temperatures rise before carbon dioxide does, and by hundreds of years, and we’ve known that since 2003. The only signature of catastrophe that mattered was the upper tropospheric hot spot, which was totally missing in 2005 and is still missing, (it was the only fingerprint they said that counted, right up until they couldn’t find it).
The data kept backing the skeptical side: 3,000 ocean buoys, 6,000 boreholes, a thousand tide gauges, and 28 million weather balloons. The ocean warming isn’t statistically significant, sea-levels started rising before we even built the coal plants, and still aren’t rising fast enough. The Holocene was wickedly hot for thousands of years, and they don’t know why.
Antarctica was supposed to be warming faster than almost anywhere but they were totally wrong. The only part of Antarctica that was warming was sitting on top of a volcano chain they prefer not to tell you about.
The climate experts still can’t predict the climate on a local, regional, or continental scale, they don’t know why global warming slowed for years, or the world was warm in medieval times. And all along some of their best scientists were hiding data, declines, history, adjustments and methods.
In 2007 30,000 scientists signed a petition skeptical of global warming, By 2012 two thirds of engineers and geologists in Canada were skeptics.
But Politico won’t report this — it doesn’t suit the narrative.
Teach the children. The big lies of the Blob Media are what they don’t say.
It’s interesting how they always seek to destroy the energy supply of the West but ignore China.
China is by far the world’s largest CO2 emitter, at least twice that of the next biggest, the USA, and increasing exponentially, not that it matters. In fact, China emits more CO2 than all other developed nations combined, even according to the anti-Western, pro-Chicomm BBC. And that was in 2021. (See below.)
China is a major nuclear weapons power, nuclear reactor power, AI power, robotics power, manufacturing power, space power with moon landings (manned planned before 2030) and a permanently manned space station and has a 2.5 million+ man military and has some cities more modern than any in the West and is NOT a developing country as its supporters claim. It should be subject to the same anti-energy restraints as Western countries (assuming CO2 was a problem which of course it isn’t).
The Left’s exemption of China from its anti-energy policies can have no other purpose than to destroy the West and assure the supremacy of China.
Remind me again why Australia is destroying its economy with some of the world’s most fanatical anti-energy policies.
620
David Maddison, #1
____China supposed to take up the world police officer baton that America is trying to drop?
20
… and China’s not alone.
India is also rocketing up the charts, and is about 20 years away from surpassing the USA as the #2 emitter before it starts making a run at China for the #1 spot.
And all the smaller countries across Asia are also rapidly ramping up their CO2 emissions.
And sooner or later, Africa is going to join the party in earnest as the only continent in the world with a well-over replacement-level fertility rate (particularly in the sub-Saharan region). It will become what China was in the 1980s … the giant undeveloped market that every corporation in the developed world wants to crack.
Meanwhile, the true ‘stranded assets’ will be the fields full of rusting solar panels and windmills that get disconnected from the grid once their subsidies dry up and utility companies prioritize grid stability over unicorn farts.
200
Mr. Maddison: Yes, China has made tremendous economic progress since the nineties, when China had it’s greatest leader and best president ever- Bill Clinton!
00
“…..and we have to figure out a way for it to not be a niche leftist movement.” But they are a Leftist movement, a fraudulent one, part of a greater fraudulent plan to shackle the people’s freedom, at global level, that’s why global warming, global climate change, global agendas….. global dictatorship.
380
It is proven that there is only 2.0% fossil fuel CO2 in transit in the atmosphere at any time. So whether CO2 causes warming, we didn’t do it and cannot change CO2. As inadvertantly admitted by NASA in announcing the dramatic Greening of the planet with extra CO2. Growing trees to reduce CO2 doesn’t work. The reverse is true.
If you listen to Prof Will Happer he explains that the CO2 effect is exhausted. From this point even doubling CO2 will only decrease cooling IR radiation by 1%. Which the Stefan Boltzmann law says will make a difference of 0.71C to world temperatures. So the worst than can happen from doubling CO2 is 0.71C. This is proven, established science. And he says everyone knows this including the IPCC. So it’s a double hoax. Firstly that we do and can change CO2 and then that increasing CO2 is anything but really great news for humans.
So Politico is just making it up. And they know it. Like all the Climatebaggers in the UN religion of Climate Scientology as they sell carbon indulgences.
490
And with the big Nuke in the sky appearing to be going into a “minimum mode”, all those organic woolly socks and jumpers that never got made during the Luddite, de-industrial / anti farming orgy. may come in handy.
“Right-sizing the population and then enslaving the survivors appears to be coming to the fore, as well.
Continue preparing as appropriate.
350
Spot on Bruce- prepped and ready!
120
Last I heard we have passed the minimum and Sol is now expected to show an uptick.
We should refocus our attention on the internal dynamics, the oceanic oscillations have a big impact on weather and climate. SAM is turning negative and high pressure has returned to its correct latitude for the Austral winter.
https://weather.plus/aao-index.html
20
The problem with your theory is that the rate of warming appears to be accelerating.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2025/06/08/picking-up-speed/#more-12598
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/03/wmo-update-on-2023-4-anomalies/
The issue that Politico’s are drawing attention to is that despite the overwhelming evidence, there are still a people who won’t acknowledge that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will cause global surface temperatures to rise.
010
Yet it doesn’t make the CO2 the culprit and it was far warmer thousands of years ago while CO2 was around the 260 ppm level at the time.
Cats, dogs, rabbits, geese and frogs lived in the high Arctic during a hotter era 9,000 years ago
LINK
You are so far behind on the research………
20
Even Greta Thunberg seems to have abandoned the Climate scam. She migrated to Gaza, sort of.
270
While the Great Donald is seeking to find out who is funding the LA riots so he can take action against them, perhaps he could detail somebody to find out how Greta Thunderpants is funded since she has no job.
300
We love to criticise Greta T, but there are others involved as well. The most annoying climate apocolypse advocate for me is David Attenborough and I think he does way more damage than the Swedish imp.
160
What he says and does amounts to child abuse.
50
Both the Doom Goblin and Attenborough merely read from a script, written by their Leftwaffe backers. Neither will bite the hand that feeds them.
60
In marketing terms the loss of interest in the climate scam is called “loyalty decline” or “brand fatigue”.
They’ll just find a new scam from which the Elites will harvest subsidies from hard-working people.
There’s always another virus… Or get involved in a useless public works project like Melbournistan’s rail loop or the Snowy Hydro 2 Big Battery or “green hydrogen”.
220
Probably more like ‘bullshit intolerance’ in that they can only stand so much ordure.
210
For decades the naughty we were pummeled with a ‘settled science’ stick.
Then came Pandemic.
And we were repeatedly clocked up side the head with a ‘follow the science’ 2×4.
With a nail in it.
And now they are surprised the naughty noticed.
The only thing the naughty learned about science was ‘f the science’.
410
In which alternative world has the science war been lost ?.
The sceptics have over the decades been unable to provide ‘the science’ .
The burden of proof is with you.
252
I’m happy with Jo’s examples above, what have you got? If you have proof that man-made CO2 is heating the Earth, it certainly hasn’t made the Sydney Morning Herald!
330
I’ve got the output of every reputable scientific body on the planet, you’ve put up nothing that passes inspection, that’s why Jo lives in this sad little blog talking to 20 old men.
339
There’s a reputable scientific body?
And I’m not old.
And this is an autonomous collective.
260
Honk,
You’re now in conspiracy theory territory and sounding like an old man.
The perfect Jo acolyte.
226
You sound impolite Miasma. (Annie…Grumpy Old Woman).
180
He is rude and his scientific knowledge is very rudimentary; which explains how he is so easily misled.
As for age, I’m yung and in 18 months King Charles will be conferring my OBE.
70
Just in case you missed it, the following are NOT ‘climate scientists’ (sic)
David Attenborough, Greta Thunberg, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, King Charles 3rd., Chris Bowen, Tim Flannery, Anthony Albanese, Matt Kean, Tanya Plibersek, Adam Bandt, Sarah Hanson Young, Keir Starmer, Ed Milliband, Prince William, Prince Harry, Leonardo di Caprio, the entire staff of the ABC, the entire staff of the BBC, the U.N, many more – too numerous to mention.
Although the aforementioned are not qualified to make multi-billion dollar recommendations on reducing atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide to alter the world climate, they seem to get an awful lot of oxygen.
210
Miasma,
When you say:
“I’ve got the output of every reputable scientific body on the planet”, you seem to have overlooked the small error.
Correct version:
“I’ve got the output of every refutable scientific body on the planet”.
As many on this post have indicated, the idea of CO2 as a world heater is just not true science.
From the point of atmospheric physics and associated thermodynamic analysis it is just not real that it can cause global warming.
As others have stated, if any university employee attempted to put this out to public view they would soon be unemployed.
240
KK
The refuters you speak of have not provided evidence, a prerequisite in science don’t you think ?.
Science is not verified by ‘putting it out to the public’, it’s verified by other scientists ,which has occurred.
If Jo had a science degree she’d know better.
I’m looking forward to her attack on evolution.
229
Lost in Miasma:
1. Check up Jo’s Science qualifications.
2. Check up some of the qualifications of those you apparently idolise.
3. Check up the qualifications of those who disagree with “your science” including some who have Nobel prizes in physics.
As for her attacking evolution WHY? Evolution has been revised, altered and even changed e.g. by Lysenko who seems to be your idol.
Certainly Darwin’s ideas are not used these days (and indeed some revision during his own lifetime). He, of course, followed his grandfather in assuming that evolution must have occurred.
120
Jo has a degree ??, in what relevant field ?
Btw, Jo continually denigrates qualifications , mainly because she is so lacking.
Have you checked the weight of evidence G3 ?, it smothers the little offered by skeptics.
Darwin’s main idea that all life had a common ancestor IS definitely used these days, what religious site do you get your science from ?.
117
Miasma,
You made the statement, “if Jo had a science degree she’d know better” (about how science is done).
Now that your statement has been shot down, as it was based on a foolish assumption, you want to move the goal posts to try and save face. Now you’re switching to making it about being in a relevant field. But it doesn’t matter what science degree it is because you’re banging on about how science is done. The principles of science verification and replication are transferable. All the while through so many of your comments showing you don’t actually know how science is done.
FWIW, I believe Jo’s degree is in molecular biology and microbiology. Quite sciencey, don’t you think?
Maybe quit while you’re behind.
200
Strop
Thanks for highlighting Jo’s inability to provide evidence, her degree in biology would have taught her not to cherry pick, ignore counter evidence and concoct conspiracy theories ( again without evidence) when peer review reveals her lies.
016
I highlighted that you’re wrong. Nothing more.
But thanks for highlighting that Jo’s education and qualifications would allow her to detect the flaws in peer review. If you knew anything about what you pretend to understand, you would know that the current peer review process does not ensure quality.
That hole you’ve dug is really quite impressive given you’re just using a keyboard.
Adios.
130
Dearest Strop
The peer review process is fine , that’s why you’re angry.
Time to have your chops and three veg while listening to the Goons on the wireless
116
The sides of that hole just collapsed in on you with your saying “The peer review process is fine”. There’s no recovery from that.
If it was fine, then how could the faked studies (written to show peer review is inadequate) pass through peer review and be published. How can other supposedly non-fake studies pass peer review only to be withdrawn later, after public review highlights issues?
You know peer review is not rigorous enough. You know it does not ensure quality.
The chops, veg, and wireless comment did make me laugh. 😄 (I was actually eating a Thai satay at about that time. Had beef and veg. Close enough)
20
Do you realize that those whom you champion believe in the high-altitude hotspot, which not a single weather balloon can ever manage to find?
10
Speaking of nothing that passes inspection…how many predictions from these
have failed to materialise?
110
No you haven’t, you would be on some junk true believers web site where you all stroke each other and say ‘The end is nigh’ or ‘The End is Near’.
60
Miasma,
I suggest you consider the value of ad hominem attacks in scientific evaluation, And of the decrease in reputation of the people who use that form.
80
Tell Jo that please
13
Let’s consult NASA, which says (despite heavy censorship by the White House):
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
Let’s consult the IPCC, the international scientific body that is responsible for quantifying the effects and recommending policy:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf
The burden of proof to some other contradictory conclusion is on you.
012
Regarding the NASA quote and link.
NASA is making a claim that human activity is the principal cause. The burden of proof is on them to justify that claim.
You quoted NASA
“There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.”
Note how that was written. They have said the unequivocal evidence is about the rate of warming.
That quote doesn’t say there is unequivocal evidence that Human activity is the cause.
The link you provided from NASA is simply a list of things that NASA believes shows changes on earth that they attribute to warming. Their evidence in the link does not properly provide proof of the cause.
The IPCC provides no proof that CO2 is the cause. They just make the claim.
What the IPCC gets right in the quote is land use changes. This includes the urban heat island effect.
There’s a recent study (Peer reviewed. I’m sure you’ll respect that.) that shows 65% of surface temperature increases in urban areas in the US is from the urban heat island effect. 22% of the surface temperature increase broadly is due to UHI effect.
So claims by the IPCC that the rate of warming is evidence that it’s CO2 as the primary cause is questionable.
They also claim the correlation between CO2 increases and temp increases as evidence. But the ice core data shows CO2 increases lagged the temp increases.
There are two key IPCC claims that are highly questionable and there’s no proof of their veracity.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/aop/JAMC-D-23-0199.1/JAMC-D-23-0199.1.xml
NASA has not attempted to prove its human caused. And the IPCC can’t.
Yet somehow you want sceptics to disprove what the IPCC and NASA haven’t proved.
I’ve just providence evidence that questions their evidence.
The burden is on them.
90
Did you you not notice the thousands of papers referenced in the IPCC synthesis document? It is a distillation of current scientific understanding.
The urban heat island effect is well understood and accounted for in the homogenisation of surface temperature time series.
09
As soon as you bring in “homogenisation” you’ve got a problem with your argument about proof.
I’m aware that there are claims UHI is factored into the homogenisation. Also that there are claims this warms the historical temperatures. Made by one of the peer reviewers of the UHI study, and why raw temps were used. (Odd that if it warms historical temps the BOM has been lowering historical temps and not explaining their methods).
There’s this study that raises questions about factoring UHI and homogenisation.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/62/8/JAMC-D-22-0122.1.xml
But let’s put that aside and assume all the recorded warming is as recorded and assume there was not UHI influence. Warming itself is not proof of the cause. Recorded warming just shows there was warming.
60
by a mechanism successfully deduced by Eunice Foote in 1856 and quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1897. Observed warming has been consistent with the first GCMs developed in the 1980s.
06
Regarding the “observed warming has been consistent with the first GCMs”.
Does that mean all the warming in the homogenised temperatures equals the amount of warming expected from the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere?
10
Yes, plenty of evidence of warming. Lets consult NASA. https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/. NASA states that the average global surface temperature, without man’s interference, should be 15 degrees C. Average temperature in 2024 was 15.1 C. So where is the problem? NASA states that climate models are not accurate enough and need to improve 100 fold to be capable of forecasting anything other than weather. https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html#COMP_MODS
However, as you have said Simon, don’t believe anyone who tells you that climate models are not accurate. So, as NASA have openly stated that climate models are not accurate, you cannot quote NASA anymore as you don’t believe them. You can’t have your cake and eat it.
The increase in temperature relates far more closely to planetary magnetic field loss. Just because the climate Nazis deny this influence, there are 100’s of papers that are now starting to realize this is happening. But the science is too new for those stuck in the 19th century and the climate grifters who stand to loose around $1 trillion a year. The field loss was 5% per century but is now 5% per decade and accelerating.
10
The sentence following your quote in https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/ says:
Did you not notice the heading on the ISCPP page:
05
And that entry does not negate the fact that NASA says: “Part of what makes Earth so amenable is its NATURAL greenhouse effect, which maintains an average temperature of 15 °C (59 °F)” followed by “However, in the last century………………..” Natural greenhouse effect definitely implies without man’s influence it is 15°C – NATURAL!!!
20
Here in Australia, the Earth is warming at a negative rate!
00
Actual honest scientists have repeatedly presented evidence that anthropogenic CO2 does not cause global warming, nor is it responsible for the rising level of CO2 which naturally fluctuates. Jo on this website, and other pro-science websites routinely report this.
However, because the Left have infiltrated (Rudy Dutschke’s “der lange Marsch durch die Institutionen” of 1967) all our institutions, public, private, academia, the Lamestream Media, government scientific laboratories etc. and have an anti-energy, anti-Western agenda, and they are intolerant of alternative opinions, any scientist who dares question the Official Narrative of anthropogenic global warming is silenced.
They are defunded, ridiculed and even sacked (fired). It’s impossible to hold a proper scientific debate, which is further made impossible by the Left’s practice of censoring any viewpoints they disagree with such as on social media except rare examples such as Musk’s X and Jo’s site here.
Incidentally, it’s a good thing that the earth system responded to a near all time low of CO2 by increasing it. Had it dropped to 200ppm or less we would have been facing a mass extinction event. I hope it continues to 800ppm or so. You do know, I assume, that CO2 is vital for plant life upon which all other life depends?
350
In 2009, Jo produced The Skeptic’s Handbook that can be found at the link on the right side of this page. 16 years later the evidence that CO2 induced global warming is a problem has not been found.
Your words “The burden of proof is with you” indicates you do not understand science. 🤠
380
The Skeptic’s Handbook?, that’s your answer ?, try looking up the many takedowns on that cherrypicked , anti science steamer.
135
Miasma thanks for dropping in, atmospheric science is a big picture item which requires an open mind. Jo’s links in this post are excellent, but you fail to read them.
Anyway, GISS is going to be scuttled.
‘For decades, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has projected itself as a sentinel of Earth’s climate future. But its transformation from a space science institute into a climate policy echo chamber represents a textbook example of mission drift. Founded for planetary studies, GISS has long since abandoned its original purpose and embraced speculative climate modeling and media-driven narratives—often built on data more adjusted than measured.
‘It’s time to be honest: GISS should be closed.’ (Anthony Watts)
161
I was completely turned by your post until you cited AW
013
Mr. Miasma: Is miasma a solid? Liquid? Gas?? Your comments indicate the elusive pure vacuum.
This is the lamest troll ever.
80
Miasma – According to Merriam Webster “Miasma is a noun that can mean a vaporous exhalation formerly believed to cause disease, or an influence or atmosphere that tends to deplete or corrupt.” Or – an unpleasant or unhealthy smell or vapour. Sums it up really.
00
Paul C:
I am not sure about him/her/it being the lamest. There are a few others who might claim that title.
I did wonder if he/she/it appeared as a trial of some artificial intelligence experiment but from his writing style I would guess someone who believes the nonsense about CARBON bringing DOOM.
Strange idea, why would anyone believe that without checking facts? Obviously he doesn’t know much mathematics nor much about scientists whom he either thinks are geniuses or mad (as in old Hollywood films). Possibly the old films may be a clue and he sees himself as “saving the planet” or possibly the rather pneumatic heroine. Certainly not very mature.
10
This would be the same Anthony Watts who tried to write a paper about the urban heat island effect but found the maths was beyond him and he didn’t like the answer. Number of refereed publication in his name are zero. Lets keep sources of authority to real scientists, not fossil fuel funded bloggers.
011
Want to disclose your own vested interest –or are you not honest enough? Too busy projecting your own ethical failures onto others without any evidence. A lot like your belief in climate change.
80
Your smear of Anthony Watts doesn’t help your cause when you post personal attacks and lie against someone who posted all of his work online wide open to debate over it which has never been respected by you and other climate scammers who push the long dead AGW conjecture stupidity.
Now it is well explained that warm forcing of CO2 declines rapidly long ago thus it effects after the 150 ppm level is very small, you suck at math apparently since a doubling of CO2 warm forcing is around the 3.8 W/m2 per doubling from 280 to 560 ppm against around 507 W/m2 Total Average Global Downwelling
LINK
Where is the Lower Tropospheric Hot Spot, where is the Positive Feedback Loop…
They were the cornerstone of the silly AGW conjecture but amazingly still fails, maybe CO2 isn’t a superman molecule after all.
LOL
30
The burden of proof is on the ones making the claim, not the one’s questioning it.
The proof must include all caveats, outliers, open data sources, mistakes, errors and methodologies.
Science not ‘the science’
410
Hi Miasma. “The Science” has labelled CO2 as a pollutant. If it is a pollutant then we must stop all sources. As you breathe out about 40,000 ppm of CO2, your breath is a pollutant. You stop breathing first and the rest of us will see if we want to follow your fine example of how to save the planet.
320
Correction! Miasma stopping breathing will only add lotsa CO2 … feeding plant life when buried or burnt….
30
The “burden of proof” is with those pushing Klimate “Science”.
The null hypothesis is that nothing abnormal is happening, you need to prove that this is wrong.
Take your time, you’ve already had multiple decades.
210
They have yet to disprove the null hypothesis of natural variation. The burden of proof is on you.
130
Miasma
In science there is something called the null hypothesis. If you want to prove something is not natural, you have to provide the proof, not those claiming that it is natural. Where is your proof?
You’re scientifically illiterate!
140
Maybe Miasma can post a few of his/her/it’s claimed “reputable scientific body on the planet” articles.
Talk’s cheap, ad-hominem cheaper, a total absence of facts to back your position cheapest.
Unless you have a degree in a field, anyone’s input is irrelevant and invalid?
If that’s your “logic” then you have nothing.
Try CNN.
/troll feeding session over
40
The Politico announcement illustrates how backward facing Australia is in electing a blatant lying and deceptive left ideological government. Yes the coalition’s campaign was far from clear and focused but accepting lies and mismanagement of our whole way of life over hope for positive change is still a mystery to me. Just a plea for beat me, beat me and do it again.
260
There was once science in the climate change debate. Back in the 1990’s there was vigorous debate about the whole subject and usually the end conclusion of these debates was that we know very little about how earths climate is formed. Then those damn politicians got involved and learned that if you scare the people and propose a solution, voters will support you. In Australia we’re still at that latter point of political delusion. In the US that point is now in the rear vision mirror. We need someone to drive our Aussie car (beat up 1990’s Commodore that’s had a dodgy re- spray and retread tyres) forward and at this stage I see nobody.
280
There was one once – name of Abbott
160
The “(Oregon) Petition Project” [my wife Nancy and I signed] got a bad rap when a few dingbats got false names included {Mickey Mouse?}. Now when Duck Assist reports – it claims “the authenticity and credentials of many signatories have been widely questioned.” The source for that is apparently DeSmog, or maybe Wikipedia.
The Project’s page says 31,487 American scientists have signed. Some of us are not true scientists and some may not be Americans. My wife and I never considered ourselves “scientists” although we both did some earth-science work. We were university faculty. I doubt anyone has checked anywhere near the 31,487 signers (a few now deceased – including Nancy)
180
John don’t undersell this extraordinary project.
The Petition Project first came out in 1998, and after the initial predictable ad homs and criticisms, they did the whole thing again, removed any duplicates or trolls, and it was released with even more names in 2008.
There are an amazing 9,029 PhDs.
“The majority of the current listed signatories signed or re-signed the petition after October 2007”
http://www.petitionproject.org/frequently_asked_questions.php
20
I actually think they do mean “Culture war”. This has never been about the science because no real science exists to measure ‘human caused warming’ in a chaotic system that has warmed and cooled in seemingly random fashion since the Earth was created. Instead, they created a fake consensus and used propaganda to create a pseudo religious climate cult. That’s culture !!!. The climate cult is really a Marxist organisation in any case and we see Greta, their climate Messiah, branching out into every Marxist cause from BLM to supporting open borders and to supporting a terrorist organisation in Palestine. Trumps’s election win last year was the sign that a majority of people in the USA have rejected this Marxist cult and we now see Trump stripping back all of their Marxist attacks on the social fabric of the USA, including reversal of the open border, banning transgender ideology and diversity quotas in addition to rolling back the crazy climate laws.
The fact that Politico have now referred to this war as a war on culture, rather than science, is a big self admission that this has been a Marxist play all along.
180
The Co2 Coalition Scientists also tell us that the previous Eemian interglacial was 8 c warmer than today and even Wiki tells us that SLs were about 6 to 9 metres higher at that time.
That’s 130 K to 115 K years ago and a very tiny population of Humans then and all living a very hard hunter gatherer existence.
When will we wake up and think? We should listen to the genuine Scientists and ignore the li-rs and con artists.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/the-last-interglacial-was-8c-14f-warmer-than-today/
150
Climate Alarmisrs are in retreat. Licking their wounds as they go. They will bang on until the end which is fast approaching. The Australian Marxist Guv’ment may keep going on but Reality will eventually catch them out. Until then be a True Believer ~ in Science.
160
Of course, there are also the near dozen causality papers that show that CO2 changes happen after temperature changes, in the modern era:
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ijg.2010.13014
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/095830509789876772
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1219683110
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257343053_The_phase_relation_between_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature
https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/2/4/83
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1146/9/3/33/htm
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspa.2021.0835
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2021.0836
https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/5/3/35
https://www.ssb.no/en/natur-og-miljo/forurensning-og-klima/artikler/to-what-extent-are-temperature-levels-changing-due-to-greenhouse-gas-emissions/_/attachment/inline/5a3f4a9b-3bc3-4988-9579-9fea82944264:f63064594b9225f9d7dc458b0b70a646baec3339/DP1007.pdf
https://www.aimspress.com/article/doi/10.3934/mbe.2024287
Its very hard to make any case for CO2 causing climate change when all the data shows that causality operates in exactly the opposite direction.
200
I should also add that Humans lived brutal and short lives for 99.9% of the last 300,000 years.
In 1770 life expectancy was about 28.5 years, 32 years by 1900 and 73 years today.
Population under 1 billion in 1770, 2.5 billion by 1950, and over 8.1 billion today.
We must learn to follow the data and wake up to the anti-science BS merchants.
200
David Maddison said:
The answer: Australians are the sacrificial lambs in the world energy economy and Chris Bowen, Energy Minister of the Marxist Albanese government, is leading us to the slaughterhouse.
200
Not only world energy economy but also one world government. It’s why “we” are such enthusiastic members of the UN, WHO and WEF organizations.
110
Who is this We? Can’t be Me or many others on this August Site.
10
When I say “we”, I mean the idiots that represent us at government level. You know, the ones we the people elect into parliament? Trouble is, we then have the unelected bureaucrats who also sign us up to all these ridiculous agreements. Dont look at me, I didn’t vote for this lot and I know no-one who did.
20
We in Australia are the ‘crash test dummies’, in the car driven by the chief clown.
30
Here’s Human life expectancy since 1770 to 2023 from OWI Data.
Just 28.5 years in 1770 and 73.3 years in 2023 and over 7.3 billion more people today.
IOW this is the only time we’ve seen this unbelievable Human flourishing in 300,000 years.
The loonies should start to think and wake up.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy
110
Most of the rest of the world has moved on , they just want the lights to stay on .
But in Australia we are still heading back to the stone age .
One point we should push REALLY HARD is when someone says that we are emitting 1% of the world’s emissions we should immediately correct them by saying that Australia has 1% of HUMAN emissions of CO2 ( which is plant food ) . 96 to 97 percent of CO2 comes from nature and we can’t change that . And as Jo says above , ice cores say that changes in temperature LEAD changes in CO2 levels by hundreds of years so the climate botherers have cause and effect back to front . Also as they have NEVER found the predicted ” Hot Spot ” then the alarmists have NO SCIENCE to back up their ridiculous claims .
Now we need to build 6 new coal fired power stations ( nearly as many as China builds every month ) and just get on with life . Dump the UN too .
And tell the climate loons to their face that they are LOONS !
250
All this was born of politics, the science was an accommodation.
180
IS CHINA USING CLIMATE INITIATIVES TO UNDERMINE AUSTRALIA’S ENERGY INDEPENDENCE?
THEY’RE DOING IT TO AMERICA: OF COURSE THEY’RE DOING IT TO AUSTRALIA
CHRIS BOWEN IS CHINA’S MAN IN AUSTRALIA
https://gellerreport.com/2025/06/ccp-climate-warfare.html/
100
Years ago opposition to some new coal mine exploration in the UK was supposedly funded by Russian interests. They wanted the UK as a potential market for Russian gas I suppose. Wouldn’t surprise me in the least that China is supporting “Green’ activist groups worldwide.
120
This Marxist Feral Guvment is the Manchurian Candidate on steroids.
40
Maybe if ‘Politico’ was ever interested in truth in advertising it should change its name to Democratico?
50
As for losing the Science War, there never was one as far as I know.
The entire Climate Scientology extort and control scheme has been operated by lawyers using the UN to create fake obligations which lawyers and politicians use as ‘international law’ even though that’s not true. Meaningless treaties.
95% of the world’s population is utterly unaffected by carbon taxes and carbon credits. Largely they are the recipients of the largesse. The UN talks in terms of hundreds of billions of dollars to be paid. But only Canada, Australia, New Zealand the Western Europe are flagellating their voters with absurd laws based on fake obligations.
And at no time were ANY of the science stories proven. No fossil fuel in the air. CO2 is not strong enough to affect the temperature even doubling producing only 0.71C. And growing trees, agricultural credits have been proven wrong by NASA as tree coverage booms and CO2 is unaffected.
Science war? There has been no science war. Just endless taxes based on unproven conjecture presented as obligation. No one even reads or comments on such appalling laws as Australia’s 35% CO2 tax. No one wants to upset the voters with the unbridled greed of politicians and Clean Energy public servants. The last thing anyone in government wants is for people to find out why their electricity costs are rocketing and soon all goods, laden with 35% taxes on breathing.
70
Please! Use the term “delightfully warm” not “wickedly hot”.
40
The people pushing climate alarmism live in a Goebbels propaganda loop, where they believe they are justified to bombard the public with so many lies, that they themselves start to believe their own lies, which they then believe justifies even more incredulous lies. Year on year the lies got worse and worse until it didn’t need a science degree or even much data to know we were being lied to.
These “scientists” for real scientists they are not, they are just activists … they are now so far departed from the truth that to even contemplate telling the truth would be such a climb down that it would entirely reverse the narrative. Yet, they cannot continue lying. That is how they lost.
60
“the Blob Media are, trying to sell themselves as the firemen hosing down the global inferno.”
Funny though, how so many firemen turn out to be the arsonists.
60
Let’s not forget Climate Gate, now 16 years ago. They have just been pretending that Climate Gate never happened for 16 years. But it did.
40