|
|
By Jo Nova
That didn’t last long
It was only two years ago that BHP announced “Operational Decarbonisation”. They would build 550MW of wind solar and battery storage in the Pilbara region of WA. It was part of a $4 billion global budget for electrifying trucks and reducing carbon emissions. It was all so ambitious — they set a goal of a 30 per cent reduction by 2030, from 2020 levels, and net zero by 2050. The “Responsible Energy” message is still starring all over their home page.
Their diesel haul trucks use 1.5 billion litres of fuel each year, and they were keen to replace them with electric vehicles, which, they said would “save money”. But it’s all fallen in a hole already. The $4 billion USD global plan has shrunk to half a billion — a savage 88% cut. The new Pilbara solar and wind turbines were quietly shelved late last year (perhaps after Donald Trump won) but the news is only being shared now.
Meanwhile the electric trucks haven’t been invented fast enough so they’ve been delayed indefinitely.
 BHP Home page Daniel Mercer, ABC
Mining giant BHP has dumped plans to build a major renewable energy project at its flagship iron ore operations, sparking claims the company is slowly walking away from efforts to decarbonise.
In 2023, BHP announced it would spend about $US2 billion ($3 billion) building more than 500 megawatts of large-scale wind, solar and battery projects to clean up and electrify its iron ore business in Western Australia’s Pilbara region.
BHP estimated the project would cut greenhouse gas emissions from its “inland” iron ore division by 15 per cent by the end of the decade and reduce overall emissions by about 2 per cent.
But internal BHP documents seen by the ABC show the miner binned the plans last year because of budget cuts.
“Due to capital constraints, the project has ceased,” BHP noted in one document seen by the ABC.
Tim Buckley of Climate Energy Finance finds the “capital constraints” hard to believe (which only makes it more interesting). He says the company is “awash with money”, “booking 50 per cent annual returns on capital…”. If they have the cash but still don’t want to buy the Green Dream, it suggests maybe BHP management can read the writing on the wall — perhaps they realize the great renewables bubble is ending, the subsidies are winding up, and they don’t want to be left holding the can? And obviously, none of it was going to save money, or they’d be doing it anyway.
Wow — that’s some flip — an 88% reduction in funding for green energy?
It’s as if they’ve lost their green mojo:
The cancellation of the so-called ‘Inland Solar PV’ project comes amid what one analyst described as a “cooling” by BHP on broader decarbonisation efforts.
In its recent annual report, the mining colossus revealed it had pared back to $US500 million ($759 million) — from $US4 billion previously — the amount to be spent on “operational decarbonisation” by the end of the decade.
But the sudden abandonment of the electric truck plan begs the question — were they really expecting trucks to improve that much or were they expecting more subsidies to make it make sense?
Central to the reduction was BHP’s decision to defer investing in electric truck and train haulage technology that could slash the company’s diesel use. The miner explained the deferral had been prompted by delays in the development of suitable electric technology that could replace conventional diesel varieties.
Solar grows to 30 or 40% then microgrid costs rise exponentially
These remote mining operations in WA are almost all microgrids — each one is a standalone energy system and a feasibility study on renewables. These projects cannot access the main electricity grid more than 1,000 km south, and they run their own small gas turbine — in BHP’s case a 190MW generator. Like Alice Springs, like Onslow and King and Flinders Island.
The most interesting comments came from one funds manager who reveals that many companies are having the same trouble as BHP — they add in solar power until they reach 30 to 40 percent and then the costs rise exponentially as the intermittency.
Sam Berridge, a funds manager specialising in resources at Perennial, said BHP’s moves were consistent with many companies grappling with decarbonisation challenges. Mr Berridge noted miners in many ways had led the charge towards renewable energy because it often made sense for them to do so.
This was because mines tended to be “micro grids” in their own right and, historically, they had sourced much of their power from dirty and expensive diesel. “Now diesel has been sort of pushed off as being like the highest cost option, I suppose,” Mr Berridge said. “More solar has crept into the optimal energy mix up to circa 30 to 40 per cent depending on where that project is located. “And I think it’s starting to plateau at around about that level.”
However, Mr Berridge said the costs of running a mine on renewable energy started to rise “exponentially” beyond a certain point as the need to compensate for the intermittency of wind and solar power mounted.
The Pilbara in the NW of WA is one of the sunniest places in the world — 10 hours a day and 218 clear days a year. If we can’t make a solar powered microgrid work there, where can it work?
h/t David B, BallyB, Brenda Spence
10 out of 10 based on 109 ratings
8.9 out of 10 based on 15 ratings
 By Jo Nova
This is where the worship of “expert” peer review science gets us — a science crime syndicate
Once science stopped being about winning arguments and became just the-number-of-papers-someone-published, it became an empty shell. And once billions of dollars, depended on sacred ‘experts’, it was doomed.
Long gone are the days when papers were hardly ever retracted and pal review was “the big problem? Now, fake papers and fake editors are so rife they are their own specialist industry. Networks of brokers connect paper-mills up with authors and publishers and place batches of papers in journals with ‘friendly editors’. When Richardson et al analyzed PLOS ONE, they found 33 editors who seemed to have an extraordinarily high rate of retractions. One in particular had approved 79 papers of which, 49 had already been retracted.
Given the vital importance of peer review and science to the UN, the Labor Party and the Greens, the question is will they immediately launch an inquiry and set up a Royal Commission… or do nothing at all, and mention it to no one. Shh!
If an entire modern economy depended on getting science right, there would be constant monitoring and reporting studies like this. Instead some scandalous and systemic failure of science is reported every few years and all the people who “follow the science” don’t give a toss.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg –the study acknowledged that many fake papers had not even been discovered yet. And this paper doesn’t even mention the replication crisis where only half of all papers can even be replicated. Or worse, that the papers that were harder to replicate were more likely to be cited.
Wait til they find out thousands of real papers are worthless because they rely on broken climate models that got the core assumptions wrong decades ago. And that’s not just the papers pretending to predict the climate, but tens of thousands of other papers calculating the floods that won’t happen, or the birds that won’t be extinct, or the cost of building seawalls we won’t need, and of building planes that won’t fly on recycled canola oil. A whole generation of scientists spinning their wheels…
 (A) Retractions are increasingly published in batches. The ∼2010 spike in the number of large-batch retractions is almost entirely attributable to a large swath of conference proceedings articles retracted by IEEE. For the first time since this spike, the majority of 2023 retractions were reported in batches larger than 10 articles. Sophisticated global networks are infiltrating journals to publish fake papers
The problems Richardson and his colleagues documented are growing fast. The team built a list of papers identified in 55 databases of likely paper mill products, looking at the number of suspicious papers published each year between 2016 and 2020.
Richardson and his colleagues found that the problem goes far beyond networks of unscrupulous editors and authors scratching each other’s backs. They identified what appear to be coordinated efforts to arrange the publication of batches of dubious papers in multiple journals.
The team looked at more than 2000 papers flagged on PubPeer for containing duplicated images and identified clusters of papers that all shared images. Those sets of papers were often published around the same time and in a limited selection of journals. Looking at patterns of duplicated images is an “absolutely innovative” method for investigating these networks, Abalkina says. “No one has done this before.”
The rate of fake papers appears to be doubling much faster than the rate of retractions is:
They found that the number of suspected paper mill products doubled every 1.5 years—10 times faster than the rate of growth of the literature as a whole, although still a small proportion of papers overall. The number of retractions and papers flagged on PubPeer had also risen fast, doubling every 3.3 and 3.6 years, respectively, but not keeping pace with the increase in suspected fraudulent papers.
“This means that the percentage of fraudulent science is growing,” Abalkina says. That poses particular risks to fields like medical science, where the fake papers sometimes make their way into systematic reviews and meta-analyses, potentially distorting our understanding of drugs and treatments, she says.
At this rate, soon fake science will eclipse the real stuff, and if we could rule out Woke Science as well, perhaps it already has?
 (B) Annual global scientific activity as measured by items labeled as “journal article” or “conference proceeding article” in OpenAlex (47), as retracted articles reported by Retraction Watch, as PubPeer-commented articles and as suspected paper mill products. We make use of the linear trends observable in the log–linear plot to extrapolate these observations for the period 2020–2030. We show the 95% CI using shaded bands. The number of suspected paper mill products shows the largest growth rate, with a doubling time of 1.5 y. This paper mentions the word “fraud” 59 times. Commenters should be aware (sorry) the word gets caught in the filter here for legal reasons. So please use it carefully.
REFERENCE
Richardson et al (2025) The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly, August 4, 2025, 122 (32) e2420092122, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2420092122
10 out of 10 based on 80 ratings
7.8 out of 10 based on 14 ratings
7.9 out of 10 based on 22 ratings
8.2 out of 10 based on 18 ratings
By Jo Nova
It’s still a cult
The Queensland Environment Minister once made the mistake of saying he was “still to be convinced” of the degree to which humans are influencing climate change. Now, 13 years later, he’s had to backtrack in public for the crime of ever having doubts about the climate-bible.
The ABC accidentally sums up the real reason: “It comes as Mr Powell works with Federal Environment Minister Murray Watt to prevent UNESCO from listing the Great Barrier Reef as “in danger”.” So it’s just extortion then? The UN threatens to slap a naughty sticker on their management of the Great Barrier Reef, which would scare off the tourists, and the Ministers have to pander to please the UN? (Nevermind that “in danger” rating would be absurd given the coral cover is still close to a record high.)
This is not about Mr Powell, so much as a message to every other MP to toe the UN line.
The Science is The Science?
By Jessica van Vonderen, ABC Agitprop Unit*
Queensland’s environment minister has stepped back his previously-stated scepticism over human-induced climate change, saying he is confident the science is correct.
In 2012, as the newly minted environment minister under Campbell Newman, Andrew Powell said he was “still to be convinced” of the degree to which humans are influencing climate change.
“It’s interesting that comment [in 2012] was taken the way it was,” Mr Powell said.
“I very much believe in climate change and am confident the science is right.
“My position has always been that the science is the science.”
Does the ABC realize that this radiates like a religious obsession? If there was overwhelming evidence of man-made climate change, they wouldn’t need to doggedly enforce the permitted litany. They’d just answer his question.
Peter Ridd, Reef Rebels
*The ABC calls this “News”.
9.9 out of 10 based on 99 ratings
9.2 out of 10 based on 11 ratings
By Jo Nova
It’s like we live in a movie — everything around us is fake.
Everyone knows Australia won’t meet the fantasy 2030 target of a 43% reduction in carbon emissions, so there’s a flying-pop-tarts chance of us reaching an even higher one by 2035. Renewables investment is down 65%, farmers hate the transmission lines, offshore wind has stalled, and green hydrogen has collapsed, and yet the Labor Government is about to take the impossible and double it up. They are singing a reduction tune supposedly between 65 to 75%. Ludicrous, either way.
To make matters more absurd, not only will it not change the temperature in any measurable way, but the Australian people don’t want a higher target, and the Labor Party know that. If they thought it had any appeal, they would have sung hallelujah about the new target before the election, but they delayed it instead because they knew the voters would hate it.
Added to that, none of the Labor or Green politicians even seem to believe the scare themselves. It they did, they would have campaigned for nuclear plants 15 years ago, to save the world. Instead, NASA will get a nuclear plant on the moon before we build one in Australia. But we all “love The Science”, right?
If hypothetically, this whole charade was being fuel-injected from a foreign country trying to sabotage Australia, it might look like this.
The Government has never told us what the magic fairy cake of Net Zero will cost
It’s like buying a house and you don’t know the price.
For some reason the Business Council of Australia (BCA) is adding up what the Treasury can’t or won’t — and they calculate that a target of 70% by 2035 would *only* cost $530 billion dollars. This bargain deal, ladies and gentlemen, is just $18,000 a person, or nearly $80,000 from a family of four. Perhaps you’d like to vote on that? Nevermind.
The Business Council members include at least five banks, three tech giants, Google, Microsoft, and Meta, and many universities. All in all, the BCA is a walking-talking lobbying team for any Blob Subsidy Train. The universities dine on the grants, and the bankers have sunk “investment” in renewables, or they want to curry favor with the Chinese Communist Party, who want Australia to buy their surplus of solar panels, and wind turbines, and EVs.
But even the Business Council argues that a 70% target will cost us $200b in lost investments. Rejoice, there is a tiny bit of sense there. In an ideal world (for them) the BCA wants a moderately big target, but they don’t want a target so high it breaks the country. They also want the “certainty” of the target being legislated. They need the guaranteed gravy train. This report is totally self-serving.
By Geoff Chambers, The Australian
Anthony Albanese and Chris Bowen have been warned by Australia’s largest employers that cutting emissions by 70 per cent or more would carry a price tag of up to $530bn in capital investment, as business leaders refuse to provide cover for Labor’s higher climate targets.
Ahead of the Prime Minister and the Climate Change and Energy Minister unveiling a 2035 emissions-reduction target in the next fortnight, a Business Council of Australia report reveals the government is facing extreme financial, workforce and delivery pressures to land the net-zero transition
And thus it comes to pass that a group of business traders tells us we’ll all be $10,000 richer if we buy their scheme to stop storms.
Judith Sloan, The Australian
But here’s the thing: notwithstanding the high probability the 2030 target won’t be met – and let’s not forget that this target is legislated – both climate activists and self-interested businesses are campaigning for a ridiculously high target for 2035, of 75 per cent relative to 2005. While this target may seem absurd, fervent beliefs can be a powerful force, even if these beliefs are essentially baseless.
The report, produced by Deloitte Access Economics, reaches the extraordinary conclusion that a 75 per cent target would add $370bn to GDP by 2035, which in per capita terms is $10,000.
In addition, there would then be an additional 69,000 jobs – trivial given the number of employed is almost 15 million. We are also told that export revenues would increase by $190bn by 2050 in total, which is a rounding error. Iron ore, coal and LNG today generate almost $250bn in export income annually.
And everyone keeps a straight face. And no one says “Before we spend half a trillion dollars, shouldn’t we at least check the science?”
9.9 out of 10 based on 94 ratings
9.3 out of 10 based on 16 ratings
By Jo Nova
Antarctica defies the experts
Two studies out this year suggest that something shifted in Antarctica recently and no one knows what it was. In 2016 Antarctic Sea Ice surrounding the continent mysteriously started to disappear. At the same time more snow started accumulating on the main Antarctic ice-sheet (Fig 2b).
The GRACE satellite, measures the total surface mass — with all the gains as well as the losses — and suggests after 20 years of decline the steadily falling trend has broken.
What matters most in this story is that the climate models didn’t see this change coming, and therefore are missing at least one big crucial factor, or maybe ten. Who knows?
Antarctica was supposed to suffer polar amplification, and heat twice as fast as the rest of the world. What happened to that?
 Wang, Wei, et al 2025. Mass Changes from the AIS from 2002 – 2023. The grey shadow shows the gap between GRACE and GRACE-FO. The Climate Blob quickly issued a Fact Check, because it was fueling “climate denial” which is like Ebola or something, and must be stopped immediately. So the scientists who didn’t predict any of these shifts in Antarctica, now tell us it is only temporary “due to the weather”. Presumably their climate models have finally started working, at least until the next time they turn out to be wrong.
A second paper by a different Wang (S) et al, also used the GRACE satellite (NASA’s Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment). According to the paper, the Antarctic Ice Sheet was melting and adding 0.2-0.4mm each year to global sea levels. But after 2020 it has been reducing global sea levels by 0.3mm a year instead.
 Timeseries of monthly Antarctic mass variation in Gt since April 2002, based on the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) data, with the period from July 2020 to June 2023 highlighted. b Timeseries of the cumulative surface mass balance (SMB) anomaly relative to April 2002, with the period from July 2020 to June 2023 highlighted Wang S et al It is, of course, “not an indication that global warming has reversed”, because nothing can show that. It is forbidden.
The bafflement in the headline says it all:
LiveScience News By Patrick Pester published May 14, 2025
An abrupt change in Antarctica has caused the continent to gain ice. But this increase, documented in NASA satellite data, is a temporary anomaly rather than an indication that global warming has reversed, scientists say.
It’s always just weather:
Most of the gains have already been attributed to an anomaly that saw increased precipitation (snow and some rain) fall over Antarctica, which caused more ice to form. Antarctica’s ice levels fluctuate from year to year, and the gains appear to have slowed since the study period ended at the beginning of 2024. The levels reported by NASA thus far in 2025 look similar to what they were back in 2020, just before the abrupt gain.
Just because they didn’t predict this, that doesn’t make it strange, say the experts. There is always some factor a climate scientist can mention like a prophet, to explain why the climate surprised them, but they knew it would happen. It fools most journalists.
“This isn’t particularly strange,” said Tom Slater, a research fellow in environmental science at Northumbria University in the U.K. who wasn’t involved in the study. “In a warmer climate the atmosphere can hold more moisture — this raises the likelihood of extreme weather such as the heavy snowfall which caused the recent mass gain in East Antarctica,” he told Live Science in an email.
Obviously a warmer world has more water vapor in the atmosphere. But they don’t mention this when droughts happen, or bushfires rage, do they?
Hmm. The biggest losses of ice from Antarctica are near those 91 volcanoes we discovered a few years ago.
h/t David Archibald
REFERENCES
Wang, S., Liu, J., Cai, W. et al. Strong impact of the rare three-year La Niña event on Antarctic surface climate changes in 2021–2023. npj Clim Atmos Sci 8, 173 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-025-01066-0
Wang, W., Shen, Y., Chen, Q. et al. Spatiotemporal mass change rate analysis from 2002 to 2023 over the Antarctic Ice Sheet and four glacier basins in Wilkes-Queen Mary Land. Sci. China Earth Sci. 68, 1086–1099 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-024-1517-1
Antarctic Photo: Robert L Dale
10 out of 10 based on 75 ratings
10 out of 10 based on 13 ratings
By Jo Nova
Finally, the UK conservative Party is offering fossil fuels with no apology
It’s all good, but the UK Opposition left it so late to actually oppose The Blob, that Nigel Farage and Reform UK may wipe them out permanently. The latest polls have Reform romping ahead on 29-35%, leading the Labor government who can only get support from 18-24% of voters. The conservatives (who, let’s remember, were The Government a bit over a year ago) have slumped to 15-20%.
Now that Nigel Farage has made it obvious what voters want, the Tories have finally been dragged into offering it too. But true leaders are the people that do it first. We hope Sussan Ley, Australia’s opposition leader, is paying attention.
In March The Tories dumped the impossible NetZero plan. Now they say that if they are (ever) elected again, they will “maximize extraction” of North Sea oil and gas, which sounds like the British way of saying “Drill Baby Drill”.
BBC
Kemi Badenoch has said her party will remove all net zero requirements on oil and gas companies drilling in the North Sea if elected.
The Conservative leader is to formally announce the plan to focus solely on “maximising extraction” to get “all our oil and gas out of the North Sea” in a speech in Aberdeen on Tuesday,
She will claim that net zero measures mean households end up “paying the price through higher energy bills”.
Only a couple of years ago this would have caused apoplexy writ large:
The Independent
A Tory government would make North Sea oil and gas the “cornerstone” of the economy, Kemi Badenoch will pledge, as she hit out at Labour for treating the sector as a “relic of the past”.
The Conservative leader, who said she wants to see as much oil and gas extracted from the UK Continental Shelf as possible, will insist that it is only her party that is “backing Britain’s North Sea industry”.
Her comments came as David Whitehouse, chief executive of the industry body Offshore Energies UK, said there was “an important message that the UK should produce its own oil and gas”. He said that estimates suggest the UK will need between 10 billion and 15 billion barrels of oil and gas between now and 2050 – the target date for the country to reach net zero.
But Mr Whitehouse added the UK was currently on course to produce less than four billion barrels from the North Sea.
Only a month ago, the New Zealand government finally voted to undo Jacinda Arderns rules and resume oil and gas exploration.
The Guardian
New Zealand’s government has voted to resume oil and gas exploration despite an outcry from the opposition and environmental groups who argue the reversal will lay waste to the country’s climate credentials.
The climate agenda is falling apart all over the world:
““No doubt growing public scepticism is what has fuelled Kemi Badenoch’s plans to ‘drill, baby, drill’. The burden of Net Zero is now impossible to ignore. Households and industries have reached breaking point. A deep well of anger has effectively forced Badenoch’s hand,” says @FraserMyers. “For years, voters were treated as mere bystanders while stringent Net Zero policies were agreed on above their heads. That is now over. The revolt against the climate consensus is just getting started.”” — @NetZeroWatch
10 out of 10 based on 103 ratings
10 out of 10 based on 11 ratings
By Jo Nova
Rich nations protect the Earth
Despite the UN blaming the rich nations for destroying the planet, the data shows that wealthy nations have cleaner air and water and less deforestation.
A team at Yale compile a score called the Environmental Performance Indicator. It tracks 58 factors like biodiversity, species protection, particulates in air, pollution in water, forest integrity and fish stocks. It also, sadly, considers “climate change mitigation” measures — which no doubt adds some pointless noise to the line. But the underlying trend is clear. The only countries in the highest ranks of Environmental Performance are the ones with a GDP per capita higher than $30,000 US.
Possibly the best thing we could do for the environment is help poor nations grow their own economy. And the stupidest thing we could do is push unreliable energy onto the third world and deprive them of coal plants “for the sake of the environment”.
 https://epi.yale.edu/ Obviously, anyone can raze a forest, and throw rubbish in the river, but it costs money to protect trees and plants, clean up waste, and filter factory chimneys. People who are hungry understandably, don’t care much about setting up national parks.
The Yale dataset itself, is updated every year. This article, discussed below, came out in 2021:
By Ethan Yang, Human Progress
The study finds that higher levels of income per capita are associated with lower levels of air pollution and deforestation.
The Environmental Performance Index
The Environmental Performance Index (EPI) is a joint project of the Yale Center for Environmental Policy and Law and the Center for International Earth Science Information Network at Columbia University. The index has been a leading resource on accessing environmental protection in individual countries for over 20 years.
The latest 2020 edition ranks 180 countries based on metrics, such as air quality, ecosystem vitality, environmental health, drinking water, CO2 emissions, etc. However, what stands out about the 2020 edition is its conclusion:
Good policy results are associated with wealth (GDP per capita), meaning that economic prosperity makes it possible for nations to invest in policies and programs that lead to desirable outcomes. This trend is especially true for issue categories under the umbrella of environmental health, as building the necessary infrastructure to provide clean drinking water and sanitation, reduce ambient air pollution, control hazardous waste, and respond to public health crises yields large returns for human well-being.
For some reason Yale researchers even admit free speech and private property rights help the environment. Perhaps priorities become clear when people look closely at environmental stewardship in Zimbabwe?
Furthermore, the report notes that although urbanization and industrialization can lead to increased pollution (especially in developing countries), tradeoffs between environmental protection and economic growth can be greatly mitigated by sound policy. For example, “commitment to the rule of law, a vibrant press, and even-handed enforcement of regulations – have strong relationships with top-tier EPI scores.” That’s because open governments allow for greater public scrutiny, whereas dictatorial governments, like the former Soviet Union, can silence their critics and continue destroying the environment unimpeded.
Undermining of private property rights, for example, can incentivize poor ecological stewardship – as it did most recently in Zimbabwe and Venezuela.
Economic growth is painted as a bad, bad bogeyman. Growth is supposedly synonymous with greed, and yet wealth saves the day.
Giving up wealth to protect the environment is not the trade-off they want us to think it is. But it might be the excuse for keeping people poorer.
REFERENCES
Block, S., Emerson, J. W., Esty, D. C., de Sherbinin, A., Wendling, Z. A., et al. (2024). 2024 Environmental Performance Index. New Haven, CT: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy. epi.yale.edu
Graph by the Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy – CC BY 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=154237043
Thanks to Peter Ridd for asking the right question.
Photo by pen_ash on Unsplash
10 out of 10 based on 76 ratings
9.9 out of 10 based on 12 ratings
9 out of 10 based on 20 ratings
For those who wonder if there is any point in protesting against mass immigration or who’ve heard rumors there will be racist attacks. Ponder that is exactly what The Blob want you to think. Read the comment thread on Facebook in response to this –– it’s all good:
“My Malaysian friends are coming.””..ALL Proud Aussies Welcome  ” “Good stuff”.
Renèe Meggs “We want politicians to see that every Australian, no matter their culture or skin colour, stands together and wants a better Australia than what we have now. We are calling for a pause in immigration until families are no longer forced to live on the streets or in cars, and until safety is restored to our communities. If you love this country as much as we do, come march with us. Stand with us. Together, we are stronger — and together, we will be heard.”
According to Mike Benz, who used to work at the US State Department, The Blob thinks protests are such a useful part of Political Statecraft, they have teams dedicated to feeding the protests that suit them. Then they leverage that to change policies and even tip weak governments over the edge.
Meanwhile the hardworking majority sit at home and talk about how the country is going to pieces — because they don’t realize how important it is to stand up and be counted.
Don’t let The Blob set the agenda. If all voters took a few hours a year to get involved, it would suddenly be obvious to everyone what issues matter.
As a bonus, you meet great people. And when there is enough people, it’s electric. That’s what the Blob is most afraid of.
Check the March for Australia site and Facebook to find out your local details.
UPDATED: From the Perth protest today. Look how deep that crowd is and how big those flags are.
The Perth March was huge
The ABC estimate of “more than a thousand people” with “dozens of flags” is ridiculous.
Everyone was friendly and well behaved, ordinary Australians and quite a few Vets, or children of veterans. These were the brave people who knew the Nazi racist propaganda message was just the empty name-calling of The Blob. A lot of the flags were 3m giants, so they look small in the distance, but that’s because they are a long way away.
Walking on the bridge over the freeway the cars below were honking in support.
9.7 out of 10 based on 117 ratings
9.4 out of 10 based on 25 ratings
By Jo Nova
This Sunday at lunchtime Australians will March in every capital city for Australia
It’s just another unmentionable topic. Most people don’t know that despite a moat filled with crocodiles, Australia has the highest rate of immigration in the Western World. Fully 31% of people living here today were born overseas. (And 28% in New Zealand). This is higher than the US (15%), the UK (17%), Canada (22%) and Europe (13%).
Who will we invite into our house to live?
It seems like a fundamental question of any civilization. Yet we’ve never voted for mass immigration, and never discussed it. No one in charge, it seems, has even asked “do we have enough rooms” before they gave out the house keys.
But the Blob got more jobs, more voters, and the price of their houses goes up as more people compete to buy the same number of homes. The Workers though, their wages stay low, rents increase, taxes grow, and their children can’t afford to buy a granny flat, or get married and have their own kids. Maybe that matters?
For some reason, even though we are the global Multicultural Star, and everyone is happy, The Blob doesn’t want Australians to talk about this. Indeed they are so afraid Australians might find out the real numbers, the Australian Bureau of Statistics has even written to people to say they are misleading the public by quoting their own ABS monthly net permanent migration figures. (Thus, I feel I really have to share them.)
 Leith van Onselen at Macrobusiness, writes on August 19th:
“Last week, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) reported the strongest net permanent and long-term arrivals over the first six months of any year on record.
In the first half of 2025, a record 279,460 net permanent and long-term arrivals landed in Australia, up 13,080 (5%) from the 266,380 net arrivals that landed last year and 108,890 (64%) higher than the same period in 2019, before the pandemic.”
For some reason the ABS helpfully points out that other countries have higher foreign born factions — like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Jordan and Kuwait. They don’t mention that the Gulf States have temporary laborers who cannot settle or bring families, get citizenship, or in the case of Jordan that they are wartime refugees.
Australia has been quietly at the top of this game for a long time:
If you want to help raise awareness to start that discussion and find out what Australians want, you can email friends, share on Facebook or print flyers to drop in letterboxes. The ABC probably won’t be promoting this.
Check the March for Australia site to find out your local details.
9.8 out of 10 based on 114 ratings
|
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
The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX
|
.jpg){kind=link}
Recent Comments