The Forces of Evil are winning the climate debate

Here is an abridged version of a piece I have in The Spectator on line ($)

Evidence does not seem to matter in the debate on human induced climate change.  Hardly anyone is listening to reason.  Minds have been made up.

A substantial majority of people considers human induced climate change is underway.  They do so even though temperatures and ocean levels have not risen beyond their long-term trends, there is no increase in extreme events, no increase in flooding, droughts, or forest fires. And iconic features like the great Barrier Reef are under no stress.

Countering every solid piece of evidence showing climate stability are unscientific claims that a particular occurrence of flooding, drought, hurricanes, and hot weather is proof of the opposite.  Even Barnaby Joyce is on board.

A majority is equally unconvinced by the palpable evidence of higher electricity prices and a less reliable network due to a replacement of controllable fossil fuel generation by intermittently available renewables that require both expensive back-up and high cost transmission.  The simplistic cry that renewable energy is free and must be cheaper than those ancient coal generators is accepted by professionals outside the industry, and some within it.  It is becoming a dominant perspective of bankers, doctors, lawyers as well as teachers.

Brian Fisher’s study of Australian policy options to reduce emissions found the Coalition policy of cutting emissions by 27 per cent involves a tax of $263 per tonne of CO2  and that of Labor, for a 45 per cent reduction, would mean a tax of over $900 per tonne (the abolished 2013 carbon tax was $24 per tonne).  Costs of Labor’s policy would be $1.2 trillion (two thirds of annual GDP). That of the Coalition is a “mere” $80-90 billion. Addressing the Fisher report, Labor’s Mark Butler showed wilful incuriosity in claiming “firmed” renewable contracts are “only” $70 per MWh (itself almost twice the price previously prevailing) when the average market price is around $100.

Against studies showing renewables to be expensive, we see other reports from the government funded research agencies like CSIRO, the Chief Scientist, as well as from commercial interests, maintaining that renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuel driven energy.  Renewable energy supporters, usually without acknowledging an incongruity, also advocate subsidies via tax breaks or regulations to penalise fossil fuels.  Those subsidies are often, like the “National Energy Guarantee” and the Renewable Energy Target, clothed in misleading language with the (intended) result that people do not recognise them as costs. For example, hardly anyone installing roof top solar panels in Australia understands that half the cost of the energy the panels generate is unwittingly financed by other electricity customers.

Trump excluded, the agenda is virtually set within the developed world, where every country has implemented carbon emission restraining measures at some cost to their economies. Trump however remains a real hope as his policies show a widening gap between costs and economic performance of the US compared to other developed country economies.

But for the developing world virtue signalling takes a backseat.  Coal is talismanic, remain the cheapest and most reliable source of electricity and the backbone of the future global electricity supply. Nothing Australia, nor indeed a coalition of developed countries, can do will alter this. Australia has little more than one per cent of the global operating capacity of coal generators.  Approved additions in China alone are four times the total Australian plant.

Many consider that the ALP/Green policies would soon, if implemented, be recognised as harmful and lead to an early electoral debacle. This may be wishful thinking.  After all, Venezuela’s socialists survived five elections by assembling coalitions of the poor and a bloated public service who willingly voted for a party offering them favours at the expense of the affluent and foreigners.  They did so even though this impoverished the nation.  In the past, the only ALP government with a preconceived radical anti-capitalist agenda was that of Whitlam in 1972.  The Hawke/Keating government was in many ways a reformist improvement on the Fraser government it replaced, while Rudd campaigned on paring back the size of government.

For many conservatives the strategy to prevent a disastrous climate policy-induced downsizing of the Australian economy is to campaign on less drastic “me-too” platforms. Such an approach is akin to that which characterised conservative policies in the post 1945 period when rear-guard actions are fought against a seemingly inevitable but unpalatable shift to socialism.  It took outstanding leadership of Reagan and Thatcher to capitalise on an observable failures of anti-market policies to stop the rot.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

58 Responses to The Forces of Evil are winning the climate debate

  1. Viva

    stop the rot.

    It’s the zeitgeist Alan. Ask Paul Kelly.

  2. duncanm

    I see two problems.

    One, there has been so much misinformation, that the general public have swallowed the line that renewables are a cheaper source of energy, and so the natural response is “why wouldn’t you move to renewables?” I have arguments with people about this all the time; they refuse to listen to reason, and instead defer to authority. It doesn’t help that the average Joe (and those pushing the agenda) have little understanding of the workings of the power grid, and the huge costs associated with trying to decentralise or move generation.

    Secondly, even if they believe the facts regarding the true cost of renewables, they often don’t understand the concept of opportunity cost. Everything is free, so why wouldn”t you do something. Think of the children!

    Unfortunately, even Bjorn Lomborg can’t cut through the great fatberg of bullshit.

  3. Rohan

    CO2 arguments asside, it’s amazing that no one has picked up the fact that wind was heavily used prior to the industrial revolution. The reason why wind was forgotten and coal became king was despatchable. You’re not at the mercy of the weather.

    This video is perfect illustration of that point: A surviving wind powered sawmill. Note just after the 5 minute mark, they have to turn the whole thing off because the wind was too strong and was threatening to destroy itself. So everything ground to a halt.

    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6FxG3ll-lw&w=560&h=315%5D

  4. Rohan

    Just like our economy will

  5. Snoopy

    Whaddawewant?

    No coal! No gas! No diesel!

    Whendewanit?

    Now!

    Please make it so.

  6. struth

    As I’ve always said, arguing the science is pointless.

    It’s completely pointless and not only that it plays into their hands by keeping you away from talking about the realities of coal fired power stations being built in China and India, how the UN and the world’s paid for scientists tell us it’s a climate emergency yet in the same breath tell us it’s fine for hundreds of coal power stations to be built because , well, they’re not western.
    It’s such an emergency that only western coal burned in western countries causes climate change.
    Onlyy western cow farts, not all the farts from the god cattle roaming the streets of India!
    You couldn’t make this shit up, but here we find our side still arguing the science……………as if anyone listens.
    FMD, wake up to yourselves.
    The rain’s falling on the east coast in Flanneries, the polar bears are doing fine on increased ice sheets, and not one pacific island has succumbed and yet they still believe and you still argue the science as if it matters.

    Showing the corruption , hypocrisy and turning their own envy into a positive is the secret to success.

  7. Percy Popinjay

    Catastrophic human induced climate change is the single most egregious and infuriating hoax of the twentieth and twenty first centuries.

    As for the preposterous hypocritical anti-scientific imbeciles responsible – they deserve to not only live on in historical infamy, but to burn forever in the most hideous circles of hell.

    Global delusion, lunacy and outright idiocy on an almost incomprehensible scale.

    Thanks, collectivists!

  8. Bruce of Newcastle

    Truly it is the madness of crowds. There isn’t any global warming happening right now, none has been happening since the turn of century and if anything there’s been some noticeable cooling in the last few years. The northern hemisphere has been pounded with waves of very cold weather this recent winter.

    That is consistent with the view that most of the warming last century was due to natural causes, which are now reversing course. CO2 may do some warming but not enough to be dangerous, or even noticeable these last couple of decades despite rising over 10% in absolute terms. By contrast the greening of the planet due to increased availability of CO2 to plant life has been obvious.

    These people are destroying our civilization for a myth. Ask the Venezuelans what happens when you destroy your economy and your electricity grid.

  9. Mak Siccar

    https://streetwiseprofessor.com

    Streetwise Professor
    March 11, 2019
    Another Data Point on the Renewables Fairy Tale

    A coda to yesterday’s post. The EIA announced that in 2018 60 percent of new US electricity generating capacity was fueled by natural gas. This outstripped wind by a factor of almost 3, and solar by a factor of almost 5.

    But those ratios understate matters, given that capacity factors for natural gas are about double those for renewables. Thus, in terms of actual real generation, natural gas added about four times as much effective capacity in 2018 as renewables. Not to mention that combined cycle plants are available pretty much on demand, rain or shine, day or night. Unlike the wind and the sun.

    This despite the continued subsidization of renewables.

    So tell me again how renewables will permit the fossil fuel-free electrification of the economy. I like fairy tales.

  10. What did Australian’s use for lighting and cooking before candles and wood stoves?

    Electricity.

  11. Mark M

    “The Forces of Evil are winning the climate debate”

    Unfortunately for Oz, that seems so.

    Meanwhile … Indonesia’s push for electrification and its impact on domestic coal – report –

    Nov 2018: “Under the RUPTL, 58 greenfield coal-fired power plants are due to come online in the period to 2027, causing coal-fire capacity to more than double from 24,418 MW in 2018 to 51,800 MW in 2027.
    This will be the largest factor driving the increase in domestic coal consumption, causing coal consumption for power generation to grow at an 8.3% CAGR between now and 2027.”

    http://www.mining.com/web/indonesias-push-electrification-impact-domestic-coal-report/

    But we will have the best baristas, bed makers, garden plotters, beach cleaners and uber drivers in the world.

  12. duncanm

    Maybe there’s some slivers of light?

    Curtin candidate (Prof.) Celia Hammond spurns climate warming consensus

    The Liberal candidate in the prized seat of Curtin, former university boss Celia Hammond, has declared her ­belief that humanity’s contribution to global warming has ­likely been “very minimal”.

    Ms Hammond, who was preselected last week to contest the safe seat, acknowledged that ­climate change was a major concern among voters in Curtin, but said the issue must be addressed in ways that did not harm the economy.

    She rejected scientific opinion that the burning of fossil fuels was the main factor behind global warming.

    “I believe man has contributed in some way to climate change — the exact extent is probably very minimal,” she said.

  13. a happy little debunker

    The Forces of Evil are winning the climate debate

    What debate?
    From the get go we were told the science was settled – meaning that it was open to be questioned.

    Since then the alarmists have kept on endlessly repeating ‘shut up’

  14. Tel

    They massively lost the scientific debate … but they are ahead in the propaganda war simply because of vastly better resources. They are willing to stoop to lower tactics such as smearing their opponents, getting people sacked from their jobs by telling lies about them.

    The majority of science in Australia is hooked on government grants, or big business that can’t deviate too far from the party line … all too gutless to speak up.

  15. Pyrmonter

    Hmm

    – climate change is costless. (There are commons issues etc, but let’s be real and accept that there won’t be any resolution to those issues that allows as wealthy a country as Australia to free-ride)
    – assumes the current reliability standards – which the ACCC convincingly argued are higher than necessary, and well above historical experience
    – no market for intermittent electricity supply (ie all electricity is alike)
    – technology is exogenous

    It’s a good piece of work, but if you make the right assumptions, you can ‘prove’ anything.

  16. Beachcomber

    Many consider that the ALP/Green policies would soon, if implemented, be recognised as harmful and lead to an early electoral debacle. This may be is wishful thinking. After all, Venezuela’s socialists survived five elections by assembling coalitions of the poor and a bloated public service who willingly voted for a party offering them favours …….

    This is the current situation in Australia; entrenched by our education system which produces indoctrinated Marxist drones, who receive daily inculcation from the Marxist stream media.

  17. DD

    What debate is that?

    We are subject to an endless stream of propaganda.

    Our education system is brainwashing all from 3 years to 23.

    Most skeptics were educated before the eighties and are starting to die off.

    Q & A defines debate in this beautiful country. Sad.

  18. stackja

    Gullibility seems rampant today. If social media says grey is white, it is believed. MSM feeds off social media and compliant journos don’t act independently just group think. Solution? Keep trying. Maybe one day when people see the cost they might question the ‘orthodoxy’ of ‘settled science’.

  19. Roger

    Not a hoax but a conspiracy.

    Follow the money.

    That Australians seem so eager to impoverish themselves and the nation speaks to our oft noted gullibility.

  20. billie

    Being popular or unpopular is what defines attention now. Unpopular, no attention or consideration, by their definition, it doesn’t matter.

    “Likes” and such on Twitter, Facebook or Instagram guide and direct thought and attention in the younger generation.

    If you are inside that world, and all your peers, believe something is popular, then you do too.

    ergo .. climate change is happening, we’re the cause and it’s bad and that’s popular thought – that’s all they need to know.

    You don’t need to be able to explain it, because you know it’s right or it wouldn’t be popular .. Spla! (Amy Wong)

    Truth, science or whatever it is you’re saying, is irrelevent if it’s not popular.

  21. OldOzzie

    Bluntly,

    like my youngest daughter who has drunk the “Climate Change Kool-Aid”

    A substantial majority of people considers human induced climate change is underway. They do so even though temperatures and ocean levels have not risen beyond their long-term trends, there is no increase in extreme events, no increase in flooding, droughts, or forest fires. And iconic features like the great Barrier Reef are under no stress.

    They are all as Thick as Bricks – The Greatest Criminal Fraud Perpetrated on Society Ever

    When the Sun don’t shine, and the Wind don’t blow and you don’t have Spinning Baseload Power, you are Stuffed – See Venezuel

  22. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    Solution? Keep trying

    Will do. It’s a cultish religion of course, so hard to beat and very entrenched.
    You just have to provide the arguments over and over again about its falsity. Circulate hope.
    And let some economic pain do its work to turn people off seeking ‘climate indulgences’.

  23. Fat Tony

    It’s never been about the science – never.

    As Old Ozzie says above: The Greatest Criminal Fraud Perpetrated on Society Ever.

  24. Robber Baron

    Fake conservative Paul Murray said on his show on Monday night that with 7 billion people on the planet it stands to reason that humans are changing the climate.

    It stands to reason that Murray is a moron. But this illustrates Alan’s point. The propaganda is strong.

    Goebbels had it perfectly right; you tell a big lie often enough, people will come to believe it to be true.

  25. duncanm

    stackja
    #2963820, posted on March 19, 2019 at 3:37 pm
    .. Maybe one day when people see the cost they might question the ‘orthodoxy’ of ‘settled science’.

    Nah. NSW election ads currently running – rises in the cost of electricity are purely due to privatisation.

    Look over there – it’s someone else’s fault.

  26. None

    This is the mistake the climate realists have made6 right from the beginning namely that evidence matters. No it doesn’t. The public is like a Victorian jury – it establishes the facts of a matter in its own little head regardless of what the evidence is. Just as in Victoria a jury can be confronted with a film showing X murdered Y, they themselves might decide that Y murdered Z and base their verdict on that regardless of the evidence before them. And having done that they are totally unaccountable for that decision in that they don’t even have to explain how the hell they ignored the evidence before them.
    Hands ip how many people remember any one of those tedious eye glazing graphs that Andrew Bolt used to put up every week. There is a time and place for good science writing like that of jonova which puts forward scientific evidence in a popular and understandable way but that will only have a limited impact. This is why the climate Wars go back and forth back and forth. This is a marketing and propaganda exercise and it needs to be treated as such.

  27. Fat Tony

    Robber Baron
    #2963940, posted on March 19, 2019 at 5:15 pm
    Fake conservative Paul Murray said on his show on Monday night that with 7 billion people on the planet it stands to reason that humans are changing the climate.

    If you packed all those 7 billion people shoulder to shoulder, you would contain them in a circle roughly 40 km in diameter.
    That’s not exactly covering the face of the planet.

  28. Ceres

    Just heard the hypocrite Al Gore on Fox pontificating that 99% of Scientists agree with the danger of anthropogenic climate change. It used to be 97% of scientists.
    Just think of a number Al as you’re flying around in your private jet or relaxing in your home which uses 20 times more energy than national average
    Make sure you never appear in a debate idiot.

  29. Beachcomber

    Robber Baron at 5:15 pm

    It stands to reason that (Paul) Murray is a moron.

    Oh yes. It’s confirmed every time I happen to watch his shallow-pond media-hack patter.

  30. 2dogs

    The Forces of Evil are winning the climate debate

    Absolutely not. The Polyarchists are winning the climate debate.

    Polyarchists only have a dog in this fight because the warmies have an underlying agenda of establishing
    a system of global governance. The only justification for such a system would be the existence of some overall threat to humanity as a whole, and so the warmies have decided that Climate Change is going to be that justification.

    Polyarchists are strongly opposed to any such global governance system. They don’t however, really care if some people, or even if one particular country, decides for itself that it wants to adopt renewables and make their power prices increase tenfold. Just so long as they don’t try to force that on the rest of the world.

    And the polyarchists are winning. Look at the Paris Agreement: countries are only obliged to do what they say they will do, and, even then, there is little by way of enforcement. The polyarchist message is that one should feel free to screw yourself over as much as you like.

    Polyarchists have had a long history of success on this issue, and are confident that they will be able to successfully roger all proposed international agreements on Climate Change in future.

    Citizens of democracies might wish to consider holding their governments to account. It’s entirely up to them, though.

  31. Mark M

    CSIRO: Future climate

    Evaluation of previous temperature projections for Australia

    “It has now been almost 30 years since the first sets of climate model projections were published, providing the opportunity to compare those projections to observations of the actual climate.

    Drawing the projections together as an Australian average, the linear trend in observed temperature has been tracking within this published range, and above ‘no change’.”

    https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Assessing-our-climate/State-of-the-Climate-2018/Future-climate

    Wait. What?

    Feb 1988: CSIRIO’s Top Scientist Predicted 2-4 C Warming By 2018

    via: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/csirios-top-scientist-predicted-2-4-c-warming-by-2018/

  32. 2dogs

    It should be noted, though, an important part of the polyarchist belief is that those with dumb ideas should suffer. Saving the stupid from the consequences of their own mistakes is moral hazard, and attempts to do so will ultimately only result in the creation of more stupidity.

    Polyarchists look on a country whose government has chosen warmy policies, and is quite resolute in their determination that such a country needs to suffer for it.

    So, they aren’t fighting the warmies within the democratic systems of particular nations. The people of those nations must themselves learn to say no.

  33. NB

    ‘The Forces of Evil are winning the climate debate’
    Of course the climate hoax is disturbing. But this is just a small part of the hideous alternate reality created by the MSM. Maybe in America people are beginning to understand, and rebel. In Australia, however, we are still lost in the matrix. Even the Liberal Party is lost. It is a tragedy.

  34. Nighthawk the Elder

    I’m confused. Closing down a heap of coal fired stations over the last 5 or 6 years up and down the eastern seaboard was supposed to save the planet. But according to all the kiddies last Friday (before their moment in the spotlight was rudely interrupted by a real threat to humanity across the ditch), climate change is rampant and we’re all going to fry unless we genuflect to gaia, turn vegan immediately and return to living in caves.

    I notice no-one is commenting on the emissions reduction closing all those plants actually had. I have no idea what they are. Anyone seen any readily published figures? Would like to see them out of interest and even better, plotted against the change in global temperature (OK, sarc on that last bit). If there has been a reduction, why are the spruikers not shouting it from the rooftops.

    “Look what we achieved, we slowed down climate change! Come on Australia, one more big push and show the world how it’s done!” You’d think that would be their catch cry as they paraded the numbers. But maybe the numbers don’t look good. Maybe they are afraid to admit that it did not make a shred of difference and we are sacrificing our standard of living on a complete folly.

  35. egg_

    Rolling blackouts will soon fix the carpetbaggers.

  36. Nob

    Nighthawk the Elder
    #2964167, posted on March 19, 2019 at 8:29 pm

    I notice no-one is commenting on the emissions reduction closing all those plants actually had. I have no idea what they are. Anyone seen any readily published figures?

    You think that’s hard.
    Visual evidence suggests use of diesel gennies is proliferating wherever there is a move to renewables..

    Try to get some numbers on that!

  37. The Forces of Evil have won the climate debate.

    Build a bunker.

  38. jupes

    Global delusion, lunacy and outright idiocy on an almost incomprehensible scale.

    We live in the stupidest age in history.

    If we wake up before we become part of the caliphate or a Chicom satellite state, then kids in a hundred years won’t believe that anyone could be that stupid.

  39. hzhousewife

    SARC/ Of course climate change is real – just look at the disaster in Mozambique, proof positive.

  40. Mater

    If you look at some of the key strategies, and absolute necessities, for implementing renewables (such as demand management, time of use, etc), something becomes quite clear.

    Where once we designed the power system to fit around human requirements, they are now trying to engineer human requirements around an inferior power system.

    Where have I seen this concept of coercing the adjustment of human behaviours before?
    Very socialist, very damaging and very dangerous.

  41. Pyrmonter

    @ Mater

    Stuff and nonsense. We have an ‘economic system’ that adjusts price to cost. If the supply becomes intermittent, it is entirely sensible that customers who are content for one reason or another to accept intermittent supply should pay one price and those who seek guaranteed supply another. It is no different to the risk premium investors in high variability investments receive for making their investments. ‘Socialism’ is requiring everyone to buy a mandated bundle of services on a take-it or leave it basis, without choice.

  42. Mother Lode

    Curtin candidate (Prof.) Celia Hammond spurns climate warming consensus

    The Liberal candidate in the prized seat of Curtin, former university boss Celia Hammond, has declared her ­belief that humanity’s contribution to global warming has ­likely been “very minimal”.

    She rejected scientific opinion that the burning of fossil fuels was the main factor behind global warming.

    This is the only way this nonsense will be cleaned out. A politician saying it is bunkum and winning resoundingly – letting pollies see that it can in them votes.

    You see, the only way to simulate courage in a politician is to ignite a greater fear of the opposite course.

    As for the journalist opining that she is standing against scientific consensus – she should call them out and ask them:

    1) To prove it is a consensus. It is really only a non-scientists’ consensus of scientific consensus. I doubt the journo has any ‘evidence’ of a consensus beyond that 97% figure that is really 1.6% who state that humans are driving the bulk of climate change and the other 95.4% was by such things as claiming a scientist saying human have an impact (along with countless other causes) as agreeing that humans are the main driver. Here is an easy read.

    2) To show that consensus can be taken as scientifically adequate. When Einstein delivered his first paper on Relativity did the fact it was not consensus mean it was wrong? Hell, when AGW was first mooted it was not scientific consensus. Our journo friend should have rejected it. But now that (at least in the journo’s mind) there is a ‘consensus’ it must be right.

    I am staggered time and again at the lack of intellectual nous of journos, given the pretensions of knowledge and as champions of information.

    They truly are graduates of j’ism.

  43. Mother Lode

    it can win them votes

  44. Iampeter

    Evidence does not seem to matter in the debate on human induced climate change.

    It’s the same with socialism. This is because it’s about morality not economics.
    People think that self-sacrifice is moral and environmentalism is another leftist ideology that offers lots of ways to sacrifice.
    People want to do what’s “right,” not what’s economic.
    I know I’ve said the same thing in a few threads recently, but there’s no getting away from the fact that until you can argue that self interest is the moral, rejecting the Christian morality dominant in our society, you can’t fight the left on anything. You’ve agreed with their morality.

  45. Mater

    If the supply becomes intermittent, it is entirely sensible that customers who are content for one reason or another to accept intermittent supply should pay one price and those who seek guaranteed supply another.

    And if there is not enough, the price goes so high that lots can’t afford it. Electricity is not chocolate. In this day and age, it’s not a luxury. Hot summer days don’t work around the whims of your ideal economic system and neither does the wind.
    As for intermittent supply, you’re not going to get advanced noticed of when you are not going to have power or when it will be back. If you have a full understanding of everything that relies upon electricity, it’s not hard to fathom the results…potentially fatal. Our society is set up for power on demand, not the other way around.
    With the current focus on sociable working hours, safety, hospitals, etc, you’d have to be brain dead to miss the obvious destruction and social upheaval and destruction this is likely to cause. The only reason people aren’t up in arms about this stuff is that they are being lied to, by omission.

    ‘Socialism’ is requiring everyone to buy a mandated bundle of services on a take-it or leave it basis, without choice.

    The wind blows, or the wind doesn’t…where’s the choice? Anyway, my comment on socialism was more referring to their tendency to try to fit a square peg in a round hole.

    The technicalities of electricity (inertia, system strength, frequency control, etc) are also going to be impacted, so it’s not as clear cut as just the weather either.

  46. Mater

    Oh, and Pyrmonter, if you can’t see how having only a very limited amount of ‘approved’ suppliers who can generate on demand, skews the market, you aren’t looking at what is happening even now.

  47. Linden

    Yes Tel, I’m just back from Fiji and there are lots islands out there and lots of development going on, we visited a very small island Malamala that has a brand new development on it, so obviously there not worried about a rising sea level to swamp there investment.

  48. JohnJJJ

    Having a looming disaster is handy for a lot of people. Now the Ruskies are no longer going to destroy Sydney with the A bomb and the dissolution of the Apocalypse and Judgement day, the Women’s Weekly masses need something.

  49. mem

    The hoax is built on people believing they are saving the planet. It needs to be fought on the same ground ie it is causing massive destruction to the environment, killing wildlife, desecrating the bush land, covering huge areas with tangles of electrical wires and concrete and metal jungles, using up scarce minerals, putting miners and workers in China at huge risk, requiring the construction of special container ships and lorries, vast shipping costs requiring use of fuels, etc and all this will achieve no change to the climate. It needs to be shown visually right down to the dying bats and birds. Only then will people start to wake up.

  50. phily108

    Wind currently contributing 198MW of a total of 27,557MW a whopping 0.71%. The future looks bright!

  51. Paulo Nigrum Anatis

    The real, admittedly self interested, aspect for Australia seems to be in the background again. And that’s the $64 question if all these targets – doesn’t really matter whether its LNP or ALP – were actually achieved, what would be the actual result to eliminating or reducing global emissions purportedly affecting climate change?

    The sad fact is that Australia produces around 1% of global emissions output. You can obscure that fact with the oft repeated ‘greatest output per capita’ but that ignores the actuality. It’s just a piss in the ocean.

    It’s all about image; being seeing to be doing by the rest of the world without what you’re doing making nairy a difference whilst having a wonderful excuse under the ‘saving the world’ mantra to increased domestic infrastructure and industry costs to consumers and business.

    Put your population through unnecessary additional hardship so that as a government on the international stage you are simply keeping up appearances! Seems this con job has almost convinced the majority. People seem to want the warm and fuzzies ‘feel good’ over the negatives to our economy and standard of living. It’s all bullshit!

    Do you think really despite the sweet mouthings growing economies like China Russia and India – the real contributors – are going to put themselves through the same wringer?

  52. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    The hoax is built on people believing they are saving the planet. It needs to be fought on the same ground ie it is causing massive destruction to the environment

    Yes, that helps, but the hoax itself in that case still lives and thrives. We need to knock out all three aspects of it – firstly, the 97% lie about scientific consensus, secondly the serious problems with the modelling on which the scare is based and thirdly the empirical fact that predicted disasters have not happened: poley bears and both poles are doing fine, as is the Barrier Reef, i.e. polar ice, ocean and land temperatures, sea levels, hurricanes, floods, fires and droughts are cyclical due to geophysics and not worse than in the past few hundred years, BoM ‘adjustments’ and funded scare-mongering aside.

  53. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    This is the only way this nonsense will be cleaned out. A politician saying it is bunkum and winning resoundingly – letting pollies see that it can in them votes.

    Letters to politicians, corporations and the media do count for something. Keep writing to them telling them why their beliefs are not only false but dangerous and say that you will not purchase from, support or vote for politicians, corporations or media who are so misinformed.

  54. egg_

    If the supply becomes intermittent, it is entirely sensible that customers who are content for one reason or another to accept intermittent supply should pay one price and those who seek guaranteed supply another.

    There’s duplication of poles and wires?
    This is the absurdity of applying retarded ‘market forces’ logic to basic infrastructure, as AEMO demonstrates with absurd price spikes.

  55. egg_

    the 97% lie about scientific consensus

    From that impeccable source, ManBearPig, who got the hurricanes spinning the wrong way on his book cover.

  56. struth

    Evidence does not seem to matter in the debate on human induced climate change.

    It’s the same with socialism. This is because it’s about morality not economics.
    People think that self-sacrifice is moral and environmentalism is another leftist ideology that offers lots of ways to sacrifice.
    People want to do what’s “right,” not what’s economic.
    I know I’ve said the same thing in a few threads recently, but there’s no getting away from the fact that until you can argue that self interest is the moral, rejecting the Christian morality dominant in our society, you can’t fight the left on anything. You’ve agreed with their morality.

    There is nothing wrong with true Christian morality.
    The left are not practicing Christian morality at all and care not for doing the right thing.

    Especially commandment ten
    “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.”

    The Tenth Commandment forbids the wanting to or taking someone else’s property. Along with the Seventh Commandment, this commandment condemns theft and the feelings of envy, greed, and jealousy in reaction to what other people have.

    Their hatred of the Christian church and wishing it replaced by government is in direct defiance of the first commandment.
    I am your god.
    Thou shall have no false gods before me.

    Virtue signalling is not a Christian value and that is all they are doing when it comes to climate change evident of the direct hypocrisy of what they do to what they say.

    Please , stop posting here, you are a complete loon.
    You post this bullshit after the Pell stich up.
    FMD.

  57. mem

    Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare
    #2964686, posted on March 20, 2019 at 12:20 pm
    We need to knock out all three aspects of it – firstly, the 97% lie about scientific consensus, secondly the serious problems with the modelling on which the scare is based and thirdly the empirical fact that predicted disasters have not happened: poley bears and both poles are doing fine, as is the Barrier Reef, i.e. polar ice, ocean and land temperatures, sea levels, hurricanes, floods, fires and droughts are cyclical due to geophysics and not worse than in the past few hundred years, BoM ‘adjustments’ and funded scare-mongering aside.
    Everything you say is true but it is all out there, ignored or countered with propaganda. My point is to push back on the fallacy that renewables are “good” for the environment. It is the one area where they stand vulnerable.And the message is simple and will cause disharmony within the warmies camp. My view is hit hard with the simple message that renewables are wrecking the environment. Lots of pictures of dead birds and degraded countryside and all for no impact on the climate. The warmists virtue signalling is wreaking havoc on the environment. And we are all paying for it.

  58. Iampeter

    Their hatred of the Christian church and wishing it replaced by government is in direct defiance of the first commandment.

    That’s not defiance of the first commandment, that IS the first commandment.
    They’ve just replaced god with government. Like environmentalists replace god with environment.
    The first commandment declares a dictatorship and commandments in general, are incompatible with freedom. They are leftism.
    This was my whole point which you’ve predictably missed.
    I don’t expect someone as unintelligent as you to understand anything.

    Please , stop posting here, you are a complete loon.
    You post this bullshit after the Pell stich up.
    FMD.

    As one of the many raving lunatics here and one who doesn’t even understand what he’s responsing to, you have things completely backwards.
    It’s you and those like you, that need to stop posting here, as the cat is advertised as a libertarian and centre-right blog, not a blog for unhinged, politically illiterate, leftists like you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.