The children’s crusade

I endured Q&A only because Alan Jones was on, but they left him almost entirely out of it until the last moment when they turned to climate change. So he told the story of how he had asked Tanya Plibersek the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and she had not known. How could she even begin to pontificate on such an issue without such a basic fact, he asked, at which moment he turned to Ms Workman, journalist at The Oz, and asked her the same question. AND SHE DID NOT KNOW!!!!

Great television. So here’s a prediction for the next election: global warming climate change will not be an issue. It has already crested and is now in retreat. It is heading into global moron territory.

The video, by the way, is from 2014.

MORNING UPDATE: Just wandered into the kitchen and who should they be replaying on Channel 10 but Alan Jones and the snippet on climate change from last night. And there was Kerry-Anne defending Alan Jones and saying how mad it is to ruin our economy over such an unproven bit of nonsense.

You can watch Alan Jones for yourself. The entire segment takes six minutes but Alan comes in around four minutes in.

Here is the news report where the twitter feed is taken from with this as the sub-heading: There’s always a cringeworthy moment on Q&A and it came in the form of Alan Jones trying to take on this topic. Here is how the report describes what happened.

The 2GB host then went on about how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere and reeled off so many numbers in a row, no one could keep up.

“It’s 0.04 per cent, and of that 0.04 of a per cent, human beings around the world create 3 per cent. And of that 3 per cent Australia creates 1.3 per cent. So for the 1.3 per cent of 3 per of 0.04 per cent we then decide to have a national economic suicide note.”

Everyone was waiting for him to get out a bag of rice (you can relive that moment in the video above), but thankfully Tony Jones stepped in after pleas from the panel to make Alan stop.

They only tried to make him stop him because they had no answers to what he said.

This entry was posted in Federal Politics, Global warming and climate change policy. Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to The children’s crusade

  1. egg_

    Global moroning will be with us for a while.

  2. Some History

    …he turned to Ms Workman, journalist at The Oz, and asked her the same question. AND SHE DID NOT KNOW!!!!

    Alice needed time to consult the Mad Hatter.

  3. The BigBlueCat

    So here’s a prediction for the next election: climate change will not be an issue. It has already crested and in now in retreat. It is heading into global moron territory.

    Well, we can only hope the discussion becomes reasoned rather than emotional. Someone on Twitter thought they had an answer for Alan Jones … a very small change in the CO2 has a big effect …. really????

  4. Leo G

    … a very small change in the CO2 has a big effect ….

    Another one of those System Kickback Deniers.
    The Le Chatelier- Braun Principle is usually stated as follows:-

    When any system at equilibrium for a long period of time is subjected to change in concentration, temperature, volume, or pressure, the system (1) changes to a new equilibrium and (2) the latter change acts to counter the applied change.

    Even without the effect described by this principle, a small change in CO2 has a small effect on climate systems. Include the principle and there is essentially no effect.
    Unfortunately, the notion of kickback appears to have an entirely different connotation to most prominent climate change science aficionados.

  5. Texas Jack

    Bill Shorten may have just done the Democratic Party in the US the greatest service. How so? He just road-tested the Ocasio-Cortez Green-New-Deal strategy in real-time and found that while that particular vehicle seemed to handle well in first gear it melted and ejected the driver in the fifth-gear of an actual election campaign.

  6. Texas Jack

    And hats-off to you Leo G – that’s the best piece of news I’ve had all day, in simple language…
    Thanks!

  7. Ubique

    Differential tariffs are required. Virtue-signallers can pay top dollar to subsidise all the renewables they want. The rest of us can opt for the cheap subsidy-free rate. Everybody wins.

  8. Seco

    But the “scientists”, the “scientists” told us so. Yeah, friggin Tim Flannery and Al Gore! Scientists my arse!

  9. Seco

    I get why rent seekers like “renewable” energy investors etc are in on it but why are teachers, university students, corporations etc falling into line? What’s in it for them?

  10. Paul Farmer

    Having watched [email protected] , very disturbing Jim Chalmers can openly say renewable energy is the cheapest energy source more than once , which as those of us on this blog know is just a blatant lie and no one calls him on it . Not sure if he knows different and was just lying or the man is incredibly poorly read on the subject . Either way it’s embarassing for the labor party and if he is the future of the alp , they really are in trouble .

    Heard his name a bit in the last 24 hours so googled him hoping the alp may have found someone who lives in the real world, with real working class credentials not the fake ones shorten came with ,but with a PhD in political science and time as Wayne gooses chief of staff I can see the labor recruitment machine has done a pretty good job of losing an entire generation of working class talent from their ranks of would be politicians.

  11. Bazinga

    Seco

    Approval from their circle jerk of peers.

  12. Tom

    That video is black magic environmentalist bullshit propaganda about CSG using the old advertising trick of putting words in children’s mouths. It’s just as bad as that Swedish girl reciting the CAGW script written by her parents.

    Disgusting, Steve. I expect better from you.

  13. Iampeter

    So here’s a prediction for the next election: global warming climate change will not be an issue. It has already crested and is now in retreat. It is heading into global moron territory.

    Oh did environmentalist regulations and subsidies get repealed or something?
    Did the Coalition run on promising to repeal anything in this area? Which would be weird since they created it in the first place.
    I’m not sure how you can conclude that climate change is no longer an issue. It’s advocates are kicking ass and you have no counter arguments because just like with socialism you’ve misunderstood the issue.

    Climate change isn’t about understanding the science anymore than socialism is about economics. It’s about ethics.
    Thanks to two thousand years of Christian altruism everyone, even atheists today, believe that sacrifice for something greater than yourself is moral. Until this is reversed, you can’t defeat climate alarmism anymore than you can defeat socialism. You already agree with them at the level of ethics.

    That’s why you keep losing the politics to people who don’t know anything about economics or science. They’re not arguing on those grounds and on the argument they are having, the one of ethics, you AGREE with them.

    So, the issue of climate change isn’t going anywhere. It’s completely unopposed. Least of all by you.

  14. Aussieute

    I’m a big believer in “climate change”
    It is where the govt and bureaucrats put their hand in your pockets, manipulate energy prices, provide endless subsidies all under the guise of changing the temperature of the globe by seeking to change the levels of C02

    I’m a bigger believer of “changing climate” the natural phenomena that has been occurring for millennia, where nature’s forces, including the sun, drive the climate/weather to a far greater extent than any piddling thing we may do

    I wonder how the green dreamers are going to handle the energy famine driven by renewables when the pending “chilly period” arrives No coal or nuclear here will mean ……? What lies and deceit will they peddle and under what terminology?

  15. Mark M

    Would you trust your energy future with a group of people who fail to see the energy future?

    “Everyone in the energy [sector] saw Labor’s win as a fait accompli, so they had a particular view of how the next 12 months would play out with energy policy.

    “Now the sector is a bit spooked as they are not sure of the next phase of energy policy.”

    https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/morrison-win-sparks-sharp-lift-in-wholesale-electricity-prices-20190520-p51p7t.html

  16. Mark M

    The girl in the video asks why are they doing it.

    If there wasn’t the failed and fraudulent scare about coal, the alternative energy source of gas wouldn’t be needed.

    It’s stupid on steroids.

  17. Interest in climate change in the US has been declining for several years (and in many European countries) and has been at the bottom of the 10 or so list of things of most concern for most of that time. In our township, the only ones that are concerned about climate change are the unwashed Greens supporters and a few blow-ins from Mornington Peninsular. And the irony of the latter group is that they are escaping Mornington, yet want to turn the place into Mornington.

  18. Suburban Boy

    Update to terminology (courtesy of The Guardian‘s new style guide):
    – instead of “climate change” use “climate emergency” or “climate crisis”
    – instead of “global warming” use “global heating”

    Of course, they will just keep on ramping up the language until everyone submits to their views (or they go out of business), so look forward to future changes.

  19. will

    Texas Jack
    #3021070, posted on May 20, 2019 at 11:59 pm
    Bill Shorten may have just done the Democratic Party in the US the greatest service. How so? He just road-tested the Ocasio-Cortez Green-New-Deal strategy in real-time and found that while that particular vehicle seemed to handle well in first gear it melted and ejected the driver in the fifth-gear of an actual election campaign.

    Except I don’t think too many people in the USA notice what is happening to the left of Hawaii or to the right of Cape Cod. The rest of the world doesn’t exist. Combine that with the ideological blindness of the Actual Occluded Cortex type, then no lessons will be learnt.

    Besides, the left have nothing else to run on.

  20. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    the little girl is right we must go back to the stone age immediately.

    there is no low the left will not stoop to to inflict its utopian socialism on us

  21. Except I don’t think too many people in the USA notice what is happening to the left of Hawaii or to the right of Cape Cod. The rest of the world doesn’t exist. Combine that with the ideological blindness of the Actual Occluded Cortex type, then no lessons will be learnt.

    Not so, the Australian election results have been fully reported in the likes of Breitbart, discussing the reasons why.

  22. Bruce

    That video of the child waxing emotional about fracking, etc is a dead giveaway that some “creatives” are running the propaganda programme.

    Her rant was fairly carefully scripted and the inter-cutting of TWO camera angles indicates a certain amount of technical production going on. Hard to tell on one quick pass, how many takes they did ; might go back, with the sound on and then off to see some more details. I notice this stuff because I have been in that biz, among others, for decades.

    The average mug punter who is just a passive absorber of Film, TV etc., is probably unaware of how they are constantly being manipulated. It is sometimes subtle, but essentially formulaic. That particularly applies to what is passed off as “news”.

  23. Bruce

    … a very small change in the CO2 has a big effect ….

    So….

    What has been the “effect” of the CO2 decline from 800+ PPM in days of yore to its current minuscule status?

    In the beginning, so to speak, there was NO free oxygen. LOTS of CO2 and Nitrogen. What happened, (he asks rhetorically)?

    Never mind the eco-nazis, check that “paper of renown”, “The Geological Record”.

  24. MACK

    How long will the desalination plant at Wonthaggi sit idle before the politicians come to their senses? How many good snow seasons will there be before people realise this is a baseless scare?

  25. Bruce:

    In the beginning, so to speak, there was NO free oxygen. LOTS of CO2 and Nitrogen. What happened, (he asks rhetorically)?

    Of course there was no free oxygen. Nothing is ‘free’.
    The precursor to the UN would have put a price on it.

    🤡🌏

  26. Leo G

    – instead of “global warming” use “global heating”

    Overrated neo-aristocrat global temper tantrum.

  27. Nob

    “Global heating” sounds great. Like something you’d pay to install in your house in cooler climes. Of which there are still plenty.

    I can see Green Left parties losing votes every time it is uttered.

  28. cohenite

    Even without the effect described by this principle, a small change in CO2 has a small effect on climate systems. Include the principle and there is essentially no effect.
    Unfortunately, the notion of kickback appears to have an entirely different connotation to most prominent climate change science aficionados.

    The alarmists have countered the Le Chatelier- Braun Principle by arguing about feedbacks; the whole forcings and feedbacks concept is at the heart of the alarmist scam. They admit that CO2 by itself has marginal effect; this is consistent with Beer-Lambert law as Michael Hammer elegantly explains. In short as CO2 increases it’s radiative effect DECREASES at an exponential rate. At the current levels of CO2 almost all of it radiative blocking capacity has been exhausted and increasing it has essentially no further radiative effect.

    So the alarmists say the further increases in CO2 produce feedbacks in other Greenhouse gases particularly H2O which is a much more potent GHG, according to alarmists. But this isn’t happening either as the famous Frank paper shows.

    This all produces something called climate sensitivity which is the effect as measured by the increase in temperature allegedly caused by increases in CO2. But since there is NO correlation between CO2 and temperature this is just more bullshit.

    Alarmism is a multi-layered scam and with a disinterested media and a gullible public it will steam on. Don’t forget 97% of climate scientists believe in it!

  29. Boambee John

    cohenite

    Alarmism is a multi-layered scam and with a disinterested media and a gullible public it will steam on.

    The media are far from disinterested, nor are they uninterested. Tbey are committed players in the scam.

  30. Megan

    Tom. @ 3.32am
    That video IS truly disgusting as it demonstrates the depths to which the climate true believers have sunk in using children to manipulate the rest of us. I highly doubt, given Steve’s massive contributions on this topic, that he was posting it because he believed it or was trying to convert the Cattery.*

    *(As if Holley’s blatant and factually incorrect scriptt could ever manage that!)

  31. hzhousewife

    the little girl is right we must go back to the stone age immediately.

    Does someone still run Outward Bound style courses? A lot of these kids would benefit.

  32. Forest Stylist

    As someone who worked as a contractor for the said CSG company, she failed to mention:
    1, the death and other threats made against company workers and their families
    2, the destruction of contractor equipment
    3, the threats of violence made against contractors ( including myself)

    A nasty combination of lies, violence and child abuse.

  33. Mother Lode

    but why are teachers, university students, corporations etc falling into line?

    A lot of teachers – particularly the shallower kind – have a insuperable conviction that they are brilliant – they are the clever ones, the smart ones, and we ignore their sage advice at their peril. But they are stuck with the fact that no one really takes them as seriously in the real world as the poor captive mites in their classes.

    It suits their vanity to believe that the world suffers from not heeding their advice. At the same time they are stuck with the fact that their knowledge has no place in the real world – they can’t argue physics with a physicist, for example. So they gravitate to tidbits of ‘knowledge’ that other people don’t possess, and where they are not only not at a disadvantage but they can insist that they have expertise that physicists, entrepreneurs etc do not possess. It becomes symbolic of their special value.

    At different times it has been the ozone layer, resource depletion etc. Ocean acidification may get a guernsey yet.

    University students also need to feel their superiority – especially after coming out of the education system. They are young, and therefore impatient. They will not take the time to learn to great depth, but will hurl themselves into any debate where they can tell everyone else how stupid they are. They want to run the world now, and can’t bear the sight of other people making the decisions.

    Businesses? In some instances it is an annoying adjunct. A tender it opened up to build a highway and you are in the highway business. Well the main thing is the highway, but the tender says you have to have a Climate Change strategy, so you concoct some silly bit onto the tender, along with consulting indigenous groups, environmental groups etc, and if they cost money you add that on. All you competitors are in the same boat. Just make sure any risk accruing from these groups is on the government, then you just raise a variation and it is more work. Some businesses specialise in these windfarms and solarfarms etc – well if there is a market they will involve themselves. The damn things will be built anyway.

    Anyway, it means they must constantly mouth their commitment, and join in the exaggerated indignation whenever a sceptical point is raised.

    And managers in business (which seem to be encroaching on the traditional realm of entrepreneurs in business) calculate that histrionic displays and knuckling under when Snivelling Gnats (as opposed to defending themselves) will cost less.

    Anyway, that is how I see it.

  34. cuckoo

    So he told the story of how he had asked Tanya Plibersek the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and she had not known. How could she even begin to pontificate on such an issue without such a basic fact, he asked, at which moment he turned to Ms Workman, journalist at The Oz, and asked her the same question. AND SHE DID NOT KNOW!!!!

    Perfect. This is always my first question to climate blowhards, and they never know the answer. This sounds like the time David Suzuki was on Q&A. Someone brought up the basic data sets used to track ‘global temperature’ and he had to admit he had never heard of them until that moment. And he didn’t seem too embarassed by this admission.

  35. Iampeter

    I get why rent seekers like “renewable” energy investors etc are in on it but why are teachers, university students, corporations etc falling into line? What’s in it for them?

    They are trying to be moral.
    But the morality of altruism teaches that to be moral is to specifically act against “what’s in it for you” so all of these people are signing up for an ideology requiring their sacrifices.
    Now if you explain to people the contradiction in the idea of morality being contrary to their self interest and that actual morality is perfectly consistent with “what’s in it for you” then no one would support environmentalist ideas. Or communism, or socialism, or Christianity, or any other similar ideology requiring human sacrifices.

    But this requires rejecting the morality of Christianity which conservatives are not prepared to do.
    Mostly because they don’t have anything else. Certainly no political theory.
    Their morality also being why conservatives are largely responsible for environmentalism in government in Western countries in the first place.
    Their relatively recent opposition to it being pretty hilarious and not in a Ha-Ha sort of way.

  36. The BigBlueCat

    So, the issue of climate change isn’t going anywhere. It’s completely unopposed. Least of all by you.

    So what are you doing about it? You ought to stand for election – form your own Objectivist party; you can run on a platform of “rational self-interest” based on smashing climate change. There must be a lot in it for you. Let’s see how you go, Sunshine!

    Never forget that Australia has just dodged not just a bullet, but a ballistic missile in the form of Bill Shorten and his radical left Labor/Green socialists (real socialists, not the ones you pretend exist everywhere else).

  37. The BigBlueCat

    But this requires rejecting the morality of Christianity which conservatives are not prepared to do.

    If they have a deeply-held religious convictions regarding their moral obligations and duties (which is their human right), why would they reject it? You are being unrealistic, and merely reflecting your own beliefs.

    But the morality of altruism teaches that to be moral is to specifically act against “what’s in it for you” so all of these people are signing up for an ideology requiring their sacrifices.

    Not necessarily. The basis of altruism lies in co-operation for mutual benefit (not necessarily material gain). Altruism recognises that leaving others in society behind is perhaps a greater “cost” to the individual than given them a helping hand. Altruism is mostly an emotional response because we are beings with emotions. We don’t always do things based on “what’s in it for me”.

    I sincerely doubt that it’s only altruism that drives Conservative and Centre-Right attitudes towards climate change – I would argue that if you believe the science (as many do) they are acting out of a sense of self-interest/self-preservation and fear of what might come; no-one is keen on mutual self-destruction.

    Having said that, climate change is real, but I really doubt that reducing CO2 emissions will do anything other than spending other people’s money. It’s an international shakedown.

  38. J.H.

    CO2’s effect is huge on plants…. and very small on driving climate change.

    How do we know this…. Because studies and satellite observations on plant coverage clearly show the effect of CO2 on plants and the mechanism of Photosynthesis is uncontroversial, but the effect of extra CO2 on Climate is not observed. As a driver of global temperatures, CO2’s effect is not observed…. Despite a 12 percent increase of Atmospheric CO2 over the last 20 years, there has been no corresponding rise in global average temperature as recorded in the satellite data. All the modelling 20 years ago showed that we should be several degrees warmer… but the real world is not.

    There is also no “Hot Spot” in the Tropical Troposphere, thus the modelling of CO2 Feedbacks on Water Vapor is wrong. The “Hot Spot” was supposed to be the “Fingerprint of AGW”. It is not present.

    The original basis of the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis was premised on the fact that Ice Cores showed that CO2 increased and then temperatures went up…. However as Ice Core sampling became more proficient and new techniques were developed, the resolution of the Ice Cores was increased from thousands of years down to hundreds, it was found that at Ice Cores were showing that Temperature increased first before CO2 increased. Out gassing from the Oceans. So cause and effect were reversed. CO2 was not the significant driver of global temperatures as was first thought.

    The hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming has been falsified many times over…. But of course we are not talking about the science of climate, we are talking about the politics of climate….. and nothing in politics is falsifiable. The bigger the lie, the better the performance.

  39. The BigBlueCat
    #3021327, posted on May 21, 2019 at 10:43 am

    Having said that, climate change is real,

    That’s a definitive statement. Let’s test it out.
    There are a variety of climate zones around this globe.
    Alpine Climates
    Polar Climates
    Desert Climates
    Mediterranean Climates
    Temperate Climates
    Tropical Climates
    etc

    We’ve been industrialised for well over 150 years now. Surely we’ve changed the climate of some areas/regions by now (since climate change is real and all eh?).
    Direct me to the area/region that’s had its climate changed due to man’s increases of CO2.
    I’d be satisfied if you can show any climate zone that has shrunk or grown by 1.5km in 150 years (that’d be 10 metres per year)

  40. Roger W

    The little girl in the video is an example of the brainwashing that is happening around the nation on a daily basis in our schools. Massive numbers of children are now anxious and upset, for no rational reason. It is a very disturbing form of child abuse.

  41. cohenite

    CO2’s effect is huge on plants…. and very small on driving climate change.

    Infinitesimal.

    Climate is driven by solar, orbit/axis and water.

    CO2 is a spectator.

  42. Kneel

    “Now if you explain to people …”

    It will make no difference, because it’s not about facts or data or morals – it’s about about “feelings” and “inter-generational equality” and such.

    If it was about facts, then it would already be “dead – wrapped in plastic”.

    We had “just ten years to turn it around” in 1988, 1998, 2008 and 2018 – every single time, their predictions have failed.
    Every IPCC AR has had less predicted change in temp, and more than predicted CO2 emissions than it’s predecessor, yet it’s “worse than we thought”.
    Circular logic is not just ignored, but promoted by those who should know better – they will claim it is a “moral” stance to protect the environment.
    Of course, the reality is that only “rich” people care about the environment – when it’s a struggle to put a roof over your head and food on the table, when tomorrow is a big worry, you don’t have time to worry about what might happen in 100 years time!
    Deaths and injuries due to extreme weather events fell by 99% over the 20th century, yet somehow storms now cause “unprecedented” destruction – mainly because the exposure (where people live) and inflation has made the numbers bigger. But in terms of GDP, in terms of per-capita or pretty much any other usage, it’s easy to show fossil fuels reduce the risks to life and property of extreme weather events.

    None of the above is controversial and is easily confirmed with a little research, yet no-one in the MSM seems to care – I guess they’re too busy increasing their “social capital” on social media to be bothered with inconvenient facts.

  43. Tel

    OK, from the News Dot Com article linked above:

    He says many had been hopeful Labor would have eventually increased Australia’s humanitarian intake to 27,000 refugees a year and accepted New Zealand’s offer to resettle 150 asylum seekers.

    Not one of those people are detained, so why does there need to be any “acceptance” of the New Zealand offer? There’s nothing Australia can do to keep those people out of New Zealand.

    Is there not one single journalist capable of asking basic questions? WTF?!?

  44. The BigBlueCat

    Baa Humbug
    #3021395, posted on May 21, 2019 at 11:48 am
    The BigBlueCat
    #3021327, posted on May 21, 2019 at 10:43 am

    Having said that, climate change is real,

    Baa Humbug, I am referring to the fact that climate systems are changing all the time, as is evidenced by the various ice ages and periods of warming. I am not linking climate change to current changes in atmospheric CO2.

  45. Bruce

    See also the concept of “The Selfish Gene”, in a book of that title by Richard Dawkins.

    ANY species that “decides” to NOT reproduce and maintain or improve their position in the “pecking order” is utterly doomed. Cataclysmic “Natural Disasters” may be part of the vast Cosmic Joke, or just bad timing or luck.

    “Sweetness and Light” just don’t cut it as the prime directives.

    For the “religion bashers”: Even Jesus is recorded as saying words to the effect: “If a man has no sword, let him sell his cloak and buy one”. Most people also utterly and deliberately misunderstand the advice about “turning the other cheek”. It’s a TEST. One blow may be just a temporary, ill-considered flare-up. If your assailant strikes a second time, they REALLY mean you ill. Their life is then in your hands.

    I also note that most “religion bashers” seem studiously silent on the words and political “philosophies” attributed to Mo and his Moon God, as well as anything else not in the “Judeo-Christian” mould. Could this be just another case of “situational ethics”?

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.