Bushfires Proof That Global Carbon Action Has Failed

The bushfires ravaging New South Wales and Queensland are proof that Australian climate policies are an exercise in waste and futility.

While no scientist with any credibility would attribute the current bushfires to climate change that hasn’t stopped the usual activists and politicians making a false link.

But in making that claim the Greens and activists have unwittingly laid bare the total failure of global climate action so we can at least call their bluff to draw the right conclusions.

If Australia is experiencing the affects of climate change then it is only because global emissions have steadily risen over the past 30 years and under the Paris Agreement will likely rise a decade more.

That totals 40 years of global failure to curb emissions since the Rio Earth Summit call to arms in 1992, the coming and going of the Kyoto Protocol between 1997 and 2012, and the current Paris Agreement which expires in 2030.

It is this record of failure that led James “the father of global warming” Hansen to call international climate action a “hoax”.

And because global climate action is a hoax any country that unilaterally engages in pointless but expensive carbon mitigation policies is throwing good money after bad.

The evidence (over 40 years) is in. Developing countries will not sign up to a treaty that limits their emissions growth. Emissions are steadily rising and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Climate change is thus, inevitable.

Sabotaging the national energy market and in the process the economy to virtue signal mitigation against a global trend of rising emissions is the definition of policy insanity.

What the bushfires (and drought for that matter) make plain is that we should be investing in fire trucks, fuel reduction, water infrastructure and better planning regimes instead of windmills, solar panels and pushing water uphill.

If the bushfires are evidence of climate change they are also evidence of global climate failure and the need to shift our policies towards adaptation.

If Morrison had any political nous and courage he would announce that the bushfires gravely illustrate that Australia cannot continue to overlook the lack of global climate action.

Asking Australians to pay for climate change policies other nations refuse, then asking them to pay again as the price of drought and bushfires because the big emitters are doing nothing is unconscionable.

He should withdraw from Paris stating that while we cannot determine what the rest of the world does, we can determine how we respond to a changing climate (anthropogenic or otherwise).

We can chose to be winners or losers. If we ignore the overwhelming evidence showing zero progress and zero appetite towards reducing global emissions we will be losers.

If we learn from the bushfires we can be winners. That means accepting our fate is to adapt and respond to a changing climate and ending the stupendous waste virtue signalling with futile renewables.

The Greens and climate zealots cannot have it both ways. If the bushfires are proof of climate change they are also proof of global climate failure. It therefore cannot be said that Australia is not doing enough. To the contrary, we are throwing good money after bad, wasting taxpayer funds that would have been better spent procuring more firetrucks and water bombers.

If only the Coalition had a spine.

 

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to Bushfires Proof That Global Carbon Action Has Failed

  1. Bruce of Newcastle

    Numerous reports of frigid weather in the Northern Hemisphere today. For example:

    N. Hemisphere In Hypothermia! Widespread Early Winter…”Historic Snowstorms”…”Record Books Rewritten”

    USA, UK, Europe and Russia. Climate scientist Roy Spencer has frostflowers in his garden today – he lives in Alabama.

    All this make quite plain that CO2 doesn’t do much, certainly not enough to overcome the natural cooling processes behind these climate changes. And those natural cycles on their way up to a peak around 2005 are what caused the global warming last century, not CO2.

    So why are we spending vast amounts of money on something which isn’t happening?

  2. a happy little debunker

    I would like to see just one of these numpties try and use additional CO2 to start a fire.

  3. stackja

    If CO2 is the problem. Why don’t leftist stop exhaling?

  4. Bela Bartok

    This is all well and good to sensible people, but we’re up against such an impenetrable wall of faith and denial that such a sensible stand would not happen (certainly not in Oz, maybe if Trump survives past 2020?).

    Was at a function last night in Sydney where Saint Malcolm was present, and the talk was about climate science – not climate change – since it’s harder to deny ‘science’, even if it’s wrong.

  5. The BigBlueCat

    An actual, eminent climate scientist talks about the global warming hoax here

    Weather events and natural disasters can’t be linked to one variable (CO2) since climate systems are very complex. Additionally, the ferocity of bushfires may or may not be due to climate change – there are so many variables, especially land and forest management practices, that will impact fire intensity and extent.

    I’ve read so much over the last few days, where AGW commentators all link the current bushfires to “CO2-driven climate change”. All we can reliably understand is that climate and other conditions have permitted the current bushfires (not forgetting their source of ignition), and that fires in November aren’t particularly unique. Jo Nova even points out that in 1946 there were major bushfires have occurred mid-year.

    Now, it is plausible that climate change provides the weather conditions that increases the probability of more fires of increased intensity, etc. but the evidence (ie. the current fires) does not support a conclusion that climate change is the cause of those fires and that CO2 is, therefore, the culprit. But it is plausible and likely that land and forest management practices plays a bigger part in fire intensity and extent. How fires start is another matter.

    “IPCC agrees there are no trend in weather extremes” according to Lindzen – but we have seen more extreme people making more extreme claims about climate change. Go figure.

  6. The BigBlueCat

    BTW – We (the family) were in Marysville, Victoria the week before the big fires there 10 years ago … it was extraordinary how much leaf and bark litter there was in and around the town and in the forest areas generally. It was literally in piles on the ground and around the trees. It was clear there was no fuel-load management going on.

    Our immediate comment was “I hope a fire doesn’t come through here”. It did, and it decimated the place (along with muh of Victoria’s forests). Sure, 47C was an unusual temperature, but how much worse was the fire’s impact because of increased fuel loads and the proximity to human habitation?

  7. Deplorable

    As our population explodes so do the numpties that start fires. Just look where there are no fires , the police are looking for arsonists starting east coast park fires. My money is on some of the rabid greenies being involved to prove their point. Couple them with the usual but growing army of stupid children, angry anarchists and mentally unwell plus opportunity of drought and there we have it and always will.

  8. struth

    Just look where there are no fires , the police are looking for arsonists starting east coast park fires.

    Fires start adjacent to idiotvilles much of the time.
    Your average Extinction rebellion numpty doesn’t do long distances.

  9. Truth n Justice

    Sycophantic, lazy, worthless politicians like all of our common crop will continue to bow down to the green religion that has as its venerated leader a retarded and undereducated child. No wonder the world is voting for the right of politics. The pendulum must by necessity swing far right to cancel out the green cancer before it can once again settle in the sensible centre.

  10. Iampeter

    If only the Coalition had a spine.

    A spine? The Coalition were the most environmental of all the major parties. They were a good decade ahead of Labor. They need more than a spine. They have a lot of explaining to do before they or any of their supporters can be taken seriously on this issue.

    The kind of explaining that isn’t really possible without ending the movement.

  11. I_am_not_a_robot

    Unfortunately excellent reasoning and common sense are no counter to ignorance, credulity, zealotry, greed, vanity, pig-headedness and the sunk cost fallacy.

  12. cuckoo

    After utterly hysterical predictions in the media about yesterday’s bushfire situation in NSW – APOCALYPSE ARMAGEDDON UNPRECEDENTED CLIMATE CATASTROPHE – we get fires that are the third item on last night’s news bulletin, with at least nine of them apparently deliberately lit.

  13. egg_

    it is plausible that climate change provides the weather conditions that increases the probability of more fires of increased intensity

    The Big Blue Sock?

    NSW climate has changed radically to induce fire?
    Over which decades?
    IIRC the global climate has cooled over the last 2 decades, by perhaps a whopping 1C?

  14. egg_

    Your average Extinction rebellion numpty doesn’t do long distances.

    Did they glue themselves to a tree, first?

  15. egg_

    Tree huggers deliberately lighting bush fires?
    Da ironing!

  16. egg_

    But, but… their Leftoid PBS is even speculating about an upcoming Ice Age:

  17. Mark M

    “At UN Environment, we believe that sustainable energy presents an opportunity to transform lives and economies while safeguarding the planet.”

    https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/energy/why-does-energy-matter

    The sustainable energy is failing to safeguard Australia from bushfires.

    How much more proof is needed?

  18. Roger

    If only the Coalition had a spine.

    From Howard’s RET to Kemp’s land clearing bans to SloMo’s $1bn grant to renewables, I’m afraid theCoalition are largely responsible for getting us into this mess.

  19. Entropy

    If we learn from the bushfires we can be winners. That means accepting our fate is to adapt and respond to a changing climate and ending the stupendous waste virtue signalling with futile renewables.

    Quite so. Adaptation works whether the climate changes or not. This is the land of droughts and flooding rains after all.

    However, you don’t understand the underlying motive of the greens: We have sinned against Mother Nature with our satanic mills and can only pay for our sins by returning to la pastorale.

  20. Read the 1939 Vic Royal Commission report, repeated in 1943. The bushhfires then were also caused by a long drought. The RC nlamed lack of fuel reduction burns. Sound familiar?

  21. The BigBlueCat

    egg_
    #3211756, posted on November 14, 2019 at 3:45 pm
    it is plausible that climate change provides the weather conditions that increases the probability of more fires of increased intensity

    The Big Blue Sock?

    NSW climate has changed radically to induce fire?
    Over which decades?
    IIRC the global climate has cooled over the last 2 decades, by perhaps a whopping 1C?

    Not claiming that it has, but conceptually …

  22. Tim Neilson

    Read the 1939 Vic Royal Commission report, repeated in 1943. The bushhfires then were also caused by a long drought. The RC nlamed lack of fuel reduction burns. Sound familiar?

    And the 1979 Vic Royal Commission report, done by my great uncle.
    (He also told the government to butt out of interfering with the CFA, another piece of sage advice which the Hunchback of Spring Street has ignored.)

  23. Tim Neilson

    NSW climate has changed radically to induce fire?

    If so, why haven’t there been catastrophic bushfires every year on record in QLD and the Northern Territory which have always been hotter than NSW?

    Or are the temperature increases so rapid that NSW now is hotter than Qld was a few years ago?

  24. thefrollickingmole

    Turning a few norther rivers inland and creating a vast inland freshwater sea would help with low humidity im sure.

    Because if these people really believe what they are saying, then its already game over, India & China will eclipse in one year of building, Australias entire existing power grid.

    Game over, you have only mitigation measures left.

  25. Forest Stylist

    Adaptation = good native forest management =regular thinning and cool burns, maintained road network and in forest cattle grazing.
    Once the current green leaders have gone, the optimist in me says a new era of ” minimal impact forestry” based on the above will be embraced.
    The realist in me says the greens are so dependent on demonising this type of management of native forests to stir their support base, it won’t happen.

  26. A Lurker

    Climate change is thus, inevitable.

    Correct.
    The sun is the driver.
    Three words: Grand Solar Minimum.

  27. Overburdened

    Sitting around my fire that I routinely have a fair bit when there’s no TFB.

    There would be times I may not have a fire when there is no TFB.

    That would be when it was too hot.

    The tub of an old washing machine has served the purpose well here for coming up to 7 years, where the smoke is so thick at the moment that it blocks the sun.

    My contribution to the destruction of the planet and all.

  28. Squirrel

    “To the contrary, we are throwing good money after bad, wasting taxpayer funds that would have been better spent procuring more firetrucks and water bombers.”

    ……and funding the defined benefit superannuation pensions of former senior emergency services officials who want us to shut down the bits of the economy which keep us afloat.

  29. Overburdened

    Even with the dereliction of the care of the citizens shown by the law makers, I believe there is a more mundane explanation.

    For so many fires to for all intenets and purposes occur simultaneously in widely dispersed and different areas in such large numbers, I think human intervention is involved.

    The conspiracy theorist in me would go to suggest that the evidence could help form an impression that there could be coordinated activity.

  30. Perfidious Albino

    I was wondering if the current crop of ‘former senior emergency services folk for climate action’ doing the rounds are doing so to divert attention from their own culpability for the previous decades of minimal mitigation burns and effective forest management when in command? Tempting to focus on the individuals and establish what they did to mitigate the risk…

  31. cohenite

    Iampeter
    #3211734, posted on November 14, 2019 at 3:15 pm
    If only the Coalition had a spine.
    A spine? The Coalition were the most environmental of all the major parties. They were a good decade ahead of Labor. They need more than a spine. They have a lot of explaining to do before they or any of their supporters can be taken seriously on this issue.
    The kind of explaining that isn’t really possible without ending the movement.

    Correct, whatever your last sentence means. But speaking of spines: do you believe in alarmism?

  32. So the right’s answer to climate change now is, “okay okay, alright, so it’s real even though we have spent decades making up lies that it’s not. But now it’s too late, we have to adapt to it.”

    This craven and cowardly crawlback just underlies how little the right has to say of any worth on the matter.

  33. Boambee John

    m0nty is too dumb to understand that what is proposed is to point out to the raving Gretas of the world that, even if everything they say is true (which it isn’t) there is no point in Australia destroying its economy when nothing we do can make a difference. Therefore we will forget about wasting time and money on mitigation and move to sensible adaptation policies. These will involve reliable, continuous power supplies, new dams and actions that will benefit us, not destroy us.

    Of course, tbe m0ntys and Gretas of this world would be free to implement the green dream in full, but only for themselves as individuals.

    Start by cutting your two houses off from the electricity, water and sewerage grids m0nty, and go fully renewable. Let us know how it turned out in a year. Or even better, in 2030.

  34. egg_

    So the right’s answer to climate change now is, “okay okay, alright, so it’s real even though we have spent decades making up lies that it’s not. But now it’s too late, we have to adapt to it.”

    Messages seem to get scrambled in the Clown Universe.
    If there’s net warming, how is Fort Denison faring, champ?

  35. Bruce of Newcastle

    So the right’s answer to climate change now is, “okay okay, alright, so it’s real even though we have spent decades making up lies that it’s not. But now it’s too late, we have to adapt to it.”

    M0nty – “Climate change” is your term, adopted by the Left. The original term was “global warming”.

    Currently there has been very little global warming for two decades despite a large increase in pCO2. On some metrics there has been no global warming at all in that time, especially if you deduct the recent el Nino signals.

    So “climate change” as a result of CO2 is not occurring. Climate change as a result of the Sun and oceans is occurring. Adaptation to natural climate change is a logical approach.

    Destroying your own economy to not fix a problem which isn’t happening, on the other hand, isn’t a logical approach. It is an insane approach.

  36. Boambee John

    m0nty

    Have you disconnected from the electricity, water and sewerage grids yet? Gone fully ruinable yet? Do it now, for Greta. And for Gaia.

  37. Iampeter

    Correct, whatever your last sentence means. But speaking of spines: do you believe in alarmism?

    I think alarmism is all nonsense. From my understanding even the idea of “greenhouse gasses” and an “atmospheric greenhouse effect” is all gibberish and not real physics.

  38. Iampeter

    So the right’s answer to climate change now is, “okay okay, alright, so it’s real even though we have spent decades making up lies that it’s not. But now it’s too late, we have to adapt to it.”

    This craven and cowardly crawlback just underlies how little the right has to say of any worth on the matter.

    Who do you mean by “the right?” Conservatives have led the way in building the green bureaucracy in most Western countries. It was a Republican President that created the EPA in the USA and it was Howard who created the first incarnation of the Climate Office and RET in Australia. The Coalition were also the first government that proposed an ETS in one form or another.

    Don’t confused conservatives with “the right.”

  39. OldOzzie

    An Open Letter to Greta Thunberg

    You are not a moral leader. But I will tell you what you are.

  40. thefrollickingmole

    So the right’s answer to climate change now is, “okay okay, alright, so it’s real even though we have spent decades making up lies that it’s not. But now it’s too late, we have to adapt to it.”

    A lot of people have been pointing out the idiocy of pretending developing nations & the economic powerhouse of china wont eclipse any self sacrifices made by developed nations.

    That the religious fanatics of the green movement decided saying things like that makes you “right wing’ and a “denier” says a lot more about their grasp on reality .
    Theres also a big wing which does think the problem is, at best, overstated, in the long run that doesnt make a difference.

    Maths is basic science.
    Heres a graph for you made of maths.
    Look at it and tell me what you think you see.

    Graph here.

    https://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/03/31/chinese-co2-emissions-really-peaked/
    To keep global average temperatures below 2C above preindustrial levels would require Chinese emissions to drop as fast as they went up. This is unlikely, and whatever the causes of the changes in China, they are nowhere near consistent with the overarching ambitions of the Paris Agreement.

  41. The BigBlueCat

    From my understanding even the idea of “greenhouse gasses” and an “atmospheric greenhouse effect” is all gibberish and not real physics.

    I can understand how a non-physicist (or non-atmospheric scientist) would think it’s gibberish – maybe you need to read more. Maybe this will help (and Lindzen is an AGW skeptic).

    The question really revolves around whether increasing CO2 levels provide sufficient radiative forcings to result in higher temperatures that lead to climate change catastrophes. Lindzen says no – the climate systems are too complex for one variable to influence climate to that degree; the climate systems aren’t that sensitive to increases in CO2 since with increasing CO2 there are other factors that come into play that suppress the radiative forcings. But in essence, doubling atmospheric CO2 results in a very small changes in climate. There are plenty of atmospheric and climate scientists who agree with Lindzen; there is evidence to support their position. And there are those who disagree with Lindzen.

    Lindzen says that the climate change we see is not properly explained by anthropogenic CO2 emission, and the higher CO2 concentrations have been more beneficial for mankind. His conclusion:

    So there you have it. An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization. What we will be leaving our grandchildren is not a planet damaged by industrial progress, but a record of unfathomable silliness as well as a landscape degraded by rusting wind farms and decaying solar panel arrays. False claims about 97% agreement will not spare us, but the willingness of scientists to keep mum is likely to much reduce trust in and support for science. Perhaps this won’t be such a bad thing after all – certainly as concerns ‘official’ science.

    There is at least one positive aspect to the present situation. None of the proposed policies will have much impact on greenhouse gases. Thus we will continue to benefit from the one thing that can be clearly attributed to elevated carbon dioxide: namely, its effective role as a plant fertilizer, and reducer of the drought vulnerability of plants. Meanwhile, the IPCC is claiming that we need to prevent another 0.5◦C of warming, although the 1◦C that has occurred so far has been accompanied by the greatest increase in human welfare in history. As we used to say in my childhood home of the Bronx: ‘Go figure’.

  42. .

    Therefore we will forget about wasting time and money on mitigation and move to sensible adaptation policies. These will involve reliable, continuous power supplies, new dams and actions that will benefit us, not destroy us.

    So your answer to climate change is more coal, more dams and more subsidies for dead industries. Which is what you wanted anyway.

    You have nothing of value to add, and are not using logic at all.

  43. Bruce of Newcastle

    So your answer to climate change is more coal, more dams and more subsidies for dead industries.

    Not the dead industries. We should allow the wind and solar sectors to expire gracefully.

  44. Tel

    No subsidies for any industries.

    Get rid of the RET … we all believe in ending subsidies, right? So no more RET.

    How easy is that?

  45. monty doesn’t even accept hydro power as acceptable.

    monty, you’ve become a wind and solar shill.

  46. Iampeter

    I can understand how a non-physicist (or non-atmospheric scientist) would think it’s gibberish – maybe you need to read more. Maybe this will help (and Lindzen is an AGW skeptic).

    There is no such thing as an atmospheric greenhouse effect, greenhouse gasses, nor does our atmosphere work like a greenhouse. It’s all nonsense. I’m pretty sure Lindzen is one of the better skeptics who actually knows this, but most of the major ones do not. Most skeptics are government funded and pretty awful scientists too, so they get the science just as wrong as the alarmists.

    I recommend reading Slaying the Sky Dragon and maybe looking up the debates surrounding it then making up your own mind.

    But from what you’ve linked here you haven’t even began to look into this issue beyond the most superficial level.

  47. John A

    The evidence (over 40 years) is in. Developing countries will not sign up to a treaty that limits their emissions growth. Emissions are steadily rising and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Climate change is thus, inevitable.

    From Rupert Darwall tracing the history of climate change:
    the concept of “sustainable development” was invented to reconcile the irreconcilable, square the circle, and allow “north” (developed world) and “south” (developing world) economies to all sign on to a program of emissions reduction (Rio, Kyoto, later Copenhagen, Paris).

    The trick was to persuade the developed world to effectively de-industrialise while allowing the developing world to become more industrialised and yet appear to sign on to CO2 reductions. China and India steadfastly refused to reduce their CO2 and led the developing world (tagged G77) in the same direction (see that mathematical graph linked earlier).

    The stubborn fact of irreconcilability has refused to go away, and the climate change denomination of the Gaia religion is exposed as a fraud. Every acolyte is busily trying to paper over the gap.

  48. Tel

    The trick was to persuade the developed world to effectively de-industrialise while allowing the developing world to become more industrialised and yet appear to sign on to CO2 reductions. China and India steadfastly refused to reduce their CO2 and led the developing world (tagged G77) in the same direction (see that mathematical graph linked earlier).

    The purpose all along being to weaken Western tech hegemony and give the communist countries time to catch up. They have to some extent managed to weaken the West, but surprisingly not all that much when you look at the incredible process of software “eating the world” lately.

    They ran into the slight problem that Russia finally realized they don’t want to be commies because of the shit results they kept getting … and China have sort of also realized the same, although they are still puzzling over who they will copy off once the Americans make it difficult for them. The EU has made several attempts to turn communist but the European people keep resisting … we will see who comes out on top there.

    My estimate is that most countries have drifted to various mixes based on synthesis of kind of “Feudalism”, plus “Crony Crapitalism” quasi-market economies, plus a bit of Fascism and Nationalism thrown in. Choose your ratio of those, and whatever local cultural memes you want to smear on top. There’s no country that is genuinely embracing the “Globalist” model, although they give a bit of lip service now and then. Mass immigration is unpopular everywhere it is tried. Global trade is managed trade, never was free trade, and the management comes down to who has the upper hand in various power struggles (hence quite close to Feudalism) especially who controls shipping, finance and international payments. The separation of church and state seemed like a good idea for a while but it hasn’t lasted … either church and state end up fused together (e.g. Iran, Turkey, and that’s the direction Russia is going) or else the state crushes the church (e.g. China, Ireland, Victoria, possibly other places around Europe). The Union movement is gradually getting absorbed as an informal branch of government, which is the model the Fascists proposed. Strict occupational licensing, and cartelization of industry represent a modern reconstruction of the ancient guild system, where Kings would grant special monopoly rights to favoured groups.

    It’s a stable system … even if inefficient … and a bit ugly for those who get offside with the ruling elite.

  49. The BigBlueCat

    I recommend reading Slaying the Sky Dragon and maybe looking up the debates surrounding it then making up your own mind.

    I took a look at some reviews of this book, and I can only conclude that the response is somewhat mixed. The book has been around for a while, and it appears that Judith Currie (for one) is attracted to what they say.

    Clearly they see no role for CO2 in climate change, nor do they see anything like what most people would consider a greenhouse effect – they deny the GHE exists and make some interesting arguments supporting their proposition.

    I don’t have the requisite scientific qualifications to analyse their claims to be able to decide if the Slayers are right or wrong. I suspect you don’t either, so I am a little amazed when you make an outright truth claim like:

    There is no such thing as an atmospheric greenhouse effect, greenhouse gasses, nor does our atmosphere work like a greenhouse. It’s all nonsense.

    On what basis do you make this truth claim? How do you know (at a scientific level) that what the Slayers say is actually factual? It could well be true (GHE doesn’t exist), but how would anyone without a relevant scientific background ever know? I think their proposition should undergo scientific evaluation via developing a hypothesis and undergo appropriate research and peer review.

    Until their proposition is tested and more generally accepted, I think we should have healthy skepticism …..

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.