I’m not a climate denier but…

In the early days of recent reform movements (talking ’60s ’70s) many conversations started along the lines “I’m not racist/gay…but isn’t about time we did something…” There was some of that in the column that Graham Lloyd published on the weekend on the costs of various climate policies. The sub-heading was Making the debate about cost, not morality, was a Coalition winner. (Hey has anyone made fun of the Coalition for having xxxx in the name? Lets put it back loud and proud!). My next post may be Putting the coal back into Coalition.

Sorry, that thought arrived late on the scene, the point of the post to use Lloyd’s column to highlight the way so many people think they have to ritualistically or superstitiously bow their knee to the god of climate alarmism. Like the seriously honourable John Anderson “I am not a climate change denier but I believe what was being missed was that carbon abatement is expensive.” And Brian Fisher, the analyst who put numbers on the cost of the competing climate policies Everyone is talking about how we have to do something about climate and I agree. Mitch Hooke appears to be on the same page. He ran the Minerals Council of Australia when they led the charge against Kevin Rudd’s failed mining tax. Lloyd described him as an agricultural ecologist, he worked with John Howard and now he is a prime mover in the Menzies Research Centre that became the epicentre of the cost alarm that deflated Labor’s tyres late in the election campaign. [Several Labor leaders are going to have Hook in their nightmares].

Unfortunately Hook is a climate bed-wetter. I am also an Agricultural Scientist so he has no excuse! We read Hook has a long track record in climate policy and acknowledges that there is a problem that must be addressed….the bottom line is that there needs to be a price on carbon and a market mechanism to set it.

So the bottom line is that the supposedly “moral” and scientific alarmist position wins even when people start to count the cost. So lets start from the top one more time and ask a series of question to explore what kind of climate policy comes out at the bottom.

First have we had enough warming or the prospect of enough warming to be alarmed?
Second, how much of that can we attribute to human CO2.
Can we reduce CO2 emissions without going nuclear? (NO judging from Germany).
What are the costs (human, environmental and economic) of trying to reduce emissions?
And for Australia, why even think about it?

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

34 Responses to I’m not a climate denier but…

  1. What the government could do and cement their position, as well as make it easier to manage climate hysteria, is to properly expose the true cost of ‘climate action’. Publish these costs and keep talking about them until they sink in and everyone understands the impact.

    Present these costs in terms of the actual cost to the public, not the public in ephemeral terms, but as the costs to the hip pocket of every worker. And don’t stop, even when the so-called moral imperative loses its lustre. Do exactly what the Green Blob has been doing for decades, keep hammering.

    And when things start to improve, don’t let the people forget why things are improving. The climate hoax is unraveling around the world and soon everyone will see what a crock it’s been.

  2. Val Majkus

    I thought global warming had stopped and global cooling was now happening

  3. Ben

    The question, “what effect does Australian emissions have on climate” is always met with furious intangibles with little base in reality e.g.

    real action
    all scientists agree
    the experts say so
    Australia is highest emissions per capita
    other country’s are taking action
    more renewables
    more responsibility
    we are number one fossil fuel exporter
    need to invest in renewables
    need to divest from coal
    China is taking accountability
    China is investing in renewables
    you can’t compare Australia to China
    the world is moving away from fossil fuel
    fossil fuels will run out

    Did I miss any?

  4. Ubique

    To crush the warmists and enjoy their wailing, the costs and benefits of ‘climate action must be clearly set out for the public. In the past 25 years, no one has done this, least of all government.

    The costs include massive subsidies for renewables and greatly inflated electricity and gas charges. They also include the costs of job losses and the value of production that is transferred to countries without masochistic climate change policies.

    The benefits must be clearly expressed in terms of modifying the climate itself (e.g. a reduction of one hundred millionth of a degree in 60 years’ time); and other factors, such as reducing sea levels by one tenth of a micron in 100 years’ time.

    None of this emissions reduction garbage – modifying the climate is the objective, not reducing aerial plant fertiliser.

  5. Tintarella di Luna

    I thought global warming had stopped and global cooling was now happening

    feels like it today – Hi val good to see your comment

    Rafe thank you for your postings on the Freidman conference and for your recent postings on the greatest expensive scam yet devised underpinned by junk ‘science’

  6. Fang

    Every wind tower and solar panel should have the Climate tax % and value stamped on every mention of them! The cost exposed to the tax payer! Even the cost of the electric “climate change” tax on every invoice of your electricity bill! That would change minds very quickly?

  7. stevem

    Germany is a poor example.

    On 30 May 2011, the German government announced a plan to shut all nuclear reactors by 2022.
    Nuclear power in Germany accounted for 11.63% of electricity supply in 2017 compared to 22.4% in 2010.
    As of March 2019, only seven nuclear plants have been left in operation.

  8. Rafe Champion

    stevem the point about Germany is that they have spent a trillion to go green and they have doubled the cost of power, brought the grid to the point of collapse and did not reduce emissions between 2009 and the last official report (that I know about) in 2018. You make the critical point that they are now looking at a looming disaster, and that is my point as well. I was too brief to be clear but I have gone on about the German trifecta of failure before.

  9. Enoch Root

    Apparently the new solar minimum will be reached on 2020. When the average temperature start showing real decrease, even with all the number “adjusting”, the alarmists will be made fun of. That is probably why we are seeing so much desperation from the green left lately: either they get what they want now or they will be in a rather uncomfortable position when none of their predictions become reality (in fact, quite the opposite).

    As a friend of mine use to say: enjoy the interglacial, while it lasts.

  10. duncanm

    you forgot: “What are the costs of doing nothing?”, which is sort-of covered by the first question posed, but not explicit enough.

  11. Carpe Jugulum

    Did I miss any?

    Think of the children 👶

  12. cohenite

    Yeah, costs and ruinables have smashed the momentum of alarmism in the face but the so-called ‘science’ justifying all this seems to be inviolate; every fucker genuflects as in agreeing something has to be done but the rate, speed, transition etc must be reasonable. FUCK me! There is NO science to support the idea that not just any CO2 but only human CO2 not only controls climate but does so in an unrelentingly bad way.

    Human CO2 does fuck all except make plants grow.

    That’s the starting and finishing point not the cost of ruinables because ruinables would not even be discussed without this false science that human CO2 controls climate.

  13. cohenite

    Mand made global warming has been disproved:

    Part 1

    Part 2

  14. cohenite

    Part 3: Jo Nova expanded reference version.

    10 reasons why alarmism is bullshit by me/

    Ed Berry and others have shown the increase in CO2 is not caused by human CO2 so even if you think CO2 is the driver of climate on Earth it’s natural.

    FFS. There is no science.

  15. stevem

    Sorry Rafe,
    My point was that Germany was a poor example to quote only regarding nuclear. Everything they have done has been disastrous to both electricity reliability and price. Shutting down their reactors is another step toward that disaster. It would be nice to see somebody switch no nuclear without the rest of the “renewable” debacle.
    Without the rest of Europe they would have been forced to turn back years ago. They are hypocritically forced to import electricity produced by coal and nuclear in order to get by.

  16. Karabar

    I don’t like the questions. I have some of my own.
    1) How is “global warming” defined? How is it measured?
    2) What is “climate”? How is it quantified? How do we know if it has changed?
    3) Does atmospheric CO2 have any effect on temperature?
    4) Is it possible for mankind to affect the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere?
    5) What is a “denier”?

    From Dictionary.com:
    global warming
    a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth’s atmosphere generally attributed to the greenhouse effect caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, CFCs, and other pollutants.
    It is mathematically and thermodynamically impossible to determine an “annualised global average temperature”. There is no database in existence which can purport to be more accurate than a couple of degrees either way. However, using the IPCC’s own estimation, 0.8 degrees C warming have occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age until 1998. NASA estimates that it has cooled 0.5 degrees since 1998. A recent scholarly paper estimates that at least 1.7 degrees C of warming since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has been due to the heat Island Effect. Geology ascertains that the present is at least 4 degrees C cooler than the Holocene Optimum 9,000 years ago. The decline has been non-linear, with peaks at roughly 1,000 year intervals. (Egyptian Old Kingdom, Minoan, Roman, Medieval, 20th century warm periods) and corresponding troughs.
    I suggest that it is safe to conclude the “global warming” is a TOTAL FARCE.

    the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a REGION, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.
    Climate is CLASSIFIED by the Koppen-Geiger system or Trewartha system. In order to determine whether or not a parameter has changed, it is necessary to quantify it. It is impossible to determine whether a region’s climate has changed requires observation for at least three decades. There is a distinct cycle of some 60 years in the climate record, so some regions change size and shape periodically but rarely change from one classification to another. A map of the world showing K-G classifications over the past hundred years reveal no NET change in classification, size, or shape.

    I suggest that the term “climate change”, unless considered on the basis of millions of years, is nothing but meaningless nonsense.

    Does CO2 affect temperature?
    There is nothing in paleogeology to suggest that CO2 has any causal effect on temperature. There is nothing to suggest in the here and now that there is any correlation whatsoever. A recent paper on rainfall in Australia, demonstrates that that droughts and floods bear no relationship to atmospheric CO2. Recently, unusually cold temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere occur at higher proportions of CO2 than a few decades ago.

    I suggest that there is no logic and no reason to suspect that [email protected] has any impact other than extensive increases in vegetation world wide.

    Is it possible to affect the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere?
    Approximately 98% of the CO2 on the planet is located in the oceans, which cover some 71% of the planet’s surface. Hook’s Law demonstrates that water’s ability to absorb or release CO2 from solution is determined by water temperature. This conveniently explains, through the thermal inertia of the seas, the lag of approximately 800 years in which changes in CO2 trail even small changes in temperature.
    I suggest that it is blatant hubris to suggest that the activities of a puny species can impact the natural order of the seas and the atmosphere.

    What is a “denier”?
    a unit of weight indicating the fineness of fibre filaments and yarns, both silk and synthetic, and equal to a yarn weighing one gram per each 9000 meters: used especially in indicating the fineness of women’s hosiery.
    I suggest that it is pure baloney, like the entire climate twaddle, to suggest that a person is a silk or synthetic fibre.

  17. Herodotus

    After all the time we have been reading and listening to the arguments on both the pro and con side of the climate debate, it has become evident that it has not so much to do with science and is mostly political, with a sizeable dash of a new form of an old religion: paganism.
    If intelligent people still stick to the alarmist schtick after all the failures of the models and all the sceptical scientists (albeit shunned or ridiculed by the media) we can conclude that they are doing it for reasons other than to save the planet.

  18. Roger W

    Q&A on the climate debate.
    1 Is the climate changing?
    Well, on any reasonably big time scale, yes, climate is always changing. Over the last 20 years or so, however, interestingly, not so much at all.

    2 If climate change is happening, how much is human induced?
    Very hard to judge, given CO2 has been increasing relatively steadily over the last 120 years or so, yet there is a big hiccup from the 1940’s to the 1970’s (hence the great fears in the ‘70’s of a new Ice Age just around the corner) and the complete lack of correlation between temperature rise and CO2 rise over the last couple of decades.

    3 Even if the world is warming, is that a bad thing?
    There seems to be an assumption that what the world is like right now is absolutely perfect and must be maintained at all costs, when the world has been both warmer and more benign for humans in the past (think Roman warming period or Mediaeval warming period). If today’s Greens lived 15,000 years ago, one suspects they would have thought a couple of km of ice over most of the UK was optimal, too.

    4 Is there in fact a link between an increase in CO2 and rising temperatures?
    The scientific evidence seems to indicate that CO2 increases have followed warming in the past, so not a cause.

    5 Is rising CO2 good or bad?
    CO2 is plant food, and leads to a greener planet, more crops etc, so more CO2 would appear to be a blessing, especially as we currently have much lower levels than the world has often had in the past.

    6 Even if the worst predictions of the alarmists are correct, can we do anything about it?
    In Australia, because we are so small a population, nothing at all, except encourage the world to use our coal, which is “cleaner” than coal from almost anywhere else, and to go nuclear. So, support for nuclear energy and support for Adani are to two most logical policy options for dedicated greens who are convinced the world is doomed. If they are not following these options, they are not greens but watermelons.

  19. Davefromweewaa

    It’s very important to point to the real costs and imaginary benefits as others have said. It is also very important to put the spotlight on those who benefit financially such as the Turnbull and Photios families.
    When everyone realises it is all a reverse Robin Hood scam it will wither and die.

  20. Mark M

    Mr Shorten said it was a “dumb question” when compared to the cost of inaction on climate change.

    “You can’t have a debate about climate change without talking about the cost of inaction,” he said.

    “There is a cost. The bushfires, the extreme weather events, the insurance premiums.”


    We can eliminate one of those costs; insurance –

    Remember also that the UN Climate Panel estimated that the economic impacts of climate would be “small” compared to most other impacts from changes in “population, age, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, governance” etc.

    – chapter 10:
    – key economic sectors and services
    – (page 662)


    Here’s what Warren Buffett thinks about climate change – PUBLISHED MON, MAR 25 2019
    Buffett 2014: “I don’t think in making an investment decision on Berkshire Hathaway, or most companies — virtually all of the companies I can think of — that climate change should be a factor in the decision-making process.”
    Buffett 2016: Climate change “will not hurt our insurance business, and it’s immaterial compared to other things that could affect our insurance business”
    Warren Buffet 2019: “If you own a railroad carrying a lot of coal it will carry a lot of coal for a long period, a very long period”

    So, the cost of inaction is bushfires and extreme weather events?

  21. Fleeced

    That’s been the way for years. Back when I was blogging (around 2007) I commented that they’d start with “Climate change is real.”

    You had to start with that, or you’d be shouted down.

  22. Val Majkus

    feels like it today – Hi val good to see your comment

    Hi Tintarella, thanks for your welcome … had less time for posting lately but always kept an eye on the Cats even when I’m not posting I check you guys out

  23. Rafe Champion

    Taking up Mark M’s point about chapter 10 of the IPCC report on the impact on various things in addition to the weather, a lot is based on the expectation of more extreme weather events. But that is possibly the most clearly and thoroughly disproved of all the climate bogeys.

    Consider this fear for pipelines and wires stretching over thousands of miles, designed to withstand all extremes of hot and cold in the zone, as though they will be compromised by an imperceptible change in the average temperature.

    Climate change may influence the integrity and reliability of pipelines and electricity grids (medium evidence, medium agreement).
    Pipelines and electric transmission lines have been designed and operated for more than a century in diverse and often extreme climatic conditions on land from hot deserts to permafrost areas and increasingly at sea. Owing to the private nature and high economic value to the energy sector, they have been designed to higher tolerance levels than most transportation infrastructure. Climate change may require changes in design standards for the construction and operation of pipelines and power transmission and distribution lines. Adopting existing technology from other geographical and climatic conditions may reduce the cost of adapting new infrastructure as well as the cost of retrofitting existing
    pipelines and grids to the changing climate, sea level, and weather conditions, which is likely to become more intense over time. {10.2}

  24. Paul Farmer


    This is probably the best climate debate on TV I have sever seen……between to be fair a AGW believer but one who is actually fair , balanced and sane, and Richard Lindzen, probably the smartest denier on the planet. Steve Paikan was the moderator , who works for a Canadian equivalent of our ABC. This is the sort of standard which we should expect of our journalists at the ABC but sadly we don’t even come close.

    The AGW professor agrees with nearly every point Lindzen makes because he actually has some integrity and wants to conduct the argument in the real world of science not just scare monger propaganda. Every school child in Australia should be made to watch this video………

  25. Mark M

    New Labor leader Anthony Albanese calls for end to climate wars

    “The time for the ongoing conflict over these issues surely is over.”


    >> Yes the conflict is over, and your UN-Al Gore-junk doomsday science lost.

  26. Turtle of WA

    All politicians should have to publish their renewables investments

  27. Squirrel

    “Making the debate about cost, not morality, was a Coalition winner.”

    And that’s exactly where the focus of the debate MUST stay.

    In his press conference today, Albanese rolled out the supposed debate-ending cliche “the science is in” – a fairly sure sign that he’ll be chasing the Greens down the rabbit hole in pursuit of loony emissions reduction targets, with all the same blather (as we got from Shorten) about renewables creating jobs and lowering power prices.

  28. Any discussion involving “The Science” is doomed to fail for sceptics.
    However we KNOW that the keepers of the so called ‘global temperature’ have committed fraud by faking their data.
    Expose this fraud in the US and Australia via a solid audit (including release all of their communications) and you’ll go a long way to defeating “The Science”.
    p.s. Don’t bother with the UK. They’re totally lost.

  29. Stanley Parks

    In the run-up to the unlosable election, I posed the following questions in an endeavour to gauge how little (or much) my fellow country(wo)men understood about CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Sadly only 1 person out of 20 got it about right.
    The preamble to the questions was: Imagine a box containing 10,000 molecules of air.
    Q1: In 1750 how many molecules of CO2 existed in this box?
    Q2; In 2015 how many molecules of CO2 existed in this box?
    The answers are 2 (Q1) and slightly less than 5 (Q2).
    Most of those questioned were stunned with the estimates.
    Methinks the govvermint must commit to educating the masses and religious climate crazies on basic scientific facts. Otherwise…..

  30. duncanm

    “Making the debate about cost, not morality, was a Coalition winner.”

    This is begging the question.

    It starts from the assumption that ‘doing something’ is moral. The equivalent of ‘won’t someone think of the children?!’

    It is *all* about cost; monetary, living conditions, life expectancy, deaths, illness, natural environment, etc. The cost of continue as normal, with a whole spectrum to the cost of shutting down all carbon emissions.

  31. cohenite

    Paul Farmer

    #3027163, posted on May 27, 2019 at 3:15 pm

    Lindzen is a great scientist but things have moved on since 2010 when that debate occurred. Like Curry Lindzen was subsequently shit-canned by grubs who can speak quicker than him and sloganize.

    Like Humbug I agree the science can’t be debated because the audience for this, the msm and pollies, have the attention span of gnats. The remedy is to draw attention to the frauds of alarmism like temperature fiddling, ACE records, tornado record and especially using alarmist science back at them; for instance 2 recent papers which show the worst droughts in Australia occurred before 1900.

    The level of the debate has to brought back down to level of understanding of the punters who, like with renewables can recognise a squib when they have it shoved in their faces. The beginning of that argument would be if they’re prepared to lie about wind and solar maybe they’re lying about the science too.

    In a couple of recent comments on talkback I had a lot of effect on a twit announcer after some clown had rang up saying tornados were getting worse by simply referring to the NOAA site which showed the opposite and then quickly getting in a couple of comments about extreme weather declining in a warmer world because cold regions warm faster than warm regions and energy gradients which extreme weather rely on decreasing.

    On another occasion when another announcer twit was regurgitating sea level rises accelerating I simply pointed out the BOM’s own Pacific islands sea level monitoring programme which showed the opposite and then got in a quick technical about how satellite measurements have problems compared with tidal gauges. She had to admit she had nothing but wasn’t convinced and they never will be but the point is if they are shown to be holding idiot views they will eventually fuck off.

    I have good results always when I remark that the GBR wasn’t there 25000 years ago and is probably only about 12000 years old. The Monash Uni Sahul Time interactive graph proves that.

    The alarmists have had 4 decades to refine their crap. Moses isn’t coming down with a rebuttal any time soon. It’s going to take a lot of effort and persistent dirty effort to kill this cockroach. Most scientists won’t do it except maybe Plimer and the late great Bob Carter. Although Ridd looks promising.

  32. I’m not a climate change denier, but I recognise junk science and a financial scam when I see it.

  33. Faye

    On the 25th I had similar slant on the same Graham Lloyd’s article in The Australian:

    “Oh, dearie dearie me, even the good guys on our side believe in the Climate Change Con (CCC).

    Brian Fisher, the modelling economist says “Everyone is talking about how we have to do something??? about the climate, and I agree, but the suggestion there is no cost is intellectually dishonest.”

    Mr Fisher, Climate Change’s raison d’etre is MONEY AND POWER. Just follow the money (see JoNova’s blog).

    Mitch Hooke reckons that there is a problem with the climate that must be addressed. Hallelujah – his answer is “a price on carbon and a market mechanism to set it.”

    Haven’t we been here before? Didn’t we have this out with Howard, Rudd, Gillard, Turnbull?

    John Anderson says “I am not a climate change denier”, however he believes its remedies cost too much and they wouldn’t change the climate.

    So ,why the hell is Australia being held hostage to a few city elites who wail about saving the planet as they fly around the planet spewing millions of parts per million of “carbon”.

    As a Conservative I beg the Liberal Party to debunk Climate Change and everything connected to it.

    Now is the time! Having won an election on it. Having pointed out the waste of money for no return. Having the scare of CCC falling into the hands of raving lunatics ie Labor and the Greens. Having had GetUp activities on display and the way Tony Abbott was threatened by the Climate Change ilk and upright members of Warringah, surely, there is a Trump or a Farage hero somewhere in Australia??

    (PS These guys even persuaded Tony Abbott not to leave the Paris Agreement which I bet Tony regrets.)”

  34. “Making the debate about cost, not morality, was a Coalition winner.”

    Then again you might lose all those well to do inner city electorates ’cause doctors wives don’t give a chit about the cost. Oh! wait.
    You might also lose all the young ‘uns ’cause they have yet to experience real life so they don’t really understand cost. Oh! wait.
    You might also lose the rest of the ‘burbs when the economy is going swimmingly and people tend to focus more on things other than putting bread n the table. Oh! wait.

    EXPOSE THE FRAUD in the temperature data and the rest will come tumbling down.

Comments are closed.