Doomed Planet

A Handy Primer for Deluded Warmists

climate chartA school teacher I know tells his pupils that ‘Saying does not make it so’, that facts are the key to knowledge, not opinions.  Nowhere is this truer today than in the so-called ‘climate debate’.  Here, much  fails the facts test. Topping the list are claims of unprecedented warming from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2).   Resultant droughts, rising sea levels, more frequent and severe storms and other catastrophes are assumed.  A switch from CO2-producing fossil fuels to renewable energy, especially wind and solar, is deemed essential.

Similar dire climate predictions have been around since the late 1970s. And in all that time, none has come true.  None at all.  Undeterred, the climate soothsayers ignore their failures and carry on as if nothing had happened. The fact that good science should produce good predictions, and this is not happening, is also largely ignored. Instead, impending climate doom, and what must be done to avoid it, is orthodox thought in much of government, academia and environmental groups everywhere.  This thinking is much at odds  with key facts.

A most important fact is that Earth’s four and a half billion year history tells us we are now cooler than average, not warmer.  Indeed, for 80% of that history Earth had no ice caps and dinosaurs lived near the South Pole for millions of years. There were ice ages, too, with thick ice down to the Canadian border and across northern Eurasia.  Indeed, this was the norm for the last 800 000 years, with ice ages, separated by warmer interglacial periods, coming and going each 100 000 years or so.

We are in the Holocene inter-glacial period now. It officially began 11 700 years ago, but not in a clear-cut way.  Gradual warming followed the ice age peak about 25,000 years ago until a cold spell 14,000 years ago chilled things down again and temperatures swung wildly by 5C or so until the current warmer times began about 12,000 years ago.

During the last ice age, sea levels were some 130 metres lower than today, thanks to water locked-up in ice caps.  With warmer times, some ice melted and seas rose to near current levels in just a few thousand years.  Today, they are rising by only 16cm or so per century; a tiny change compared with the rapid changes in the early Holocene days and some contrary claims today. The lower sea levels exposed our continental shelf, joined Australia to Tasmania and PNG and left the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) high and dry for tens of thousands of years.  Then, as the ice melted, Tasmania and PNG became islands and the GBR re-generated some 8,000 years ago in its previous position.

Similar things happened throughout the world.  Rising Holocene waters separated England from Europe, formed the Dardanelles and the Black Sea and remade the world map.  Humans flourished in the warmer climate, with 60% of the Holocene averaging 2C higher than today.  The hottest time was some 7 000 years ago, with other peaks at 4000, 2000 and 1000 years back. Although there were no thermometer readings in these times, reliable proxies are available using lake sediments, pollen fossils and such, and evidence of what crops grew where and tree-lines on hills and in marginal areas. Indeed, the old joke that the Roman Empire went only as far north as wine grapes would grow has some truth to it. In fact, they grew grapes and citrus in parts of England that until recently would not  support either crop.  The Chinese too grew crops along the Yellow River in those times that won’t grow there today.  And, for history buffs, Hadrian’s route across the Alps could not be used today as it is permanently closed with ice and snow.

Thus, we know that Holocene temperatures were often warmer than now and varied constantly – and wild temperature swings occurred just prior to the Holocene period.  When we take this longer view, the recent temperature increase of about 0.8C since 1880 falls well within the limits of previous natural change, and is neither unprecedented nor dangerous.

We also know another vital fact: CO2 levels were steady during these wild swings and throughout the Holocene at roughly 280 parts per million (ppm) until 130 years ago when a stuttering increase to 400 ppm today began. In other words, Holocene temperature changes, and the wild variations that preceded them, were not linked to CO2 changes. This prompts the question: if CO2 changes did not drive these temperature shifts, why all the fuss about CO2 emissions?

The answer owes much to the complexity of the climate system and the wish for simple explanations to explain its variability and with which to make predictions. But climate is not simple.  There are many interacting parts that make it a ‘coupled non-linear chaotic system’ in which small variations of any part can create big, unpredictable changes. In the search for something simple to blame, like increasing CO2 levels, this ‘coupled non-linear, chaotic’ nature of climate is often played-down, overlooked or ignored. Things like solar variations, ocean heat transfers, cloud cover and the like – things that may well be the main drivers of climate – seldom get the respect they deserve.

The effect of the sun, the sea and clouds on climate is known and accepted – the Gulf Stream being a well known example – but more precise knowledge suitable for computer models is a different thing altogether. But what can be said for sure, is that the sun, the sea and the clouds are all very important and CO2 is only one player in a big game, not the control knob on the Earth’s thermostat. It is true that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect, but its heating effect is small (when compared with water vapour, the main contributor) and drops off logarithmically as its concentration increases. The more there is, the less additional heating effect it has.

The generally warmer history of the Earth, the serious shortcomings of climate models and the minor role of CO2 in climate are not well known in the community and frequently ignored by climate alarmists in government, academia, the media and the wider public. As a result, many Australians still feel ‘something must be done’ to curb CO2 emissions, and believe that ‘something’ is renewable energy, mainly from solar and wind.  These beliefs have caused much debate, for while we all know the sun doesn’t shine at night, or the wind blow on demand,  just what that means for wind and solar energy is not agreed.

Reliable, on-demand power from intermittent wind and solar requires storage (usually batteries) or back up power – a fact all agree on.  But here again, facts take second place to wild claims for future storage potential and denial of serious problems with back-up power. Batteries are now available for household solar systems (panels, inverters and batteries) costing twenty thousand-or-so dollars.  But even if the cost is ignored – which it can’t be – batteries are still way, way short of providing the capacity needed to power a large town, let alone a city. Consequently, the biggest problem with wind and solar today is the need for back-up power, mostly from coal and gas. This greatly increases the number of power sources needed, and with it cost. The efficiency of back-up coal and gas plants designed to run full-time, but used only intermittently, is also seriously degraded.

In Germany, intermittent use made back-up power stations so unprofitable they are now subsidised along with renewables.  South Australian may well be heading the same way.  With the unprofitable local coal plant closed, the gas plant partly closed and the interstate power link unreliable, subsidised gas or coal is now the main option. And the problem would spread though out the eastern states if the very high state and federal renewables targets are applied. With all power generation subsidised, much increased power costs and lower reliability would inevitably result.

Also, integration of wind and solar into the grid is not simple.  Phasing and voltages must be matched precisely and power surges can unbalance the grid.  These are not minor problems and need considerable effort and expertise to manage.

But perhaps the most important fact – seldom admitted but very real – is that in total power system terms, few if any CO2 savings result.  Energy is needed to make, transport and install windmills and solar systems and connect them to the existing grid, adding CO2 to the overall total. Intermittent running of fossil fuel back-up plants adds more CO2, and total savings over efficient, full-time, modern coal or gas plants are few if any – despite the much greater cost.  These facts are almost never mentioned when ‘clean energy’ claims are made.

The developing world knows all this.   Like my teacher friend they know that: ‘saying does not make it so’ and look at the facts.  They know the influence of CO2 on climate has been greatly exaggerated and other possible contributors played down or dismissed.  Not fearing their people will overheat, they happily look to cheap coal as their main power generator. India is buying into Australian coal mines to ensure supplies and China recently approved construction of up to 200 super-efficient coal plants.  Vietnam and the Philippines too are turning to coal and a 2016 study by Calgary University showed Asian coal consumption now greatly exceeds that in the West and will keep increasing until mid-century.

The International Energy Agency 2015 report shows renewables – biofuels, solar and wind –  supplied only 1.2% of world power in 2013.  Fossil fuels – oil, coal and gas – produced 81.4%.   This tells us that most of the world knows the facts, and is acting accordingly. It also tells us that our energy policies are not only mistaken, but futile.  Nothing we do will change the climate.   Increasing atmospheric CO2 is not a problem – and if it was, wind and solar would not fix it.  It’s time we followed the Asian example and acted according to facts instead of fears and fantasies.

Doug Hurst is a retired RAAF navigator with a long-term interest in weather and climate.  In writing this article he was assisted by:  Ex-RAN engineers Colin Davidson and Peter Bobroff; epidemiologist Dr Judy Ryan; IT specialist Mike O’Ceirin; medical practitioner Dr Patrick Purcell; public servant and military historian Peter Edgar; polymath Peter Kemmis; biochemist Maureen Hanisch; novelist and poet Alan Gould; and geologists Aert Driessen and Dr Howard Brady, author of Mirrors and Mazes, a guide through the climate change debate.  Most are retired and none work for power generators or fossil fuel companies

37 thoughts on “A Handy Primer for Deluded Warmists

  • ianl says:

    Thanks Doug – quite plainly and truthfully written. And thanks to the Quadrant editor who righteously persists in commissioning and publishing these articles despite little recognition. Much more adult reading than the political clowning around.

    Apart from the resident trollster, I do hope that people take these details onboard. We are already in deep doo-doo with the deliberate destruction of our power grids (one of the greatest civilising advances in the 19th and especially the 20th centuries). Taking a very large leaf out of the CAGW advocate book, I hope that raising awareness of the *facts* laid out here will help. CO2 is not a pollutant, is a minor GHG with quite trivial climatic effect and anthropogenic contribution to ever-evolving climate changes through CO2 emissions cannot be accurately known since separating the various factors out of a non-linear, coupled, chaotic system is impossible without the ability to exclude all factors bar one each time the result is measured. All of this is known to the point of routine, at least in the scientific communities.

    I fear though, that the lazy “consensus works for me” avoidance technique will continue to win.

    • ian.macdougall says:

      CO2 is not a pollutant, is a minor GHG with quite trivial climatic effect and anthropogenic contribution to ever-evolving climate changes through CO2 emissions cannot be accurately known since separating the various factors out of a non-linear, coupled, chaotic system is impossible without the ability to exclude all factors bar one each time the result is measured.

      The section in bold in the above quote appears to me to contradict the rest of the it. Suggest deletion.
      Also, not all ‘sceptics’ (eg Ian Plimer) would support that bold part. (No pun intended.)

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    Doug Hurst has also received great assistance from common sense.

    • Andrew Deans says:

      I agree regarding common sense; but I feel it is Hannibal’s route over the Alps which is now permanently snowbound, not Hadrian’s. Hadrian is better known for giving Mr Donald Trump ideas about walls…

  • en passant says:

    An excellent article summarising what every sane person has known all along. Well done!
    Please do not expect any rewards for your article or to be made the next AOTY.

    I was beaten to my prediction that the MacD Bot would inevitably comment by, well, the MacD Bot commenting part of its mantra. More will inevitably follow, though no doubt Ian Plimer can defend himself from having been ‘quoted’.

    I also noted the crippling mistake of quoting Hadrian, instead of Hannibal (so much for the Peer Review of the distinguished contributors). I suppose that for the Melting Cultist Snowflakes that error invalidates the whole rationale of everything else in this enjoyable and factual essay.

    The best part for me was the prediction that the seas “are rising by only 16cm or so per century” as this supports my ‘gamble’ of building my new home just 1.5M above high tide. I offered the MacD Bot a $1,000 bet of a sea level rise of just 50% of its prediction, but it has not accepted as it clearly does not like ‘easy money’. All hydro & wind, no guts nor glory.

  • Michael Galak says:

    As far as I remember from the high school course, carbon dioxide is a necessary part of the photosynthesis process. The plant/s absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen as a result.Therefore, logically speaking, the CO2 increase leads to an increase of Oxygen. Conversely, a decrease of the CO2 levels should lead to a reduction in the Oxygen content in the atmosphere. After all these years of the warmist propaganda I am still perplexed – if we are to reduce the carbon dioxide levels could it or could it not lead to a drop of the oxygen levels in the Earth’s atmosphere? And if such a reduction is possible, why do we have to strive so hard to reduce the amount of Oxygen in the air we breath?

  • says:

    Once upon a time, not very long ago, Australia had a nationally coordinated, efficient and economic power generation system, primarily supplied by coal-fired power plants and enjoyed one of the lowest cost of power in the world. We happen to have an abundance of high quality, cheap coal. Now we are condemned to rely on a rapidly degenerating system of mixed methods of power generation, subject to rapidly increasing cost to the consumer as well as the taxpayer, and the very real threat of rolling power blackouts. Those responsible for this disastrous turn of events are guilty of crimes against Australian society and must be arraigned to face those charges. There has never been a more justifiable case for a Royal Commission.

    • exuberan says:

      Agreed, Our power supply subject to that most variable variability, the Weather

    • ian.macdougall says:


      Those responsible for this disastrous turn of events are guilty of crimes against Australian society and must be arraigned to face those charges. There has never been a more justifiable case for a Royal Commission.

      The royal commission might find that it all runs deeper than the activities of a few obnoxious ‘greenies’. Best to be careful what you wish for.

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    Ronald Amusden traversed the Northwest Passage in an open boat in 1908. He stayed for a year or so with the Inuit, in preparation for his Antartic trip, and returned a year or two later.

    Currently it is closed all year round. It was open, for a period of approx 8 weeks annually, between the 1960s and 2015.

    Was it warmer in 1908 and colder during the 60s and now?

    • en passant says:

      Using facts, truth, history, reality and commonsense is so olde-fashioned in this post-modern-fact-free-pseudo-science New Dark Age of Unreason.
      If facts and truth meant anything then cultists like the MacD Bot would not just march omm, omm ommward to the destination they cannot name, but would tick the boxes and back up their previous wild assertions.

      1. What is the ideal average global temperature? – no answer and no clue, but a 2C increase would obviously be catastrophic … Omm, Omm, Ommward.
      2. What is the ideal concentration of CO2? – no answer and no clue, but any increase would obviously be catastrophic even though it causes plant growth (and as Michael points out, creates O2 for us to breathe) … Omm, Omm, Ommward we know not where.
      3. Seas are rising (the MacBot quotes the seaside Colorado Uni as predicting a 3.5m rise), but will not take a $1,000 bet that you will not be able to sail your yacht into my living room 1.5m above the current high tide mark. All hydro an wind, but no guts to back his “repent or the planet gets it” mantra … Omm, Omm, Ommward, and be afraid.
      4. Coal, that evil mineral that has lifted the civilised world to the heights of civilised behaviour where we can all plan our own demise by outlawing it … and its ‘(un)paid’ supporters are condemned, but low-CO2 nuclear is unmentioned as an alternative. This is because the REAL objective of the climate deceivers is the destruction of western civilisation, depopulation and impoverishment not enlightenment. The fact that we are martyring Australia while other countries empower themselves by commission new coal-fired power stations every week is irrelevant to the true-believers … Omm, Omm, Ommward into the South Australian Darkness.
      5. The evidence is that the world has begun to cool, but that is ignored or suppressed as truth, reality and the benefits of warmth and the uncorrelated CO2 increases are not part of the mantra … Omm, Omm, Ommward into the Cold Darkness.
      6. The overwhelming evidence is that simple politicians, simpler journalists and smart-conmen, rent-seekers, totalitarians, ‘educators’, propagandists and fake pseudo-scientists have ‘hived’ to create a consensus that has been so lucrative for them it makes my pay from big coal look like a zero. The scam must therefore be defended at all costs. Reputations, accolades and appointments as well as money are at stake here, so do not expect more than a few (with a conscience [or after retirement]) to break ranks. The zombie myths will not die easily … Omm, Omm, Ommward into the Cold Darkness of Energy Insanity.
      7. This is about politics, not science so fighting the Forces of Darkness on the battlefield of science is actually irrelevant. As U.S. Colonel Harry Summers said to a North Vietnamese Colonel in 1975: “We won every battle against you, we beat you every time.”
      As the NVA Colonel replied “That’s true. but it is also irrelevant.”

      That sums it up rather well, we have long since won the wrong battle, but are losing the War to the Empire of Pseudo-Scientific Darkness.

      This is a political battle, not a scientific one. To win it and return to a rational and prosperous Australia we must REPLACE the current crop of politicians with real people.

      As the Labor-Green-CFMEU sock-puppet is closing Hazelwood and taking 20% of the generating capacity with it, there has been no union riots to save the jobs and no protests that the energy supplier has just circulated a nice note that my electricity bill will rise by 20%. This will make it 16x more expensive than the one I pay in my Asian home.

      I also hear that the sawmilling town of Heyfield is to close its only industry and put 250 families out of work. There is nothing else around. Fortunately, we can all feel good about their martyrdom as it is to save the habitat of some possums. How good is that in the deindustrialisation and destruction of Australia Agenda-21? Way to go Dan and puts Victoria in the forefront of greenfoolery. Oh, and the protests from the CFMEU about the loss of their members jobs? No chance as they are in total alignment and set up their sock-puppet to announce this initiative.

      Hmm, where should I choose to live, dying Oz or vibrant Asia? Where should I locate my business, dying Oz or vibrant Asia? It was a tough question that took 2 milliseconds for me to answer. Call me if you are in town …?

  • says:

    I commend Doug Hurst and his illustrious band who assisted him to compile his article.

    I hope he will not take me amiss by my adding comments, which include a link to an Australian Government publication that provides visual reinforcement of some of what he has to say.

    Marine fossils in layers of sedimentary rock visible in Australia and elsewhere attest to sea levels in former times being higher than today.

    The government’s four-page publication on the geology of Kakadu National Park at this link speaks of rising and receding seas that formed what is today the inland escarpment:-

    Surely none will dispute that spreading Mesozoic seas 140 million years ago mentioned in the publication are the result of rising temperatures melting continental ice, nor that recession of those seas over the succeeding 40 million years implies the opposite.

    Man and his falsely-maligned emissions of carbon dioxide were unknown for another 100 million years.

    The publication tells us that beach ridges show the sea advancing at 20 to 30 cm a year during the Estuarine Period 10,000 years ago. Now that would give Tim Flannery cause for genuine concern about the safety of his plush home on the lower reaches of the Hawkesbury River!

    Our indigenous cousins had by then occupied the land for 40,000 years or so. Does their use of fire for land clearing and consequent emissions of CO2 explain these rising sea levels? I doubt it, but if it did, how then to explain the recession of sea levels – implying cooling climate – 3,000 years later?

    My PDF editor tells me that Parks Australia created the Kakadu publication on Tuesday, 29 September, 2015 at 2:14:00 PM.

    The irony is delicious. Warmist Malcolm Turnbull was the then-newly anointed PM. Fellow warmist Greg Hunt remained his Minister for the Environment and Energy until 2016. Both presided unwittingly over the release of a document that implies the very opposite of what they and every fretful alarmist believe, namely, that industrial man is the villain responsible for global warming as Earth continues what is so far an 11,700-year non-linear thaw from the Quaternary glaciation. The thaw will not continue indefinitely. Who then to blame for the cooling?

    We are surrounded by things intended to instruct us. Alas they are hidden in plain sight from the eyes of many who look but will not see.

    As an aside, I do not ask you to weep with me as I despair of the actions of economic vandals who have inflicted their delusional dreams, including destruction of reliable coal-fired generating plant, on consumers of electricity in my home State of South Australia. Premier Jay Weather(d)ill is now making noises about inflicting yet more financial pain on consumers in an attempt to solve problems of his making.

    Weatherill is one of those who, as Bill Martin comments, are guilty of crimes against Australian society and must be arraigned to face those charges.

    • gardner.peter.d says:

      Wonderful and well aimed. I haven’t seen tectonic plate theory playing a significant role in the AGW debate although some of the more news worthy cases of damaging relative rise in sea-level exploited by warmists have been explained in terms of mechanisms other than rising sea levels including geology. Plate tectonic theory is interesting in that it was a) unknown before the 20th century (Wegener et al.), and b) not accepted by the geo-science community until the 19503-60s.

      There is probably a very good rule of thumb that consensus delays and inhibits the advancement of science.

    • says:

      Thanks Wyndham Dix for your interest but beware making comparisons over very long time frames when the rocks can show the effects of multiple processes. Your assertion:

      “Marine fossils in layers of sedimentary rock visible in Australia and elsewhere attest to sea levels in former times being higher than today”.

      This assertion implies that sea level is the only variant but that is not so. Tectonic forces can raise, sink, and move whole continents.

  • Steve Spencer says:

    I imagine many highly-placed socialists over the years have lamented the growing affluence of those living in capitalist societies, because it was a barrier to their aspiration to create a socialist world order.

    So, while CO2 might originally have been picked up and used as a means to present a “simple explanation”, aforementioned socialists and their green-Left buddies quickly realised it was the perfect solution to the ‘problem’ of capitalism. Because the increased consumption that accompanies improving lifestyles in capitalist societies inevitably means increased CO2 production, all they had to do was sell the ‘CO2 is killing the world’ idea and Bingo, capitalism is stopped in its tracks.

    Reducing CO2 truly is therefore a means to an end; it’s just not the end they would have you believe.

    • ian.macdougall says:

      And where do Jim Hansen and the other NASA scientists who first drew attention to the AGW issue, fit into your scheme of things?

      • Steve Spencer says:

        Socialists aren’t the only people using AGW to further their agenda. It is a quite remarkable issue in that it can be used for many ends, including a means to drive stupendous research funding, or a means to make huge fortunes out of the development of dead-end technologies.

        It’s a very, very, VERY deep trough, with room for lots of snouts – provided the money keeps rolling in. The trick is keeping that money rolling in.

        Cue carbon taxes and trading.

        • ian.macdougall says:

          It’s a very, very, VERY deep trough, with room for lots of snouts – provided the money keeps rolling in. The trick is keeping that money rolling in.

          I am sure that many a baron of fossil carbon would agree with you.

          • Clive Bond says:

            The “barons of fossil fuel” provide the means for us to raise our standard of living and enrich ourselves. Hansen, Gore and an army of other grant gatherers enriched themselves,built careers and reputations and made the rest of us poorer

      • Steve Spencer says:

        What many people don’t realise – or in some cases won’t admit – is that scientists are humans. They seem to believe that science is somehow immune to the forces that corrupt or influence human endeavour elsewhere. It’s not clear to me why they think this. I can only assume they don’t know any scientists (at least those who follow classical scientific method that actually values scepticism).

      • en passant says:

        As unindicted conspirators who turned off the air conditioning to demonstrate to the Committee it was heating up

      • says:

        Can I quote Upton Sinclair here?
        “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it”.

      • says:

        Can I quote Upton Sinclair here?
        “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it”.

    • gardner.peter.d says:

      AGW is a very good example of positive feedback de-stabilising complex systems. Many and diverse interests do very well out of it. Fear for the future of humanity is an easy one to exploit by governments controlling the supply of money. It doesn’t necessarily mean they get personal kick backs. But they get power. Those who do not gain any benefit and those who suffer the damage, continue to supply the funding even though they no longer have much influence on its uses, and certainly not enough to act as negative feedback. Since fear for the future of humanity invokes a deep emotional response, it removes the process from the normal and mostly rational mechanisms of governance ‘in the existential interests of humanity as a whole, so the methods employed to advance it should not be bound by normal rules. A nod to current law in which acting in the public interest is indeed a legitimate defence for some acts that wold otherwise be wrong.
      It is not only capitalism that it weakens. It is democracy itself because like so many of the other diverse groups on the bandwagon, they seek to by-pass democracy in order to have their view imposed on those they have failed to persuade by rational debate. So among their many tactics is clamping down on free speech, denying employment to non-believers and so on. All of which can be and are legitimised by governments also captured in this positive feedback loop.

      • gardner.peter.d says:

        I meant to end with, when that happens in electronic systems (nuclear power stations are a good example, especially those installed in submarines) we switch them off or press the reset button. How do we re-boot a broken system of democratic governance?

  • gardner.peter.d says:

    Some other key facts:

    Britain used to export wine to Rome.
    In the ice records going back 800,000 years (Antarctica Dome C), cooling begins when CO2 is at a maximum. Also shows in the northern Vostok ice cores of 450,000 years.
    The ice records also show that rising CO2 lags rising temperature. Falling CO2 and temperatures are approx synchronous.
    Human development has been faster and healthier during warm periods.
    There is no theoretical solution possible to the multi independent variable partial differential equations that represent the climate system even as far as it is known (Navier-Stokes).
    Nobody has determined an ideal average global temperature, nor an ideal average level of C02. (both probably meaningless in any case).
    Nobody has determined a dangerous threshold level of either CO2 or temperature.

    Germany, regarded as the exemplar of green energy, is facing enormous problems, not only on economic reliable energy supplies but renewables causing the destruction of forests, wildlife which threaten the food chain. Its electricity is the most expensive bar one (Denmark?) in Europe. See:

    • gardner.peter.d says:

      PS Polar Bear populations are increasing.

    • ianl says:

      For those who may not grasp how far this issue will burrow ever deeper into our daily lives, just this month of March 2017, Foxtel has imposed from its’ HQ, unannounced and unacknowledged, a regime wherein it deliberately and illegally puts the satellite receiver box into “standby” after some measured period of “no button push registered” (I’ve experienced it, so I know it’s a fact).

      Minor, trivial, a tiny nuisance – one may think. But it is the thin end of the wedge designed to control our consumption without consent since medieval windmills obviously can’t cope with the existing consumption levels. Air con next, controlled by “smart” meters. Manufacturing Industry is already a hollow shell.

      Both major political parties tacitly agree on this, with politicians as sneaky and cowardly as they always are. The MSM moving goalposts, the CAGW advocates avoiding acknowledgement – none of that will alter the path of this juggernaut. The Renaissance is reversed, the Disenlightment proceeds. Australia is the “lucky” country, but that’s all it is.

      • gardner.peter.d says:

        I am not sure but I seem to recall that the term ‘lucky country’ was coined to label a country that would have gone backwards through poor government and mismanagement but was saved by its natural resources and the term is now frequently misused to imply success because its enlightened people ensured good governance.

        • ianl says:

          > ” … a country that would have gone backwards through poor government and mismanagement but was saved by its natural resources …”

          Yes, that *is* what it means. Perhaps I should have said Australia *was* the lucky country, since development of natural resources, especially energy, is now verboten. If we are reduced to some entertainment organisation like Foxtel surreptitiously manipulating tiny, individual domestic power consumption items as a graceful contribution to saving the planet then we have shot our “luck” in both feet simultaneously.

  • ian.macdougall says:

    Nothing we do will change the climate.

    Central to this whole argument is the proposition that despite the work of Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius and others, CO2 does not trap heat. The article’s targets can be seen as not only mainstream climatology and its pioneering scientists, but she who is standing behind them; whose laws they have revealed: Nature herself. Thus, no quantity of CO2 when added to the air must be allowed to alter climate in any disagreeable or distasteful way. So for this article to be right, the textbooks of physics and chemistry must be amended so that we can proceed on our present course undistracted.
    Fundamentally then, the problem is those laws of physics and chemistry, which have to be rewritten, ignored, or chucked in the garbage can. While we are at it, we might bung on a review of Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation: source of so many difficulties for the aircraft industry.
    We have to be able to burn all of the Earth’s supply of fossil carbon for its energy and iron ore reducing capabilities, making a relatively small but influential number of fossil carbon barons fabulously wealthy in the process, and to Hell with any consequences.
    And piggies will also fly.

Leave a Reply