Doomed Planet

No More Tolerating ‘Nonsense’? Prove it

agl IIForgive me, but I’m having great difficulty processing the logic by which our government, which mindlessly committed itself to the Paris Agreement aimed at limiting global warming to 2C, based entirely on the findings and recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, now dismisses the recommendations of that same IPCC as detailed in the UN body’s latest report. These are  recommendations that include total elimination of coal fired power by 2050 and assertions that we must transition from the consumption of meat.

According to The Australian, Mr Morrison will be pledging no fealty to the latest warmist epistle and its demands for action. “We’re not held to any of them at all, and nor are we bound to go and tip money into that big climate fund,” the newspaper quoted him as telling 2GB. “We’re not going to do that either. I’m not going to spend money on global climate conferences and all that sort of nonsense.”

What has happened since 2016 to so discredit the IPCC that this PM now states his intention to blithely ignore the dire warnings climate careerists are forever issuing in wholesale lots? Why is the IPCC, sacrosanct oracle of 2016, now to be treated with such disdain? Are all those decades’ ‘settled science’ now just junk science after all?  If so, why not take a Trumpist tack and deep-six the Paris agreement once and for all?

Conventional wisdom from political pundits on the right is that PM Scott Morrison is running dead on CAGW and Paris because he cannot  offend Wentworth’s latte luvvies ahead of the crucial by-election by admitting Paris was a classic bait-and-switch scam from the get-go. Subtle it most definitely was not. The climate alarmists belled their cat before the ink was dry, loudly proclaiming that the agreement didn’t go anywhere near far enough and was only a good start.

Is Morrison’s current position merely a delaying tactic, keeping his powder dry until after the by-election? I’d like to think so,  but I’m not that naïve. By my reckoning he is being quite disingenuous – no, let’s be blunt and say dishonest – to gloss over the fact that our Paris commitment embraces the whole economy, not just electricity.  How does he propose to achieve the target in sectors such as transport and agriculture? What came to my mind was Charles Durning playing The Governor in The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas. Watch the clip below and see if you can spot any similarities.

My guess is Morrison thinks he can keep his ‘sidestep’ routine going indefinitely.  Whether Tony Abbott (conveniently pre-occupied on other matters) and Craig Kelly et al will maintain their low profiles on this issue beyond Wentworth is another question.

The release of Dr John McLean’s expose of the corruption of the HadCRUT4 temperature database should provide a hook with which any useful conservative government could pull back from the CAGW madness, ridiculing the mad hysteria of this latest hysterical IPCC report in the process. Tactically and strategically, that opportunity needs to be grasped now.  As Alan Moran has noted in these online pages, not only would the repudiation of Paris open Australia’s economy to a new and revitalised competitiveness, it might just save the Coalition’s bacon come election time.

13 thoughts on “No More Tolerating ‘Nonsense’? Prove it

  • Biggles says:

    Did you see the ABC’s ‘global warming’ segment which was shown as top-of-the-news on Monday night (8 Oct)? The usual lies: thousands of scientists agree, etc. This is not news, it is Green/Left propoganda. How to stop these lies being told at the taxpayers’expense? Ask any young person and you will be told that the Earth’s temperature is in run-away mode; they learn it at school and university. The fact is that the Earth’s temperature is falling due to a less-active sun. It will be interesting to see whether the AGW lobby claims credit when lower temperatures a few years hence will entirely negate the warmist myth.

  • Gazman says:

    Scomo is doing okay on the personality tactics, but on the policy front he must address two issues if the Libs are to have a shot at the next election: energy and immigration.
    Can the RET, remove subsidies to unreliables and pull us out of Paris.
    And make a significant reduction to immigration levels.

  • ianl says:

    > “How does he propose to achieve the target in sectors such as transport and agriculture?”

    Well, the IPCC suggests for the transport issue at least, that retail fuel should be at $100/litre. So a modestly sized motor vehicle would then cost over $3000 to fill up.

    In that other universe, electric vehicles would then substitute. I mean, who really needs to drive more than 50km a day anyway, unless of course one buys a $120k vehicle to do 300km before spending the next 5 hours recharging for 80% of that distance. That way, one could drive from Sydney to Melbourne in 3 days. Golly …

    One may hope that the IPCC has finally pushed the plebs too far. Maybe.

  • Jody says:

    Morrison is doing his best. Remember, ours is a deeply divided polity and the spendthrifts have the upper hand. The people obviously want to pay for their internationally socialist masters and they’re prepared to run our country into the ground and bankrupt their own children.

    If ‘climate change’ is to be mitigated it’s an ALL OR NOTHING game, as far as I’m concerned. No cherry-picking, thanks very much.

    Today we drove back from Orange, NSW, where my husband went to see his dying oldest friend – who lay comatose surrounded by grieving family. On route back via Wellington, Gulgong and Merriwa we saw a ‘wind farm’ which was completely still. Ne’er a blade was moving. It send chills down my already chill-familiar spine. Who the hell is fooling whom here?

  • says:


    “The release of Dr John McLean’s expose of the corruption of the HadCRUT4 temperature database should provide a hook with which any useful conservative government could pull back from the CAGW madness.”

    Here’s another hook. Statistically, the HadCRUT4 data is just “red noise”.

    John Reid’s 2016 analysis must be on the IPCC’s Index of Prohibited Papers. It does not mention his important paper. From the Abstract:

    “The HadCRUT4 time series of 166 annual values of global average temperature was analysed both deterministically and stochastically and the results compared….The small increase in global average temperature observed over the last 166 years is the random variation of a centrally biased random walk. It is a red noise fluctuation. It is not significant, it is not a trend and it is not likely to continue.” (J Reid, atmospheric physicist, 28 December, 2016)


  • says:

    For twelve hours of pure Red Noise in Stereo, go to:

  • Jody says:

    For a little light diversion of humour (and truth!) please watch this – it’s delicious!!

  • ian.macdougall says:

    Jody: I followed your link. Looks like an audition video from Pat Condell for some gig as a stand-up comedian. My response as a judge would be the usual: ‘Don’t call us, we’ll call you.’
    But Hitchens and Dawkins both feature prominently in the sidebars. So all good value. Thanks very much for the link.


    Simplest solution: vote ONE NATION.

Leave a Reply