Doomed Planet

A Truth the Climateers Simply Won’t Tolerate

The poet Henry Longfellow wrote in 1845, “I shot an arrow into the air / It fell to earth, I knew not where.” The same thing happened with my Quadrant Online piece a fortnight ago about satellite readings of Australian temperatures. A Melbourne scientist friend, Geoff Sherrington, had crunched the latest data from the UAH satellites (above) and found Australia has not warmed for the past ten years – so much for the “climate emergency”. The planet itself hasn’t warmed for nearly eight years, the satellites say.

The piece was titled “A Clear Case of Hot, Hotter … Hoodwinked”. Weirdly, it’s created a furore in the Parliament of British Columbia (BC), Canada’s western-most province. BC is about the size of NSW and has a Queensland-size population.

John Rustad (right) , the BC Liberals’ shadow spokesman for forests (he’s worked in forests 20 years) was fired from his party last week for tweeting a link to the Quadrant piece.  He now sits on the cross-bench as an independent.

The BC Liberals are vaguely centre-right and were kicked out of office in 2017 by the labor unions’ socialist New Democrat Party (NDP), initially Greens-allied but since 2020 governing solo. The Liberals are totally wet, spruik climate alarmism and aren’t short on hypocrisy. The Liberals and the NDP can afford their anti-emissions policies because the province enjoys nearly 95 per cent hydro-powered electricity (Australia: 6 per cent hydro).

The Rustad sacking went like this:

♦ Vancouver resident Dr Patrick Moore, a one-time Greenpeace founder but now with the sceptic science group CO2 Coalition, liked the Quadrant piece and  tweeted it on August 14.  His Twitter followers total about 119,000.  He  added, “The case for CO2 as the global temperature control knob is getting weaker every day… #CelebrateCO2.”

♦ BC’s Liberal John Rustad re-tweeted Moore’s tweet. To wheel out a cliché, next day all hell broke loose. The Liberals’ leader in Opposition, Kevin Falcon, felt that Rustad was sabotaging his party’s efforts to save the planet from dastardly CO2. A day later he expelled him.

♦ The BC media hacks threw objectivity to the four winds (another cliché, apologies) and laid into Moore and Rustad as exemplars of climate denialism. They combed the records and social media to publish evidence of the pair’s heresies. In the process they exposed hilariously their own ignorance of matters like the life-affirming properties of CO2 which are taught (or were once taught) to every 13-year-old botany student. They were also incredulous that Moore would tweet that the Great Barrier Reef corals are in record health., notwithstanding this is now Australia’s official position.

♦ Adding to the media onslaught, LinkedIn has now banned Dr Moore’s account.

There’s a welter of issues in this strange saga, particularly how dangerous it is to query the narrative of climate apocalypse. The climate story is such a house of cards that proponents, especially Big-Tech, want to crush doubters before they can put any wobble in the structure.

Patrick Moore is a case in point. He was president of Greenpeace Canada for nine years and a Greenpeace International director for seven more. He holds a Science Honors degree in forest biology and a PhD in ecology.

In 1986 he quit Greenpeace over its extremist agendas, especially its perverse opposition to chlorinating drinking water to combat diseases. He is now a director of the Virginia-based CO2 Coalition, which assembles peer-reviewed scientific papers that contradict IPCC dogma, and is a senior fellow at America’s premier conservative group the Heartland Institute. He toured Australia giving public talks for the Galileo Movement in 2014. Among his campaigns is promoting “Golden Rice” to remedy childrens’ vitamin A deficiencies, in opposition to Greenpeace campaigns against the life-saving rice additive.

 Greenpeace, Wikipedia and other liars now rewrite history to deny that Moore was a Greenpeace co-founder. JoNova refutes their claim here.

Moore  both re-tweeted Quadrant’s article and posted it on LinkedIn,  the professional networking business owned by Microsoft.[1] A day or two later, LinkedIn banned his account, alleging unspecified violations of its “professional community standards”. Moore doesn’t know if the timing was a coincidence. “Just another example of power-tripping egomaniacs who now reject free speech even when it is the truth,” he says. “I made a lot of posts and they don’t give you a clue as to which part of which post they think is a violation. There is nothing professional in their ‘Professional Community Standards’ except the name.”

Others from the CO2 Coalition banned by LinkedIn since July are executive director Greg Wrightstone,[2] economics associate Darren Nelson, member Peter Frank, and Coalition PR consultant A.J.Rice, whose account was re-instated a week ago.

Wrightstone  believes LinkedIn has set out to silence the CO2 Coalition. He was permanently banned without warning  after posting two climate charts derived from the IPCC itself, and the Coalition page has been shut down. He says, “This is contrary to long and rich traditions of the Western civilization that established the scientific method. All reasonable people should be chilled by LinkedIn’s actions.”

As an aside, there have been two Oxford Union-style science debates in New York between top alarmists and top sceptics. In 2007 the alarmist team was led by NASA guru Dr Gavin Schmidt and sceptics’ by MIT’s Professor Richard Lindzen. Lindzen’s team won in official results from audience before-and-after polling, with a 16 per cent swing to the sceptics. Dr Schmidt has fled from such debates ever since, claiming (despite being a scientist) that debates are not worthwhile. To make the best of a bad job, warmists furtively altered the official results on-line to record a warmists’ win by 89 per cent, despite the correct results remaining in the transcript. This fraud was present in 2020 but now removed.

From 2007 it became settled policy in the warmist community to shun debates with sceptics, although there are honourable exceptions like Melbourne’s Dr David Karoly (warmist) debating in print with Will Happer (sceptic) in 2018, with inconclusive results because Karoly had to pull out mid-debate for personal reasons. In last week’s debate between Texas A&M’s Andrew Dressler (alarmism) and NYU’s Steven Koonin (sceptic) the official result was a sceptic win with a 25% favorable swing.


TURNING now to the BC Parliament, the Liberals, socialists and greens seem to be competing for alarmist credentials. The Liberal’s supposed right-of-centre leader Falcon says on his website he’s proud to have helped introduce a revenue-neutral carbon tax in 2008, when serving in a former government.  BC became the first North American jurisdiction to do so.  He says the policy was “lauded” by the OECD, UN and the New York Times – some praise, that.

His  position can be excerpted:

♦ “Like any team, our caucus operates on a foundation of mutual respect and trust. While a diversity of perspectives are encouraged and a source of strength, they cannot exist without that important foundation in place. Following a pattern of behaviour that was not supportive of our caucus team and the principles of mutual respect and trust, I have removed MLA John Rustad from the BC Liberal Caucus effective immediately.”

“Anyone who has fundamental doubts about the reality of climate change won’t be welcome in the B.C. Liberal caucus moving forward.” 

♦ “Climate change is one of the most serious threats facing our future. The BC Liberals are strongly committed to reclaiming BC’s place as a world leader in climate policy.”

Rustad’s push-back acknowledges some adverse human-caused warming is occurring but he says attacking CO2 emissions would do real harm to vulnerable communities. CO2 causation is a theory that should be open to debate, he says. In particular, current goals of suppressing nitrogen-based fertilisers would create global food shortages, worsened by rising fuel prices. He would not go along with elitist policies to punish local families already trying to deal with high inflation.  These issues are more important than facades of unity in the party caucus.

He’s also called out alarmists for attributing weather mishaps, like floods, to climate. Alarmists are issuing “extreme heat warnings” for 27degC days with drizzle, when BC people in the 1980s viewed 30degC days as normal, he says. Political priorities instead ought to be affordable housing, food and energy, and effective health care.

Reporters gleefully resurrected that Rustad last year told MLAs that CO2 was an essential element for life on this planet, not “pollution”.  Patrick Moore tweeted last week, “He is right, they are intolerant fools.”

While it’s nice to know that Quadrant’s readership girdles the planet, I feel sorry to have dropped Mr Rustad into such hot water. I guess politics is not for the faint-hearted.

 Tony Thomas’ latest essay collection “Foot Soldier in the Culture Wars” ($29.95) is available from publisher ConnorCourt

[1] Microsoft bought LinkedIn in 2016 for $US26 billion

[2] Wrightstone, with a Master’s in Geology, has  served as an Expert Reviewer for the IPCC itself.

12 thoughts on “A Truth the Climateers Simply Won’t Tolerate

  • Stephen Ireland says:

    Good one Tony! Can’t wait to see the legacy media doing an about face on CC or AGW or whichever other collection of letters is chosen for the narrative of the moment.

    Even the WSJ has turned on Fauci and they are all on board now with the dangers of affirmative medicine rather than more measured assessments of presentation of gender dysphoria.

  • cbattle1 says:

    Request for Clarity please Tony: Your article says at the top that Rustad was “fired from his party”, and the next sentence says: “He now sits on the cross-bench as an independent.” Towards the end of your article there is a quote from the leader of the BC Liberal Party, saying, “I have removed MLA John Rustad from the BC Liberal Caucus effective immediately.”
    But, was he expelled from the BC Liberal Party, or only from the “Caucus”? I am thinking that the “Caucus” is like a shadow cabinet.
    Presumably BC uses the Common Law, and therefore Rustad is entitled to Procedural Fairness/Natural Justice, which means that he cannot lose his rights to membership without being given a fair hearing.
    I think BC Hydro even exports electricity to the USA.

  • Elizabeth Beare says:

    If you are sitting safe on hydro then there is little pain in indulging in wacky beliefs about a climate emergency promising Armageddon. Many genuine scientists now believe that any limited warming (not much, mostly gone) is cyclical, weather is showing its usual patterns world-wide, bushfires and floods are no worse than in the past and that the CO2 hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis and not proven. Hydro means your heavy industry and manufacturing is also not at risk due to failures of energy for smelting and factory production. The irresponsibility of turning the developed and underdeveloped world to ‘renewables’ on what is appearing more and more to be a chimera, a quasi-religious fantasy, is being shown as dangerously inhuman in another place, nor BC as yet. Try Britain and Germany this coming winter. Scorning someone in political life who looks beyond BC on this issue and wishes to debate it shows a blind parochialism.

  • Tony Thomas says:

    Re cbattle1, yes Rustad definitely fired from the Liberal Party. The leader Kevin Falcon must be using “caucus” in a difference sense to what Australians use.
    Re natural justice, what actually happened was that Falcon called up Rustad, they had a chat, agreed they could not reconcile their views, and Rustad agreed he could not therefore continue in the party. Hence he acquiesced to his ‘firing’ and natural justice doesn’t apply.

  • cbattle1 says:

    Thanks for clarifying that, Tony.
    In regard to the anecdotal reporting of ever-increasing “unprecedented” temperatures and storm events, I am reminded that some years ago I was reading Evangelical/Fundamentalist literature that claimed Bible prophesies of the End-Times were being fulfilled because of “earthquakes in diverse places”. Thinking about it, I realised that it was the reporting of earthquakes, due to the proliferation of the “news” industry, which gave rise to the suggestion that the rate of earthquakes globally was increasing.
    When Charles Darwin arrived in Chile aboard the Beagle, he was amazed to see the evidence of a large earthquake, including the elevation of the coastline, which had occurred a year or two before. Given the communication technologies of the day, those aboard the Beagle were the first British to hear of it. Today, the faintest of tremors becomes broadcasted news within minutes! So it is with reports of weather events; it seems like we are experiencing continual global catastrophe. But, unplug yourself from the “media”, and experience the reality of where you are actually living!

  • Biggles says:

    I am not in favour of debates. “He convinced against his will is of the same opinion still”. The debaters’ opinions seldom change. I suppose the best that can be hoped for is a swing in audience opinion.
    The AGW argument is solved simply by asking the warmists for a logical reply to Prof. Ian Plimers’ question which is;”If only 3% of annual CO2 emissions are from human action, how is it that that 3% causes warming but the other 97% does not?” The oceans, volcanoes and other natural causes emit vast amounts of CO2 continuously, such amounts dwarfing anything we puny humans can produce.

  • en passant says:

    I have tried several times to cancel Linked-In, but obviously I m too low in the pecking order as every attempt failed. Maybe the following posting will work:
    ‘Hard to get excited when there has been no perceptible warming for decades.

    We need more CO2, not less as global cooling is coming!
    That should do the trick …

  • Feiko Bouman says:

    Another excellent expose (with accent) Tony. I don’t know why, but the following suddenly springs to mind:

    We know they’re lying
    They know there’re lying
    They know that we know there’re lying
    We also know that they know that we know they’re lying
    But they STILL LIE

    Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

  • Lewis P Buckingham says:

    en passant – 24th August 2022
    Could you tell us if it worked.
    I have also tried stopping ‘You have just been noticed by one person’.
    A familial person put me in as an act of grace and favour.

  • rod.stuart says:

    The scientific method does not involve “proving” things, but rather DISPROVING an incorrect hypothesis.
    There are many wqays in which the big lie about CO2 can be disproved.
    Here is one which the climateers cannot dispute.
    (99+) Facts and Lies about Global Warming (part 2) | Mário Barbosa Villas Boas –

  • whitelaughter says:

    Biggles, the purpose of a debate is to provide the audience with information. It is functionally a jury trial with both sides on trial. Even if one side *did* convince the other, the convinced side would be obliged to continue to defend their position to ensure that the audience hears the best that that position has.

  • robtmann7 says:

    You say of P Moore
    “Among his campaigns is promoting “Golden Rice” to remedy childrens’ vitamin A deficiencies, in opposition to Greenpeace campaigns against the life-saving rice additive.”
    Many iterations of this Swiss gene-jockeying have been mentioned this past couple decades. None contains enough pro-vitA to make much difference, and the substantially modified yellow rice has not undergone safety trials as would be required in the event of a seriously yellow rice being engineered.

Leave a Reply