The Climate Council (the rebadged Climate Commission) has launched a 60 page cherry picked list of one-eyed, self serving conspiracies and half-truths subtly called CLIMATE CUTS, COVER-UPS AND CENSORSHIP.
The headlines:
“Federal government accused of ‘false’ climate claims” [Newscorp]
It doesn’t matter how much money Australian’s pour into the climate vat, it’s never enough
When is $5 billion a year a lack of anything?
The council released a new report this morning saying the government’s lack of action on climate change was a defining feature of its 10 years in power as it fights to extend its tenure at the May 18 election.
The Coalition Government hasn’t lacked action, it’s done far too much
Australians are adding more renewables per watt per person than any other nation. We now have targets that are possibly the severest in the world given that we are a small distant population in sparsely populated country with one of the largest per capita immigration intakes in the west. Making it worse, we are one of the only countries on Earth that looks like reaching our target. Our major export earner is coal, our major source of power is coal, and we are an industrial mining quarry far from most markets. The only continent that could justify a higher per capita emissions than Australians are the thousand permanent residents of Antarctica.
If the Climate Council were serious about reducing emissions they’d endorse the Coalition all the way — the Labor Party has grand ambitions, but they pick the most socialist, and thus least effective and most expensive ways to achieve anything. The Gillard Govt managed to spend $5,000 per ton of carbon saved. Tony Abbott’s plan cost just $14 per ton. Which begs the question, are the Climate Council concerned about carbon emissions or are they just an industry lobby group for the $25 billion Australian renewables sector?
Australias carbon emissions per capita are still falling
Australian total emissions are rising, but not as fast as our population is. The Climate Council could campaign to reduce immigration which would be a large simple step to reduce the national emissions.
Check the latest inventory of Australian emissions — per capita.
Dept of Environment and Energy, 2018 Report.
Censorship? Seriously?
Millions of dollars have been spent advertising an imaginary climate crisis and yet the Climate Council want us to believe they are censored? Their great “censorship timeline” is full of non-event fillers like the election of prime ministers. As if the election of Abbott and Turnbull somehow censors the climate petals. Things are so banal that bringing a lump of coal to parliament apparently rates as an act of censorship — as if it were some kind of kryptonite that expelled all the little solar and wind voices. They’re so desperate to think up excuses, they list the government offering $4m to fund the Bjorn Lomborg “consensus centre” as act of censorship. Did they forget that all our academic institutions ran like rats at the thought, terrified that some trolls would call them a climate denier? Who exactly is censored when even four million dollars is not enough to overcome that fear? The list is a parody.
The real censors are those who use namecalling and threats to sack, evict, blackball, terminate, punish, vilify and generally be intimidating to people, not to mention blowing up their kids (as a joke) or throwing a RICO investigation at them. If the Climate Council want to talk censorship, bring it on. Peter Ridd was sacked in part for writing the banal “for your amusement” to a colleague. Then he was ordered not to tell the world, or even his wife, how his university was silencing him. Skeptics are even subject to censorship of their censorship.
Wait for it:
The Federal Government has repeatedly released greenhouse gas emissions data when it is unlikely to draw significant attention, for instance, during football finals or at Christmas.
That would make it exactly like the revamped Emissions Trading Scheme that Australians voted against twice that was brought in quietly under the name “Safeguards Mechanism” by Malcolm Turnbull on the last sitting day before Christmas. Did the Climate Council protest that, or is deception fine if it’s “for the sake of the renewables industry?”.
Is that all?
› In 2016, the Federal Government censored a UN report about climate change and World Heritage sites, asking the authors to remove any reference to Australian sites.
The Australian government has poured millions of dollars into research designed to find a crisis. It has spent not one cent auditing any of the agencies, reports or committees that repeatedly predict disasters that rarely happen. The Bureau of Meteorology hides its methods, uses secret processes, throws away its data, and keeps cooling Australia’s historic records. When scientists ask for it to be audited, the bureau throws out the whole dataset, and the government refuses to investigate. The ABC is furnished with $1.2 billion dollars a year to meet a charter that it flagrantly ignores, yet the government keeps funding it. Tens of thousands of scientists are speaking up as whistleblowers around the world, and there are many in Australia too. Protesters include Nobel physicists, award winning climate scientists, men who walked on the moon, and one of the founders of Greenpeace. Yet the ABC can’t manage to do a documentary on any of them, even as it finds time to promote a 16 year old school girl who is fashionably, obediently, “disobedient” instead. Cry me a river “Climate Council”.
In case you have some strange desire to support the Council, this is their crowd funding site:
https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/donate/
The Council crowd funded $1M in a week. It is no wonder they can continue to keep producing
PropogandaReports:https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resource/reports/
I wonder how well JoNova would go with a crowd funding page rather than reliance of funding from this blog.
160
It would be interesting to know where their funding mostly comes from.
People, or AGW/renewable energy businesses, political activist groups etc ..
191
All roads lead to Soros.
Interesting how self described communists/socialists will wail and gnash their teeth over the so called 1% wealthy elites but let the likes of Musk(socialist) or Sanders(communist) off because they somehow relate to their ideals, the day an inner city green leftie worth a million plus gives all their wealth to the cause will be a bloody first.
181
How do you rationalise Musk as a Socialist ?
Even if he thinks himself to be one, he certainly lives the life of a Capitalist. !
81
He tweeted this last year,
Elon Musk✔
@elonmusk
By the way, I am actually a socialist. Just not the kind that shifts resources from most productive to least productive, pretending to do good, while actually causing harm. True socialism seeks greatest good for all.
But yes like all in history before they spout off about inequality the common good for all blah blah then raid the coffers and leave everyone else broke starving or dead.
160
“Renewable energy” salesmen and subsidy scammers. Activists never contribute. They keep empty pockets so they can’t be sued for damages.
40
The Climate Council is of course
The defunded & rebadged
As the privately incorporated
Climate Commission
Set up by Gillard & Co
During their years of chaos.
And of Course it’s head honcho
Is the famous & ‘non-scientist’
Mr Timbo Flannery.
Nothing good or useful
Can come from this mob
Of self appointed Climate zealots.
Just propaganda
Ad infinitum !
271
What Bill said ! 🙂
101
Flannery is to science to what Lysenko was to agriculture.
161
How to make your company more sustainable basically – shut up shop and go home?
ROFL…..
/SARC
https://www.smartcompany.com.au/business-advice/five-ways-sustainable-business/
1. Ditch the fridge
2. Turn down the heat
3. Change the lights (or turn them off)
4. Cut down on travel
5. Create a strategy
“Finally, Morris says businesses should collate all the changes they plan to make into a comprehensive sustainability strategy. However, she warns businesses away from being sustainable for sustainability’s sake, saying it can come across as “tokenistic or greenwashing”.
50
This is good too…..
ROFL x 2
https://www.msn.com/en-au/money/company-news/why-small-businesses-cant-ignore-climate-change-anymore/ar-AAALbdg?ocid=mailsignout
“Climate change is at a tipping point. Action is needed now to prevent the Earth’s atmosphere from hitting the point of no return.
According to NASA, the Earth’s temperature has risen by 2°C in the last 140 years, and sea levels are set to rise more than 60 centimetres in the next 80 years — an increase so significant Indonesia has been forced to consider changing its capital city.
“SmartCompany believes small businesses and the people who run them also have the power to drive real change on climate action. Though it might be something you’re unfamiliar with or perhaps aren’t completely sold on, it’s real, and it needs your attention.
…………….
“The changes you make don’t need to be big ones, but they should be. Sure, turn down the heat, but what are your suppliers doing? What’s their carbon footprint? If they’re not on board, then maybe it’s time for some frank discussions about your relationship.
“Some businesses are still taking the easy way out, but that’s no longer an option.
“Ignoring this issue, or palming it off as ‘Greeny leftie bulls–t’, is closed-minded and irresponsible. This is a sector which prides itself on innovation, growth and profits — and on not taking it easy if it makes things more difficult later.
Um…it is greenie leftist BS……
60
The Climate Council is of course…..fully integrated with AGENDA21/30…
100
Or maybe a specially manufactured ” change agent” to ensure the A21 is enacted…..
71
Pure poetry Bill.
Pure Australian poetry.
10
I thought that the Liberal+National parties had been in power only for the last 6 years, being elected with T.A. as leader in 2013.
Where did they get this last 10 years of inaction? Are they blaming the Liberals for Labor’s failures?
120
The Report only talks about 5 years of inaction – the ten might be a typo. In any event, if it is so bad, how could it be rewritten to be more acceptable?
38
They could try applying the now out-dated concepts of honesty and integrity.
Ever heard of them Fitz?
131
like 10 instead of 5?
38
Most of the Report concentrated on energy and the technology to reduce CO2 from the atmosphere, but I found this big lie in the conclusion.
‘Australians are experiencing worsening climate impacts with no reprieve in sight as global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.’
Not a word on Beijing and 300 new coal fired power stations?
151
“‘Australians are experiencing worsening climate impacts
Except THEY AREN’T
The main things that are hurting the country are coming from the impact of the Climate Change Agenda, which as we all know, is NOTHING to do with climate.
161
They are ( the Establishment ), are quite simply – panicking.
They know people smell the BS and are now ignoring the greenist nonsense.
40
Worst fire 1851, worst flood 1955, worst drought Federation, wettest phase mid-1970s, worst heatwave 1896, worst death-toll 1939, worst tornado 1970, worst cyclone 1899, longest drought late 1950s onward, longest heat 1920s, wettest year 1950, driest year 1902, highest recorded max
193319091960…Howzat for worsening climate impacts?
I’ve said it before. Never trust the climate judgement of people who wear scarves in summer.
71
Donkey.
10
Fitz know NOTHING about honesty and integrity..
… otherwise he would ADMIT that there is ZERO EVIDENCE that the beneficial increase atmospheric CO2 causes any warming.
He chooses to live a LIE !
111
“The Report only talks about 5 years of inaction”
And Australians should do all they can to increase it to triple figures.
There is NO NEED for any action of something that just ISN’T HAPPENING
Come on Fitz, In what way has the climate changed that can be scientifically attributed to human releases of CO2 to the atmosphere.
ASSumption driven models are not evidence.
121
‘….if it is so bad, how could it be rewritten to be more acceptable?’
They should have concentrated their effort on discussing climate change, but unfortunately they think the science is settled.
If they were honest, a simple statement to the effect that global warming ended 20 years ago. Then outline why we have a plateau in world temperatures, even as the amount of CO2 increases rapidly.
They shouldn’t be talking about dirty coal and renewables, its not in their job description.
31
I was discussing the other day how those who wind up in positions of power, particularly the tribal Left, appear to have sociopathic or psychopathic tendencies.
As such, its a pursuit of fuedalistic power, but in a modern setting.
Its also instructive to note its Leftist thugs who want to disarm the population, now why would that be?
The pursuit of power is as old as time, but as happens in nature, its often the most brutal that rise to the top.
81
OriginalSteve,
No, no it can’t be …
Just look at those havens of social peace, tranquility, while cleanly increasing personal wealth that the left have managed to create all over the world. Places like Venezuela today!
61
Censorship.
Comments at the ‘occasional’ ABC articles which allows comments, now few and far between, compared to what they used to be.
Same with the Grauniad.
Same with The Conversation.
Not one got through Moderation, at any site.
Tell the truth, and no one wants to print it.
Wait till the truth gets out that renewables have ….. ZERO effect whatsoever on coal fired power.
Take Monday and yesterday for example.
Wind power had a shocker on Monday. An average of 980MW per hour across the day, (Nameplate 6106MW) at a Capacity Factor (CF) of 16%. Total power generation an average of 22150MW per hour. Coal Fired power 70% of that total. (Average 15600MW)
Wind power had a huge day yesterday Tuesday. An average of 2880MW per hour across the day at a CF of 47%. Total power generation an average of 21850MW, so 300MW lower than Monday. Coal fired power went ….. UP to 72%. (average 15740MW)
Wind power up by 1900MW.
Natural Gas fired power, (minus 1240MW) hydro power, (minus 480MW) and smaller Other sources ((minus 400MW) mainly extra back up for lack of wind in SouthAus) took up all of that increase for wind power. (2120MW)
This is not an isolated thing, but happens every time wind power generation changes, either up, and the other three go down, or wind down, and those other three up.
At no time EVER has wind power had any effect on coal fired power.
NO ONE will tell the public. NO ONE.
I dread the backlash when people finally do find out that little fact.
Billions spent and coal fired power just hums along as it always has.
And rooftop solar power yesterday, an average of 780MW total from a Nameplate of 8000MW PLUS at a CF of less than 10%. More BILLIONS wasted.
Shh!!! Don’t tell anyone. (That’s if you could tell them in the first place.)
Tony.
250
Keep plugging away, Tony. Your information gets through and gets out, albeit at a steady trickle. You are what the green carpetbaggers and shills fear most: somebody who checks.
150
Same with InDaily here in SA Tony !
We commentators put their journos straight on the facts.
And for that we got exiled..
Now In Daily is gelded.
No balls at all !
91
The public will realize when the power goes off and stays off for days.
30
Ummm I wonder how the public
Will feel if that happened ?
Mislead ?
Misinformed ?
Annoyed ?
Angry ?
Out to find someone to blame ?
All of the above !
But the Greenists
Might try to blame it on coal
For not being there !
With B/S & propaganda.
30
Tony, all it takes is a southerly cold front in the southern states to up the wind and its a temp gift for the wind farm club, but not for long.
40
Censorship in the guise of P.C, gurus ever find excuses to constrain
freedom of speech and freedom of action, it’s been done before,
Germany, 1939, socialists, fascists, communists, deja vu all over again,
and now the globulists and Venezuela, all tarred with the same sad ol’ brush,
(… and in the litera-chure, George Orwell’s ‘1984.’)
30
I just wish that someone had deep pockets and could sue the Climate Council for [misleading advertising].
Come to think of it, I wonder if crowd sourcing would produce sufficient funds.
20
It’s time to debunk the nonsense and hypocrisy that is embedded in the oft repeated statement “that Australia emits more carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent emissions per capita than almost any other country in the world”. This statement (or similar wording) has been promulgated widely since the initial signing of the Kyoto Protocol (KP) in 1997, but I do not believe it is supported by the facts and as such it should no longer be publicised/promoted – especially by scientific bodies and vested interest groups such as the Climate Council and political cabals.
Any CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere as a result of Australia’s emissions is the net consequence of all of our nation’s sources (CO2 released into the air) minus all of its sinks (CO2 removed from the air). However there are obvious errors in reporting and attributing net emissions since no one can accurately determine the identity (and quantity) of all our putative sources and sinks (at least from ground based measurements).
Sadly, the latter reality led to selective accounting of greenhouse gas (GHG) [CO2 – e(quivalent)] emissions in this country, commencing with the initial compilation of the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (NGGI) prior to the first meeting of the parties (countries) who framed the KP. This came about because some ‘experts’ advising the Australian Greenhouse Office on accounting for the Land Use, Land Use Change & Forestry (LULUC&F) sector of the NGGI could not comprehend that intact grazed woodlands in Northern Australia were “thickening up” (increasing in tree size – basal area, cover and density) as a result of human management decisions. In other words along with increasing biomass they were becoming an increasing carbon dioxide sink.
Because the ‘experts’ compiling the NGGI did not understand woody plant population dynamics in these systems, they chose to ignore huge forested (as defined by the KP) areas for GHG accounting purposes. Thus, for the first Commitment Period (2008 – 2012) of the KP only c. 1% of Australia’s land mass was actually taken into account in determining net emissions from the LULUC&F sector. In essence we restricted our GHG accounting to estimates from land areas subject to deforestation, afforestation and reforestation. [Reforestation is the natural or intentional restocking of existing forests and woodlands (forestation) that have been depleted or which have not reached their potential forest cover. However, for the purpose of the NGGI the agency charged with its compilation chose to only include net CO2 emissions for those forests which were used for commercial timber production].
So, by way of further explanation, in the first Commitment Period the area counted in these ‘inclusive’ categories only made up about 10% of the Australian forest estate and around 6% of Queensland’s forest estate. In other words the huge forest (reforestation) areas not included in our initial NGGI were presumably considered to be not managed by humans and not ‘thickening up’? This was a nonsense then and of course remains one today – See Appendix 2 in: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=a1a621eb-ec14-4ea8-bce9-dabed009877f&subId=665845 .
By not including grazed woodland sinks the Australian Greenhouse Office ‘locked Australia in’ to grossly overstating our net emissions reported – because it did not subtract from total emissions the huge CO2 sink (withdrawals from the atmosphere) occurring in our grazed woodlands (= forests essentially not used for commercial timber harvest). And this situation has enabled agenda driven activists, and people who accept the utterances of politicians and bureaucrats at ‘face value’, to harangue the Government and Australian people to do more than our fair share in combating this alleged prime cause of global warming [increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere as a result of human activities?].
On 15 Oct 1999 – officials from the Queensland Government who were responsible for most of the State’s GHG Inventory met in Brisbane with Ian Carruthers, who at that time was head of the Australian Greenhouse Office, Canberra. Briefing notes from this meeting were subsequently circulated. Item 9 ‘Vegetation Thickening’ was among the items discussed – here is an extract:
“Ian noted that:
1. The cost of having thickening included in our (Kyoto Protocol) target could be around $4 billion (1999 dollars – BB) to the energy sector, (but by)
2. Triggering the Australia Clause (Article 3.7 of the Kyoto Protocol – BB) the energy sector is allowed a 20% increase in emissions, and
3. Australia would be unlikely to ratify the Kyoto Protocol if thickening was included” (in our NGGI calculations – BB).
The second sentence of Article 3.7 of the Kyoto Protocol states: “Those Parties included in Annex B for whom land-use change and forestry constituted a net source of greenhouse gas emissions in 1990 shall include in their 1990 emissions base year or period the aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by sources minus removals by sinks in 1990 from land-use change for the purpose of calculating their assigned amount”.
The effect of this Clause was that, provided Australia did not acknowledge “thickening” (= an emissions “sink”) as being of anthropogenic origin (i.e. resulting from managed land), it could then artificially inflate its 1990 ‘baseline emissions’ because that year was also when tree clearing (a CO2 source following decay and/or burning of fallen trunks, branches etc.) was at or near its zenith in Australia and especially in Queensland. Then to meet Kyoto Protocol commitments (ostensibly to reduce each signatory country’s emissions by an agreed amount) we (Australia) simply had to ban tree clearing. This was done (with alacrity and the full endorsement of the Howard (Australian) and Beattie (Qld) governments).
Further, as both governments well understood – because Australia was actually given an extraordinary emissions target of 108% of the 1990 baseline levels – we could effectively continue to use fossil fuels ‘at will’ and still meet the 2008-2012 ‘Commitment Period’ target. This we readily adopted and both sides of politics were complicit in endorsing this approach (which also incidentally contributed to the emissions sink carryover the present Australian government now plans to use in achieving our 2013 – 2020 emissions targets – second KP Commitment period).
A statement made by Senator Robert Hill (Leader of the Australian delegation for the Kyoto Protocol negotiations)in the ‘Rural Weekly’ (29 September 2000) is quite germane to this discussion. Senator Hill was reported as saying that “Reducing land clearance in Queensland would be one of the cheapest ways for Australia to lower its overall greenhouse (gas) emissions”. That this whole episode was no more than a government endorsed fiddle (maintained since by all sides of politics) one needs to go no further than investigate what are now acceptable as CO2 sinks under the present Australian government’s Direct Action Plan (and the previous government’s Carbon Farming Initiative). i.e. carbon (dioxide) sinks resulting from grazed woodland thickening (‘natural’ reforestation) which were not acceptable for NGGI accounting in 1997 – 2008/12 are now very acceptable as Australian Carbon Credit Units under ‘Direct Action’ today! How hypocritical is that? Poor fellow my Country!
130
Big.
Real big.
But interesting.
20
Climate Council are big on half truths and out and out lies –
The oceans are becoming more acidic.
97% of scientists agree.
Climate emergency.
Hottest / Driest / wettest / windiest / evahhhhhhhh.
Etc etc etc etc etc
71
The absurdity of oceans being made acidic with CO2 from the atmosphere , when 95% of all CO2 is IN the oceans water! Chemical BS for the masses and ingnoranti.
51
It’s like saying people go to Weight Watchers to become more anorexic.
30
Good news!
Pop! There goes another greenie head!
May 1, 2019: The Queensland government has just approved a coal mine license that allows it to operate for SEVENTY FIVE years
Cameby Downs consists of an open cut mine, coal handling and preparation plant (CHPP) and related infrastructure.
The operation was previously approved to extract up to 2.8 million tonnes of run-of-mine (ROM) coal a year over a 45-year period, but this has now been increased to 3.5 million tonnes a year over a 75-year period.
Queensland Mines Minister Anthony Lynham referred to the extension as a “vote of confidence” in the state’s resources by Yancoal.
https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/cameby-downs-coal-mine-gets-state-nod-for-massive-expansion/
80
I think they run a TV add too, which flies in the face of the anti Adani idiots and the Greenies.
40
Hannity on censorship:
https://youtu.be/ymQolJInA5U
10
Oops. No. Wrong.
Tucker. Tucker Carlson. Brilliant.
Apologies.
10
“Is that all”.
Isn’t that enough????
Fifty years ago someone would have gone to gaol for this unchecked, unsubstantiated, nation destroying, money skimming course of events labeled “climate change mitigation”.
The whole thing is mind boggling.
KK
P.S. Lots of commas included for Gee Aye.
41
Commas give the reader’s lips a rest, is that it?
20
Aaaaah, Springtime in Wyoming!!! Woke up to minus 5 Celsius, and about 6 centimetres of white, fluffy global warming on the ground.
I cannot express my sadness that kids just won’t know what snow is. The tulips know what it is; this morning, they are “no lips.”
Vlad
70
Just imagine Vlad
The depth of the snow
If you were not blessed
By Al Gorebull’s
Global warming !
Why I believe you
Should get down on
Your knees
To give thanks !
(Said in jest !
Sarc now off )
50
Maybe Jo could do a post on real censoring in the “climate change ” debate.
Some I can think of right away are:
Harde 2017 reply (https://hhgpc0.wixsite.com/harde-2017-censored)
Salby (https://mlsxmq.wixsite.com/salby-macquarie/page-1f)
Berry ( https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/contradictions-to-ipccs-climate-change-theory/ )
Frank (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THg6vGGRpvA&t=27s)
Bob Carter and several others.
My local Montana paper will not print my “CC” op eds any more.
These are examples of real censoring yet the warmers complain about nothing.
40