A group of teenagers want to stop the expansion of a coal mine in Australia. They have taken a class action out against the Government because we all know Governments are supposed to manage the weather better.
Well you’d be cross too, if you thought careless old folk were going to bring you slightly warmer weather!
A duty of care’: Australian teenagers take their climate crisis plea to court
The Guardian
Eight teenagers and an octogenarian nun head to an Australian court on Tuesday to launch what they hope will prove to be a landmark case – one that establishes the federal government’s duty of care in protecting future generations from a worsening climate crisis.
If successful, the people behind the class action believe it may set a precedent that stops the government approving new fossil fuel projects.
Because the last thing you’d want is democratically elected Ministers to chose how we use national resources.
As with any novel legal argument, its chances of success are unclear, but the case is not happening in isolation.
So it is an ambit claim, backed by someone with money. Who? This could be a form of lawfare, and we all know who the beneficiaries would be if this case “gets lucky”.
The case is a response to a proposal by Whitehaven Coal to extend its Vickery coalmine in northern New South Wales. The expansion of the mine could lead to an extra 100m tonnes of CO2 – about 20% of Australia’s annual climate footprint – being released into the atmosphere as the extracted coal is shipped overseas and burned to make steel and generate electricity.
“The decisions that they make right now will impact us in the future. We’re the ones who are going to have to live with the decisions, we’re going to have to raise the next generation under those decisions, and we just want a future that is guaranteed to be safe for us,”…
So teenagers want a future that is “guaranteed safe”, but think they should be able to make heating and air conditioning unaffordable for senior citizens, right now? There’s another Duty of Care here.
The case hinges on the idea that if we stop digging up our coal, other nations will copy us. Otherwise if we keep our coal underground, all we are doing is creating great reasons for other people to dig up their coal and sell it to our customers.
One Guardian commenter, Sandra says “ the climate crisis cannot be entrusted to political players. Ideology, vested interests, political donations and fear of losing seats means that the Australian Government is compromised and decisions made are invalid.” Climate must be depoliticised she demands! Too true. But she wants totalitarian rule by PhD: “It [control of the weather] must be given completely over to the climate scientists.”
Depoliticize climate science says Jo? Yes please. But who gets to pick the people who call themselves “a climate scientist”? We can’t leave that to Vice Chancellors who will sack any professor that threatens the money flow and sends a satirical email. But hey, these are big decisions with many stakeholders. So let’s ask the voters. They can pick representatives…. we could call that “Parliament”?
The Duty of Care Method for ruling a country could get right out of hand. Old folk could sue Governments for risking their health, then young workers could sue the government for destroying their jobs.
Croakey — for those who want a little more information on the legal side:
What are the teenagers arguing?
The young plaintiffs are not bringing their case under environmental law, which would be the traditional way to launch a legal challenge objecting to a coal mine.
Environmental law invites government decision-makers to balance competing concerns — such as economic benefits versus environmental impact — with no clear stipulation as to how much weight to give each relevant factor.
There is limited recourse to argue a decision is wrong because the positive and negative impacts were not given particular priority by a minister. This means decision-making on major projects is largely within the political realm.
Instead, the plaintiffs are arguing the Environment Minister shouldn’t approve the coal proposal because doing so would breach a duty of care owed by the Minister to protect them from the harmful impacts of climate change. This includes more frequent extreme weather events, and destruction of the natural systems that support human life.
The case has parallels with a landmark Dutch case, where it was successfully argued in 2019 that the Dutch Government breached its duty of care to its citizens through inadequate action on climate change.
For the Australian case to succeed, the Court will first need to consider whether a duty of care exists in Australian law. There is no statutory duty (under laws created by the parliament), so the Court would need to “find” the duty as existing in common law.
Then, the plaintiffs would need to establish that the duty would be breached by the environment minister signing off on the coal project.
Where is the Duty of Care to look after our civilisation?
This shows how a weak government leads to terrible outcomes. Scott Mortison was elected to be sensible about climate, and has shown himself to be nearly as bad as Boris Johnson on the issue. If he cannot pull himself back from the brink, we will all pay a heavy price. [yes I know about the separation of powers, but one takes their cue from the other]
412
At least Boris has an excuse for some of his poor decisions and policies – his wokie wife. Morrison has none.
312
Reminds me of that old Meatloaf song;
“I would do anything for Love”.
If only they’d read the next line.
Is it too much to expect politicians to have a clear path mapped out: all we have is a bloke who takes a survey every three hours to see which way he should jump.
271
“But I won’t do That.”
How is it that Boris can’t just keep his “private life” separate from official business.
When pressing marital “needs” dominate your official business it’s time for a rethink.
20
Just let it go to court & then prolong it with the same BS & obfuscation that the left uses. Whoever is financing it will soon give up & go away.
This designed as a threat too Democratically elected government. Make them regret their decision to proceed. Stop being nice & warm & fuzzy . Take the bloody gloves off and give them all ,the nun included, a good hiding!
191
The nun should know better, the 8 teenagers not so much.
21
There is no outcome yet.
10
Start with a false premise that co2 causes catastrophic global warming and climate change, then the conclusions will always be wrong
The courts are staffed by non experts and cannot adjudicate on this without relying on expert advice
They have no way of knowing what best credible advice is, therefore they can’t rule on matters such as this
80
Mike, the sad fact is Morrison would be political history and the ALP Greens loonies would be running the country if he didn’t use weasel words on zero emissions by 2050 la la land. John Howard was forced to do the same in 2007 promising an Emissions Trading Scheme to appease the political class all hypnotized by Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth nonsense.
To Morrisons credit he did net zero by 2050 depends upon so far un-invented technology. He is correct except that there is nuclear energy and none of these zero emissions dreamers wants to talk about nuclear do they? I stopped listening years ago it is so obvious this isn’t about science or saving the planet.
Staying in power requires some compromise. Until the science which Jo argues on this site is exposed to the world we will have to put up with nonsense in politics and energy policies.
20
The government has a duty of care to pedestrians. It must ban all cars immediately.
I think I liked it better when the left used to ridicule all religion, particularly nuns. Now, the views of 80 year old nuns and their minions must be championed.
320
Jo
Whatever happened to having to have proof that the coal mine will actually do anything about warming? There is no logic here. We all know we can turn the country off and it will have absolutely nil effect on the climate.
One of the big issues is we have a complete lack of comprehension on our industrial base, which includes power generation by nearly all in the country. Having worked in manufacturing I know what it takes to deliver food power water etc to our country and it just does not happen by magic. Any engineering review of renewables would highlight how they are completely incapable of supplying our grid at anything other than astronomical cost. A cost which will destroy millions of jobs and drive a large part of the country (but not the renewables carpet baggers) into poverty. But never mind the facts, just feel the vibe…
511
Unfortunately, their ABCCCC constantly repeats the exact opposite of your realistic outline.
Over and over the Trippple Radio B.C. keeps the “cheap renewables” meme on the boil for the woke masses to absorb and be deceived by.
The science is undeniable: atmospheric CO2 does not “heat the planet” and this adds a second dimension to the present Renewables mythology.
1. Renewables are Not needed to save the planet.
2. If CO2 was at all an issue the correct engineering approach would be to focus on developing greater efficiency in existing power generation systems as the Chinese have done.
Renewables, when all considered, create more CO2 per kWh of electricity generated than even the worst coal fired plants.
3. Renewables are the playthings of the rich and powerful e.g. J. Hewson, MalEx444.
4. Renewables are an engineering nightmare from go to whoa.
Probably that should more correctly be : “go to woe”.
5. Renewables are an inefficient, costly and highly polluting method of power production that would be Banned in any rational, moral society, and yet these factors are hidden by the “moral majority” who benefit from the myth.
I am astounded to think that anyone would think the World is O.K. when these massive untruths are used to mislead and enslave us.
This needs to be confronted.
KK
451
It is not hard to find “proof” in Australia that the globe is turning to toast. This is the CSIRO input to AR6:
https://i1.wp.com/research.csiro.au/access/wp-content/uploads/sites/299/2019/08/Globaltemp.png?resize=997%2C768&ssl=1
You can read more here:
https://research.csiro.au/access/cmip6-submission/
Considering the CO2 output is tracking around SSP5, it would be easy to get support that the Earth is in heading into dire circumstances. You would have the full force of CSIRO to support your argument.
The fact that it is all fantasy is irrelevant to making the case. It is like arguing that God does not exist in the Vatican.
Governments around the globe, including Australia, are providing free religious indoctrination on Climate Change. This is not an expected consequence.
It has taken 20 years of serious effort to get 2% of the global energy from weather dependent generators. That is the really easy part. It gets hard from now on. China will run out of coal well before alternative energy sources are found unless they are able to import from places like Australia. Don’t be surprised if you see China Joe opening up coal exports from USA to China. China has already started importing coal from South Africa to reduce its reliance on Australia.
252
The Carbon Dioxide meme is nothing more than a cudgel used for political purposes. It was never science.
The UN first invented the CO2 thing, but couldn’t get any traction. Everyone ignored it. Then Michael Mann stepped up to the plate and gave them just what they were looking for, a scientific study based on tree rings that proved the globe was warming.
Now, there’s a big disconnect between trees and warming. And there’s a big disconnect between a warming world an ever warming straight line temperature rise. And there’s a big disconnect between a warming world and CO2, and… Well you get the picture.
But that didn’t stop them. They had their science paper and they used that weather it made sense or not.
A rule of thumb to remember; nearly everything stated about this catastrophic global warming is nonsense. There are some grains of truth within, but even they are voiced in ways not related to reality.
151
Greg
Manns hockey stick was a total fabrication , he knows and the IPCC knows it. We know this from the Climategate emails and Mann was given the chance in the Ball defamation trial to prove the basis of it, but did not. If he had it would have been a complete laughing stock. With the IPCC on this contrary evidence was simply not taken into account, and the conclusion was decided BEFORE research actually too place.
This is one of the biggest travesties of “science” in history, yet the ABC et al wave it away.
60
A good opportunity to get these “climate” scientists in the dock and ask them a few questions as to their “science”.
We need to be creating a witness list for the discovery stage. Let’s start with John Cook from UQ whose thesis started the ‘97% of scientists agree man is warming the planet” meme and ask to look at his workings to arrive at that conclusion. Ditto Michael Mann, he of the Hockey Stick graph,he would not turn up his workings in a case he initiated against Canadian Climate scientist Tim Ball and lost the case.
Yes, a great opportunity exits here I reckon!
332
The case could never be defeated on grounds of no CO2 induced Climate Change. You could not find a government legal advocate to ask questions that would get support for a case against Climate Change. There would be no limit to the number of expert witnesses willing to give evidence that Climate Change is real and has dire consequences.
It will lose on other grounds. For example, it is frivolous or there has been no proof of harm – material damage. Although things like bush fire reports pay homage to Climate Change it is not difficult to point out that bush fires have always been a part of Australian life. Bleaching of the barrier reef has always occurred and so on. I could make an easier case the cause of increased bushfire intensity is simply the increased forest productivity from more CO2 (well recognised) and inability of authorities to manage increasing fuel loads for a whole raft of reasons.
Really I think a class action against the CSIRO and BoM for negligence in presentation of fiction as scientific fact, resulting in huge costs to the community, would have far greater merit. Anyone who has paid for electricity over the past ten years could join the action. All the subsidies paid to weather dependent generators would be the easy target. It is not hard to pull climate models apart. I looked at the 2020 global average temperature produced from nine CMIP6 models and they vary from 14.2C to 16.2C. They are supposed to be all tuned to data up to 2014 and yet they offer a range of temperatures for 2020 from about what it is now to a temperature that we are advised is catastrophic. The average of the CMIP5 models results in negative water in the atmosphere after 3 years if you integrate the annual precipitation less evaporation.
162
I like that idea Rick. Let’s work on that.
“a class action against the CSIRO and BoM for negligence in presentation of fiction as scientific fact”
What altitude was the water vapor negative? They keep talking total column vapor which hides the essential point. What matters is from 250 – 100 HPa.
160
Can us oldies give evidence? We survived in schools and houses without airconditioning and walked or rode to school.
Then we worked hard to build a better Australia.
Wonder what jobs they hope to have when they grow up?
331
Maybe we oldies should also launch a duty of care action demanding affordable cooling and heating. I note that at CPAC Trump and other speakers encouraged Republicans to become active. We do have time to write letters to our representatives and demand they use real science rather than the rubbish currently smothering debate. They could demand an inquiry into “climate science” and approve an audit of the BoM records. They could tell universities to allow open debate and make funding conditional on equal amounts to disprove the hypothesis as are used to “prove” it. I thought science was about disproving hypothesis anyway. We oldies do have power and should use it.
170
“We do have time to write letters to our representatives and demand they use real science rather than the rubbish currently smothering debate.”
I assume issue you are referring to as rubbish is the science that states the burning of fossil fuels by humans is the cause of global warming.
That certainly isn’t rubbish, it is a scientific hypothesis. It may be correct as many scientists believe or as others believe it may not. It most probably is partly correct but as we can’t know what we don’t know, it is unlikely to be entirely correct. Think on Tectonic Plates which were not shown to be a major cause of earthquakes till the 1960s. Prior to that the shrinking earth and Isostasy were considered the cause.
“They could tell universities to allow open debate and make funding conditional on equal amounts to disprove the hypothesis as are used to “prove” it.’
Universities not only allow but encourage open debate on climate change. I recommend this link to you
https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/opinion-why-and-how-to-debate-climate-change
One of the statements made is “It is important in a democracy to learn to disagree well, to realise that people with whom you disagree are not necessarily misguided, malicious or out to harm you. ” Wise words indeed,
With regard to funding, Universities per se generally do not fund scientific projects. These are funded by external bodies such as the ARC. Funding for studies showing humans do not cause climate change is largely by the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and conservative think tanks. This funding is at least equal to and possibly more than is received by those studying human effects on climate change
19
You say “I assume issue you are referring to as rubbish is the science that states the burning of fossil fuels by humans is the cause of global warming.”
I think the rubbish that I see smothering the debate is is the political ideology that assumes the “science is settled” or the assumption that any view differing from the “consensus” view is from a climate denier and is intended to mislead or the cabal outed in the climate gate e-mails that sought to squash review and produce misleading science papers while preventing dissenting views. One of the examples of this is the treatment of Hermann Harde in his 2017 paper that disputes human emissions control the atmospheric rise of CO2.
(https://hhgpc0.wixsite.com/harde-2017-censored ). Personally I have been disallowed the ability to get a letter to the editor published for several years now. There is almost no public debate of the science as when it was tried the skeptics won every debate and the main activists figures now refuse to debate. The hypothesis you state is eminently debatable and will not stand scientific scrutiny but there is scant arena allowing that debate and widespread effort to present only one side while disallowing the utterance of the other.
70
Ian, great that you’ve found one university out of 500 that has rediscovered that debates can be useful and even a recognition that respect for other opinions is “wise”.
Now, if only they would allow one wise Skeptic to speak in their debates or write chapters in their student indoctrination books.
It’s not a real debate if they don’t find the best debaters on both sides is it?
Fake Debate 101.
101
DMA
I have no wish to cause affront but could you not use climate denier as it is found offensive by many.
05
Ian, I think DMA used the term in the context of that’s what people who differ from the “consensus” get titled.
I use the phrase “climate denier” for anyone who believes the 1 deg of reported warming over the past 100 years has to be man made. I use that phrase for them because they deny the climate changes naturally by inferring there would have been no variation in temperature without an increase in CO2 produced by our emissions. As if the last 100 years would have started and finished at the same temperature without our consumption. Seemingly unlike most previous 100 year periods.
60
Ian
Perhaps we need to start using, as Piers Corbyn has suggested, the term “science denier” for those who cling to outrageous and false claims about CO2 based warming….
40
When the World’s leadership is exemplified by The United Nations, vomit, the European Onion, makes you want to cry, the World Economic Forum and the regular Davos meat and greet over a “few” drinks overlooking the valley to discuss how to improve the World for the poor people; Yes, we have a problem.
What should be obvious is that if the above collection of layabouts and poseurs is indicative of the World’s leadership then the World is in big trouble.
Direction, guidance: Nah, the kids are smart enough to work it out for themselves.
And this little local thing of eight kids and a nun may be misguided, but hey, it fits the meme. That little Scandinavian activist showed the way to fame and glory.
Let’s face it: We Are Leaderless.
If our Boris Mortinson was truly a Christian we wouldn’t be already well down the road to Hell.
KK
261
Many people would go to those forums and punk the leaders, like getting them to sign petitions to ban di-hydrogen-monoxide. They successfully demonstrated these leaders and thinkers to be too stupid to know what water was.
80
di-hydrogen monoxide has caused a lot more deaths than CO2. Add to that, shoreline erosion, carpet damage, corrosion and smelly dogs. However like CO2 it is essential to life. To be honest I wouldn’t like to get rid of it.
70
So easy to lead the young astray and brain wash them on CAGW because they believe what ever they are told like our Fitz .
100% of everyone who has ever come into contact with or ingested hydrogen oxide have died and anyone who comes into contact with hydrogen oxide will die so it’s 100% fatal but they still use it in hospitals and food preparation not to mention kindergartens .
This is how they brain wash kids into believing CAGW is real as well as the ABC etc .
40
Out of 40 odd globull warming predictions since 1987.
Zero, zilt, none, etc has come true.
130
Try not to be too impatient . . . . .
70
Out of 40 odd skeptical talking points, not one has withstood science
118
Exactly right, Pete. Like the one where paying a tax will change the world’s weather, that’s one of my favorites.
90
David Evans correctly predicted the start date of global cooling.
20
Do deny the cheapest and most reliable form of electricity to the developing world is nothings short of RACISM.
Access to electricity reduces child mortality with better sanitation and pumped water supplies.
It is a complete myth that increasing CO2 levels cause “global warming” – the Sun and the earths orientation to the Sun controls our climate.
Also the COVID-19 pandemic reduced global man-made CO2 emissions by 6 times Australia’s annual emissions, yet this made no measurable impact on atmospheric CO2 levels.
The oceans contain 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere and if the Sun heats the earth, CO2 is released from the oceans in accordance with Henry’s Law.
Real science anyone?
351
“Otherwise if we keep our coal underground, all we are doing is creating great reasons for other people to dig up their coal and sell it to our customers.”
Then when their coal resources run low they will be able to come and take ours, whenever they want
250
By then everyone will be using Nukes and our coal won’t be worth digging up…
50
By then everyone else will be using Nukes ….
.
Fixed it for you 😉
60
According to the law blog ‘’’lawyerly” the defence team is not doing all that well against the legal team representing the teenagers (and the nun).
/and Robert, if you are going to comment, try to be civil
231
The Defence team needs to remain fairly quiet to get the desired outcome.
‘For the Australian case to succeed, the Court will first need to consider whether a duty of care exists in Australian law. There is no statutory duty (under laws created by the parliament), so the Court would need to “find” the duty as existing in common law.
‘Then, the plaintiffs would need to establish that the duty would be breached by the environment minister signing off on the coal project.’ (Crokey)
100
What is the personal loss/damage/harm? To sustain a case they need to prove damages.
All the harm, in terms of anguish, has been done by the disciples of the Climate Change Church by convincing young. impressionable minds that the world is about to end – all based on utter fantasy. Rather than no after life, the new religion is claiming it will affect you later in life. Usually dire consequences in 10 years time. Apart from some like the Arctic nutter, Wadhams, who was claiming it would be ice free next year for a few years. Or Australia’s own Climate prophet, Flannery, who predicted dams will never fill again. They should have learnt by now that they never make concrete predictions with an identifiable time-line.
One thing that has become apparent is that the BoM can continually “homogenise” the temperature record to keep an upward trend. By ACORN10 people may start to wake up to their shenanigans.
100
If you are talking Common Law (as derived from English Common Law) our Supreme Court found: NO DUTY TO PROTECT
More details of the cases:
In DeShaney v. Winnebago County, despite repeated reports of child abuse, hospital visits…. The boy was left with the father.
“Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman’s three children by her estranged husband.” — WIKI
It would be interesting to see if Australia has any similar cases.
20
I have no idea what your talking about unless the truth hurts Peter ! As for this case it’s hard to defend belief in a religion when evidence isn’t debated just feelings and assumptions .
The arguments used do not stack up in science –
The pacific islands are not sinking because of sea level rise.
The oceans are not becoming more acidic .
0.3% of scientists do believe CAGW is a thing.
The only warming of the globe is due to humans cooking the books not cooking !
None of these points will be debated , just the feelings and egos will be massaged .
301
You really have lost the plot you number one hypocrite, unless of course your posting that comment from a mates phone in a mud humpy out bush somewhere but we both know that’s crap.
How many things that you use contribute to what you’re arguing against ? If you feel so strong about it give up every electronic device and anything made from fossil fuel as well as any supermarket goods or fridge and your car !
Can’t do it you hypocrite can you and you know what ? I would actually have full respect for anyone who had the conviction to do as they say but can’t see you anytime soon selling up in port Mac and giving all proceeds to the Salvation Army while you eek out an existence on a mountain top somewhere without 20th century comforts !
011
And just what have you given up to save the planet from ‘ahem’ gerbil warming, have you dumped your iphone, car, airconditioners, or any other co2 causing device.
80
Absolutely nothing but he does like to tell people what they should be doing !
30
These are Robert’s words from yesterday – so the red thumbs go to him
210
Difference is I’m proud of my diesel guzzling 4wd and beer guzzling meat eating lifestyle I’m not pretending that the planet is in danger because of my largesse.
You on the other hand are telling us we need to give up our wicked ways to stop the poor little critters going extinct from habitat loss , but you are directly and indirectly responsible yourself .
Look up the definition of hypocrisy and you will find a photo of yourself
71
Peter Fitzroy,
You did ask above that others be civil in replying to you, and here you are, descending into name-calling already.
Be civil, Peter Fitzroy, or don’t be surprised to be otherwise ignored.
Regards to all,
Paul Miskelly
60
Quotation from page 3: “Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”
NASA
212
Please, if I remember rightly,- “Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”-, those papers amounted to something like 34 papers out of the 12 000 they scanned.
I’m on your side Pete the faster we pull this civilization down, and get into dystopia, the better.
81
you don’t remember rightly,
39
NASA referenced John Cook et al.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
The paper has been discredited.
41
by who?
it is still on the NASA website
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
And from your link
4. Conclusion
We have shown that the scientific consensus on AGW is robust, with a range of 90%–100% depending on the exact question, timing and sampling methodology. This is supported by multiple independent studies despite variations in the study timing, definition of consensus, or differences in methodology including surveys of scientists, analyses of literature or of citation networks. Tol (2016) obtains lower consensus estimates through a flawed methodology, for example by conflating non-expert and expert views, and/or making unsupported assumptions about sources that do not specifically state a position about the consensus view
So the paper has not been discredited
18
Cook took care not to say 97% of scientists, but Kerry and Obama couldn’t resist hyperbole.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/?sh=698009b71157
10
The relevant quote from that article.
‘Cook is careful to describe his 2013 study results as being based on “climate experts.” Political figures and the popular press are not so careful. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have repeatedly characterized it as 97% of scientists.
‘Kerry has gone so far as to say that “97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible.”
10
Peter you now want to claim at least the 97% consensus thing is real but the others must be chaff.
Cook et el did the survey that is oft referred to and the result was starting with a 0. , you send out thousands of surveys but select less than 100 that agree!
Exactly what percentage would that be oh he that pays 15 cents a kWh for electricity?
41
Even the Turnbull times of which you subscribe to don’t believe Cook .
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming
11
And my reference favourite is of course ?
https://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/cooks-97-consensus-is-a-case-study-of-agnotology-ignorance-and-misinformation/
11
Concensus huh? Is that how we do facts and science now?
I’ll remember that at the next trivia night and award the most popular answer as correct rather than the actual correct answer.
40
From Cook 2013 supplementary data, my analysis is
Total Papers 11944
[1] Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+% 64 0.54%
[2] Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimise 922 7.72%
[3] Implicitly endorses AGW without minimising it 2910 24.36%
[4] No Position 7970 66.73%
[5] Implicitly minimizes/rejects AGW 54 0.45%
[6] Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW but does not quantify 15 0.13%
[7] Explicitly minimizes/rejects AGW as less than 50% 9 0.08%
Code Mean 3.6
Endorse 3896 32.62%
Minimise/reject 78 0.65%
The 98% is then calculated as
100-100*0.65/32.62 = 98%
The spread or authors is interesting.
Total authors 29115
authors with ten or more papers 129 0.44%
authors with five or more papers 840 2.89%
authors with one or two papers 26377 90.60%
authors with one paper 22533 77.39%
The case data has been modified slightly from the original.
Two thirds of the papers take no position.
The mean position, at 3.6, veers slightly towards endorsement.
90% of authors, at only one or two papers, would not appear to be experts.
The correct answer to the question: “Of the surveyed papers, what percentage endorse AGW?” is
100*(64+922+2910)/11944 = 32.6%
30
Je refuse.
I refuse to be “servile”.
120
O good.
Now we have the virtuous prig wanting to be the moderator too.
Does his arrogance and pretension know no bounds?
I can do with out you telling people how to behave, wacker.
102
How’s that for “civil”?
Not a nasty word used.
40
what is a waker?
13
That would be you Peter , you spend your waking hours telling other people how to live while living the opposite so technically it’s a waker hypocrite but I hate to cast aspersions.
31
What are you talking about? I have never told anyone anything about how they should live their lives. Your adherence to decades old research does you credit, but your understanding of science is lacking, as demonstrated by your continual ad Hom rants, which is a typical response from those who lack the skill and intelligence to discuss the topic.
23
Dear lord Fitz you seem to be delusional as always , according to you a rehash of an old meme that’s still quoted by you greenies is now dependent on what questions are asked and how they are asked to get the 97% consensus.
Which is different to the old meme how ? and where exactly is the science in consensus ? About a theory which is backed up by dubious computer games that change like the wind .
For you to stop telling people how they should live you would have to give up your religious crusade on CAGW , why only just yesterday you were blaming some extinctions on habitat loss so it’s pretty clear you want farmers to stop clearing the land..
You want everyone but yourself to go fossil fuel free , drive EV’s , go vegan .
30
Do not project your delusional fantasies on to me. CGAW is a fact, but I’m not forcing you to accept that.
As for science and consensus it is clear that you have no idea what the paper, and the subsequent papers are discussing or how the authors arrived at their conclusions.
05
One of us is delusional Fitzy and I’m betting it’s the one who believes in his faith based consensus science which is ideologically indoctrinated into you from your minders .
30
Memo to Robert et al.
Peter Fitz supports the scientific paradigm and it would be in your interest to intellectually criticise his beliefs, but venting your spleen all over the floor makes us look like school bullies.
I do enjoy a biff, but a little bit of wit and wisdom wouldn’t go astray.
11
Maybe slightly Gruff El Gordo but his belief in science is the consensus type which requires no science just ideological based beliefs which he gets from his minders .
Hypocrisy is something that should always be called out and the force is strong in this one .
20
Mr Fitz is not a hypocrite, so treat this as an opportunity to find clarity in your own mind, look for fresh evidence. Global cooling has begun so we’ll have them on the run, victory is in sight.
01
You, you mug:
https://urbandictionary.store/products/mug?defid=1947382&utm_campaign=onpage&utm_medium=web&utm_source=define
20
so much for civility then
13
Here’s something more for the stupid kiddies to think about.
Paul Driessen looks at the endless thousands of sq miles of decimation to the environment if we were really stupid enough to try and replace FFs with the dirty, toxic, dilute S&W idiocy.
Yet these left wing fanatics are so dense that they think their environmental wipe out is preferable to the tiny footprint of FF power stns? And we have the extra bonus of a fast greening planet because of the increase of co2 in our atmosphere.
Of course their dilute ,toxic mess has to be cleaned up and replaced every 20 years and ongoing forever.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/28/real-threats-to-threatened-species/
171
There is no such thing as a ‘social cost of carbon ‘.
These fools would live a short, miserable life without fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels are total social benefit.
Funny watching idiots who enjoy a quality fossil fuel life call for end of fossil fuels.
And no, there is not an army of elves wearing yellow rubber gloves running around spreading magic fairy dust from the backs of unicorns, from which sunbeam and sea breeze collectors sprout like magic mushrooms from bullsh!t.
201
“The policy implication of a negative social cost of carbon is that the government should not be taxing carbon dioxide emissions, but should be subsidizing it instead.”
110
When you consider the very first basic living improvement “fire” uses carbon fuels, you see the utter futility of thinking anyone can live carbon free.
Every living thing on the planet is a carbon based life form. The entire cycle of life is carbon based. It’s not a bad thing to have some in the air. The trees love it, for number one.
91
I would LOVE to see CO2 at around 1000 to 1500 ppm!
Trees and most food plants are C3 not C4 so this speaks directly to food sources for humans and many other species especially if it gets cooler and the cooler oceans suck up a lot of the atmospheric CO2.
30
There is another more subtle aspect to the CO2 starvation level and that is partial pressure.
Impact of lower atmospheric carbon dioxide on tropical mountain ecosystems
Eco Physics Lab PDF
That means if the CO2 level is around 210 – 250 ppm you can kiss trees and other C3 plants growth much above sea level good by and that is most of the earth during glaciation. Most of our veggies are C3 plants.
Oh, and while a plant can stay alive under low CO2 levels, under stress the seeds will not even start growing.
The ABA, derived from epoxycarotenoid cleavage, serves as a plant-specific signal during development and in response to environmental stresses such as cold, drought and high concentrations of salt in the soil. The ABA also elicits, among others numerous physiological functions, the closure of stomatal pores to restrict transpiration, adjustment of metabolism to tolerate desiccation and cold temperatures, and inhibition seedlings growth. Likewise, ABA represses germination and is presumed to function to stabilize the dormant state. ABA, like other hormones, functions through a complex network of signaling pathways where the cell response is initiated by ABA perception which triggers downstream signaling cascades to induce the final physiological effects. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819511/
30
Dumb kids aided and abetted by an even dopier UN!
“Future global coal projects must be immediately cancelled to end the “deadly addiction” to fossil fuels by the close of the decade, the U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said on Tuesday.”
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/03/03/u-n-chief-guterres-orders-cancellation-of-all-global-coal-projects/
So says a rich fat old white woke bloke who flys around in private jets and is chauffeured in fully airconditioned combustion-engined vehicles (too heavy for batteries). Sits in a fully air-conditioned office and lives in a fully airconditioned house. This idiot must be having a laugh!!!!
241
It’s very inappropriate to use the term “dopier” when describing the U.N.
I think “evil” would be closer to the mark.
150
True. The UN rejected Kevin Rudd’s job application (giving them 1 billion dollars of our money), so they can’t be that stupid 🙂
70
Thick as they are, even the UN know a tosser when they see one.
60
I wonder how this fool Guterres would cope if told he would have to walk to work tomorrow, after a cold wash, and sit in his unheated/cooled office, in the dark, and with nothing to do all day, as his phone and computer don’t work. Then, after a long day bemoaning the loss of his beloved
privileged lifestyle, trudging home to a cold supper and an early night as he forgot to stock up on candles the previous day. Poor bastard.
81
All well and good, yet surely, as a rich old fat white woke connected conniving commie, he’d STILL be obliged to make his annual pilgrimage to the holy islands of Tuvalu/Kiribas [sic] to stand ankle-deep in acidic tropical waters (attired in loud floral shirt, naturally) alongside Frank ‘the Coup’ and Cinders Crockdown and Christiana Fig, etc., for the photo, on other people’s money, for the planet, the children, and everything!
Bread and circuses… let them eat taro.
71
The three blind mice.
🙂 🙂 🙂
Mr Bind up my army.
Jacinderella.
And
The poor man’s sista Chrissy Fig.
10
Don’t forget having to pick the veggies he planted and weeded and… as well as dealing with ‘acquiring’ whatever meat he plans to eat. And no I do not mean buying it.
10
I wonder how they will structure their duty of care claim if the Federal government decides to repeal uranium legislation and start a nuclear power industry which they should. I suspect nuclear energy may become an election issue . Opposition to nuclear is proof that alarmists are not serious about climate change and there is no climate emergency. If you thought that there would be an existential threat during the current generation nuclear offers the only solution which is affordable and practical.
Unfortunately these children are being used as cannon fodder in the war on our capitalist way of life.
181
Here Chris Kenny looks again at Moore’s “Planet of the Humans” and wonders why their ABC didn’t report on it.
Of course it skewers their so called renewable energy BS and fra-d and therefore so much of the ABC’s left wing agenda.
This short video highlights some of Moore’s video and exposes some of the leading lights and con merchants around the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fQZfFy9cFs
121
I challenge anyone to watch the “Great Global Warming Swindle” and tell us where this video is substantially wrong?
Many of the top scientists were prepared to be involved in the video and compared to some of Gore and Mann’s dubious nonsense I still think this video holds up well after ten years.
Just check out my links to Dr Goklany, Dr Christy, Dr Spencer, Dr Humlum, Shellenberger, Dr Lomborg and his expert team etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-peWWeRV71Y
121
Many English farmers use Corben’s forecasts rather than the weather bureau. 15 years since that movie was made. Corben says he was right (using mainly the sun) and they were wrong. 15 years later he is still more reliable.
I recorded the ABC panel used to debunk the film. Fascinating to watch in retrospect. The David Karole show are proven wrong on most claims. George Monbiot looks totally biased The great Bob Carter hardly got a word.
At the time I wrote an official complaint to the ABC and sent a copy to Bob. The ABC sent a nonsensical reply.
I developed a valued relationship with Bob.
111
Correct spelling. It is Piers Corbyn.
His broher is a socialist. I find Piers rational on climate change. I don’t know his politics but his family values seem to conflict politics and supporting his broher.
60
Indigo Jones also has a following with farmers here , mainly for the long range forecasts which Indigo has a much better success rate .
21
For us in the USA it is Joe Bastardi
https://www.weatherbell.com
20
Shows neither country trust the govt weather bureau much and yes I know of Joe and his work especially on hurricanes.
10
I think you’ll find it’s Inigo Jones – both the Aussie-based meteorologist / farmer, and the famous English architect and designer of the same name.
10
If the population in Australia deserves a living wage, then our Nation also deserves a living economy to pay for it. With tourism and education on what seems to be a lengthy slide down and no manufacturing to speak of, then we are essentially left with mining and agriculture.
Last time I checked, I still had to pay my bills. I assume that the Nation has to do this too.
130
As Jo says, the key is the legal acceptance of “duty of care”. The problem is that this duty of care would be aimed at preventing the production of coal, not the actual use of coal in Australia. Consequently, the problem is how this legal challenge will deal with the decision of other countries to purchase Australian coal, or even to purchase other countries’ coal, or to burn coal for their own use.
If Australia’s duty of care does not extend to influencing other countries, then there will be no practical change to global CO2 emissions. The only conclusion is that this judicial approach will have no effect, and consequently, must be considered a frivolous or otherwise vexatious claim.
The judiciary should stop this case progressing. If it is not based on any legislation, the role of the judiciary in this country is not to make new law.
141
This could put the Australian government in a difficult position. It will either have to concede to the demands of the financial backers of the teenagers or argue that its climate policy is correct, an argument that will probably undermine its policy because everyone will see that it’s based on weak arguments.
80
Weak governments are a direct result of weak voters who keep voting for them expecting a different result.
100
Not sure they expected, or wanted, different.
50
A class action against the government that is based on a theory with no proof of evidence.
A better class action would be against the government for not providing true science education.
130
It is a brilliant strategy to sabotage our countries. And it will work, if we just watch it happen. The Legal system is stinking corrupt and has been taken over by concept of ‘activism’ and green propaganda/lies concerning the green scams.
Green scams will never work because there is no magic battery that can store energy for months and the amount of CO2 savings is small . The hydrogen idea is silly madness. The idea that electricity can be used to produce hydrogen to function as a battery is ridiculous, an ‘idea’ that will never work. Hydrogen gas is extraordinarily difficult, dangerous, impractical/ludicrously expensive to work with, because of physics which will never change.
All of the science concerning climate change and CO2 emissions is absolutely incorrect at a concept level. CO2 changes did not cause the temperature changes. Humans did not cause the majority of the atmospheric CO2 changes. And there is an immense amount of hydrocarbons that can be burned. We are not going to run out of hydrocarbons.
And there is an immense amount of concentrated uranium in deposits. What is the source of concentrated uranium on the earth surface? Why is there helium in natural gas and oil deposits? Why is there uranium in heavy oil and bituminous coal?
Our beliefs are urban legends.
Fossil fuel is not fossil fuel. Thomas Gold provided more than 50 specific field observations (observations about specific facts about deposits, C12/C13 ratio for example in oil increases and the heavy metal content increases with viscosity and density. There is heavy metals in all oil and bituminous coal.) that proved that there is a massive source of primordial CH4 that is constantly pushing hydrocarbons into the biosphere.
This is a 1990 letter from the Ukrainian institute of science threatening to sue Gold for not giving credit to past Soviet researchers (more than a 1000 papers that supported/proved the idea) who proved the idea/concept that there is deep primordial source of CH4. Oil and gas deposits, bituminous coal are primordial intrusions, and the surface water that covers 70% of the planet, are from the deep primordial source.
For example, in Alberta Canada there are three heavy oil deposits that cover an area the size of UK. The material melts at 300C and it is all full of heavy metals and sulfur. The deposits are 60 to 80 meters deep. The bituminous material is a solid at room temperature and must be cut with ax.
These three deposits the size of UK, were all pumped in ancient times, into three massive ancient sand deposits at a temperature of over 300C. The organic/fossil theory does not have a pump. The organic fossil theory cannot explain why there is water covering 70% of the planet.
It is physically impossible to explain the existence and properties of the Alberta heavy oil deposits using an organic theory. What has organic source? Plant or animal? Where did the heavy metals come from that are in the three heavy oil deposits? The three heavy oil deposits are physically separated by hundreds of miles. Why those three locations? The organic theory cannot explain/provide a pump to pump the material into the sand.
http://www.gasresources.net/VAKreplytBriggs.htm
Natural Gas’, Liquid oil, heavy oil, and bitumous coal, and almost all of the water on the surface of the planet, is from primordial CH4 that constantly extruded from the planet’s liquid core as it crystallizes.
(4) Methane is found in many locations where a biogenic origin is improbable or where biological deposits seem inadequate: in great ocean rifts in the absence of any substantial sediments; in fissures in igneous and metamorphic rocks, even at great depth; in active volcanic regions, even where there is a minimum of sediments; and there are massive amounts of methane hydrates (methane-water ice combinations) in permafrost and ocean deposits, where it is doubtful that an adequate quantity and distribution of biological source material is present.
(5) The hydrocarbon deposits of a large area often show common chemical or isotopic features, quite independent of the varied composition or the geological ages of the formations in which they are found. Such chemical signatures may be seen in the abundance ratios of some minor constituents such as traces of certain metals that are carried in petroleum; or a common tendency may be seen in the ratio of isotopes of some elements, or in the abundance ratio of some of the different molecules that make up petroleum. Thus a chemical analysis of a sample of petroleum could often allow the general area of its origin to be identified, even though quite different formations in that area may be producing petroleum. For example a crude oil from anywhere in the Middle East can be distinguished from an oil originating in any part of South America, or from the oils of West Africa; almost any of the oils from California can be distinguished from that of other regions by the carbon isotope ratio.
http://www.gasresources.net/VAKreplytBriggs.htm
Answer 1. [to the question: “Are there key Soviet papers and Soviet ideas Prof. Gold fails to cite ?] by Vladilen A. Krayushkin,
Yes, there are many Soviet papers, articles, books and ideas of key significance dealing with the subject of the deep petroleum (i.e., oil and gas) theory which Prof. Gold fails to cite correctly or adequately.
It should be recognized that Gold’s priority [related to the subject of the modern Soviet theory of abiotic petroleum origins] must be set at 1979 when he published his article: Gold, T, 1979, Terrestrial sources of carbon and earthquake outgassing, J. Petrol. Geol., Vol. 1, No. 3, p. 3-19.
Concerning this article, one must pay particular attention to the following fact: The references given in that article do not contain even one of the works of any of the Soviet scientists. The well-known key leaders of the problem of abiogenic petroleum origins had already published their ideas and theory on that subject in many books and articles, beginning in the year 1951. The quantity of such publications exceeds a thousand, and for short I shall limit myself with the list of several key sources following below:
162
You seem very unaware of how geological systems work both in a physical and time scale sense.
Icecaps come and go, mountains rise and are eroded away.
All organic material breaks down into some form of “fossil fuel”. Organic material retains minerals (like metal) as they break down.
Radioactive Uranium, Potassium and Thorium are present in the soil. They came from the erosion of rocks which emanated from the mantle (or a time prior to the current structure of the earth). They are found attached to clay molecules in varying concentrations including in bituminous coal.
Bituminous coal is formed from plants and heated to break down the organic chains into simpler structures. It is not extruded from anything. To extrude it you would increase the pressure and therefore increase its rank to Anthracite or Graphite (pure carbon).
Methane can and does get formed in volcanic environments especially since water is prime facilitator of both seismic and volcanic activity.
I could go on but I have finished my break and have work to do.
10
Hi Disco.
You are saying it is possible to get some metal into organic deposits if the metals got picked up by clay? Why are there metals in all heavy oil and black bituminous coal? In fact, the uranium in US coal ash is sufficient to power all of the US nuclear reactors.
Uranium is a rare metal in the mantel. Why is Uranium concentrated in black coal and heavy oils?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171109224030.htm
Some Chinese coal ash too radioactive for reuse
Radiation levels 43 times higher than UN safety standards
The Deep CH4 methane mechanisms explains what is observed.
What plant or animal was converted to create the Alberta Tar Sands, that are 60 to 80 meters thick and are found in three tight boundary reserves.
The fossil theory is an fake theory that was started by the American Petroleum Institution, in a 1979 publication called the origin of crude oil.
The non organic theory, is a Soviet theory that was started in 1951. Thomas Gold, an UK astronomer, who could also read Russian, read the Russian/Ukraine papers and then spent 20 years getting additional data to prove the theory.
Brown coal is plant origin. It has high ash and no significant metals. Brown coal cannot be converted into black coal by pressure. Pressure will not remove the ash or add the metals.
Bituminous coal has low ash and significant metals. Bituminous coal’s source, ‘natural’ gas source, and oil, and heavy oil is deep primordial CH4 that is extruded from the core of the planet when it crystallizes.
The extruded CH4 has heavy metals dissolved in it. The hot CH4 gas/liquid filled ancient sand beds which contain trapped O2. The CH4 burns incompletely leaving carbon, the metals, and producing a weak acid which removes the quartz.
This mechanism explains why there are black coal seams that are the shape of the ancient sand bed.
The deep earth CH4 has a very low C13/C12 ratio. Due to mass differences CH4 molecules with C13 move slower so they are more likely to react with the O2. This fractionation explains why black coal and heavy oil have a higher ratio of C13/C12 than natural gas and ….. the C13/C12 ratio increases for more dense, high viscosity heavy oils.
The Alberta tar sand deposit looks like bituminous coal as it comes for the same source CH4.
Bituminous coal or black coal is a relatively soft coal containing a tarlike substance called bitumen or asphalt is formed by deep methane that is extruded from the liquid core of the planet when it crystallizes.
About 5 years ago there as an announcement that deep earth specialist had found using AI analysis that there is a massive structure of interconnecting tubes deep in the earth and that there are tubes that run-down from this massive structure to the core of the earth.
This tube system carries CH4 that is extruded from the liquid core of the earth. Metals in the mantel at high pressure and temperature bond with the liquid CH4 forming a sheath around the liquid methane. The sheath, that forms around the CH4, acts like a pipe and carries the force from the core of the planet to the surface of the planet. This force is what moves the ocean plates and continents.
Deep earth specialists have known for a decade that there is a large system, in the deep earth, that is reflecting seismic waves. The system is complex, not a surface, but a structure. The information from a single seismic event is not sufficient to determine the shape of the complex structure. Roughly 5 years ago, there as an announcement that using an AI technique where the information contained in a large number of seismic events has processed all at once to determine the structure’s surface.
It is interesting the Middle east oil reserves do not seem to be depleting. There is evidence that some oil reserves are connected to an active deep earth source and they are refilling.
In the Gulf coast it was found that there is natural continual seepage of significant amounts liquid oil from the sea bed. The researchers found marine clams had developed to live off of the liquid oil. It is estimated that more oil leaks into the ocean from deep sources, than is shipped.
In the Gulf, in Texas, and in Russia there are oil reserves that refilling with lighter, less dense oil.
https://rense.com/general63/refil.htm
Deep underwater, and deeper underground, scientists see surprising hints that gas and oil deposits can be replenished, filling up again, sometimes rapidly.
Although it sounds too good to be true, increasing evidence from the Gulf of Mexico suggests that some old oil fields are being refilled by petroleum surging up from deep below, scientists report. That may mean that current estimates of oil and gas abundance are far too low.
Recent measurements in a major oil field show “that the fluids were changing over time; that very light oil and gas were being injected from below, even as the producing [oil pumping] was going on,” said chemical oceanographer Mahlon “Chuck” Kennicutt. “They are refilling as we speak. But whether this is a worldwide phenomenon, we don’t know.”
“On the first trawl, we brought up over two tons of stuff. We had a tough time getting the nets back on board because they were so full” of very odd-looking sea.floor creatures, Kennicutt said. “They were long strawlike things that turned out to be tube worms.
“The clams were the first thing I noticed,” he added. “They were pretty big, like the size of your hand, and it was obvious they had red blood inside, which is unusual. And these long tubes — 3, 4 and 5 feet long — we didn’t know what they were, but they started bleeding red fluid, too. We didn’t know what to make of it.”
The biologists they consulted did know what to make of it. “The experts immediately recognized them as chemo-synthetic communities,” creatures that get their energy from hydrocarbons — oil and gas — rather than from ordinary foods. So these animals are very much like, but still different from, recently discovered creatures living near very hot seafloor vent sites in the Pacific, Atlantic and other oceans.
The difference, Kennicutt said, is that the animals living around cold seeps live on methane and oil, while the creatures growing near hot water vents exploit sulfur compounds in the hot water.
The discovery of abundant life where scientists expected a deserted seafloor also suggested that the seeps are a long-duration phenomenon. Indeed, the clams are thought to be about 100 years old, and the tube worms may live as long as 600 years, or more, Kennicutt said.
The surprises kept pouring in as the researchers explored further and in more detail using research submarines. In some areas, the methane-metabolizing organisms even build up structures that resemble coral reefs.
It has long been known by geologists and oil industry workers that seeps exist. In Southern California, for example, there are seeps near Santa Barbara, at a geologic feature called Coal Oil Point. And, Roberts said, it’s clear that “the Gulf of Mexico leaks like a sieve. You can’t take a submarine dive without running into an oil or gas seep. And on a calm day, you can’t take a boat ride without seeing gigantic oil slicks” on the sea surface.
Roberts added that natural seepage in places like the Gulf of Mexico “far exceeds anything that gets spilled” by oil tankers and other sources.
“The results of this have been a big surprise for me,” said Whelan. “I never would have expected that the gas is moving up so quickly and what a huge effect it has on the whole system.”
40
Great read thank you William .
00
You are welcome. Best wishes. This is what science should be.
And there is more. There are Civilization/science changing, mature, logically interconnected, oh my God observations, that high school students could use to figure out what is happening to the earth and sun. This is only possible because of the climate wars and the commercial impact of deep CH4 on the Hydrocarbon Industry/Green Industry.
The deep earth system is changing in real time (there is evidence of month by month changes in mid ocean earthquake frequency simultaneous all over the world). This evidence (if the force is from core crystallization) means the earth’s liquid core’s rate of crystallization is changing in real time by a factor of three. And the sudden change in the rate of liquid core crystallization is two years in advance of El Nino events. The heat from increased magma release affects surface conditions and weather as explained in the attached paper.
Comment.
The liquid CH4, moving in tubes, (the image of tube structure in the deep earth has been found) is the force that moves the ocean plates and pushes the ocean plates under the continents. The same CH4 also moves and up lifts continents.
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/have-global-temperatures-reached-a-tipping-point-2573-458X-1000149.pdf
All over the planet starting in 1994, there was suddenly a 300% increase in the frequency of earthquakes of magnitude 4 to 6 all over the earth, at the ocean ridges where the sea floor is being pushed apart.
All over the planet. The old dead theory that never worked is that ocean plates are moved by the mantle by convection. That theory has been disproved. No evidence for convection which is up and cannot possibly supply a massive horizontal force to move ocean plates.
The mid-ocean ridges are thousands of miles long. At these very long regions, the ocean ridge is pushed apart in two directions. At ridges where there is sufficient force (Pacific ocean) to move the ocean plates apart fast, there is constantly magma coming up at the ridge.
This increase in the frequency of mid ocean earthquakes, physically absolutely must have a cause and the only physically possible cause is there must be a physical system in the earth that can suddenly change and have the force necessary to move the unbelievably massive ocean ridges apart. At the surface of the ocean ridges it was discovered about 15 years ago, there are cracks that run parallel to the movement of the plate. These cracks were caused by something pumped into the crack which moves the plate in two directions and causes the cracks. It cannot be magma as there is no force to continual push magma into the ocean plate and move the plate.
So, what we have ‘discovered’ (this is an observational discovery not a theory): There is mysterious unknown ‘force’ that Geology has not found that is moving the ocean plates and … This is the logical implications of the observations, kicker. This mysterious force that moves the ocean plates can increase by a 300%. The mysterious force is changing in real time.
“As detailed in those studies, increasing seismic activity in these submarine volcanic complexes is a proxy indicator of heightened underwater geothermal flux, a forcing mechanism that destabilizes the overlying water column. This forcing accelerates the thermohaline circulation while enhancing thermobaric convection [3-6]. This, in turn, results in increased heat transport into the Arctic (i.e., the “Arctic Amplification”), a prominent feature of earth’s recent warming [7-9].”
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/have-global-temperatures-reached-a-tipping-point-2573-458X-1000149.pdf
Curiously and unbelievably, It is a fact that Geology does not have an explanation as to what ‘moves’ the massive ocean plates and what moves the massive continental plates.
This is a summary paper about the paradox that there is no force to move the ocean plates and continental plates and to explain the location and existence of mountain ranges.
https://www.newgeology.us/presentation21.html
“In recent years, the kinematics of continental drift and sea-floor spreading have been successfully described by the theory of plate tectonics.
However, rather little is known about the driving mechanisms of plate tectonics, although various types of forces have been suggested”14. Seven years later, in 1982, the assessment was:
“At the present time the geometry of plate movements is largely understood, but the driving mechanism of plate tectonics remains elusive”3. By 1995 we find that:
“In spite of all the mysteries this picture of moving tectonic plates has solved, it has a central, unsolved mystery of its own:
What drives the plates in the first place? ‘[That] has got to be one of the more fundamental problems in plate tectonics,’ notes geodynamicist Richard O’Connell of Harvard University.
‘It’s interesting it has stayed around so long’ “25. In 2002 it could be said that: “Although the concept of plates moving on Earth’s surface is universally accepted, it is less clear which forces cause that motion.
“The driving force of plate movements was initially claimed to be mantle deep convection currents welling up beneath midocean ridges, with downwelling occurring beneath ocean trenches. Since the existence of layering in the mantle was considered to render whole-mantle convection unlikely, two layer convection models were also proposed.
Jeffreys (1974) argued that convection cannot take place because it is a self-damping process, as described by the Lomnitz law.
Plate tectonicists expected seismic tomography to provide clear evidence of a well-organized convection-cell pattern, but it has actually provided strong evidence against the existence of large, plate-propelling convection cells in the upper mantle (Anderson, Tanimoto, and Zhang, 1992).
Many geologists now think that mantle convection is a result of plate motion rather than its cause and that it is shallow rather than mantle deep (McGeary and Plummer, 1998).”
20
Disco,
The Fossil Oil theory is a dead theory that was created to hide the truth about the origin of hydrocarbons and water that covers 70% of the earth.
The scientific problem (observational constraints to explain) starts with the creation of the earth and moon.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/17/10976
As most are aware, the moon was formed by a Mars sized object that struck the earth, about 100 million years after the earth was formed. The Mar size object impact with the earth, tore the earth apart. The heat and kinetic energy removed most of the light elements from the earth’s crust. The earth’s mantle has very low concentrations of light elements such as CH4 and water.
The energy of the Mars size impact, heated the surface of the earth to about 700C, mixed the mantle, and caused the heavy metals to fall to the core of the earth. Where did the water come from to cover the earth? Why are there highly concentrated Uranium and other heavy metals on the earth? Including gold.
The late heavy bombard hypothesis has created to try to explain: What was the source of the earth’s atmosphere, the water in the oceans, CH4, and the heavy metals that are found on the surface of the earth.
The late heavy bombardment theory has developed to explain the earth water, hydrocarbons, and heavy metal observations. It assumed there was a late bombardment of both comets and asteroids, some of which were assumed to be from the core of a small planet that Jupiter tore apart to explain the concentrated heavy metal on the surface of the earth.
The earth’s atmosphere’s composition however does not match that of comets. The late comet theory was disproved by analysis (the heavy noble gas content of the earth’s atmosphere would be higher if there had been a late bombardment of comets) and there is no physical evidence for a late comet bombardment.
The evidence is that there was no late bombardment of asteroids. The word heavy is included as there is also no explanation for the concentration of heavy metals on the surface of the earth. About 50 years ago it was assumed that source of heavy metals on the surface of the earth, was from a bombardment of a planet that had been destroyed by Jupiter.
After 50 years of analysis, it has been determined that there is absolutely no evidence of a debris from a core of planet. There never was a planet that was destroyed by Jupiter. This finding, there was no uranium or other heavy metals in astroids for that theory to put on the surface of the earth… …created paradox, what is the source of the heavy metals on the surface of the earth, in addition to the paradox, where did the water come from?
Late Heavy Bombardment Did Not Happen
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200916094247.htm
Modern theory from ancient impacts
This is a link to a paper that was discussed at the Sloan Deep Carbon (CH4 in the liquid core of the planet, evidence for) workshop. Based on analysis of seismic waves, it has been determined that the liquid core of the earth contains up to 15% methane. The methane molecule at high pressure and temperature strongly bonds to metals. When the core crystallizes the CH4 is extruded. The metal bonding property causes a sheath to form around the liquid CH4, to produce a natural pipe that transmit the force from the core of the earth up to the surface of the earth and carries new primordial CH4.
As I noted above, analysis of seismic event, reflections and speed of propagation, has determined that there is a massive manifold of tubes deep within the mantle and that there are hundreds of thousands of tubes that connect to that manifold and then run down to the core of the planet. The discovery of the manifold and tubes that run down to the core of the planet, is what Thomas Gold had predicted.
(Sponsored by the US department of Energy)
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/17/10976
This is a youtube discussion of the implications of the deep earth CH4 hypothesis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0veqofQ5QCI
To date, consideration of the global carbon cycle has focused primarily on near-surface (i.e., relatively low-pressure and temperature) phenomena, with the tacit assumption that oceans, atmosphere and shallow surface environments represent an essentially closed system with respect to biologically available carbon.
10
Duty of care is shared by voters AND governments. Don’t for one second be under the delusion that democratically elected governments are the only ones responsible for their stupid policies. Stupid is as stupid does.
100
“A duty of care to protect future generations”.
What does that mean?
Protect them from famine, floods, bushfires, diseases, wars, meteorites, accidents, poverty, famine, never being too hot or too cold, ………..????
I hope these children are living exemplary lives, never using fossil fuels or processed food or metals from mining operations (sorry kids, no more smart phones), growing their own food, and living in simple huts, perhaps with a horse to get around.
101
A horse would be a fine thing. They have never been cheap and the 24 hour maintenance and housing costs are far higher than a car. The only time people see horses is at the horse races, which woke people want banned anyway because of alleged cruelty to animals they care nothing about. You will never see them protesting the fate of the Tibetans or the Uighur or Nigerian Catholics or freedom in Myanmar or Hong Kong. Being woke is about belonging to a group.
The extraordinary aspect of Western society is firstly that people generally have never had such a quality of life thanks to coal, gas and petrol and they now worry about the planet as if they control it and the weather in particular. Indolence and ignorance. And everyone’s a Climate Scientist, including the head of the UN and the Pope. At least they are as qualified as all other Climate Scientists, given that meteorologists and real scientists and engineers are excluded from Climate Science.
191
It takes 1/3 to 1/2 of your land to feed the draft animals needed to work it. Here in the east of the USA (Plenty of grass) we figure 2 acres per ‘animal unit’ or about 1 acre per 500 lbs or so. (5 goats or sheep, 1 pony or 1/2 a cow or 1/2 a horse)
The drier it is the more acres needed until you are talking 35-150 ac per cow in west Texas. LINK
Your steer (oxen) is actually a better choice than a horse with a Mule as 2nd choice.
https://cdn.thefencepost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2017/07/longhorn-RFP-070317-1-5-1240×862.jpg
(And yes I have ridden a long horn, and a mule and a camel… I have weird friends)
40
🙂
00
We can’t have an answer to an esoteric question via a court room, can we? The question that has to arise in this from the outset then, is which ‘natural disaster’ was created by man made change and which one was through normal atmospheric conditions. Which man made ones directly affected our continent and which ones were unavoidable and therefore couldn’t possibly be the Australian government’s responsibility and therefore be guaranteed that they provided the unsafe environment. Propaganda and brainwashing, we just haven’t fought hard enough as a common sense society to combat the Flannery Fools.
81
It may require a Royal Commission to sort out the wheat from the chaff.
33
I don’t understand why you have faith in the report writers. Do you really expect them to be impartial and look at the science? I most assuredly don’t. They’d probably just bring up Skeptical Science and copy and paste from there while sitting at the local pub. That’s what we see done for most of these big important reports that take 2 years and cost 20 million dollars.
80
Here’s proof that today humans are much healthier, wealthier etc than 30 years ago or 50 years ago or 100 years ago.
In 1970 the Human population was about 3.7 billion and life expectancy was 56 and today we have 4.1 bn more people ( total of 7.8 bn) and life exp is about 72.8. And today L exp is over 80 in wealthy OECD countries like Australia.
But average life exp in OZ was only 71 in 1970 but today is about 83. But in Africa average L exp in 1970 was about 47 and today is about 64 and this is the poorest continent ( 53 countries) on earth. OH and Africa’s pop was about 363 mil in 1970 and today 2021 has increased by another 1 billion people. In just 50 years, check it out.
Yet we are told today we have a CLIMATE CRISIS and the above data proves this is just more BS and FRA-D and Lomborg , Shellenberger, Dr Goklany etc quote the UN data that projects that everyone will be much healthier and wealthier by 2050 and 2100. So why all their never ending exaggeration and nonsense.
And the world is GREENING because of the increase of co2 in the atmosphere, see CSIRO and NASA etc. The planet earth is not suffering a so called climate crisis or emergency at all.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/WLD/world/life-expectancy
121
And the promoters of this ‘Climate Crisis’ all are declared socialists, which is woke speak for dedicated communists and totalitarians pushing a fake religion. You can include the President of the UN and Pope Francis, the latter having just declared that we are all going to drown in the new Biblical flood, although he also says it is a myth, the flood not the bible apparently.
101
A group of teenagers that think the world revolves around them are given a platform to broadcast their immiturity.
What could go wrong…,..
130
How Dare You!
80
I’m not familiar with Australian law. However, inasmuch as both Australian and USA law are derivative of English Common Law, I’m surprised that this is being discussed as though minors would have legal standing in a law suit.
Minors cannot sign binding contracts, vote, or hold office. In general, if a minor causes damage, the parents can, and probably will, be held financially responsible. Until the Age of Majority, children are the responsibility or their parents, and the parents have a responsibility to protect and care for them. If the children need legal protection, or want the law to address a wrong done to them, it would normally be the responsibility of the parents to go to court on their behalf. Children have more protections than rights. There is a reason that children are recognized as being minors, and that is that they are presumed to not have the mental maturity to care for themselves, let alone a whole country.
180
How dare you, an’all!
20
oops, that came out unintentionally rude – should be an’ all!
20
Also the brain does not mature until 25+ in a human. LINK
10
This is easily resolved,as the children feel their futures are being harmed..execute them.
No future no problem.
Or we could offer them the opportunity of their life times,instead,they can live what they preach.
Let them show all mankind the fabulous Carbon Free Lifestyle.
Reality TV at its absolute best.
Set in the remote territories,free of the oppression of fossil fuels,iron tools and any byproduct of Carbon ..We can tune in and watch..What?
Starvation and sloth?
If they prosper or even survive uncured of their delusions of grandeur,then they can make their case to the voters.
The absolute insanity of a carbon based life form,proclaiming Carbon is poison,defies all attempts to mock or parody..
Some are so gullible and dangerously stupid,that we can only encourage them on their way.
Those who claim CO2 is evil,need to stop eating.
For Plants must be the most evil creations ever.
How does a carbon based life form go “carbon free”?
Chemical dissolution?
151
Great idea John,
Observing protestors in a logging forest we thought it reasonable to take the industrially produced property they were using and let them linger as long as they like.
First you take the tent poles. Then the tent, then the ropes. Perhaps the cameras and processed food. now the bedding and blankets. Now the clothes. Perhaps they’ll manage naked eating from the forest and huddled for warmth.
Take their mobile phone and that is then a real disaster.
71
The Democrats have introduced the “Make electricity extremely expensive act” (MEEEA):
https://energycommerce.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases/ec-leaders-introduce-the-clean-future-act-comprehensive-legislation-to
We used to call them “tax and spend” Democrats but now it is “command and control” Democrats. Where we will get the $100 trillion for enough batteries to make all wind and solar work is not specified.
141
David for years I have been saying that.
Bernie Sanders ran a poll about a decade ago where a vast majority of people in Vermont said they believed in “Climate Change’and something needed to be done.
I suggest we needed a ‘Proof of Concept’ Pilot Run. Since Vermont is the ‘greenest’ state in the USA that was where it should be done.
1. NOTHING but Green Energy.
2. Close ALL highways in and out of Vt.
3. NO importation of any materials into Vt that were not entirely made/grown without the use of CO2 producing fuel/energy
After 5 years we open the state back up and see how the ideas of the Greens worked.
…
UNTIL a ‘Proof of Concept’ of that nature is done, they need to keep their grubby mitts off OUR economies!
At this point I think we should take ALL these brain washed youngsters and these ‘Green’ Academic and dump them in ONE place and MAKE THEM PROVE their ideas. Maybe the Vermont or possibly Massachusetts would do since all the counties vote democrat (blue)
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JQS8PLBBr5c/UQNG8-oZfeI/AAAAAAAAFnY/9ZG5ajObRlY/s1600/2012_Presidential_Election_by_County.png
30
I lived in Vermont for a couple of years 50 years ago. At the time, the people were normal and reasonable. However, the state has since been over run with refugees who escaped from New York. The mountains are the same. The people are quite different!
30
Students need to be taught that ~all is well in Australia!
http://phzoe.com/2021/03/01/land-change-in-australia/
120
Perhaps this is another step in a plan to get climate change recognised in law. It was only a month or two ago that a young man that successfully sued his super fund over climate risk, but the matter was settled out of court so there is no precedent.
https://theconversation.com/an-australian-man-successfully-sued-his-super-fund-over-climate-risk-heres-what-that-means-for-your-nest-egg-149918
30
Willis … the shameless interpolators have been at it again …
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/03/03/hadcrut-4-and-5/
31
HadCRUT 4 & 5 …. The Great Adjustment.
31
Thinking has basic operating rules, especially objective thinking applied to physical things. People who have not learned how to operate their brains according should not be given a smartphone or internet access, nor over-watch powers on public policy.
Otherwise stuff like this below will repeatedly occur.
Alternatively, don’t pay attention to what such random juveniles think or say, as the chances of it being valid, balanced, informed, logical, cogent and consistent with the known facts, and also useful and pertinent, are vanishingly low. While the chances of it being dumb and very counterproductive is known, via observation, to be exceptionally high.
This is why we send them to school, where they tend to emanate into the cosmos the truism that, “a little knowledge is dangerous“. Saving the world from figments is what the young tend to spend a lot of time doing.
But that is no excuse for ever taking their asinine fake concerns seriously.
Right, Greta?
91
The children doth protest too much.
Whether the Chinese, or any buyer of coal, choose to burn it or toss it in the sea, is beyond the control of the AU govt or the coal mine.
There is no legal proof that any harm will ever come of burning coal. Models, yes. But the models have yet to comport with reality.
What would happen if the Vickery mine agrees to stop their expansion if, and only if, every citizen of AU legally accepts the responsibility of compensating the current and future owners of the mine for their costs and losses annually for every year that their doom scenario does not take place? If the projected harm never happens, then the mine was deprived of their rights for no real cause or effect.
The children need to be held legally and financially accountable should their fears fail to materialize.
Common Law liability for imaginary harm that has not yet happened does not exist. There has been no harm, so the children have no legal standing. They are attempting extortion and deprivation of property rights based upon imaginary fears. Unless they can prove otherwise by evidentiary facts, not faulty models and failed predictions.
80
‘The Vickery open-cut coal mine would produce mostly metallurgical coal for steel-making as well as some higher grade thermal coal and is waiting on final approval from the minister.
‘It would create 450 ongoing jobs during operations with a net A$1.2 billion ($930 million) state economic benefit, Whitehaven estimates.
“Our position in relation to the litigation…is that the legal claim has no merit and should be dismissed,” Managing Director and CEO Paul Flynn said in a statement.’ (Reuter)
50
Can’t see the government being much help opposing the claim, it having signed us up to a treaty (Paris) supporting the stupidity claimed as the basis for the “case”. A proper outcome would be for it to be dismissed as frivolous with costs against the plaintiffs (and their parents as well as the nun) .
70
Really they have put the science of climate change and the IPCC on trial, it could backfire if defended properly, with the right witnesses!
40
I listened to 10 minutes of an interview of one of the students Andj Sharma(16 years old) one of the organisers of a school student strike. She said she became
concerned about the environment when she was watching a “video”(about climate change and tipping points) -what an amazing source of reference?? Her age at the time
was 11.Later she grew more concerned when she was informed by an even better source on climate change (wanna goes who this was?) the all knowing high school
dropout Greta Thunberg. And there Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury I rest my case.
81
So who are the child abusers who are using these kids?
70
“The case hinges on the idea that if we stop digging up our coal, other nations will copy us. Otherwise if we keep our coal underground, all we are doing is creating great reasons for other people to dig up their coal and sell it to our customers.”
Shouldn’t that be “contrariwise” rather than “otherwise”?
30
“…all we are doing is creating great reasons for other people to dig up their coal and sell it to our customers.” – or to come and take ours.
30
… the plaintiffs are arguing [THE GOVERNMENT] shouldn’t approve the coal proposal because doing so would [NOT] protect them from the harmful impacts of climate change [SUCH AS] more frequent extreme weather events …
The Government has a SIMPLE way out … just show that there actually aren’t “more frequent weather events” … just get the WUWT story created by Willis E which shows weather events are not “more frequent” over the last 100 years, and that weather events are less damaging when adjusted for inflation & population.
31
Idea: sue the government for installing wind turbines and solar panels for failing to uphold duty of care for native wildlife.
90
A hundred million tonnes ain’t enough,
Of the Earth-greening CO2 stuff,
We need billions of tonnes more,
So that plant life can soar,
To dismantle the climate-change bluff.
170
I would go so far as to say that the Bureau of Meterology, the CSIRO and many other government agencies and individual public serpents have committed fraud by saying there is anthropogenic global warming when there is not. For this they should be prosecuted.
131
When you are making decisions for the whole country there’s no excuse that can get you off charges of deliberate misrepresentation.
CO2 doesn’t “cause” global warming as a number of approaches show;
1. Even IF CO2 caused warming the absolute facts are that Human origin CO2 is quantitatively irrelevant.
2. Once ground origin outbound Infra Red energy is sorted in the first 30 metres above ground, the atmosphere then behaves as a coherent gas, as far as CO2 is concerned, and this applies up to about 11,000 metres altitude. At this point CO2 can liberate IR to the Great void of space. CO2 doesn’t send IR back to the surface because the energy potential all the way down is constantly increasing. Energy can only move to regions of lower potential: i.e. It can move towards a colder point.
3. And, if overnight temperature drops aren’t enough to convince you that the Sun caused the warming then maybe we are doomed to eternal ignorance.
4. Many branches of science have convincing evidence that Human origin CO2 is irrelevant to the CAGW claims.
Geology.
Atmospheric physics.
Orbital mechanics wrt the Solar system.
Oceanography wrt historical sea levels over the last half million years. e.g. It is indisputable that sea levels have fallen 1.2 metres in the last two thousand years. Geologists have been aware of this fact for at least sixty years, long before the CO2 meme was invented. There has been no discernible rebound evident.
Why isn’t this in court?
KK
10
Here is a different angle for the Nuclear option ..
“GRID RESERVE ?”
https://www.world-nuclear.org/getattachment/information-library/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Power-Reactors/small-nuclear-power-reactors/moltex_renewables.pdf.aspx
Madness !
00
They are proof the education system in OZ needs an overhaul. Hopefully that will include teaching these young empty heads the worth of critical thinking.
00
I’m afraid that the mantra “the science is settled” is too ingrained into the young. This is due to education system in Australia, which is so left-wing it is (unfortunately) a joke. Also, unfortunately, teaching children “critical thinking” is a thing of the past. In today’s world, boot-licking ‘yes’ people is what governments want. 1984 is almost within reach.
10
Create a new town near a large town or city – expanding population. As it’s crown land all the government needs to do is attach a whole lot of conditions to the sale. Likewise if its a large privately owned rural land lot that is being rezoned. Put in all the greenie conditions – insulation, recycling, 100% solar and wind power, water from the roofs etc. etc. etc. You could even establish a publicly owned company with the sole purpose of developing such towns. Having done all that it would then be in private hands. Greenie investors could put their money where their mouths are. It wouldn’t cost the government much. Consider it a prototyping and demonstration town – show us how it’s done! 😊️
00