The good news is that the experts are very unhappy:
The Conversation
The federal court today unanimously decided Federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley does not have a duty of care to protect young people from the harms of climate change.
The ruling overturns a previous landmark win by eight high school students, who sought to stop Ley approving a coal mine expansion in New South Wales.
The bad news is that these same experts can’t see how profoundly silly their reasoning is:
So why was Ley successful? The federal court’s 282-page judgment offers myriad reasons for why no duty should be imposed on the minister. But what emerges most clearly is the court’s view that it’s not their place to set policies on climate change. Instead, they say, it’s the job of our elected representatives in the federal government.
Well, do we live in a democracy or don’t we?
If only Jacqueline Peel and Rebekkah Markey-Towler could persuade us that coal is a killer, they wouldn’t need to go to court to force their opinions on everyone else.
One of these two experts gets Australian government research funding for “climate change litigation” projects. Evidently she’s funded by taxpayers to steal rights away from them.
The whole case was silly beyond words. If the Environment Minister has a Duty of Care to stop a coal mine for fear of losses to these teens in future years, then surely the Treasurer also has a Duty of Care not to wreck the economy and put those same teens in debt on a frivolous pagan quest to stop floods, storms and droughts? Likewise, the Minister for Energy has a Duty of Care to make sure these students don’t grow up to live in a third world banana republic that can’t power factories to provide jobs or keep their quality of life as high as it was for their parents. Where does it end? With a dictator running a command economy, and gulags for the dissidents.
From the original ruling we see the maths never added up:
In the ruling, Justice Mordy Bromberg noted that the expansion of the Whitehaven Coal-owned mine would lead to an additional 33 million metric tons (36 million U.S. tons) of coal being extracted over 25 years and 100 million metric tons (110 million U.S. tons) of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere.
The world uses 8.5 billion tons of coal a year, and the court case was about 1.3 million tons of coal per year or 1 part in 6,500 of annual coal consumption. Even if coal was bad, and even if warming was bad, and even if CO2 caused warming, this case still would not make sense.
h/t Michael K.
The argument was tossed out due to spelling errors, poor arithmetic and an inability to structure a consistent argument. Despite the ‘sizzling start’ there was an absence of rational content.
Both groups of legal counsel were happy with the financial windfall and adjourned for a long lunch prior to a nap in their yachts and town houses.
620
Poor Greta – but she got too old anyway.
270
How dare They!
10
I’m convinced
140
So you’re convinced of what exactly?
Don’t be shy, tell us what’s so terrible about our weather or climate since 1800 or 1900 or 1970 or 1990 or…..?
And please show us your data and evidence.
550
Neville, I’m convinced that the court made a decision based on law, I’m also convinced that the original case was based on science.
132
Please, show us the actual real science you think this nonsense is based on.
Make it real science, not baseless AGW mantra
Fact is, that the original case had absolutely zero scientific merit whatsoever.
310
any Ipcc report
015
So none that you can actually point to, just a nebulous heap of politically based propaganda.
Ok, I knew that was likely to be your limit of actual science.
As you say, any IPCC report has zero scientific merit.
90
The problem you’ve got, Peter Fitzroy, is that courts deal with matters of law, not science.
If it makes you feel any better, there was a consensus among the judges that the science was shite under the law. 😉
230
no it was about the law, not the science. they all said the science was not in dispute
012
“they all said the science was not in dispute”
No they did not, The said the science was not disputed.. ie it wasn’t even discussed.
AGW proponents know better than to try to discuss the actual science. They invariably lose or run away.
120
It wasn’t discussed because it was a court of law.
For the same reason, they didn’t discuss fishing either.
What’s this fantasy of AGW proponents being afraid of science?, just look at any scientific body, you should escape the mutual tug circle.
08
They invariably run away of badly lose open discussion.
Do you have any actual “science” you want to discuss?
30
I think the original case was based on a whim.
90
The decision was the the Federal court had no business making decisions on matters of science. Nothing to do with the law really. WHich was their final decision.
And it is good that you are convinced of the science of Climate Change, that coal CO2 stays in the air forever. Don’t let reality or real science interfere with that.
80
Fitzroy is “convinced that the original case was based on science”. Convinced. So convinced he never went to the data that convinced him. Suddenly he folded. Fitzroy never ever had data. He’s a “believer”. A tea leaves man.
90
any IPCC report
114
A political compilation of grey and non science.. Ok. !
110
Quite so, b.nice. IPCC reports are political papers. They are not scientific papers. Fitzroy might have learnt something today.
110
So you should be.
Federal court has made the correct decision.
CO2 does nothing to influence the climate, so the whole original law suit was based on a huge nothing-burger. !
Frivolous and pointless, like your post.
530
I don’t think this appeal decision decided much about climate and was really about the responsibilities/duties of the minister.
Yes, it was pointless.
One comforting thing though, for someone my age (just north of 50). The case was about the responsibilities to children for future issues. Assuming CO2 emissions are the cause of all evil in the world, I guess by this case I have nothing to worry about in my lifetime. Woo hoo. And yet I’ve been told we’re already seeing people dying and being displaced by climate change, droughts being worse already, fires being worse already, rivers and dams not being filled but also filled too much at the same time. Thank goodness no one over 20 has to worry about experiencing any of this stuff.
210
Name one person who has died or one who has been displaced by climate change. Me, I would rather have a twenty year old grow up with reliable power and ready access to all of the health and lifestyle benefits brougt on by the industrial revolution. I would hate to see them dreading an operation in hospital wondering whether the power will go off half way through the procedure. Or living with blackouts and rolling brown outs, and stuck with the environmental degradation caused by toxic wind and solar generation.
350
I can’t name individuals.
But Prince Charles says the war in Syria is because of climate change. So anyone displaced because of that ware is counted.
Plus Greta Thunberg said people are dying. So it must be true.
And, apparently warming causes extremes such as worse blizzards too. So warming must have killed someone somewhere because cold kills more people than warm does. And warming causes extreme cold.
It’s all in the “science”.
(sarc)
330
I stand corrected. If Greta says it is so, it must be. All hail Greta!
110
“Federal court has made the correct decision.
CO2 does nothing to influence the climate, so the whole original law suit was based on a huge nothing-burger. !
Perhaps you missed this statement from the full bench:
“The judgement said while the evidence of climate change and its dangers to humanity was not disputed, the environment minister did not have a duty of care to Australia’s children.”
As is apparent the court’s decision is based on the duty of care not on whether or not CO2 influences the climate
115
Just because the judge says it wasn’t disputed, doesn’t mean it is real.
There is no evidence that CO2 influences climate, so whether or not it was disputed or not is totally irrelevant.
Do you have any scientific evidence ?
My original statement stands…. “the whole original law suit was based on a huge nothing-burger. “
180
“Just because the judge says it wasn’t disputed, doesn’t mean it is real.”
True but equally it doesn’t mean it isn’t real
“There is no evidence that CO2 influences climate, so whether or not it was disputed or not is totally irrelevant.”
I think you will find, if you care to check the relevant literature, that there is much more evidence provided for the argument that CO2 does influence climate than evidence provided for the argument that it does not
020
It is obvious that you don’t have any evidence, otherwise you would be able to produce some.
Stop blustering.
150
“It is obvious that you don’t have any evidence, otherwise you would be able to produce some.”
It is equally obvious that you don’t have any evidence, otherwise you would be able to produce some to support your claim that
“CO2 does nothing to influence the climate”
Stop blustering.
011
Best you can manage ? really ?
No evidence, just petty evasion.
Please explain, using physic and scientific measurement, how CO2 effects climate.
100
IPCC report
112
The IPCC reports actually contain no real scientific evidence for CO2 warming
Please quote section, line and paragraph, with accompanying data.
90
Although I suspect that basic physics is beyond you.. I’ll try anyway.
Net energy transfer within the atmosphere, (and anywhere else), is controlled by temperature gradients.
To cause any net radiation change, ie warming, CO2 has to alter the gravity-based temperature gradient.
There is absolutely no mechanism by which CO2 can do this.
If it existed, such a change would have been measured, but it never has been, and it never will be, because it is not physically possible.
Only H2O has that property.
(note. CO2 actually has a slightly lower specific energy than normal air, so, in theory, it would cause the lapse rate to increase, but the change would be so slight as to be immeasurable.)
The other controlling energy movement in the atmosphere is by pressure gradients. CO2 has absolutely zero effect on atmospheric pressure gradients.
60
That is because western Law faculties and hence their academic output has been under the Leftist hammer since the mid 1970s (and yes, do go and talk to the few non-leftist undergraduates and listen to them boggle at what they see and hear) and even now, sane judges are still hampered by their indoctrinated lunatic leftist idealism of believing everything that they are told by their fellow travellers whose grants/jobs are controlled by their willingness to wag their tails in a politically correct manner when told. Judges know nothing of science except what they are told and by whom, just like the politicians who depend upon their health minister for advice in an epidemic (fraudulent or not) not realizing that it is based upon politics NOT science just as are all of your posts.
40
That’s not actually a statement from the full bench. It’s just a quote from a reporter.
They did say in introduction:
That was just a statement of fact that the govt wasn’t arguing that point. That there was no cross examination of the expert called by the kids’ lawyers.
The reason it wasn’t disputed is because there was no point in the govt debating the merits or effects of climate change or whether human caused CO2 is the cause of change/warming. It wasn’t relevant to the legal argument about the minister’s duties.
60
check
15
I’m convinced the coffee at Macca’s is better. Nah….
90
‘I’m convinced …’
So was the Chief Justice.
‘Chief Justice James Allsop, who was one of the three judges to hear the appeal, said he did not believe the court should determine matters of high public policy, as imposing a duty of care would be.
“We all rely on an elected government to develop and implement wise policy in the interests of all Australians, in one sense especially the children of the country who are its future,” he said.
“That is not the foundation of the law of torts. It is the foundation of responsible democratic government.” (Fin Review)
221
” a frivolous pagan quest to stop floods, storms and droughts ”
All simple words found in a dictionary. No one ever thought to put them together like this before.
I wish I had.
– – – –
Common sense stands out in a sea of green silliness.
451
Spooner in The Australian
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/cartoons/johannes-leak-cartoons/image-gallery/2403b703a84c4deb3bbc4247796b447f#&gid=1&pid=1
40
Thank Heaven for something! But how did this ever get to be admitted to a court in the first place?
Who paid?
290
I hope you’re aware that this decision was by the federal court and overturned some loony lower court decision.
270
And I should have mentioned that a High Court appeal may yet overturn the overturning.
60
Very simple.
In the good old days Magistrates generally progressed from the Clerks of Court and sometimes from a Justice of the Peace. As Clerks these people spent time at the front line dealing with normal human beings. One of the victims of the ‘March through the Institutions’ was from my understanding this tradition. Magistrates have been appointed over the last 30 years from activist law firms with political affiliations.
They like Doctors, Politicians, Lawyers etc often treat the common people and their hopes and aspirations with contempt, making high and mighty motherhood statements and virtue signalling in the absence of any real understanding of how much fun it is to join with your fellow citizens rather than viewing life from the corporate box. The same reason we should stop funding Politicians and Political Parties, returning to the wham, bam & crash of the party fundraiser.
The power of a community to be judged, cared for and represented by people they grew up with has been handed to a remote elite and as Kimberley Kitching found out they demand loyalty over representation
210
I like how “very simple”, is followed by a complicated web of made up intrigue that is anything but simple. Or true.
112
Complicated for you, Gee.
70
Bloomberg has form for poor decisions linked to his politics
00
Sorry, I meant Bromberg. A notable poor decisions was the case involving Bolt. Was he also not involved of censorship of the press.
00
33MT of coal, (carbon), when burned produces a lot of CO2, (plant food).
Because carbon is 12 grams out of every 44 grams of CO2, it SHOULD be expected that the coal will produce more mass, (CO2), after burning.
My estimate, assuming coal is 90% carbon, (water, etc as balance), would result in 33MT producing 109MT of CO2. Close enough to the value in the article.
So the statement below actually DOES add up, someone needs to study a little more chemistry.
From the original ruling we see the maths never added up:
In the ruling, Justice Mordy Bromberg noted that the expansion of the Whitehaven Coal-owned mine would lead to an additional 33 million metric tons (36 million U.S. tons) of coal being extracted over 25 years and 100 million metric tons (110 million U.S. tons) of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere.
100
So two good things produced by one act of burning: reliable power for the grid, and more food for plants.
Great news.
Cheers
Dave B
320
And a third: one hundred fewer stupidly-expensive climate crucifixes blighting the landscape for ten years before being consigned to landfill.
130
Should we be thankful that they haven’t yet noticed that every 12 million tonnes of Carbon going into the atmosphere ties up 32 million tonnes of Oxygen in 44 million tonnes of CO2?.
40
You’re assuming that all the coal produced will be burned in addition to the world’s current production. Much of it will be burned instead of other production.
Australia’s coal tends to be of higher calorific value and lower pollutants (such as sulphur) than coal from elsewhere. Burning this instead of foreign coal would be beneficial to the atmosphere.
Nothing can, or should, be considered in isolation
50
Stevem,
I have made no assumptions as to the burning of the coal or whether this coal displaces the mining and subsequent burning of other coal.
With regard to the power generation potential of one coal over another, (even a high sulfur coal), you’ll quickly find that the calorific value of DRY coal is almost exclusively a product of the carbon content. And as noted above, I was discussing the oxidation of carbon to carbon dioxide. No mention of sulfur and no mention of coal grade, type, etc beyond an estimate of the water content which seemed to verify the numbers in the report.
I suggest you reread what I have submitted and if you find an assumption of mine relating to the source of the coal, let me know. Don’t base YOUR debating points on assumptions YOU have made and then falsely attributed to myself.
40
Well said Ian. Shades of Willis…
10
Eng_Ian, I think your assumption of 90% carbon in coal is way too high. The dry ash free Carbon content of coal in NSW and Qld is around 82-84%. Most Steam coals as sold for eg Whitehaven NSW and Acland Qld have about 15% mineral matter on an air dried basis (inherent moisture 1-1.5%). Contracts for coal (internal or overseas) normally are based on 8% moisture (some black coals such as Blair Athol, Collie & Leigh Creek go upto 20%, brown coal in Vic. goes upto 66% moisture) . So a rough calculation for carbon content is 83% * .85 * .92 = 65%. The figure used by Bromberg is a considerable exaggeration probably provided by Greens who have no technical understanding.
10
We do have political candidates who are like Hageman for Wyoming who has almost identical ideals as those who want to stop the rot in Australian politics, with the push to net zero emissions as one of the main ones but there are so many others that are equally important to the survival of our nation. Are we the voters willing to vote accordingly to save our nation, or are we going to continue the same trend and spiral down? We have the power and the right to vote. Use it appropriately, or don’t use it at all and suffer the consequences.
150
The next election in Australia will most likely result in a coalition of Labor and Greens so be prepared. When people hopefully attain a greater sense of awareness they may seek a sensible alternative 3 years down the track. Theoretically. I hope the messiah will address the problem and tell the hovelled masses that the Father arranged for coal to be utilized. Otherwise he wouldn’t have named the Permian and CARBONIFEROUS.
80
You’re very talented Jo and what a pity you don’t have a column in the MSM every week to try and educate some of our more gullible donkeys.
How silly kiddies can go to school for years and not understand logic and reason is beyond a joke.
But if our polling is accurate we’ll soon have the Labor/Greens in charge and they really do BELIEVE in this delusional nonsense.
So they’ll just copy the loonies in the EU, USA and leave us to the mercy of Russia, China, Iran etc.
520
The world uses 8.5 billion tons of coal a year, and the court case was about 1.3 million tons of coal per year or 1 part in 6,500 of annual coal consumption. Even if coal was bad, and even if warming was bad, and even if CO2 caused warming, this case still would not make sense.
It has always been a problem for those on the Left, they generally speaking are quite innumerate which is a consequence of only believing what they want to believe and they always will allow this to prevail over tedious facts and evidence.
290
Nah, they can do sums. The alarming fact is that, for those in the Holy Church of Climate (at least those kneeling before the preacher), dragging civilisation back a hundred years or two is a good thing. Now, even though I have just argued they can do simple sums, what they CAN’T do is logical reasoning or deploy any conscience.
Our pain is their gain.
60
Where would a duty of care stop? The biggest CO2 emitter by far is China. Should we declare war on China?
140
“Duty of care” in the Western alliance against fossil fuels is as you hinted is in effect war on China (as well as Russia). I do hope we have sufficient time left to vote in such a way to force governments to stop sending us spiralling down to a crash and burn scenario, and instead start offering olive branches and disband this insane push for net zero emissions, especially given we already know that even if the West did achieve net zero emissions (and sending us into financial ruin in the process) it will have zero impact on the climate, all this while China and many other countries keep on building new coal fired power stations in large numbers.
160
Duty of care stops when its doesn’t get you votes. For governments its been “keeping you all safe” only up to the point when it is bleeding obvious policies are doing harm – and polls go south. Like COVID it will be the same for Climate change politics. So the green blob will push intermittents right up to the point we get definite power outages and blackouts, then the blame game will start and they will quietly back away.
80
The problem though is by the time we get those severe power outages it will be all too late as it takes time to build new power plants based on fossil fuel, or nuclear if we ever grow up and decide to take off the ban. That’s a bit like doing nothing to prepare for a major flood and when it happens we then decide to re-locate. Too late the house is destroyed. We can still rebuild but first we have to suffer a lot of pain and hardship. That potentially includes a lot of people dying as a result of the severe power outages. Then again our governments on both sides already have blood on their hands due to the cover ups and lies being told about the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines, so what’s a bit more blood on their hands? They have no real awareness of what they are doing, and that will not change as long as we keep voting for them.
50
We’ve already had those power outages in Victoria. A number of years ago in Summer the state government instigated a set of rolling or “managed” outages due to a week of hot and windless weather. Lasted one day, but it was a glimpse into the future. But before the outages they asked all the major industrial users to wind down their activities. Then to add insult to injury the government blamed some maintenance issues at one of the coal powered generators. Claimed they were unreliable old technology. it was green spin on steroids.
70
Exactly.
Imagine the scope of an adverse judgement where any Govt. Minister could be held accountable via a duty of care.
You’d have every mug punter who lost a dollar on the stock market taking the Finance Minister to court.
30
Don’t the ministers for Education in each state have a duty of care to see that students are properly educated and not force-fed leftist propaganda?
441
Yep, and they have failed magnificently, with far left ideology infecting the minds of many children, snuffing out their future prospects in a world fighting to regain a footstep of commonsense and rational thought.
250
Yes, and imagine if we rational thinkers tried to bring a “duty of care” case against the government for failing to properly educate children (or forcibly giving them poorly tested covid vaccine products).
It would be laughed out of court, partly because many judges are themselves products of the dumbed-down education system. Especially in Vicdanistan where there was a government policy of a Labor Government some years ago to ensure all new judges were of a Leftist persuasion.
160
From their point of view the Ministers of Education have been performing a duty of care to the Green agenda for many years. People have such short memories and have forgotten those adds on TV with the beads of students exploding gushing out blood everywhere for refusing to follow the Green agenda. The only thing that has changed is the Green agenda has been adopted by both major parties, not just the ALP+Greens.
50
If the government ever was saddled with a “duty of care” they would become responsible for the outcomes of their policies … imagine that!
The state governments might have a duty of care to ensure at least a few of the kids learn math and basic science in school.
I would guess there’s sufficient bureaucrats with an instinct to avoid responsibility at all costs … they would have sensed the danger here.
220
I like the Duty of Care angle when it is used properly. Now, how about that Duty of Care being applied to all State/Territory Health Ministers and Federal Health Minister as well as the Public Servant Health Officials in relation to the virus crisis and what we now know. Let the Court cases begin now……………………
150
This is about the extraction of an additional 33 million tonnes of coal over 25 years.
To put things into perspective, the beloved country of the greens/Left, China, uses 8.3 million tonnes per day.
So this whole waste of court resources was about just 4 DAYS consumption of coal by China.
But it’s OK for the Chicomms to do it.
The case should have not been heard in the first place.
Can’t anyone do basic math any more?
270
What I want to know is who or what is hiding in the shadows behind these ‘teenagers’ making the claims.
220
Evil doers. Useful idiots acting for agents of the Elites who both profit from the wind, solar and now “green hydrogen” scams and who also want to destroy Western Civilisation in general.
200
Funded from Russia and China.
150
Australia has always suffered from extreme rainfall/ floods and droughts and Jo’s summary of the Ashcroft study of Adelaide, Melbourne,Sydney rainfall ( 1839 to 2017) was very interesting and disproves so much of the current nonsense about so called extreme rainfall events.
Even the Lake Eyre data since 1885 proves that extreme rainfall events have occurred many times over the last 137 years. And these events occurred in the late 19th century and so much of the 20th century. And only once in 1999 to 2001.
Of course there’s obviously no correlation with the increase in co2 since 1988 at all.
https://joannenova.com.au/2019/05/178-years-of-australian-rain-has-nothing-to-do-with-co2-worst-extremes-1849-1925-1950/
150
I love how they can look in their crystal ball and see in decades time millions of todays kids will be hospitalised for heat episodes and millions will die, wonder if they could see next weeks lotto numbers for me.
100
I’m very disappointed in the western alliance as regards Ukraine, imagine the world now had Britain said ‘we can’t possibly take on the N*zis because they have a superior Army and Airforce, they will crush us.’
110
Thunberg will be displeased.
Have you ever seen her off script?
She can barely put two words together and can’t answer a simple question.
(She is over 18 now, so legitimate to criticise as she is a legal adult, albeit with a child’s brain.)
211
Ad hom is not criticism lift you game
018
Truth is now ad hom, is it.
Which part of David’s comment is incorrect ?
Are facts, “ad hom” as well?
They do seem to be to the far left. !
110
I hate to say it b.nice but you’re dealing with a vacuum. I hope Peter doesn’t feel that I’ve committed an “ad hom”.
50
He certainly doesn’t appear to have anything rational to say !
40
Not the feigned naivety again. Why?
06
I don’t think Peter’s naivety is feigned.
50
This response of hers (video below) clearly demonstrates she is an actress and can’t function if questions for the reporters to ask her and answers aren’t provided and prepared for in advance.
https://youtu.be/1H7lvb6bhgY
80
I for once agree with her – we had enough! We need to stop pretending going to net zero emissions is going to save the planet from some mythical catastrophe when the reality is such a plan will only weaken an already weakening West to the point of self-destruction, which many leftists in the West would be cheering for. We can stop this madness – at the ballot box if we so desired, but sadly it appears we don’t and we won’t.
80
your ‘evidence is from 4 years ago!
Your ideology is showing, as is Mr Nice, and Mr M.
can you argue from facts for a change
06
Your lack of evidence is showing.
Try to argue with actual science and data, please.
50
Poor form, Fitzroy.
When you set yourself up as the Swedish Parrot and then fall at the first hurdle, over and over again, it is highly likely the disconnect between reciting someone else’s tripe and understanding any of it is rather clear.
Mostly Ms Miserable will handball the question to the other geniuses around her.
And you call that “ad hom”! Giving someone the chance to make good with an answer? You never studied Latin at school.
60
what are you saying? “She can barely put two words together and can’t answer a simple question.” that is an ad hom,
06
Its a very apt description of the situation.
Truth is not “ad hom”, it is truth.
What’s the saying?… “You just can’t handle the truth!”
50
Of course it is. Just like you have a few kangaroos loose in the top paddock
05
Oh dear, you didn’t watch the clip where she was totally flummoxed without a script, did you.
Don’t ignore the facts. ! Don’t run and hide from the truth.
30
I don’t own a farm.
Try a different petty ad hom attempt next time.
One based on obvious facts, like David’s easily substantiated description of Greta.
30
‘Contrary to popular belief, merely insulting someone is not a fallacious ad hominem. A character attack is only considered a fallacious ad hominem if it is used in exchange for a genuine argument.’ (wiki)
21
Cut her some slack – after all, she did miss a lot of school.
40
In earlier times, those disappointed by the decision of the Full bench of the Federal Court would try very hard to take it to the High Court.
Meanwhile, their programs of resistance would intensify, with calls like making a United nations world heritage overlay over a large chunk of the land surrounding and enclosing the potential mine. Or finding more rare and endangered species and getting EPA type bodies to help alienate the land from mining. Like getting green NGOs with shady sponsors to spend more on promoting mining as one of the main culprits causing our global “existential crisis”. And making money available for even more academics with lawyer skills to build more cases to take to Courts. And so on and so on.
Please do not feel relaxed about this decision. Take a look a forecasts of which politicians might call the shots in Australia after may this year. I feel most uncomfortable, because I fought this type of battle for years and can see ominous signs. Geoff S
150
Again here’s the lake Eyre data since 1885 and note the dates for the full flood years and nearly all of those years occurred from 1885 to 1974/’77 EXCEPT 1999 to 2001.
OH and co2 levels were 294 ppm in 1885 and 334 ppm in 1977 or well under the so called safe level of 350 ppm proposed by Dr Hansen and Bill McKibben.
Here’s the Wiki quote.
“In strong La Niña years, the lake can fill. Since 1885, this has occurred in 1886–1887, 1889–1890, 1916–1917, 1950, 1955, 1974–1977,[13] and 1999–2001,[14] with the highest flood of 6 m (20 ft) in 1974. Local rain can also fill Kati Thanda–Lake Eyre to 3–4 m (9.8–13.1 ft), as occurred in 1984 and 1989. Torrential rain in January 2007 took about six weeks to reach the lake but only placed a small amount of water into it”. End of quote.
Here’s the link to Wiki’s Lake Eyre floods years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Eyre#Floods
60
It would be interesting to find out what, if anything, these children and their controllers actually knew about energy production or the carbon cycle.
Or to find out if they knew anything factual about anything really. I bet they can’t do basic arithmetic but they could name all 58 (or whatever) supposed genders the Left claim exist.
40
Meanwhile in the outside world we’ve got Russia and China forming a massive Eurasian bloc that will likely involve Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Mongolia and possibly India. That’s 25% to 45% of the World’s population. And into that put a big chunk of Africa that China has been taking over. What you’ve got is totalitarians in the West using warmie and wokie strategies and totalitarians out of the West playing a very strategic game and the politicians in the West being largely clueless and complicit – walking around with their lobotomies while the West burns. We massively need to ensure military, economic, energy and food security.
150
“over 25 years and 100 million tons of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere.”
So what? That’s tiny.
And it all gets rapidly absorbed in the oceans because CO2 is very highly soluble, 30x more soluble than oxygen and fish breathe.
Even a judge knows it. CO2 in his whisky and soda. And absorbed oxygen allows the fish in the fish tank to breathe or they would drown.
And CO2 is very good for the planet, dramatically greening the planet which itself provides cooling.
Plus if nett zero was real science, the obvious and substantial Greening of the planet would reduce not increase CO2. So human nett zero is totally busted.
More CO2 means more plants, lower temperatures (according to NASA), more food, more trees. All the complete opposite of what you are told! The 2021 NSW bushfires CO2 triggered a massive bloom in phytoplankton which provide up to half the world’s oxygen by consuming CO2. Yes, ocean absorption of excess CO2 is really so fast.
Whoever says CO2 is bad for the planet and insoluble and piles up in the atmosphere is lying. Why would adults lie to children?
A bit like black AntiFA thugs who are the real fascists, blackshirts, self labelled Greens are the anti Greens and the enemies of Western democracies.
Green is a false flag communist movement who call themselves socialists and their first target is children. And like all good fascists their backers in the Replaceables industry are making trillions. Fake solutions to fake problems for real money.
140
Furthermore, coal and other fossil fuels are totally responsible to the very high lifestyle that these little kiddies and their minders are fortunate enough to currently have.
Without those fossil fuels, they would have a much lower standard of life.
A month or two in a third world country, without all their fossil fuel produced and powered toys, would put them straight pretty darn quick.
50
TdeF;
I think a better approach might be the old (1971) and often repeated claim that “The Great Barrier Reef is in Danger”.
Point out that corals rely on dissolved CO2 (and calcium) to build the reef, so reducing CO2 could cause the reef to wither away.
70
Just about everything is made from CO2. Trees, coral, people, fish, birds, animals, bacteria, insects, grass and flowers. Nothing is greener then CO2. And all living things are powered by producing CO2. Even the Green colour in plants is a long chain hydrocarbon, so CO2 is the essence of Green.
Everything which burns is made from CO2. We are carbon life forms.
The crazy idea that CO2 is disaster remains a ridiculous science fiction designed to make some people very rich. And to date it has worked brilliantly.
Nothing in the tens of trillions spent so far on reducing CO2 has had any discernible effect, so why not triple the spending, cripple democracies and make the profiteers of Doom richer? Perhaps our teachers could stop pushing propaganda and learn some science themselves?
90
I blame the teachers as much as activist judges trying to pass laws from the Bench, laws based on their own profound ignorance of science.
70
“In the ruling, Justice Mordy Bromberg noted that the expansion of the Whitehaven Coal-owned mine would lead to an additional 33 million metric tons (36 million U.S. tons) of coal being extracted over 25 years and 100 million metric tons (110 million U.S. tons) of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere.”
This is an absolute miracle – for every 1 ton of coal burnt, 3 tons of CO2 is created.
00
To add a little to Broadie’s post above (#4.2), in 2 generations the Long March will have reached all institutions, including the High Court. Unless reality intervenes we’re stuffed in the longer term.
80
Are you referring to Rudi Dutschke’s “der lange Marsch durch die Institutionen”?
If that’s the case, the long march doesn’t need another two generations. It’s already finished and tragically, the Left won.
President Trump tried to undo the rot but it was too late.
80
This judgement of the full bench of the Federal Court shows otherwise.
And the runaway inflation engineered by geriatric sock puppet Biden and friends, the open Mexican border, the tragedy of Afghanistan which is still unfolding and the utterly unnecessary war in the Ukraine is turning all opinion against the Woke.
And I doubt ignorant autocrat Justin Trudeau is popular in Canada with anyone. It’s all going pair shaped for the long march. Besides, who really believes there is a climate emergency now? And only another 8 years to save the planet, for the fifth time?
Even China is having to cope with runaway Wuhan Flu in 28 provinces, a disaster of their own making. And you will find both Germany and Japan are rearming.
60
And the big Biden lies that Afghanistan was not his fault, soaring gas prices are not his fault and Ukraine is not his fault, the massive border disaster is not his fault and he is very, very cross at being blamed. If you even believe gas prices are Putin’s fault, who encouraged Putin? It’s time for Basking Biden to catch another helicopter home for the weekend, in just over 15 months the most unpopular and utterly incompetent President in US history. And a child of the Long March into the White House.
60
And even people who believe somehow in Climate Change are struggling to blame the Australian floods on Climate Change. It looks like just too much rain, the centuries old land of droughts and flooding rains which the BOM denies, partly because they refuse to look at the history before 1910 which is their total responsibility.
Any sensible government would demand the BOM do their job and publish and summarise the good records they inherited from the State governments. Australian records alone could destroy man made Global Warming because Australia alone in the Southern Hemisphere has good records of the 19th century. There is no global warming without the BOM. And we all know what happened in the Millenium drought was identical to what happened in the Federation drought. Refusal to do your job should be sufficient for dismissal.
The ABC also should be required to report all different views, not just their closed mindset. Or be sold. These institutions were created for the public benefit, not their own benefit. They are welcome to their point of view alone, if they pay their own wages. And if they are commercially worthless, why should we keep paying?
Politicised institutions should be defunded. Simple. And that includes universities like JCU, rotten from the top down.
70
Also Antonnio Gramsci spoke of the longarch through the institutions.
20
A sign of a good, competent, law-based court is, how often does it say “this is not my decision to make.”
A good court says it a lot.
70
In 40 years the null hypothesis of natural variation has never been over thrown. That means they have never got beyond step one. That is why lawfare and using kids is resorted to. They have no case.
90
The association has been shown over and over, the null hypothesis is long gone. Try the NASA site for starters, or has Qanon done your head in ?.
02
So, just vague references to the AGW associators.
You need to do better, if you can.
Actual science and data.
The null hypothesis has never been disproved. Show us where it has been.
20
Yes, as a duty of care to children we need to stop using diesel belching school buses and children should walk to school,
90
The unintended consequences (or intended depending on your point of view) of US instigating sanctions against Russia and at the same time following Green energy policies is the destruction of the Western economies:
Green Currency – The US government is losing its grip on petrodollars. Perhaps they can replace it with a wind power based currency?
So, when are we going to wake up and stop this madness by voting against both major parties? When it’s too late?
40
“The world uses 8.5 billion tons of coal a year, and the court case was about 1.3 million tons of coal per year or 1 part in 6,500 of annual coal consumption. Even if coal was bad, and even if warming was bad, and even if CO2 caused warming, this case still would not make sense.”
If such a case was successful, the people who believe in CO2 causing climate change would be lining up in their thousands to get similar cases before the courts and lawyers would be raking in the fees.
50
Has Russia Been Financing Western Environmentalism?
. “I have met allies who can report that Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organisations – environmental organisations working against shale gas – to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas.” — NATO’s then Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, The Guardian, June 19, 2014.
. The mechanism, which can be summarized as follows: “Funds from the Russian government -> Shell company ‘incorporated’ in Bermuda -> American foundation -> American environmental organizations.” The advantage of Bermuda is that it does not require any disclosure that funds come from a foreign government, contrary to American law. Sea Change must disclose that it has received funds from abroad — in this instance a Bermuda company. Nothing more.
. On March 11, 2022, US Representatives Jim Banks and Bill Johnson sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, asking for an investigation into the reported Russian manipulation of American “green groups” that are seemingly funded with “dark money” (anonymous donations). “Russia spent millions promoting anti-energy policies and politicians in the U.S. … Unlike the Russia hoax, Putin’s malign influence on our energy sector is real and deserves further investigation,” Banks said to Fox News Digital.
. Below Europe’s soil lie large reserves of shale gas, also known as bedrock gas. The exploitation of these European natural gas reserves would have substantially reduced Europe’s purchases of, and dependence on, Russia’s gas — in particular on its gas giant, Gazprom. The same is true of nuclear power, which offers Westerners an abundant, non-CO2-emitting energy source as an alternative to Russian gas.
. Hence the interest, for the Russian government, in mounting a vast disinformation campaign against shale gas and nuclear power in the West, by massively financing the groups most likely “naturally” to oppose it: environmentalist organizations.
30
If a nation has organisations that wants to commit economic suicide why wouldn’t they accept donations to make it happen?
10
Nothing about AGW makes sense, since it is a myth.
00