By Jo Nova
The Blob sets “The Science Trap” — and conservative politicians get caught every time
The Bureaucratic Blob Team brag about following “The Science” but the truth is, they fund only the questions they want answered, they sack the scientists who disagree, then they call everyone names who thinks differently. They’re not open to debate or ideas, they rule through ostracism and cancel culture — demanding people believe “The Science” — and mocking them as simpletons if they don’t — it’s like a cult or perhaps a kindergarten.
Conservative politicians leave themselves defenseless because for decades they keep funding the same Blob Science Institutions with the same Blob-incentives. When research groups are paid to find a crisis, they’ll keep hunting til they find one.
Last week in the debate, the Australian opposition leader, Peter Dutton said the dreaded line: “I’m not a scientist” and then had to say the next day “I believe in climate change” just to quell the uproar. It was the classic mindless science trap. It’s a hundred agencies paid to speak jargon versus one politician with no tech support.
Imagine if he had said the Coalition is going to fund the science research the Labor Party won’t?
None of our climate models can tell us whether next summer will be a BBQ scorcher or a wet blanket. The models are failing because they are missing nearly everything about The Sun. They treat our nearest star like it is a light globe, ignoring the solar magnetic field which is bigger than the solar system, the electric field, the sun spot cycles, and the way sun’s output of UV light changes. Our current best climate models all assume these effects are zero. They assume the solar wind which batters Earth at a million miles an hour has no effect at all. Isn’t it time we set up a dedicated agency to find out what role the sun has?
Don’t we owe it to the koalas, the children (and the taxpayer?)
We know some factor on the Sun affects ground water recharge rates, streamflow in rivers, jet streams, lightning in Japan and even jelly fish plagues. In the 1800s we knew solar cycles affected the price of wheat. Two hundred years later we still don’t know why there are so many links between the solar cycles and our climate. When the sun is quiet, there are more floods in central Europe, the prevailing winds shift in Chile, and winters are warmer in Greenland. Something is going on. All the warming we’ve seen since the Little Ice Age could be entirely due to the increase in solar activity.
What if the Sun is causing the warming and we’re spending hundreds of billions trying to reduce CO2 and it’s irrelevant?
Who did that due diligence before we spent half a trillion dollars trying to change the weather? Hands up? Anyone?
Why aren’t we investigating The Sun’s role in Climate Change? (Because we’re afraid it’s real?)
Big-Government politicians strangle science. They pour money in to find out “how bad man-made climate change is” but virtually nothing goes into asking how “good” our emission are, nor whether the Sun has the commanding role, and we’re irrelevant. Where is the institution dedicated to finding out how the Sun drives our climate? There isn’t one. There are a few researchers who trip over parts of the puzzle, but there is no independent dedicated agency that exists in order to find reasons that the Sun controls our weather.
Australia needs a dedicated Australian Space-Weather-Climate Institute to investigate the effect of the solar magnetic field, cosmic rays and the changes in solar UV on our climate. It needs to be separate from the other conglomerate behemoths of science, or it just becomes another part of The Blob.
We need competition in science, and a free market, not these centralized Soviet conglomerates of science like the CSIRO. Once an agency is trapped inside a big organisation, it can’t say something which makes the rest of the organization look silly. Nor could it publish results that showed the rest of the conglomerate group’s work was pointless. Likewise, Australia has an Australian Space Weather Forecasting Centre (ASWFC) but it’s a part of the Bureau of Meteorology. It won’t be competing with the BoM, or pointing out their flaws on the Channel Nine news.
Australia has RMIT SPACE Research Centre, and the University of Newcastle’s Centre for Space Physics, they are looking at space weather effects on satellites, technology, and advancing the space industry. The CSIRO Climate Science Centre should be looking at the role of the sun, but the CSIRO is 100% Blob. It has bet its “expert” reputation on CO2, lock, stock and barrel.
We need a free market in science — we need that competition
The incentives for science are screwed. Right now scientists serve Big Government and work to get Bigger Government elected. They don’t serve the people.
In a better world the government would fund both science teams and they’d be criticizing each other in televised debates. The media would ask scientists hard actual questions and embarrass them when they were inconsistent hypocrites, or just chronically wrong. The voters could have informed consent…
In an even better world, the voters could vote for their tax dollars to go to particular areas of interest (like say when they fill out their tax return?). That way the scientists would want to serve the public, they’d want to be useful, and they’d be competing with other scientists so they’d speak out when they thought a climate model was useless.
In my favourite world, we’d pay hardly any tax, so we could all afford to donate to the research we liked the most…
Naturally, anything funded by the Government sooner or later becomes part of the Blob. That’s why we have to get the incentives right.
That and Eternal Vigilance.
Photo: CME on the Sun August 31, 2012.
Brilliant comment.
That’s essentially all it would take.
He could follow up by saying that if the Official Narrative is wrong, he will return Australia’s power grid to how it was before Howard started destroying it and save the country from certain economic destruction.
He would need to set a strict end date for such an investigation. Maybe six months.
That would be ample time because there is no new science to discover. Just actual science, not warmist propaganda.
190
Pure science has zero connection to politics or finance.
The closer Science is funded and politicized by finance or media hype, the less it is “science” and more closely approaching paid propaganda. Prove me wrong.
Provable, actual, measurable, history, has shown that AU has gone from affordable and reliable energy to unaffordable/unreliable energy. Completely and totally assignable to political machinations.
Just post the dispatchable power generation capacity and cost per MWH before and after Howard. Ought to take just a few minutes.
101
Sadly the useful idiots in the government and media are too wedded to the AGW myth and once that emperor is shown to have no clothes rather than accept they were blinded by ideology, they will get angrier and find a new sacred cow to worship, with same charletons benefiting financially from the lemmings.
130
Eschenbach and Lizden say there is no correlaation between the sun and Temperature.
I guess one day someone may find something.
71
The LIA was a period of low sunspot activity, in the MWP sunspot activity was high. So there is a sunspot effect on climate that’s slow but significant. One day we’ll find out more about how it works. My guess – no more than a gursz -is that more sunspots leads to less cloud which warms the ocean but doesn’t do much more than change the diurnal range over land.
20
Javier Vinos thinks the sun may play a role over decadal time frames.
https://judithcurry.com/2024/04/18/how-we-know-that-the-sun-changes-the-climate-part-i-the-past/
20
I see the Labor party is targeting Dutts on Nuclear with “quotes” about the alleged $6oob cited by the CSIRO. Clearly Labor (and the Blob) is banking on the public accepting the CSIRO as a reliable outfit, when all of us here know that the CSIRO had both hands and both feet on the scales so as to satisfy the government. How does Dutts counter the ALP/CSIRO hit squad?
90
That CSIRO GenCost report was just propaganda, full of guesses and estimates where actual available data demonstrates that renewables are useless! You would have to be very naive or have your nose in the trough to credit that report.
John
41
Sort of related, regarding the science about CO2, and how that has been corrupted.
Those CO2 vilification ‘agendas’ have all but stopped anyone from even suggesting new technology coal fired power plants, and realistically, THAT of itself (coal fired power) is science as well.
Those new tech coal fired power plants are in fact probably one of the single best forms of power generation there is, and that research alone is ongoing to this day.
That ‘dud’ science has scared people off, and even power generation itself is closely related to science.
If people knew the science behind those 3 current renewable power sources wind, solar and battery, (or even if that was reported) then I’m certain tougher questions might be asked about both coal fired power and renewables.
Don’t get me wrong here, Nuclear power generation is good, but the lead time for that is horrendousy longer, and even the science about Nuclear power generation is also scientifically corrupted as well.
Those who KNOW about all of the above are just too scared to even talk about it at all.
Tony.
150
I’m fine with steam plants, coal/gas/nuke/whatever. But there must be an analysis of the construction and maintenance costs of subcritical, critical, super critical, and ultra super critical conditions.
The creep fatigue failure of steels, nickel iron alloys, yttrium cobalt iron alloys, etc, must be weighed against initial costs, ongoing costs, and such. It doesn’t matter if one goes from 40% thermal efficiency to 55% efficiency if the maintenance and materials costs triple. Yes, higher thermal efficiencies are attractive. But what if you can’t get the proper alloy piping to make a repair on a USC plant? Every step above sub critical conditions has increasing risks, some catastrophic. There’s no “magic” plant design that pushes the limits of metallurgy, physics, and thermo, that does not engender increased risks.
I’m not against USC, just asking that the costs, reliability, liability, and failure analysis, are included in any decisions. Thermal efficiency is not the sole objective.
80
It must be the sun doing the warming because the crazy UK commo govt want to spend 50 million pounds to make it dimmer.
140
Our Sun is a variable star.
Of course it affects the climate.
120
Old fashioned ‘Science’ is a bottom up approach, involving observation, analysing data, experimentation, replication, forming hypotheses, testing predictions and analysing results to draw theories and conclusions.
Progressive ‘Scientism’ is a top down approach, involving rewarding and promoting those scientists who are positive to the wishes of those in authority, while punishing and sacking those scientists who are negative to the wishes of those in authority.
131
The proof is in the pudding. Both Australia’s peak science academies (AAS & ATSE) would be considered woke in any fair minded assessment. They respectively receive c.33 and 70 % of their ($ millions) revenue each year from government sources. As the Upton Sinclair saying analogously goes “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his income depends on his not understanding it”.
140
We live in the greatest period of Human flourishing today compared to the last 250 years or 1000 years or 10,000 years or 300,000 years.
The data is easily found and the reason is the use of fossil fuels and the health and wealth that’s been created since 1770 and since 1950 that has increased at an even faster rate.
Destroying that Human flourishing because we want to “believe” and then use toxic, unreliable W & S is the most unscientific argument that has been advanced for centuries.
When will we follow the available scientific data and wake up? Just see OWI Data and check it for ourselves.
100
“the voters could vote for their tax dollars to go to particular areas of interest”
Not to be a wet blanket but that is how we got into this situation in the first place.
The voters discovered they could vote government largesse to themselves!
120
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” Ben Franklin
30
Wasting time and money on science. Now if he, Dutton would bring in millions even billions in grants/research into bettering such vital interests to the public as My Kitchen Rules, Australia’s Got Talent, Married at First Site, Farmer Wants a wife, the whole plethora of brain debilitating crap pushed out there on the adoring public, he’d gallop in with a resounding majority.
70
great sarc comment
unfortunately Dutton has many issues causing the polls to turn against Libs/Nat
for example –
– he keeps shooting himself in the foot by announcing policies that are unpopular with the hoard of dummy voters that he needs to appeal to
– Dutton seems to be a poor debater
– Dutton is being too nice and too lenient on Albo & Co e.g. he should be listing ALL of Albo Govt mishaps and faults with verifiable facts/data
It may be too late in the pre-election cycle now to sway enough voters?
90
Luckily it doesn’t matter which one gets in, they will be told what to do and they will then tell us what to do…
00
Maybe SATAN is the answer?
https://x.com/JimFergusonUK/status/1915789361221640270
Let the climate warfare begin.
11
IMO – I think the conservative parties should redirect the focus from the physical science and focus on the politics as to why the UN has allowed GHG emissions to go up at record levels thanks to their UNFCCC agreement back in 1992. Following this agreement and the Kyoto agreement a few years later, global emissions rapidly increased, all coming from the non-OECD countries. For every ton of CO2 abated by OECD countries, the non-OECD countries add 4 tons. This outcome is aided by the UNFCCC agreement (plus Kyoto & Paris) that forces developed countries to offshore industry to avoid carbon taxes and meet targets, but gives developing countries a free pass on emissions to allow them to take over industrial production. The climate agreements have increased economic growth in developing countries and driven up global emissions at a much faster rate than would have occurred otherwise, despite reductions in the west, and that’s a very deliberate and intended outcome of the UNFCCC.
Thus, IMO the best way to manage this situation is to simply call out the absurdity and failures of the current climate treaties and framework agreements and demonstrate how they are driving up emissions and also how the RE solutions are destroying western economies at the same time by forcing us to use more expensive and inferior energy sources, which is all in vein. We should simply state that we’ll only start reducing emissions when the UNFCCC agreement is amended to include all countries, which of course will never happen because China controls that outcome in the UN and they have no intention to reduce emissions. By shifting the debate away from the physical science and focusing on the politics and outcomes of the climate agreements it would be much easier to shift public opinion because MSM wouldn’t be able to use science as a shield and they would struggle to defend the failed climate agreements. People need to understand that if the UN has presided over a framework agreement for 33 years that has almost doubled global emissions and have no intentions to change that agreement, then it can only mean that don’t regard CO2 as a problem and therefore we have all been scammed.
50
Some degree of commonsense may be possible to oppose The Blob?
see the video interview of Senator Andy Schmulow –
“Australian People Are NOT In Charge! Senator Andy Schmulow Reveals Shocking Truth”
link – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvZVVZUu1rk
31
““Australian People Are NOT In Charge! Senator Andy Schmulow Reveals Shocking Truth””
If its got the word ‘shocking’ in it, no thankyou, that’s for the bottom half of the IQ chart.
00
Who was the dummy that hobbled Australia by introducing legislation making the establishment of nuclear generation illegal based on the fear of a rogue discharge/uncontrolled escape of radiation. Was it the great Robert J Hawke who was vying for a horse to ride in a Federal election and a PM ship? It was the same bloke who did something similar to Tasmania by stopping the Franklin River Hydro scheme. Just like Albo Tross today who invokes the Green “energy” to sustain his Labor ambitions!
30
In 1998 the Howard govt was seeking approval to build a nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights. The Greens agreed to support it if Nuclear Power generation was banned. So a deal was done and legislation passed.
Yes. It’s ludicrous to think it’s not something to be blamed on the Libs and Labor. But it’s true.
40
The past AEMO reports that I have downloaded and read, as opposed to reports by others about what AEMO does, contained words to the effect that their studies were confined to those that followed current Australian government policy.
When Federal policy was “net zero carbon by 2050”, AEMO chose not to study energy pathways that did not satisfy this policy.
This meant, for example, that AEMO opted out of study of improved coal technology, or natural gas, or nuclear electricity, but did study and report on windmills and solar.
The net effect was that AEMO, central to the choice of future energy production, had barred itself from warning the government whether future energy choices were dangerous or harmful compared to unstated others.
It seems wider than that, not only concerning AEMO.
Australia seems to have NO official body tasked to advise if future energy proposals are dangerous or harmful of not economic or even if there are better options for whatever reason.
We need a neutral watchdog overseeing future energy plans.
Geoff S
50
Let’s talk the science of the most popular issues since 1950.
SLR at tide gauges now about 1.5 mm year or about the same as the 20th century. See Prof Ole Humlum.
Polar bears about 6,000 in 1960 and about 30,000 today.
Death rates from all extreme weather events have dropped by 98% since 1920. See Dr Christy, Dr Koonin etc.
Little warming in Antarctica since 1950 and Ant peninsula cooling since 1998. See Turner BAS survey.
SLs 6 to 9 metres higher during the previous Eemian interglacial and 8 C higher temps then than today in 2025. See co2 Coalition Scientists etc.
Death rates from burns and fires the lowest in 100 + years. See OWI Data, Dr Koonin, Dr Lindzen etc and Australia are the lowest in the OECD among wealthy countries. See OWI Data.
Most Island countries are now higher above seas than they were 40 years ago. See even ABC now using Dr Kench studies.
Aussie east coast now has the lowest sea level since the end of the climate optimum about 4,000 years ago.
Life expectancy was just 28.5 years in 1770 and about 73 years today, see OWI Data Dr Pielke jr, Dr Koonin etc.
More data is available that I’ve linked to many times.
50
For the past 75 years the World’s people have been subjected to the greatest hoax ever devised by mankind namely that a simple molecule CO2 which does not generate heat at all is causing global warming and catastrophic climate change. However the public are not shown the data to support the hoax. Why? There are hundreds of data files freely available on the Internet compiled over the past 75 Years which clearly show that the atmospheric CO2 concentration varies with the seasons. In Springtime the temperature rises causing life to proliferate and CO2 concentration to decrease due to photosynthesis. The temperature reaches a maximum during Summer and the CO2 concentration reaches a minimum. Then during Autumn the annual life forms die and decay as the temperature falls and CO2 concentration rises reaching a maximum during Winter as temperature reaches a minimum. As the seasons are caused by the annual orbit of the Earth around the Sun it is obvious that the seasonal climate change causes the CO2 change, NOT the reverse, and in the opposite direction to the temperature the exact opposite to the claims by the UN/IPCC.
The hoax has been propagated by power hungry persons whose aim is to subjugate us all to their absolute control – no democracy, no freedom of speech or action – as is seen in some of the major countries in the World who have been using the scam to achieve economic dominance by selling useless solar panels and windmills to the gullible nations.
30
I’m in regular contact with a number of politicians and I try to set them straight on the science.
Opposing me is something I’ve been told by a person with first hand experience of trying to teach a Liberal candidate a thing or two about climate. The Libs look at public surveys about issues and they align their policies to the most popular position. I know, this isn’t leading, it’s following.
Worse, it’s following what left-wing governments, and their supporters in the media and Education, have been telling the public for years. Public opinion develops according to the information received, so when that information is skewed in a particular direction, so too will public opinion be.
That, in a nutshell, is why the Coalition refuses to take any notice of what it’s told about climate and energy matters.
50
The longer I live, the more convinced am I that this planet is used by other planets as a lunatic asylum.
George Bernard Shaw
And –
Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.
George Bernard Shaw
10
Those “things” are NOT models and the term is being misused to imply scientific integrity which is completely absent.
00