Climate change caused by carbon dioxide; wind, solar being able to replace fossil fuels - but no nuclear.

It's all crap.

But, until ordinary people, while they still have a vote, say NO to this nonsense, it will continue.

There is a gloom across Australia - suppressed by people who can no longer think for themselves because they have surrendered to an increasingly totalitarian political/corporate class, the mainstream media, and the rising world government, the United Nations.

Australia is a country in deep denial. The way we are going, democracy will disappear in this century.

I regard climate change as neither a crisis nor a hoax but an insidious problem. The term 'hoax' lacks cachet in a society that is at least somewhat technically literate. The real issue I suggest is Earth's growing population relative to dwindling resources. We have a replacement for coal in the form of nuclear. However I fear our present course led by the conference jetsetting 100% renewables crowd will lead us up the garden path.

Take for example the deluded belief in Australia that gas is a 'transition' fuel and will quickly be replaced by hydrogen and batteries. Too bad if that assumption proves wrong. Already Victoria is running short of gas and WA is rumbling about excessive exports. Therefore it is prudent to decarbonise now to beat the rush for alternatives as well as lower emissions. Every day extreme weather makes the news rightly or wrongly linked with climate change. Calling it a hoax will not change public opinion.

20 years ago my math was still good enough to understand the equations & follow the pretend science. For anyone with even reasonable math it is obvious that CO2 can not be the villain in this story.

I find it hard to understand that so many capable mathematicians can support the scam knowing full well CO2 can not be guilty.

I love the irony of Bob Brown founding the Australian Greens on the basis of opposition to a hydroelectric project and his life long opposition to nuclear energy.

Australia has a PM who takes the UN cult completely at face value. He believes we can have massive population growth plus net zero emissions.

Steve S,
A hopeless scenario at this stage !

Albanese would be quite happy to let the UN take over the running of Australia completely. He doesn't want the responsibility: just the title of Prime Minister and the big bucks.

Albanese takes no responsibility for his own conduct, nor that of his idiotic Ministers, like Bowen, Chalmers and Wong.

Disagree with most of this rant.

That said, if we would address climate change without tanking the economy? Then there is no other choice than nuclear. As MSR thorium and or as MSR nuclear waste burners very safely burning fuel we are paid annual millions to take.

The latter would be the world's cheapest electricity and carbon free into the bargain. Cables could carry this energy to an energy starved world for a far greater net return than we ever got for our rocks.
Alan B.

Serious conservative critics of climate and energy policymaking need to be sure of their ground if they wish to make an impact on the policy debate. Total dismissal of effects of carbon dioxide emissions on the physics of our atmosphere is unwise. Credibility and influence are not helped by denial. The science should be acknowledged, not rejected. The case for better policy remains.

The theory of how carbon dioxide influences heat transfer properties of Earth’s atmosphere is old and respectable (mid-1800s). Its build-up in the atmosphere through our burning fossil fuels is almost certainly influencing global temperatures. Several datasets of global average satellite temperature measurements have been available since around 1970. They agree pretty well. There’s a close to linear warming trend of 0.14 – 0.19 C degrees/decade, which is 1.4 – 1.9C/century. Also atmospheric carbon dioxide measurement has become routine. It’s rising at a rate consistent with our fossil fuel combustion. However those temperature rises are very small. They would probably not have been noticed without the most modern sensitive automated equipment.

So is manmade climate change a hoax? Or a scam? Is there really “no compelling scientific evidence of long-term trends in global mean temperatures or climate impacts that exceed the bounds of natural variability”? Are such allegations a sound basis for influencing climate/energy policy in advanced economies?.

I think not, despite those policies having serious defects that reflect their genesis in an atmosphere thick with exaggeration and scaremongering. The globe isn’t boiling. There’s no imminent catastrophe. The evidence is quite weak that climate change to date is causing extreme weather events (admittedly this is a complex aspect of climate science).

So, how can a sensible conservative influence the direction of climate policy?

The core strategy must be to recognise and reduce the influence that climate activists (and that includes scientists) are having through their tactic of inducing fear by exaggeration. Their plainly ridiculous claims like “global boiling” must be countered with easily presented and acceptable facts. Public terror is dangerous. Poor policy will inevitably result. Fear must be eliminated.

So is manmade climate change a hoax? Or a scam?
TomBie,
No & yes.

Unfortunately with people like Albo, Bowen & a few posters here who could not make change for a $10 bus ticket from a $20 note, with out a calculator, we actually have true believer idiots. While such idiots are elected to leadership we are bound for disaster.

Over 50,000 homes south of Brisbane lost power in a 168Km/H thunder storm Christmas night, due to tree damage to the grid. We along with about 30,000 others are still waiting for re connection, & are advised it will probably be Sunday before we are back on the grid. Meanwhile no phones or internet, & a card won't buy you anything at the shop. A few have had to borrow cash to buy fuel to get to a bank that still works.

I am getting on OK with my 10KVA 3 phase gen set. No electric cooking, air conditioning, & restricted light usage, but otherwise our fridge & freezers are cold, & TV & & many are using our starlink WiFi to make phone calls. Never had so many locals visiting so often.

It feels very much like the extended blackouts we will "enjoy" when idiot Bowen shuts a couple more coal fired power stations. Any falling for the net zero stupidity & plastic money should be here experiencing a foretaste of their future.

PS. It is costing me a bit less than $50 a day for fuel to supply the place. This compared to $85 a day for current mains supply. With about $5,000 spent on improving the system I should be to save over $1000 a year on electricity by generating my own.

"So is manmade climate change a hoax? "

No...but there's a lot of nuance in there. That CO2 levels are increasing due to man's activities is almost certainly true. That higher levels of CO2 lead to higher temperatures is also certain.

But how much higher? Are higher temperatures bad? How good are the predictive tools.

"Or a scam? "

No. But there are scammers involved. The science isn't a scam but those exploiting the science to perpetrate the greatest transfer of wealth ever seen are indeed scammers.

"Several datasets of global average satellite temperature measurements have been available since around 1970. They agree pretty well. There’s a close to linear warming trend of 0.14 – 0.19 C degrees/decade"

Actually since 1980. UAH show increases of 0.13c /decade. Just for comparison, HadCRUT show a similar increase in the 40 years up to 1945 when CO2 couldn't have been a factor, meaning it was natural. Nothing is conclusive here, but if it was natural then, how can we dismiss the possibility that its natural now.

But the science is no longer the issue here. Those who've bought into the fiction of Catastrophic Warming no longer care whether the science bears out their fears.
"The president of Cop28, Sultan Al Jaber, has claimed there is “no science” indicating that a phase-out of fossil fuels is needed to restrict global heating to 1.5C,". But COP28 still called for a phase-out and compliant governments signed up.

Ottmar Edenhofer, (chair of Working Group 3 of the IPCC), advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth...”.

There is no longer any path way to reversing this lunacy other than letting it play out until populations come to realise that they've been sold a pig in a poke and demand change. Many nations have rejected the hysteria and look to economic growth. Others will be forced to do likewise....but how far they descend into the climate quagmire before reversing coarse is unknowable.

There has been an expected temperature rise since 1800, the well known
Little Ice Age at the bottom of the cycle.
It is also known as the Maunder Minimum.
As the temperature rose from that low point to today a whole lot of
people including scientists saw the rise in co2 and jumped on that
bandwagon. In fact it is believed that the increase in co2 was caused
by the increase in plant life caused by the higher temperatures.
The earth has greened over the years.
This half cycle was confused with co2 because the industrial age
started about 1800 with steel making etc.
The whole kerfuffle about global warming is based on that error.

There have been 8 known weather cycles, from Egyptian times to today.
The most well known one was the Medieval Warm period 750 to 1400 when
the Vikings settled on Greenland around 900 but had to leave around
1400 because it got too cold for farming.
We can expect the next cold minimum to be around 2600 to 2800.
The peak warming might be around 2300 to 2400.
The cycle length seems to vary because they depend on a number of
cycles, Milanovitch, sun radiation, sunspots, cosmic rays etc etc.

Much better than examining chicken entrails.

If you examine the daily electricity demand you will see that peak
demand is around 5pm to about 9pm EVERY day.
This means that solar has no part to play in any electrical system as
it stops working just as the demand rises, duh !
Also as any sailor knows the wind drops off at sunset.
Ever noticed yachts coming back to their moorings in late afternoon?
Most are on their motors, sails furled.
Anyway the wind might be blowing somewhere.
The calculations on how many wind turbines are needed is not simple.
Wind turbines produce about 35% of their nameplate rated output over
a year. So to start doing the calculation you have to increase the
number by three. However you cannot put the extra two needed for each onto
the same site they have to be on two extra sites.
Still there might be no wind on two of the three sites so those two
have to be duplicated elsewhere. So now you have five sites all with
the same number of turbines.

That is the starting point. In fact the odds are that a number of times
in a year all five or at least three will have no wind.
From what I have read of this problem engineers given the problem of
deciding how many turbines are needed basically give up and guess that
somewhere between five and twelve times the maximum demand must be installed.

Batteries everyone votes for but they do not look for where you will
get the power and when to recharge the batteries.
Turns out you need to duplicate the whole system because the solar &
wind are busy running the grid already.

I wonder why Blackout Bowen and his public servants did not pick up
a hand calculator and work a few things like that out for themselves.
They might have also found out what is involved in installing 22,000
solar panels a day and 90 wind turbines a month in eight years.

If the Earth is warming - please explain the great snow storm currently in the Northern hemisphere by using CO2.