Home Climate Change Bullshit Not All Scientists Agree

Not All Scientists Agree





There is far from a scientific consensus on climate change
Alan Jones The Daily Telegraph February 17, 2021
Matt Canavan and Bar­naby Joyce were right when they wrote ­recently that, “Australian politics is obsessed with a target to achieve net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050”. In relation to the inability of Australia and Australians to sensibly debate the future of coal, or a responsible energy policy, they wrote, correctly, about current ­climate politics having many “quasi-religious aspects — absolute beliefs that tolerate no dissent — every word accepted as sacred and underwritten with hellish ­climate damnation if not adhered to”.
Amusingly, but tellingly, they wrote that current policy from both sides, “requires people to speak to you from the other side, as many of the politicians and the commentators talking about a 2050 aspiration will be dead by then”.
Of course, the issue is coal.
But when you ask political leaders is the problem carbon dioxide, and what percentage of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide, they haven’t got a clue.
A new report has found that Communist China produces more carbon dioxide emissions in just 16 days than Australia does in an entire year. When will the extreme greens launch a ‘Save the Planet’ protest in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, instead of protesting against jobs and industry.
What sensible politician would write a national economic suicide note over carbon dioxide when it is 0.04 per cent of the atmosphere.
But of that 0.04 per cent, 90 per cent comes from natural sources.
The human content in the air is only 0.0016 per cent.
What the hell are we trying to achieve?
Joel Fitzgibbon, who exhibits some common sense on all of this, makes the very sensible point that China’s coal-fired generation grew by 38 gigawatts last year, equivalent to 19 Liddell Power Stations.
China has 127 new coal-fired power plants in the pipeline; Indonesia, 52; India, 27; Japan, 22; and Vietnam, 17; and we are happy to export $70 billion of our coal so that they can have cheap electricity but deny that to Australians.
Can someone tell me how that makes sense?
Then Joel Fitzgibbon spoils his case by joining with the coalition, ­arguing for net zero emissions by 2050. Where does this nonsense come from?
And now we seem to be getting into bed with Joe Biden and his climate alarmism.
A world authority, Bjorn Lomborg has said that Biden’s climate alarmism is almost entirely wrong.
Trump was maligned for getting rid of all of this baggage, knowing you couldn’t have low cost energy from endless supplies of wind and solar.
Under Trump, the US became an energy exporter for the first time in 60 years, a magnate for energy intensive industries and Trump reversed the decline in manufacturing.
What game are we playing?
It’s only four years ago that Scott Morrison brought a lump of coal to the dispatch box at Question Time, brandishing it as an “irreplaceable ­energy source”.
This is the weakness of prefer­ential voting.
Politicians on both sides are terrified of the Greens, who talk unaffordable and unsupportable rubbish on climate change and ignore whatever “science” doesn’t suit.
Are we now going to have a gas fired recovery.
Hello? Natural gas is also a fossil fuel, that is, an emitter of CO2.
Yes, CO2 is produced by the combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal, petroleum and natural gas.
But underpinning this nonsense is the argument that net zero emissions by 2050 is now almost “a universal consensus”.
Who is going to stand up to people like Mark Carney, the former Governor of the Bank of England, who made a speech to the UN 18 months ago.
In an exercise of extraordinary arrogance, he said simply: “Firms that align their business models to the transition to a net zero world will be rewarded handsomely. Those who fail to adapt will cease to exist.”
Such comments are an abuse of corporate power.
As this debate rages and offers every likelihood that it may determine the next government of Australia, it might be interesting to note a selection from a stack of scientists who have completely ignored this global warming hoax.
Dr John R. Christy, a climatologist from Alabama: “I have often heard that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that human beings are ­causing catastrophic change to the climate system. Well, I am one scientist, and there are many, who think that’s not true.”
Dr Charles Wax, the former President of the American Association of State Climatologists: “First off, there isn’t a consensus among scientists. Don’t let anybody tell you there is.”
Stanley B. Goldenberg, Meteorologist at the UN National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: “It’s a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global ­warming.”
William Kininmonth, the former Head of the National Climate Centre within the Australian Bureau of Meteorology: “Climate science is not settled. Four decades of observations highlight that computer models have exaggerated the influence of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. The Paris Agreement has been negotiated from faulty premises.”
Dr David Evans, the former consultant to the Australian Green House Office: “Yes, carbon dioxide has an effect, but is about a fifth or a tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate.”
Dr Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT: “What we will be leaving our grandchildren is not a planet damaged by industrial progress, but a record of unfathomable silliness, as well as a landscape degraded by rusting wind farms and decaying solar panels.”
Dr Robert Laughlin, a Nobel prize winner for Physics: “You can’t find much actual global warming in present day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geological time, something that the Earth ­routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission, or ­explaining itself.”
Dr Kary Mullis, the Nobel prize winning biochemist: “Those people at the IPCC don’t always tell you the truth. There is nothing in their ­contract, in fact, that makes it to their advantage to always tell you the truth.”
Dr Madhav Khandekar, a Meteorologist and an Expert Reviewer for the UN IPPC 2007 Climate Change Report: “Finding global warming in Canada and elsewhere is like the proverbial finding a needle in a haystack. I’m sorry, there is no global warming anywhere in the world today, April 19, 2019.”
Dr Roy Spencer, Climatologist and former NASA scientist: “This is the state of climate science today. If you support the alarmist narrative, you can exaggerate threats and connections with human activities, fake ­experiments, break government rules, intimidate scientific journal editors and make them resign and even violate the law, as long as you can say you are doing it for the children.”
Might I suggest some of our politicians do a little homework.


  1. What sensible politician would write a national economic suicide note over carbon dioxide when it is 0.04 per cent of the atmosphere.
    But of that 0.04 per cent, 90 per cent comes from natural sources.
    The human content in the air is only 0.0016 per cent.

    If you are reasonably intelligent and have an understanding of percentages (or proportions), that statement makes perfect sense. But it really does seem that a very small percentage (geddit? LOL) of people (including politicians) have enough basic intelligence to understand it.

    I’ve been saying exactly this to people for years and I can see many people’s eyes glaze over when I mention these ‘complicated number things’ which mean nothing to the mind which is programmed by fear. A typical response is “Yeah, but we’ve got to do something to save the planet!”

    It’s exactly the same with the Chinese virus. The average Joe (gender neutral – could be ‘Jo’) doesn’t have a clue. The response is often “But people are still dying. Don’t you care about people dying???”

    Unthinking drones programmed by fear to obey.



    • I heard a good analogy that used the height of Big Ben as an example. I don’t remember it exactly but CO2 was about the last 2inches of the height and man made CO2 was the bird shit on the top.



  2. This post needs to be fully considered along with the “consensus” our Climate Change Commission” claims amongst scientists.

    Our Climate Change Commission may not be as well informed as they claim.



    • Would need to be written in crayon first.
      Be well over her head anyway, too many big words, most of them not spelled correctly, it’s Climade FFS
      Send it to Gay Clarkford and ask him to read it to her when he hasn’t mowed too many lawns and is able to speak nice and slow for her.



Recent posts

Insects On The Menu Soon?

The Risks Of Eating Commercially-Farmed Insects Written by John O'Sullivan Should you eat insects as a staple part of your diet? Not according to the best...

Take Away The Fear Factor.

From Us; I am unvaccinated. I am pure-blooded. I don't comply. I love freedom .......... From Them; Wear your damn mask. You are a terrorist. You are...

29% Of Vaxxed Teens Have Heart Problems

29% Of Vaxxed Teens Have Heart Problems! – New Studies Expose The Fraudulent Vaccines! "This should alarm everyone. We're watching a genocide take place...

Recent comments

B Venton on Have Your Say
Viking on Have Your Say
Pinky1 on Have Your Say
Dougal10 on Have Your Say
I am a stupid boy on Have Your Say
Brigadier General Rissole on Have Your Say
I am a stupid boy on Have Your Say
Komata on Have Your Say

The way we all feel about this useless government

moderate rain
16.3 ° C
16.7 °
16.2 °
93 %
100 %
16 °
16 °
18 °
20 °
18 °
NZD - New Zealand Dollar