There is no consensus among scientists. Don’t let anybody tell you there is

If David Attenborough cared about #ClimateChange, he’d spend all his energy ranting at #China & its monstrous carbon&trash emitting empire. Nah. Attack tiny, clean, first-world democracies and demand cash.

There is no global warming anywhere in the world today.

Russia, India and China said climate change should be tackled in other global forums, not at the UN Security Council [File: Charles Platiau/Reuters]
‘Mutual suicide’: US issues stark warning on climate change

Not the U.S., John Kerry of course. This is a scam cooked up by the criminally insane.

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.
.
Continued below the fold.
 
May be an image of text that says "CHINA EMITS IN MORE JUST C02 16 DAYS THAN AUSTRALIA DOES IN A YEAR"
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 in Australia?
 

.
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.

One thought on “There is no consensus among scientists. Don’t let anybody tell you there is”

  1. Attenborough has been a climate nut for years, now I see he is taking it to another level, that the West has to give up a lot to the crappy countries. Spread your wealth, you have too much. He never talks about birth control. Africa is exploding from breeding with no contraceptives, no concerns about bringing another poor mouth to feed into the world. Why? Because the West gives huge amounts of food and aid that makes it possible. The population of much of Africa would be decimated by now if the West did not give them medicine, food and money.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.