Why Climate Spending Does Nothing and Should Be Scrapped.

The industrial burning of fossil fuels has released CO2 that is purported to be responsible for .7 degrees of planetary warming over the last century, and climate models predict it could be responsible for up to another 2 – 6 degrees over the next 100 years. Despite the fact that very few of the climate change predictions made since the late 80’s have come true (think empty dams, no more snow in the UK and an ice-free arctic) if a warmer earth is going to be problem, what can we do about it?

Mainstream thinking tells that leaving fossil fuels in the ground is the answer. According to the IPCC we must act now to reduce emissions substantially in order to reduce climate risks and increase our chances of adapting to a warmer world. Across the globe various carbon pricing schemes, taxes and renewable energy subsidies have been put in place in order to roll back the clock on global carbon dioxide emissions. In Australia we have the Emissions Reduction Fund to which the government have allocated $2.55 billion in order to to help achieve Australia’s 2020 emissions reduction target of five per cent below 2000 levels by 2020. Then there is the $1 billion dollars pledged after the Paris Climate Summit last year, $200 million pledged over 4 years for the Global Climate Fund, and also $200 million dollars pledged to Mission Innovation, a multi-country group whose mission is to accelerate global clean energy innovation. It has been estimated that the overall gross cost of decarbonising Australia’s energy production over the next 20 years will be $60 billion.

But what will we get for those dollars and how much will it affect global temperature? With perhaps the exception of Mission Innovation, which focuses on more on ‘clean’ energy innovation and not carbon reduction, the dollars spent largely serve to increase energy poverty and slow economic growth, by making energy production more expensive. Together with the Renewable Energy Targets we are also heading towards a 23.5% reliance on unreliable renewable energy sources by 2020, and nobody can say with any accuracy exactly how many degrees of future warming these measures will mitigate. Seeing as Australia emits just 1% of the total global carbon dioxide emissions per year, and we are striving to reduce this to 5% less than our 2000 emission levels, we can assume it’s not very much. Meanwhile, worldwide there are 350 gigawatts of coal projects currently under construction, and 932 gigawatts of pre-construction coal proposals in the pipeline. Compare that to Australia’s annual coal production capacity of 29 GWe in 2014, it becomes apparent that our efforts are not only futile, but seriously undermined.

Consider also that global population will continue to rise until at least mid-century, meaning that in order for global carbon dioxide emissions to even remain stagnant, per capita emissions must continually fall proportionate to population growth. We are told that if fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions stabilise at today’s levels, the climate will still warm by .6 degrees over the next 100 years. To achieve this continual reduction in per capita emissions, it means no new cheap energy for the developing world, and somebody would have to stop India, Indonesia and China from building new coal powered plants. A realist knows that this will never happen; it is more likely that globally we will continue on a ‘business as usual’ course. No number of carbon reduction schemes in the West will have any ability to stop this growth and they certainly won’t have any effect on the temperature.

But in rushing to decarbonise, are we on the right track? Alex Epstein, author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels outlines in his book just how much benefit fossil fuel use has been to humanity. By every measure human well-being is better than has ever been. We have cleaner air to breathe free from wood smoke, clean water, sanitation, sturdy homes, modern medicine and modern farming methods all due to the cheap reliable energy that fossil fuels provide. To him, the planet is here for us to modify and improve and in doing so we improve our lives. He even argues that fossil fuels improve the environment, evidenced by the fact that richer, industrialised nations have more measures in place to protect the environment than poorer, non-industrialised nations. By continuing to access cheap and plentiful energy through the burning of fossil fuels we are further equipping ourselves to withstand extreme weather events, and overcome and adapt to any changes a that warmer planet may bring. Mortality rates due to extreme weather events have actually declined by 95% since 1900, due, one can assume, to the protection modern fossil fuel powered technology affords, by way of satellite monitoring and more powerful modes of disseminating information.

Those who hark back to pre-industrialised societies as some sort of utopian existence where man is at one with nature, neglect to realise that without modern civilisation we would be faced with disease, hunger and very short and miserable lives. Those who demonise the ‘dirty fossil fuel industry’ naively forget just how much our modern lifestyles relies on it in order to function. They also forget that ‘clean’ energy sources have their own negative environmental impacts, and that fossil fuels and rare earths are required in order to produce ‘climate friendly’ solar panels and wind turbines.

What is comes down to is risk benefit analysis. No power source currently available is free from negative impacts. Fossil fuels can be polluting, but newer technologies are making it less so. Eventually fossil fuels are going to run out (but much later than the ‘peak oil’ scare had us believe) and at that point motivation to invest in alternatives will be at its greatest. Once alternative energy sources become viable under their own steam, demand for fossil fuels will decline. Our future lies in innovation, human ingenuity and an energy market free from government subsidies and incentives, that will provide us with the platform to develop new energy technology that works. It helps to remember that we don’t actually know with any certainty what the future climate will be; we need to be able to adapt to any future climate problems we may face including rapid warming or indeed global cooling.

Energy policies that attempt to push a move away from fossil fuel consumption before we are really ready have everything to do with ideology and nothing to do with common sense. The billions of taxpayer dollars Australia is spending in order to ‘do something’ about the climate is money down the drain and an example of government waste. It is money that could be better spent on any number of programs that would actually have a beneficial effect on our environment, or on our standard of living.  Our climate dollars will have next to no impact on the climate, and are instead just very expensive tokenism.


Nicola Wright is a writer at LibertyWorks. This article was also published by The Spectator Australia 21 October 2016

Nicola Wright
Follow me

Latest posts by Nicola Wright (see all)

462 Comments on "Why Climate Spending Does Nothing and Should Be Scrapped."

  1. There is a lot of real clean energy technology available being sat upon by the fossil fuel industry to protect their bottom dollar. The influence of this industry on our politicians cannot be overstated – why did America – and Australia go to war in Iraq – to protect these interests. There were never any weapons of mass destruction and the politicians all knew that before they went to war. Bush promoted the war for the oil. So no I will not EVER believe someone who thinks money is more important than the planet on which we live.

    • The main point is, no amount of money by Aussie taxpayers will change the climate. It’s just not possible, we’re too small.

    • LibertyWorks thats like saying that what leaders in society say and do does not impact society. If WE show we are willing to change and actually help developing countries skip the dirty fuel experience, develop expertise and export it WE have an impact far greater than that in Australia. Why should developing countries change if we,as supposed leaders in the world refuse. Also per capita Australia uses the MOST energy in the world! We need to lead from the front. we have the expertise just not the POLITICAL will and people are fast deciding its because our politicians have been bought by vested interests.

    • LibertyWorks Its a natural cycle that has been going on for millions of years. All the Carbon Tax in the world just ain’t going to change a bloody thing.

    • Ken Munyard 7 billion people with their attendant activity has NOT been around for millions of years. Nor have so few humans put so great a demand on the environment. Australia is one of the most wasteful societies – the driest inhabited continent in the world which wastes so much water! The throw away mentality, every year people buy new Christmas trees, ornaments, etc, because its cheaper to buy new than to store things THIS is what we need to be aware of: and the huge environmental damage done by people who put their own wants ahead of the environment . Fossil fuels and their continued use is a symptom of this. Do YOU advocate mining coal over growing food? This is the situation being proposed in NSW. I want food – we now have alternatives for fuel and should be using them.

    • Janet Hogan I despair that there are people in this country that think like you. You have a right to say what you want, just like I do, but you and your ilk are just so off the planet its just not funny. And just what are the clean energy technologies being sat on by the fossil fuel industry. Detail them please.

    • While I agree that fossil fuels can pollute the environment, so called “renewables” are also not exactly pollution free. The production of electric motors, batteries, solar panels and wind turbines also causes major toxic pollution. What we need is a system that produces the highest energy return on energy invested. These high EROEI figures are not provided by wind turbines or solar panels. I think the best soltion is to be found in Generation 4 nuclear, which includes Fast neutron reactors and Thorium reactors.

    • Nuclear is certainly a good alternative to coal, but the rabid greenies will never allow it here. The amount of mining and power that goes into the production of wind turbines is always conveniently overlooked by said greenies.

    • Whether the rabid greenies “allow” nuclear or not, our society needs energy, and solar and wind are simply not capable of supplying an energy surplus sufficient for our needs. So eventually the greenies will be forced to accept the facts.

  2. That means the current govt Direct action/emission reduction fund we can save $2 billion

  3. Why are you pathological liars still here? Time to disappear up your coal fired fundament.

  4. While I agree that “direct action” is a failure as a policy (designed that way) and that the prior use of fossil fuels has helped our technology and economy the idea that those things constitute a reason not to de-carbonise our economy is crazy. That is like saying losing weight is a good thing and continuing past a good weight to starve yourself to death. The situation has changed and the marginal cost to the environment has gone up, it is not just about climate change but the high level of atmospheric (and water) pollution from current coal power plants that never get taken into account when looking at the cost of fossil fuels. Also the implied greater costs for renewables are now much less, sites like this one keep using figures decades out of date.

    • The issue is that even if we taxed ourselves into oblivion (all Australians literally disappeared) it would have no measurable affect in warming. There is nothing we can do, we’re too insignificant. Conversely, our contribution to the problem is also insignificant. Under these circumstances it’s illogical to waste taxpayer money on programs that make no impact on the problem.

    • LibertyWorks So If I commit a murder and argue that in terms of the global crime rate it is insignificant that’s OK? It is the same quality of logic.

    • Can tax do that? Make people disappear?

    • LibertyWorks, haven’t you and your ilk made enough money? How much money do you need? And don’t forget when all our rivers run dry and all our soil is dust and we cannot grow any more food and our oceans are dead with no more fish, you cannot eat money

  5. Whether or not you believe in man made climate change is not anything to do with whose science is correct, but your choice of ideology, politically. Just as many Christians dismiss scientific evidence and rational thiinking over faith,

    • So by that analysis not believing in man made climate change is just as irrational as believing in it? I can buy that.

    • John William Tapscott You can believe anything you want, but I will take the overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is fact and that the primary cause is the use of fossil fuels. It is the responsibility of organisations like libertyworks t use FACTUAL evidence that the scientists are wrong

    • Keith, we’re not arguing against the science. We’re arguing that there’s nothing Australians can do about the issue because we’re too small and insignificant and the spending is just a huge waste of taxpayers hard earned.

    • Keith Ainsworth, that’s certainly how it appears on the available evidence, but that wasn’t my point. It was stated that it was more a matter of your choice of ideology than of rationality. That was what I was responding to if you can view it rationally.

    • Our coal exports are not small at all, we are 5th largest producer of coal. Add tnat to our emissions and we could definitely have an affect

  6. I think that we all now know that the concept of anthropogenic climate change is a scam. Over the centuries science is littered with theories that eventually prove to be wrong, and ACC is another one of these. Of course all this money being spent is a complete waste. But because the PC brigade has got far more influence than is should have governments around the world are too frightened not to spent money to appease the scammers. Are our dams empty? Do we need these very expensive desalination plants? Of course not. Just a small example of the ludicrous claims by so-called climate change “scientists.”

    • You speak for yourself

    • I don’t think it’s quite rational to depend upon economically rational arguments to support scientific claims. There have been many scientific claims in history that have been repudiated on economic, or other, grounds only to have been proven true, on scientific grounds. If you claim to have rationality on your side you need to be consistent or your rationality evaporates. In the 19th century Dr Ignaz Semmelweis drastically reduced the incidence of puerperal fever in the maternity ward by insisting staff thoroughly wash hands before physically examining patients. He was ridiculed by the medical establishment. Later Louis Pasteur demonstrated the existence of microbes which supported the work of Semmelweis. At the time Semmelweis’ claims were considered to be ludicrous. In science, just as in any rational discipline, it does not pay to be dogmatic. As for ACC, I don’t think all the evidence is available except to those with closed minds given to irrational pronouncements. We simply do not have all the evidence.

    • John William Tapscott We never have all the evidence on all subjects. We must move on the evidence that we currently have. The “evidence” that you and John Kelly use is totally irelevant.

    • Keith Ainsworth you make that comment on the evidence because you know the ACC “evidence” that you and your ilk believe in has been tampered with to “prove” ACC exists. Ever heard of the hockey tick graph? Ever heard that so-called climate models NEVER match reality and consistently over-estimate potential future temperature rises by 2.5 to 3 times? In the industry I work in, if our computer models were this inaccurate we’d be out of business in no time. But for climate change alarmists there is no real economic penalty for being wrong, you just blissfully wander along through life in a misty cloud of ideology.

  7. Yeah, that’s a stupid point ti make mate. That’s the equivalent of saying ‘we can’t catch all the murderous crininals in our society and more will always pop up so we might as well get rid of the police and make it legal.’

  8. While I agree that fossil fuels can pollute the environment, so called “renewables” are also not exactly pollution free. The production of electric motors, batteries, solar panels and wind turbines also causes major toxic pollution. What we need is a system that produces the highest energy return on energy invested. These high EROEI figures are not provided by wind turbines or solar panels. I think the best solution is to be found in Generation 4 nuclear, which includes Fast neutron reactors and Thorium reactors.

    • Certainly Nuclear should be in the market mix. Some argue it’s too expensive but we should Legalise it and let operators determine the risk-reward equation.

    • Risk-reward when we all share the risk of a Fukushima in our own backyard? Are you off your rocker?

  9. climate change well that has been happening for how long and then the corporate led governments and some paid cronies start a rumour how long ago and now we as tax payers are paying a tax for what makes me laugh but on the other side i do not have a problem with looking for alternative fuel supplies as long as we are not ripped off like we are today

  10. what complete drivel.

  11. But the climate farce is advancing the New World Order of global governance, so it is “useful” in that respect.

  12. Nuclear only clean and green alternative.

  13. On the site only one agrees – Go Gary Smith?

  14. funny funny stuff. North west passage open. Black cockatoos in Australia (birds that thrive in 110 degree plus heat) falling dead out of trees due to heat stress, Antarctic snow at record lows, and predictions about frigid sub antarctic winters are all true. What exactly is the point of the article? Was it to brainwash the weak minded? Was it to satisfy the rednecks in the dinosaur fuel industries? Or is it just to make yourself feel like you have contributed to the cause. Oh and BTW the temperature is 2.5 degrees farenheit. Sorry to correct just one of your many mistakes, but I haven’t got all week to count the ways you are incorrect.

  15. Liberty Works,where would you like the money put.Maybe more subsidies for Gina and co.Get Lyonjon more guns.It has to start somewhere.I come from SA and nothing wrong with renewables

    • Good question. Given that spending of taxpayers dollars makes no difference to the rate of warming we think it makes more sense to let taxpayers keep their money and spend it how they wish. And, if you’re still reading, subsidies and grants to mining, fossil energy or any other companies for that matter should also be ended and left in the hands of taxpayers.

  16. Good article. Of course the numbskull sheeple who subscribe to the new socialist world order will try to replace the scientific facts with their deluded factless opinion.

  17. Steve, you do realise that however much you support the LNP and think that Rinehart et al are great people, you will NEVER join that club, you will NEVER be considered their equal, you will NEVER be a billionaire and no matter how much you suck up to people like them, they will only ever despise you ?? Give up being a shill, it won’t work.

  18. Why we take any notice of these climate change crackpots is completely beyond me. We have all our political parties trying to outdo each other with higher and higher emission reduction targets and more and more renewable energy and nothing we do in this country will make any difference whatsoever. We been paying this alarmist Flannery big money for years and every prediction he’s made has been 100 p c wrong

  19. The only thing spending on the Climate Change SCAM does is line the pockets of those in on the SCAM

  20. They are not spending they are filling the pockets of the corrupt.

  21. You lost me at “purported”.

  22. What is this got to do with the concept of liberty?

  23. And this is an example of one of the reasons why I have not and will not “Like” LibertyWorks.

  24. FFS get off my news feed. I’m sick of seeing this dinosaur drivel.

  25. Garbage. Burying your head in the sand works if you want to be ignorant.

  26. when we had a carbon tax under labour our bills went us .then the liberal party abolished the carbon tax and promised us our bills would decreased .BUT our bills still went up .unless government stop being gready our power bills will still increased

  27. Nothing wrong with clean air

  28. Who touts this garbage? We all have a responsibility to get off the fossil fuel bandwagon or we destroy the world for future generations.

  29. what is this drivel. Piss off my feed.

  30. Australia got the lowest emission in the world

  31. Climate change is the biggest ” scam” ever produced. Many scientists have claimed this but have not been able to speak out because of threats. It is a ” money grabbing” scam and therefore is being promoted and visiously protected. I hope the day will come when the world will know the truth of how they have been “scammed”

  32. Aninimal power was phased out with advent of Steam, which in turn suffered at the inovation of the Oil engine. Coal and Oil are surpassed by innovation in captured CO2, also known as R744. At +80*C CO2 has 10,000 bar force, Steam at +100*C has 1 bar force. A CO2 turbine may be externaly heated or it may provide its own heating. Fossil fuel brought us a long way, but now innovation has seen its need reduced.

  33. G get it right i have proof of it just take a gander.

  34. Haha, most of the money gets wasted and little goes to anything of value.

  35. Who gives a rats arse, Australia is 18 on the list of global emission levels.
    If Australia cuts its emissions by 50% which is impossible what change to the world levels would that make.
    Yes absolutely no change at all.
    We produce 409,000 KT.
    The world total is 35,669,000 KT.
    China alone produces 10,500,000KT.
    So what the hell can Australia do.
    Australia is a piss arse little country

  36. my idea of liberty is the liberty to live in a liveable planet, not one in the control of corporatocracy and greedy bastards who want liberty to make money without any pesky constraints. Oh, and that kid in the photo is Liberty too.

  37. Why don’t you all take a look at the radiation from Japan leaking into the ocean and has been for ages .

  38. John Ramsay. Darren Howard. Peter Miller.

  39. who recalibrated my thermometer?

  40. And now, it’s claimed, in our lifetime, the Earth is the greenest it’s been. CO2, promotes plant life. This is part of how the Earth is adjusting to change.

  41. Many alternate energy sources can be implemented and need to be.

  42. More mindless propaganda from Liberty Works and the other stooges of the fossil fuel industry.

  43. God the truth hurts you mugs

  44. What a load of crap..

  45. “LibertyWorks Inc. advocates for the adoption of principles and policies which minimise the coercive influence of governments over citizens.” Oh a libertarian organisation Excellent. How about we repeal all those laws against me hacking into your bank accounts and stealing your money. Or those against armed robbery, or assault Oh wait, you only want the government to interfere less when it suits you. Hypocrites.

  46. I see there is a report from Russian scientists that we are approaching an ice age? Certain energy cycles in our Sun have reduced heat output. The last known ice age was caused by the polar caps melting causing more water to be evaporated resulting in more snow falling and hence increasing polar ice. If true, seems to be a natural earth occurence

  47. What a complete load of crap. The scientific and practical evidence that human induced carbon emissions are changing the climate in a major way. Wake up idiots !!!!

    • Can you suggest you read the article? Our point is that Australian taxpayers will never be able to control the climate and reduce warming, we’re simply to small and insignificant contributors to the problem.

    • LibertyWorks That’s actually not true, Australians are per capita one of the highest emitters of dangerous gasses and contributions to the problem. To suggest we can’t do anything about it is either blatantly dishonest, or just very, very poor research, since there is a considerable amount that can be done, both through government action and on a more personal, voluntary basis (especially if we reduce per capita emissions on a household level, where the real damage is being done currently). You either are spewing meaningless propagandist twaddle, or you honestly don’t know what you’re talking about. Stick to promoting freedom of expression and defending the rights of people to be free of widespread surveillance from the bloated, gargantuan bureaucracy of the national security state, on those issues you may actually talk sense.

    • The environment doesn’t care about per capita emissions. We are insignificant and if the population of Australia disappeared if the face of the earth (ie zero emissions) it has no significant impact on warming. There’s no point spending taxpayer’s money, it makes no differences. That’s the math, I hope you’re not denying the math?

    • LibertyWorks I have just pointed out both the logical incoherence and statistical falsity of your absurd argument. Merely repeating the same point does not disprove my counter-example. The math is very clear, making a contribution will reduce the global emissions, and furthermore, I never claimed that Australia alone can solve the problem, I merely said that claiming us taking action will do nothing is both false and fatuous. Other nations of course need to take action as well, but it’s a false dog-whistle to say Australia has nothing to do and can’t be useful to reducing the overall problem. The SCIENCE is clear on the question, as well as the MATH, in response to your argument.

  48. Let’s go see what Venus is like, with an atmosphere full of greenhouse gasses. Oh yeah, hot enough to melt the entire planet surface.

  49. It’s a world wide public rip off

  50. Just how are you being ripped off exactly? All the best analysts in the world – and that includes many corporate ones – state that timely action on climate change makes sense economically and environmentally. Money to be made in that renewable energy market. Might be a little more informative than reading coal marketing fiction by the flunkies here. BTW: Read any science lately? You can get help with the three syllable words… you only have to ask.

  51. Let’s just assume for a moment that everything about climate science is untrue, (that’s not the case, but bear with me). Let’s assume the Earth is not warming, it’s all a hoax. Let’s assume you believe that. Ok, now, the obvious question is, what if you’re wrong? We don’t have another planet on which to conduct this experiment. If we get it wrong, that’s it. We have no right to play games with the future of the human race like this, the planet doesn’t belong to us to that extent. In much the same way as we have no right to simulate a nuclear war to see if it would really destroy the world as some models predicted it would. This world is the only one we have, and if we look after it too avert a problem that turns out not to be real (it is real, but I’m speaking for the benefit of the delusional who believe it isn’t now), then believe me, that’s the best thing that can happen. Maybe nothing will happen (unlikely), but if it does, and we’re not prepared, it’ll be too late. Are you confident enough to risk your own lives, and that of 7.4 billion people to really back up those demagogic dog-whistles about it being useless?. Maybe the deniers are right (they’re not, but for argument’s sake I’m speaking in hypothetical terms), but I’m not confident enough in them being right to stake my life, and the lives of my fellow creatures on that presumption, and anybody else who is not pathologically insane should come to the same conclusion. If you deniers are wrong (which you are), then we are screwed if we don’t take necessary action.

  52. Whether Australia “takes action” on global warming or not is absolutely irrelevant, both options lead to the same thing – no change. Those that wish to spend taxpayer’s funds on warming need to explain why we should do so knowing that it makes no difference.

  53. What rubbish
    Who is funding this dodgy organisation?

  54. Global warming is bullshit .The climate cycles and that is just nature. Any interference by man will be either ineffective or disastrous. LEAVE MOTHER NATURE ALONE, SHE KNOWS BETTER THAN ARROGANT IDIOT HUMANS

  55. No need of any fuel, fossil or not!

  56. I’ll bet you don’t believe in evolution either. Just because the changes are slow doesn’t mean they aren’t happening. One only has to look at the increased amounts of carbon in the atmosphere in the past 200 years to see that it coincides with the industrial revolution and the use of carbon based fuels. It is ridiculous to state that carbon fuels do not increase the CO2 in the atmosphere and that this increase is not responsible for global warming. CO2 has increased temperatures in the past and it is man made CO2 that is currently causing global warming.

  57. How about worrying about the nuclear waste spewing into the Pacific Ocean from Fukushima ???

  58. So many amateur scientists. Good job we don’t rely on them for medicine, we’d still using leeches… Do they know all the same thing?

  59. If anyone cares to check this: “In 1091 a TORNADO destroyed 600 homes in LONDON” ….. and tell me what climatic condition existed then that was caused by MANKIND.. Also clarify how MANKIND caused sea water to rise THOUSANDS of YEARS AGO, that submerged the land link between New Guinea & Australia. I’m not a scientist, simply someone asking SIMPLE QUESTIONS

  60. With a lot of the sea blighted with radiation from Japan now reaching America I do not think we have much to worry about as it is still spilling radiation

  61. Yes the Earth is flat. And yes best to wait until all the fossil fuel is gone before we look for alternatives

  62. Modeling is not science!!

    • Unless you have perfect knowledge of something, then every attempt you make to understand it is modelling. All science is modelling – whether it’s computer models of climate, or mathematical models of particle physics, or conceptual models of chemical bonding, or statistical models of sociological phenomena, or descriptive models of disease progression, or…

      Also, all our “common sense” understanding of the world is models. We have mental models of our surroundings, or of the people we interact with – we think we know how our partner will react to some comment, because we have a conceptual model built up from all of our past comments to them; but that model is imperfect, meaning we’re often wrong! When we make a mistake, we update our model – make it more accurate – and try to use this better model next time; but no matter how accurate it becomes over time, it’s still an imperfect model.

      Pretty much all of our knowledge is built on models of imperfectly understood phenomena – because the only way to avoid the need for models is to have perfect understanding!

  63. CO2 passing through hot water aquires the same temperature. Its takes 332Kw to heat one litre of water +80*C in one second. One litre of +80*C CO2 per second converts by turbine generator to 600Kw. Otherwise known as overunity.

  64. Why not concentrate on running cars on water? Is this not clear hypocrisy

  65. Who cares about climate change anyway? Fossil fuels are a finite resource and therefore we have all the information we need to conclude, logically, that we must reduce our dependence on them and eventually stop using them altogether.


  67. You’ve got to be joking.

  68. One wildfire or bushfire as we call them here in Australia puts more ” crap” into the ozone layer than mankind does in 5 years!! And don’t get me started on volcanoes which have been around since day dot!!!

  69. You people are shameless and incredibly stupid. The only liberty you’re interested in is the liberty to destroy the earth.

  70. As soon as they have been forced to give up the climate myth, they will be onto another one. “The sky is falling down”, shows the fear of man. He should be scared!

  71. So the solution is to just let it happen and watch humans and other species die? If you do not accept science then why be hypocrites and use it? Get off your computers, use snail mail, witch doctors, chanting, herbs for illnesses and don’t forget to wave as you fall off the earth. What a bunch of idiots

    • julie bains so obviously you dont drive a car?? use electricity ect ect ect

    • Actually I do not drive a car and I have had solar since 2011. I did not get the solar bonus because O Farrell cut off the bonus system two days after I signed the contract for them. Despite that because I have 12 multi crystal solar panels I have not paid one cent for my electricity since I had them installed and cost so called ‘taxpayers’ nothing. I just wish people who fall for the BS of deniers could see how much better renewables are, I live with them, they are excellent and you have been conned into being ripped off by fossil fuel companies and do not even know it

  72. Julie Bains, we’re not saying doing nothing is the “solution”, just that it’s the only rational option because our current spending does nothing anyway. By the way, who is saying the human species will die because of this? There are many positives from warming, it’s not all negative.

    • I suggest you educate yourselves and stop supporting fossil fuel industries Try this site it has all the answers you need to answer your queries http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

    • Tell that to the Pacific Islanders who live underwater. This is about the stupidest thing you’ve said so far. Warming beneficial? On a planet that is balanced on a climatic knife-edge? There’s nothing Libertarian about this page, it’s nonsensical babble.

    • Lachlan, can you PLEASE point out ONE area where the islands are being inundated as a reason of rising SEA LEVELS .. and NOT sinking land mass, or having the sand over coral being washed away .. as it was ONCE washed there onto?? Cocos Island, the Australian protectorate in the Indian Ocean has a max. ht of 2000mm above sea level. There has been NOT ONE whisper of land being inundated … or do we have the fact that water finds its own level being made a lie of???? Remember the Marshall Islands were the area of atomic testing .. hence the substrate is …. slightly weakened?? and they are after all atolls with a covering of sand, and there HAVE been more serous storms and storm surges over the past decade or so ..

    • Jorge a lot of islands

    • Jorge Roshkov yes the more serious storms are the exacvt consequence of climate change – its not just a gentle extra 2C on our temperatures it means more extreme weather across the world as the earth tries to maintain equilibrium. Storms will be more severe, droughts ,onger, but floods and rain heavier when they happen. More extreme winters and summers and this is happening NOW.

    • If you want to talk about sea leaves rise, why don’t you consider another aspect that is most likely the cause of any sea leaves rise, not that it’s actually rising. The earths plates are still moving just like they were a million years ago and just like they will move in another million years.
      This movement is causing some islands and continents to rise and others to fall.
      See the climate scientist experts only consider arguments to support their theories. Iceland for example, is growing an inch a year (if I remember). So what do you think happens to water levels when that happens.
      Shorelines are certainly receding, but is that erosion, because if you look at harbours, the water levels are still the same as they were 40 yrs ago.

    • wow.. you idiots

    • Trevor Elvery

      “If you want to talk about sea leaves rise, why don’t you consider another aspect that is most likely the cause of any sea leaves rise, not that it’s actually rising. The earths plates are still moving just like they were a million years ago and just like they will move in another million years.

      This movement is causing some islands and continents to rise and others to fall.”

      The sinking and raising of certain landmasses as a result of tectonic movement does not occur at the speed with which some Pacific Island nations are seeing their landmass disappear.

      “See the climate scientist experts only consider arguments to support their theories.”

      That is not how the scientific method works, nor is it how climate scientists operate. The fact is that the vast majority (over 95%) of climate scientists seem to have reached an overall consensus in regards to climate change, and this is inconvenient to you and some others.

      As a result, you accuse the researchers (who have decades more professional experience and education on the topic than yourself) of falling prey to cognitive biases, when you yourself are in fact ignoring strong evidence that opposes your views, simply because the cognitive dissonance involved makes you uncomfortable.

    • Julie Bains I suggest your reread the article before calling us warming skeptics.

  73. You still haven’t told us who is funding “LibertyWorks”

    • Koch Bros, Gina Rinehart… or some such malignancy. Part of the ‘Big Tobacco’ cherry picking/ sow doubt method of misinformation marketing. They think we are as dumb as them. That would be a major flaw in this marketing exercise.

    • Ah yes, it’s those mysterious “Koch Bros” again. Ever stop to think that people might see through the CAGW BS for themselves without funding from alarmist go to favourites? In any case, the CAGW scenario is funded by George Soros and other billionaires. Who cares who funds what?

    • Why won’t they tell us?
      If I wanted advice on the health effects of smoking I would ask an employee of a tobacco company

  74. Thats the ‘scaremongering’ part of it Julie. You are led to believe that if we don’t do something, then something really terrible is going to happen! You believe chicken little.

  75. This is the future yesterday’s people. You’re going to be left alone eating coal dust soon enough. We think you’ve already done enough damage to the Planet. Time to embrace the inevitable. Or are those nano brains just not up to it? https://thinkprogress.org/more-renewables-than-coal-worldwide-36a3ab11704d#.73h4cw790

  76. Sounds like the liberal,greens supporters want to suck on the teats of government income

  77. Us commie greenies want to suck on your income. That’s our master plan.

  78. John Ramsay. Darren Howard. Karl Walters.

  79. How much government income is being given out as subsidies to fossil fuel companies?
    Not to mention indirect support in the form of mega freeways which force people to use cars rather than neglected public transport

    • How much govt income is derived from “fossil fuel companies”? In Oz at least, bucketloads. Almost as much as they make from smokers.

    • And if we got our energy mostly from renewable energy companies then they would pay taxes too
      The difference would be that there would be a reduction in carbon emissions

  80. The great climate hoax has sucked so many people in..
    Media fueled garbage to sway opinion to suit the carbon tax racket..
    Time the fools woke up and start to listen to the truth seeking scientists instead of those who just say what the government that funds them want them to say.
    Natural cycles of the earth have always changed and all this crap we are being fed is fear mongering to justify a fraudulent carbon tax.
    Wake up.

  81. Agreed. General public are taking to solar power for themselves with a Tesla battery…

  82. if aussies turned everything off for ayear it would only make a weeks difference to the world prove me wrong the chinese have 1 billion people the indians i billion aust 25million what a hoax on aussies dumb greens dumb labour party

  83. MOST Modern Power Stations HAVE ‘Catalytic Converters’ – Plants (Vegan Meat) adore CO2 !

  84. Damian Curtain Why haven’t we responded to your demand about how we’re funded? Maybe we don’t want to pop the prejudices many seem to hold.

    But really it makes no difference so… we are funded by individual donations and membership fees. As a matter of principle we do not take funds from government, We have not taken any money from mining, tobacco, any political party or affiliate, Gina, Koch Brothers or any other corporate (but we have not rule out corporate donations in the future).

    We are as much against crony capitalism where big companies obtain special privileges, grants, tax breaks and any other favours from government as we are against climate spending waste. For example, we dislike the banking oligopoly supported by government because it artificially inflates bank profits at the expense of consumers (as do countless other instances of government meddling). But we especially dislike government wasting taxpayers money directly on programs that don’t work. You can all think of some examples of waste (pink batts anyone?). The crime of it is that taxes are taken from everybody and thrown around like confetti; we don’t like that, people work too hard for that to happen And, as it happens, we think that trying to Control Climate is another monumental waste. Why? Because our $60B of spending will do nothing to reduce global warming. We are too small. Whether we spend or not spend achieves the same result – nothing.

    NOTE: we are not arguing against the base science, we are simply delivering the bad news that our taxes can’t fix this problem.

  85. OK first have you lived long to see what it was like in the 60th i have so you better come up with some thing to get me to believe a lot of this i remember when i was about 16 i think working out on a station when we were payed off because of the dry and it was bad water was for the station was getting hard to keep it up and the old fellas i was working with said it them thing they firing in the air i believed it because i new no better first we had the o zone then they started calling it names now it climate chance well as long as i have lived it was there some years hotter then other scare kids at school and the beleave think what happen to the in land sea were a lot of your salt came from one time me maybe it going back to what it was in land sea that is climate chance use your brain your shelf not other people useing it for you.

  86. Its called weather

  87. What a cool tribe of scientists you all are… next time you travel off the edge of the world send me some photos of what our world looks like out of the your window.

  88. What a totally ” fabricated” story!!

  89. Awhole lot of rubbish!!…

  90. Carbon tax don’t work…Ask the Labour partie.. what happened to the $75 billion ours raised..where is it…?

  91. Read excellent article .Very informative

  92. Now tell us who is funding “LibertyWorks”

  93. This post is funny. You dumb cunts who actually fall for this fossil fuel funded think tank propaganda are doing a great job of branding yourselves stupid. Keep it up, go spastic!

  94. Of course it goes without saying you are biased, so you have no choice but to deny the undeniable.

  95. you guys can’t explain why ocean acidification is off the scale. In fact you can’t explain it so you deny its even happening. Yet all you need is basic schoolboy chemistry and a chemistry kit and you can prove it for yourself. There are also ways you can proe for yourself that the earth is not flat.

  96. Go Alex!!!! This LibertyWorks mob are yet another group trying to promote the idea that ignorance is some sort of badge of honour. Go for ’em!

  97. A professor went on tv last week and said an ice age is coming

  98. This UN. Sponsored GREEN Garbage propaganda, is designed to tighten the screws on our freedoms; and destroy the WEST.
    Meanwhile; these criminals are deliberately muddying the waters with MASSIVE worldwide weather manipulation by HAARP and GEOENGINEERING.

  99. Yoby; who is responsible for these graphs?


  101. Climate change statistics are all crap adulterated by vested interests !

  102. Its simply the greatest insulting filthy scam of the last century

  103. Of course there will be opponents to this article, but what differs people who don’t buy the end of the world to the fanatics is the fanatics can’t help shouting down those who question climate change

  104. Its a mess to be sure. The people that should be governing dont want to..the people elected are pupets to the corporations…its no secret…how do you change the train of thought against manipulating the thought…we can post all day…

  105. Well, all I can say is, another Taxi caught fire out here – going by images, it was a Camry – possibly one of those explosive hybrids, with Lithium batteries.

  106. Why is the Old Labor Party Closing down Power Stations??

    • Neither the Labour Party or gov own the fucking power stations so it’s not them closing them down, and why don’t the fucking gov own them you say ? Well your liberal party sold them, got it yet????

    • They will never get it there’s no cure for stupidity especially when it’s this wilful. I have solar power so I know all about the lies the people who set up sites like this in the service of the fossil fuel fossils, tell. They are completely shameless.

    • Antonia Hildebrand l know because l have solar panels what a dickhead. How were your solar panels made dimwit, did you wake up one morning go to the toilet look in the bowl and there they were. Where do you think your panels were made, let me guess in a rain forest surrounded by rainbows and power coming from the bicycles powered by Tim Flannery and Al gore. No lm thinking from the biggest polluters on the face of the earth China, so before you go thumping your chest because you think you did your bit because you have solar panels think again. Me l will be glad l can turn my computer , flat screen telly, phone, air conditioner and everything else l own that’s run by a coal powered power station because l can. Solar panels ☀️☁️

    • Jodie Hughes you fail to concede that China has increased its renewable energy targets to 40%. You also failed to note that the biggest per capita polluters on the planet are not Chinese, they are in fact Much closer to home. The fact that coal fired power creates the raw materials to manufacture renewable energy plants is irrelevant and shows a common flaw in the logic of deniers. The more renewable energy things we produce from coal power the less coal we need to burn thus winding back carbon emissions. Eventually your precious household does not need coal power to run, call me prescient. By the way thank you for informing us that people who choose to use solar panels are dickheads, very mature.

  107. Catalytic Converters ? Maybe PLANTS Are Pleased as they USE CO2.

    • Talking to all of mine & as with my blades of grass too, they are telling me ” Give us more,more more they are shouting & screaming at me ! ” don’t you hear them ???

  108. Really? Full of straw arguments and based on false assumptions. Fail. When 97% of the scientific community supports the hypothesis and supporting data, only a fool would subscribe to the conspiracy theory. Malcolm Roberts is your typical denier, enough said.

    • No. 97% of the climate science funded researchers agree with cherry picking random data points and ignore the average, in order to keep getting funded.
      But the one undeniable fact is, climate spending, and carbon pricing, does nothing for the problem whether false science or not. Do your own research and don’t trust what either side tells you, because they’re both bullshiting for they’re own agendas.

    • Greg McNamara No your assertion is not fact, it’s opinion based on a very suspect generalisation. Yes some proponents are guilty of cherry picking but overwhelmingly the hypothesis that rate of climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels is a real threat is supported by the evidence from a wide range of scientific disciplines. Your claim that that carbon pricing does not work is undeniable is most certainly deniable and is incorrect. It’s not an equal debate as the deniers in the scientific community are very very guilty of cherry picking and are in the very small minority. To suggest that both sides of the debate are not telling us the truth is a ignoring the actual issue. When the scientific community is 97% to 3% one way I doubt the credentials of fence sitters. Who else are we supposed to believe? Are we expected to reject all the evidence? Really?

    • Greg ur a gronk. Its real its happening its gonna effect all of our kids futures. Millions if not billions of hydrocarbons being released equals global environment change simple as that.

    • Mark Tognolini when one of their sages describes himself as a “reformed leftie” I think we get the idea of what Libertyworks is all about. An IPA wannabe with its loony bin laden (pun intended) with Keynesian trickle down conservative “I’m alright Jack stuff you” ideology.

    • What false assumptions are those Geoff? The article is based on the premise that climate science as it stands, is correct.

    • Nicola Wright you are kidding aren’t you? Emotive nonesense trying to debunk re-newable energy.

    • Geoff Donnellan no I’m not kidding. Please tell me what is incorrect in the article. Are you saying that it isn’t true that the estimated $60 billion that will be spent decarbonising Australia over the next 20 years, won’t have any affect on the climate? If you think it will have an affect and will lower the temperature, can you tell me by how much?

    • Nicola Wright straight out of Malcolm Roberts book of stupid questions. I’ll counter, are you saying don’t do anything because it will not help? The job is for the deniers to provide the hard evidence to prove credible science wrong, not the other way around.

    • Geoff Donnellan do try and pay attention. This article isn’t ‘denying’ any science (although you are wrong about the burden of proof, it is on those making the claim that we can reduce the temperature by taxes and decarbonisation of our energy production).

      My question which you still haven’t answered is by how much will the future global temperature be reduced by Australia spending over $60 billion dollars to carbonise?

      If the answer is 1/10th, or a 1/100th or a 1/1000th of a degree then yes I”m saying we’d be better off spending that money elsewhere.

      Please show me some evidence of how much future warming would be prevented if say Australia was 100% reliable on renewable energy. If its a significant amount, I will change my tune.

    • Nicola Wright sorry I didn’t realise when I made the unkind Malcolm Roberts comment that I was hitting close to the bone. Once again it’s up to the 3% to provide the arguments against overwhelming scientific opinion.

    • Geoff Donnellan so you can’t answer my question? I didn’t think so.

    • Nicola Wright no!! you can’t answer mine. I keep cutting but you ain’t bleeding! You just don’t get it, I don’t expect you ever will.

  109. Come on folks no more bullshit and excuses, with 70% of invertebrate species due for extinction by 2020,our home and future is looking pretty messed up, Fine if you fossils all want to go the way of the dinosaurs, but please stop trying to take me with you.

  110. I realy hope a lot of the people who put comments on Facebook are not the last hope for the survival of planet Earth, because if they are, bend over folks and kiss your arse goodbye.


    • So do u think all the oil weve burnt is not gonna have an effect?

    • So who’s been funding this biggest global con job master scam that must have been going on since Svante Arrhenius (obviously bribed) proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature back in 1896? and has managed to fund the corruption of every scientific body on the planet to make them falsify their measurable data in order to trick governments into a carbon tax which for some reason will bring about the destruction of western democracy in a way that income taxes or GSTs never could? Is it an unlikely alliance between communists greenies and international bankers? Or do you think maybe, every known scientific body on the planet could actually be correct and it might actually be the fossil fuel industry funding all the bullshit?

  112. Australia got the lowest emission in the world
    Wake up fucken greenie

  113. Those climate militants really do believe the crap, my daughter one of them. Mention anything related will release an avalanche of rhetoric almost word for word of the acolytes who support the gore crap! Those acolytes will not allow one word refuting the warmist rubbish – what’s the answer, Buggered if I know?

    • You accept the science on everything except climate change what gives??

    • Ken Lawson you are too bloody assumptive, do not misread my comments ever again! Climate warming was Not Science or haven’t you read the debunking stuff now put out, notwithstanding the evaluation of the original signatory and flawed models further skewed to create ‘science proven’ – science an ever evolving reasoning! Bet your a ‘settled’ idiot, yes?

    • Climate warming is science what you’re spouting is absolute crap. Here are some facts: 1. 75% of carbon emissions come from the industrialized world, not the developing world, and it will be many years before the developing world achieves anything like the levels of carbon pollution that the developed world has.
      2. “The Bureau of Meteorology reported (in 2005-2006) a 40 year decline in rainfall across southern Australia, with precipitation declining by 25% in some areas. Many dams supplying cities and towns around the country remained at record low levels. Munich Re, one of the world’s largest insurance companies announced…that economic losses due to weather-related natural disasters set a new record in 2005, reaching more than $200 billion (P. 18, Scorcher).
      3. Scientists have observed that the Arctic Sea ice has been receding in summer more than usual:
      “The exposure of dark seawater means that more of the sun’s heat is absorbed, making it harder for the sea to freeze over again when winter arrives. Thus in 2005 there was 20% less ice cover than over the period 1979-2000, exposing an area the size of France, Germany and the United Kingdom combined” (P. 180, Scorcher, Clive Hamilton).

      If greenhouse gases are not reduced there could eventually be no Arctic ice cap. This “dark North Pole” (ibid.) would have a huge impact on global wind patterns, “including the jet stream with profound implications for weather patterns everywhere” (ibid.).
      4. What Hamilton calls a second tipping point is the possibility of the melting of the Greenland ice sheet:
      “Although it might take centuries, this would raise sea levels by seven metres. All indications are that Greenland is indeed melting” (P. 181, op. cit.).
      And the melting of the Greenland ice sheet leads to a third tipping point:
      “The melting of the Greenland ice sheet could pour masses of fresh water into the North Atlantic. This could prevent cold water salt from sinking and thereby close down the thermohaline circulation. Although the shutting down of the Gulf Stream…in Northern Europe is often overstated, the stalling of these great currents would have a dramatic effect on rainfall patterns in the Asian tropics with far reaching effects on food supply” (ibid.).
      5. In 2007 Dr. James Hansen, director of the NASA Godard Institute for
      Science Studies and one of the world’s most respected climate scientists stated that we only have ten years to check carbon emissions, “Before global warming runs out of control and changes the world forever” (ibid.). Hansen notes that half the world’s population lives within 15 miles of the coast. “ The last time it was 3 degrees Centigrade warmer sea levels were 25 metres higher…once you get the process started and well on its way, it’s impossible to stop” (ibid.).
      6. In May 2006, the (Howard) government posted on its website a report on the science of climate change, commissioned from Professor Will Steffen of the Australian National University:
      “Among the indicators of a warming planet, Professor Steffen naturally included an assessment of the latest evidence of sea level rise, which, he wrote, had since 1993 increased to about 3 millimetres a year” (P.173, op. cit.).

      7.Hamilton also refers to a story in the West Australian newspaper from the 26th May 2006, on the implications of sea rise for Western
      “It quoted Professor Steffen along with Dr. John Church, a senior CSIRO oceans researcher who pointed out that forecast sea level rise would result in the inundation of coastal land, including some expensive real estate. An oceanographer from the University of Western Australia, Professor Chari Pattiaratchi, was also quoted as
      saying that parts of the Perth foreshore and popular seaside locations such as Mandurah, Australind, Dunsborough and Busselton would be
      first areas inundated by the rising seas. Western Australia because of the rapid warming of the Indian Ocean” (P. 174. Scorcher).

    • Antonia Hildebrand ok. Now go and find your own data like the yearly rainfall averages in Australia for the last 104 years. Then sit and cry because you realise you’ve been conned by financially motivated “climate scientists” that cherry picked data to suit they’re agenda. There has been high and low and we are in fact in an average year right now. Simpleton.

    • Greg McNamara you’ve swallowed the denier propaganda hook, line and sinker. Why have you cherry-picked average rainfalls? They are irrelevant. You are simply perpetuating the scam perfected by the tobbacco industry where you smokescreen your activities by accusing your opposition of doing precisely what you are deliberately doing yourself. It is extraordinarily dishonest. I suggest you get yourself across across the full body of data and arguments, not just the ones that have been fabricated by the fossil fuel lobby groups using cherry-picked, non-representative and frequently irrelevant data.

    • Greg ur actually dumb shut up. Do u even science brah?

    • Paul Turvey you are definitely a cherry bum! Cardigan will give you the answer and that ain’t a sweater!

    • Just keep burying your head in the sand

  114. This site is nothing more than a channel for fossil fuel industry propaganda.

  115. It is purely a money making scam.

  116. Stick it where the sun don’t shine you lying bastards. Your liberty is the death of our planet.

  117. The Myth of Climate Change and the weath created for its Founders .

  118. If the plant that can chage the world was destigmaized and utilized to it full potential, well gobal warming and many other human problems would disappear. The issue is with political, mega companys and the church. Get real fuckers.

  119. all truth here

  120. they lie because there are enough DUMB PEOPLE to believe that: ”somebody knows the correct temperature for the WHOLE planet, to a hundredth of a degree precision, for 100 years ago”. When nobody knows what was last year’s global temperature, because now nobody is monitoring on 99,99999999999999% of the planet. Anthony Watt’s mushrooms are to be blamed for that.

  121. Stick your head in the sand. This article is about maintaining the income for fossil fuel suppliers. To suggest that clean energy has anywhere the risks of fossil fuels is dangerous bullshit. To suggest it will cost billions ignores the fact that it will save billions more as well as slow down the damage being done to the planet. Wake up and move on.

  122. Yes it’s climate properganda Thanks to Mr Gore. And he made Millions And our Tim Flannery did the same.

  123. Still waiting to hear who is financing “liberty works”

    • This repeated insistence on who is financing LibertyWorks is just an attempt to delegitimise any arguments made by trying slur the authors with an accusation of putting financial interests above their personal integrity. Can you not engage the arguments being made without this kind of attempted distraction?

      What for example do you have to say about the fact that the $60 billion Australia will spend of taxpayers $$ on decarbonising over the next twenty years will have next to no impact on global climate? Can you think of a good way to spend $60 billion dollars that will be to the benefit of every Australian and the planet? I can and those ideas include medical research, innovation, infrastructure and environmental programmes.

    • The whole argument made by liberty works is rubbish
      I don’t need to tell you that
      There are plenty of people who have made the arguement better than I could and I’m sure you know them
      The problem is that some people don’t want to see the truth
      And some very rich and powerful people would like to disregard the hazards of fossil fuels for their own selfish interests
      And I would be very surprised if these weren’t the people behind liberty Works
      If they have nothing to hide, why wouldn’t they want to identify fhemselves?

    • Damian Curtain “the problem is that some people don’t want to see the truth”. Yes I agree with you there!

      “The whole argument made by LibertyWorks is rubbish”. Can you point out exactly how?

  124. Climate change is a hoax , it’s just a means of making you poor and those on the other side of the fence weather.

  125. How u get to work greenie

  126. The 23 trillion supposedly earmarked for renewable projects will be a boom for mining because without mining including coal, so called renewables can’t be manufactured or built, every single wind turbine tower requires around 250 tons of metalergical coal to smelt the steel stucture required.
    Unfortunately billions of dollars are being wasted on propaganda and scaremongering.

  127. “Let them eat cake”….

  128. This ridiculous subject is done and dusted. A joke

  129. bring back THE CHOO CHOOS MMMM COAL

  130. And this is not realisng horrible things into the air “much”.

  131. why not install scrubbers in the chimnies to clean the output from them

  132. Climate change fanatics are quasi religious with their fraudulent science

  133. I see now where less than 30% believe the warmists

  134. That is steam coming out of those not coal smoke coal smoke is black not white .

  135. climate spending was always another crooked tax by corrupt politicians

  136. Greenies all demonize the truth

  137. when they start taxing the countries with active volcanoes, I’ll know their fair dinkum and as stupid as I first thought. fuktards

  138. This is all a joke right???? I mean to say nobody is dumb enough to realy believe that there is a conspiricy so big that the entire world is moving to renewablles so that the ‘ELVIS Presley is alive Foundation’ can force us to pay extra money for power !!!. This facebook page is really just one of those pranks isn’t it??

    • This article isn’t about conspiracy theories John, it is based on the premise that climate change science is correct. Can you tell us by how much the future global temperature will be reduced by Australia spending $60 billion dollars to decarbonise our energy production?

    • Oh! Now I get the joke..hahaha. yes of course …its better to keep buning coal.. gas etc so that we can save money as the world becomes uninhabitable. . Great stuff. .then with the money we save we can build a coal fired gigantic rocket ship and fly to the planet zion to live in peace and harmony under the stewardship of emporer andrew bolt.. yes I get it now. Hahaha

    • Spending $60 billion of Australian taxpayers money may be funny for you but we take it seriously. The question again, after we spend the $60 billion by how much will warming be reduced?

    • Spending sixty billion will create new enomomy and futures for our children. You seem to continue the humor by indicating that the money will just ‘dissapear’. Please note that our sixty billion is a part of world wide expenditure to create a better environment for our future generatio s. Australias siixty billion (your figures) is a small contribution. If we as a nation continue with a ludite policy we will miss out on the golden opportunities that shall increasingly exist. Failure to recognise changing world ecenomic movements will dissadvantage all australians in the long term. Only those invested in the fading industries can benefit from delaying the inevitable. Coal and gas will continue to have a role but never will it be the ecenomic powerhouse that kept our nation in a comfortable lifestyle as its usage decreases around the world so will our lifestyle. We must change with the economic future or fall behinde irriversably.

    • ^ it’s a new economy. Not like the silly old economy where there needs to be productivity and prices set by markets, but a new, magical one where lollypops grow on trees, bunny rabbits have tea parties and unicorns fart rainbows! Why do you hate unicorns, Libertyworks?

    • Then why did emissions drop under the carbon tax and why are they back to previous levels under he more expensive Direct Action plan? And why are mining and oil companies given more in subsidies than is spent on reducing emissions?

    • John, I don’t blame you for not knowing how much cooler the earth will be after spending the $60B on all those things you mentioned. The fact is no one knows, the number is so small, so statistically insignificant, that it makes NO difference to warming. Because it makes no difference also explains why no one talks about it, it’s embarrassing to think we spend so much without even knowing what we’re trying to achieve.

    • Let me compare that to business. Imagine you are paying me $1m a year to advertise. It makes your profit line worse. But I say don’t stop that because there’s no concrete way of knowing how much better off you would be, even though you would have experts you can make a pretty good guess.

      You might not know,but scientists have a much better idea, and I’ll trust them more than you with science just like you’d trust your experts more than me in running or promoting a business.

    • The world will not be cooler…we can only reduce the extent of damage. This concept that we dont know how much is an excuse to remain ludite and keep our head in the sand. The current direct action plan is not the reason for improved data. The drop in productivity world wide due to the GFC and the move to renewable energy has had the major impact (wind energy already out performs coal as the main source) again …the money spent on seeking better environmental concepts is also generating new industries and jobs. Dont fotget we spend millions of tax payer dollars supporting the coal industry each year just as we once supported the car industry ..time to rethink outside the ludite square

    • Adam no one claimed that Australia’s carbon tax was going to have any tangible effect on AGW, at least by the time we were debating repeal of the tax. The arguments for it centred around feel-good notions like “it’s a starting step in the right direction”, “it will encourage other nations so we can get an international scheme” or “at least we’re doing something”. No one put forward a credible cost-benefit analysis.

      Emissions were reduced slightly, primarily due to the increased cost of electricity. This was due to people cutting back on lifestyle – such as old people choosing to not heat or cool their homes (which only the warmy-faithful would hold up as a success) – and industry factoring in a higher cost of business, with most impact falling in small business.

    • That wind power did a bang up job of preventing warming in SA, especially inside houses. I think you’ll find it’s “luddite” as well, undermines your ad hominem when you’re accusing others of ignorance with a mis-spelling,

    • And for the record, we don’t support the fossil fuel industries with subsidies any more than any other industry such as agriculture or trucking. They get the same tax treatment and are allowed the same rebates and deductions as anyone else.

    • A rebate on non taxable supplies is not a subsidy. Feed in tariffs and the like are most definitely.

    • Now we are getting back to my original question. .is this all a big joke?? Sorry about the miss spell.. but really. Lets just trust the overwhelming scientific evidence thas is now accepted throughout the world including by the USA china and india .. paul please read the full report on the SA power outage. The wind turbines did not cause the problem. They were shut down by technical miss management and the privatised powere providers had not planned for any back up gas units to be ready. They chose what business call risk management practice and it was cost effective to not have that back up ready to go.

    • John, we’re going around in circles so best we call it a day. But for the sake of clarity, our quibble is not with the science, it’s with the spending that does, and will continue to do, nothing to halt warming.

    • China and India will exponentially expand their emissions over the next 30-50 years. China in particular is paying lip service to “renewables”, as they’re making a shitload of money in manufacturing this failed technology and flogging it to gullible western governments, most of whom are already deeply in hock to the Chicoms. The wind turbines were the root cause of the problem in SA, they cannot operate in conditions of high or low wind speeds, and the moronic state government actually blew up their sole source of baseload. Those window lickers should be confined, and held personally liable for the losses incurred. BTW anyone who says either “the science is settled” or “98% of all scientists agree” automatically loses the argument as they clearly have no idea of how the scientific method operates. Sad seeing a society commit suicide over a manufactured fret.

    • Paul you information is totally WRONG. ..

    • Provide links then. The last Paris pissup guaranteed both the right to increase emissions, at the expense of their declining western competitors. If Trump gets up the US will withdraw as well, and that grotesquely expensive farce will be worth less than a wallet full of Somali carbon credits.

    • I see a total lack of understanding of world polotics and how far the negotiat8ns have progressed. Yes we have to accept developing nations tequirement to rais living standards and in doing so accept that the current critical environment was caused by we developed counties. But the agreement does take us to a achievable target. As for Trump !!
      If..I say again if ..he is elected he has no idea how powerless he is to make some of his wild and unfunded rantings turn into reality.. just as Obama was powerless to impliment his policies. TRUMP WILL BE HAMSTRINGED NOT JUST BY DEMOCRATS BUT BY REPUBLICANS ..US interesrs are much bigger than one man ranting about nothing. No I am not a Hillary fan. But at least we know the nature of the Clinton beast. The Trump creature is not in the best interest of tje free world

    • Policy is to withdraw from the Paris agreement. The US is now a major exporter of oil and gas thanks to fracking (which we could be as well except for idiot hippies and spineless politicians, although the price has tanked due to supply levels). China and India have no targets to reach and can expand production (and resultant emissions) with impunity, while western nations abandon their advantage by shutting down cheap, efficient and reliable generation with expensive, unreliable failed technology. If you and assorted other gullibles want to live in a failed state, go right ahead. Don’t expect capital and intellect to join you, we’re totally mobile now.

    • BTW what critical environment? Still waiting on some evidence for your last claim that my statements are incorrect.

    • I wait for you to provide critical evidence that the vast majority of climate scientists and now the vast majority of world leaders are wrong.. are we back to conspiricy theories again
      .. I am an Elvis fan but I know he is dead.

    • No conspiracy theory, it’s up to warmenistas to prove their case, as it is they who seek to intrude on peoples rights and hoover their wallets. Consensus among people who gain power and wealth from a policy is not empirical evidence, of which there is a disturbing lack. So few proponents of this hypothesis have any qualifications in any of the hard sciences it’d be risible if it wasn’t costing us so much money and handing even more regulation and control to incompetent busybodies. Evidence of a consistent warming trend in un-massaged records, with a clear and incontestable link to human generated emissions of greenhouse gases (generously I’ll not restrict it to CO2) if you please. Otherwise stop trying to steal my money and tell me what to do.

    • John McGowan What caused past climate changes, heating and cooling, BEFORE humans inhabited the Earth ?? Climate change is a NATURAL cycle….Some past FACTS… PAST CLIMATE CHANGES……
      Geological records reveal many climate changes great enough
      to have wiped out mankind. Some changes have occurred
      stepwise in decades or less; others have been long drawn out
      periods of warming or cooling.
      In the last million years there have been at least four periods
      when a third of land was covered in ice and interglacial periods
      lasting up to 20,000 years.
      The last Ice Age occurred 20,000 years ago. By 15,000 years ago
      the ice had retreated and temperatures had risen by 8.8 deg C.
      Temperature plunged rapidly into cold periods, 12,900 to 11,500
      years ago and 8,500 to 8,000 years ago, when life on Earth was
      stressed and ice sheets and glaciers expanded.
      The next few thousand were mainly warm, though there were
      episodes when, in only years or decades, the climate changed
      from warm to cold. A devastating 300 year long drought started
      in 2200 BC.
      1850 AD— overall trend: Warming.

      1850 – 1940 : Warming.

      1940 – 1970: Cooling.

      1979 – 1998: Warming.

      1998 — ??? : Cooling.

      Temperatures not as high as in Roman or Mediaeval periods.

      ROMAN WARMING………250 BC – 450 AD
      Temperatures at least 2 deg C warmer than today:
      Agriculture at higher latitudes and altitudes:
      Forests expanded and glaciers retreated.
      A period of GREAT PROSPERITY !!

      DARK AGES…………535 — 900 AD
      Global climate cold and dull:
      Crops failed, famine and plague everywhere:
      Cities and South American civilization disappeared.
      A period of HUMAN MISERY !!

      MEDIAEVAL WARMING…….. 900 – 1300 AD
      Mainly warm, crops flourished, more land settled,
      great cultural achievement.

      LITTLE ICE AGE…….1380 – 1850 AD
      Periods of intense cold meant that crop growth was
      insufficient to feed the increased population.

    • It’s beside the point in any case, even if the most febrile fantasy of climate catastrophy is real, every resident of the antipodes could do a Peoples Temple and reduce their carbon footprint to a negative quantity, and it wouldn’t cause a measurable blip on the inevitable, steamy slide into the fossil fryup. Ditto for scuttling every bulk carrier that turns up at Newcastle and Hay Pt, China and India would source coal elsewhere (cheaper and more reliable, with less sovereign risk), but with a much higher sulphur content and lower energy output so they’d burn more for lower benefit, and higher emissions. Pity so much of the idiocy of the ’60s continues to linger, stifling progress and encouraging bovine ignorance.

    • David did you actually fall for that old one. Already totally debunked by all official client research. Of course there is natural climate change. Any fool knows that and only fools look at such simple information without examining actual data for last 150 years against actual measures of atmosphere co2 increases. Why do some people believe that Elvis is still alive when all the factual measurements and ortopsies say he is dead. Just because some clown claims they saw him in a supermarket in wiscoson and they have proof that Elvis is capable of living to 90. Because he has relatives who lived to 90. Well that bit of evidence sure beats medical science dont it. As for my good sparing partner Paul .??? At least you are happy in your world of wonder and “it ll all work out ok” world. But as for me. I’m off to bed I have had enough amusement to last a good time. Thanks for the journey

    • You seem to have an unhealthy obsession with Elvis. Fat sod would’ve produced more carbon pollution when he went in the big barbeque after he croaked on the dunny than Ports Kembla and Pirie when they were still operating. Before a couple of cretinous labor governments croaked them with crushing energy cost increases to placate the fretful; worth every job lost to soothe carbon conniptions.

      I wonder why so many climate catastrophists seem to be functionally illiterate? I thought the vibe was that they were the intellectual elite, smugly superior to we atmospheric apostates.

    • Thanks paul you make my day. I like a good laugh now and again

  139. Climate change is a load of crap, no one can show you any proof it exists, because it doesn’t. It is just another way for the corrupt UN to get money out of countries and stupid Turnbull gave them millions and millions of dollars, what a stupid wanker he is as bad as stupid leftard Greens.


  141. The climate has changed before
    It is changing
    It will change again
    All the Green energy and Greenwashing will not stop the climate changing
    Deal with population growth and a better world will follow

  142. OK! No beer, no bread and no tyres on your pushbike.

  143. Nothing changes except no fosil fuel is burnt. Which is why Government is backing part time electricity!

  144. Anyone with half a brain can see that climate change does not exist it is called weather and it changes every day. There is not proof. Our stupid Turnbull gave the UN billions and billions of dollars for so called climate change, what a disgraceful waste of money and the corrupt UN have the nerve to tell us what to do by wanting us to take in as many moslems as possible, get stuffed UN, we should be opting out of the UN as should every other western country.

  145. There will come a time when all those who are “hood winked” into believing in climate change, will wake up to the fact that they have been totally deceived!!!!!

  146. The proposed spending of $60Billion over the next 20years to achieve 23.5% reduction in emissions is money down the drain. Spend money on scrubbing the exhausts of Coal fired generators and either research into catalytic converters for motor vehicles to reduce carbon dioxide .Victoria has enough brown coal to last 500 years

  147. Totally agree
    Climate change is real, and has been going on since time began
    But the way in which governments are those loonies on the left use the term is crap and miss leading
    Too much tax money being wasted here

  148. The weather changes Always has always will so Stop Wasting Our Tax Payers Money If You Pollies Want To Waste Money Use Your Own Then May Rhis Bullshit Will Stop

  149. More propaganda from vested interests !

  150. Let’s take the first paragraph.
    “The industrial burning of fossil fuels has released CO2 that is purported to be responsible for .7 degrees of planetary warming over the last century, and climate models predict it could be responsible for up to another 2 – 6 degrees over the next 100 years. Despite the fact that very few of the climate change predictions made since the late 80’s have come true (think empty dams, no more snow in the UK and an ice-free arctic) if a warmer earth is going to be problem, what can we do about it?”

    First, what are the relevant qualifications of the person[s] writing this. I have seen no citations or quotes or anything that shows this to be not more than opinion. A true journalist would never write such a one sided opinion piece and think it will get it through a review process of any kind, with a respected climate scientist.

    Second and in detail.
    1/ “purported to be responsible for .7 degrees of planetary warming over the last century”
    Climate science has stated clearly that that is so. There is no “purported”. IF you disagree then use peer reviewed science and prove it.
    August 2016 wound up tied with July 2016 for the warmest month ever recorded. August 2016’s temperature was 0.16 degrees Celsius warmer than the previous warmest August (2014). The month also was 0.98 degrees Celsius warmer than the mean August temperature from 1951-1980.
    2/ You are attempting to suggest models are not an accurate way to predict possible futures. That is not correct.
    3/ “few of the climate change predictions made ”
    Like Arctic melting? Like sea water levels rising? Like massive floods and drought and enormous wildfires in places they dont usually occur? Rubbish. Science predicted global warming and so it has. Strange how deniers predicted cooling for decades after the 91970’s. Seems they got that a lot wrong. But hey, ignore that and keep to your cherry picked lies.
    A/ Dams … where was that said? References please.
    B/ no more snow in the UK . Where was that said? References please.
    c/ ice-free Arctic. Cherry picked again.
    Not yet but certainly a long term decline and at some future time, there is little doubt that it will happen, perhaps a few days then a week and so on. Who would have predicted a passenger tour would be able to get through.
    I can keep going but I’m sure you get the point. Your article is rubbish. The way you present it is rubbish. You have not even bothered to get experts to check it. That is unconscionable.

  151. This article was paid for and written by the Australian mineral council. While we endeavour to persuade you that science is hippy nonsense, and coal is creating jobs and growth.

  152. just another load of crap labor wants to tax us on load off crap

  153. Who is funding “LibertyWorks”?
    I have asked this many times but still waiting for an answer

  154. Totally agree ,unbelievable waste of money and lies ,climate does change but has been ever since the earth was created,how come record temperatures were recorded over 100 years ago in qld no one tells you that one do they ,or is that the 100 year flood or elnino or nanino ,or climate change ,or ozone layer,BULLSHIT lies ,we need to start a new government get rid of the lot of them as they are driving this country fair into the ground ,One nation is exposing them and showing them the Australian people have had enough ,time our money was spent on something that actually needs saving like Australia itself from greedy trash -liberals,labour,useless greens and do gooders who have created far more harm than ANY good

  155. Why are you showing me steam being emitted to atmosphere?

  156. Ken Trader,we knew this 5 years ago

  157. A few years back the ice caps would have been all gone by now it was never gunna rain again , well the artic has more ice than ever all our dams are full , climate change is the biggest fund raiser the UN has had yet to keep their travelling cocktail party going


  159. This is a Koch Brothers funded climate change denial organisation and political lobby company.

  160. Absolutely go back to the carbon tax. We all said giving polluters was stupid

  161. They will regret the actions of closing down fossil fuel power Stations. Wait and see.

  162. funny co2 is a heavy gas so how can it get up into the ionosphere?

  163. When n.a.s.a says it,s happening you can bet your grandma on it.Where do you suppose trillions of tonnes per day goes to?,,,,,oh,,,I know,,,,,God scoops it up and takes it to heaven,,,,of course

  164. We all knew that. . Only the well paid scientists were fooled.

  165. lets start & close down the volcano’s first, them we will close down our tinny little bit What a rip off

  166. Can we have our two hundred million dollars back?

  167. Greenies and do gooders and the Labour that being the past priministers to Rudd and Gillard,should be dragged back to pay the lies and bullshit taxes they put on companies and tax payers,I don’t care how it’s paid if they loose all there pension and intitlements or even do community service I don’t care drag there useless asses back to help pay the ridiculous debt they left this country in

  168. Should be spending $60b to stop Spooky Day instead.

  169. Tell the 750 people who worked at the power house who have lost their jobs

  170. Climate change is a naturally occurring event that has periodically happened throughout the history of this planet. Ice ages …..yeh….happenned periodically and WILL continue to happen. NO HUMANS WERE ON THE PLANET DURING THE LAST ICE AGE. It will happen again. Nothing will stop it. It’s like holding back the ocean. NOTHING WILL STOP THIS NATURALLY OCCURING EVENT.

  171. You should use your talents and energy for promoting positive outcomes Liberty works, go on google maps or go koala spotting in you local park if you have trouble understanding the enormous impact mankind is having on the planet.

  172. Like everything they put a spin on it and next thing you know tax payers are getting hit again for millions of more money to fill joe blogs pockets again,next tax will be I want your first born to do as they want

  173. Spending money Eradicating feral animals would do far far far more for the environment than any of these CO2 reduction programs. Feral animals also emit CO2! The plant life that would regenerate would also absorb it. A feral eradication program could also have a strong indigenous employment focus. It could be funded by a levy on cat food.

  174. I for one do not believe in climate change ,at least in the way that the governments are posing it .weather has changed all through history as science tells us and is going to keep on doing it

  175. Another scam on the people

  176. Just another big money making scam

  177. So called renewables are fragile and even moderate weather events can destroy them, coal is reliable and will underpin unreliable renewables.

  178. CO2 is amazing, with existing technology it can be easily converted into Hydrocarbon fuel making it a renewable energy resource, so why would you want to tax emissions.

  179. The old head buried in the sand trick, brain dead idiots that go along with dum dum and his views on the world, it’s also flat, according to the village idiot, and to many solar panels will take all the heat out of the sun, according to dum dum, yerp, coal is good for your black lung.

  180. What about ALL the leftard rentseekers?

  181. The UN scam of all scams is nothing but a scam to transfer wealth from the West to itself and in the process weaken the West by increasing energy costs to the point where it begins to shut down industries, for many industrial processes become too costly to remain sustainable.
    So the UN has a win win situation – it is funded by the West and it then sabotages it as well.

  182. This is just another skeptical site , face book scam!

  183. It’s all a great political lie.

  184. When I was a kid many years ago. Melbourne was a hub of industry. You could see smoke billowing out of factories in every suburb. Now how many do you see. Hardly any. Cars weren’t efi ;now they are. The only photos they use now are from the coal stacks. With the few that are around I don’t think that will destroy the world

  185. its another scam active volcanos put out a hundreds of times more CO2 than man. .Another money making scam

  186. Instead of giving all our money away to other useless countries why don’t u fix our bloody country up WITH OUR MONEY….

  187. Check how much money Al Gore (

  188. Check out how much money Al Gore has made since (inconvenient truth) the lies he made a out Global Warming, now climate change. Money grab for the rich! Scam-scam-scam and some fall for it.

  189. Just another tax for the lazy sods doing nothing.

  190. I don’t see the cfmeu supporting workers they have turned green labor low life leach

  191. NO HUMANS WERE ON THE PLANET DURING THE LAST ICE AGE!!—-so, name the history book you got that from.
    Who is saying that there has NOT been climate change in the past, NO ONE IS!
    Its all about us humans ADDING to the problem, read that word again A-D-D-I-N-G did you people catch it

    • John waterhouse – mate you’re another Victorian / Soutrrh Austrrali8an Greenie with little brain or thought of reality

    • Oh dear!!! Harry Rutherford is that the best you can do? really? I dont live in SA or Vic I do have a brain with several certificats in engineering, I’m not —–repeat—NOT a member of the Green or any other party.
      I am very very very intelligent, I will let the rest of Facebook users to compare us two, those that go for you, well, I will let Facebook users with superior intelligence judge them, my God! no wonder I have a overwhelming sense of intellectual superiority! !!!!

  192. What a world HOAX brought on by the rich and evil,who are busy lining there own pockets with the hard earned money of the workers,nothing but bigots that are thieving from there own people.

  193. Yep they really sucked in a lot of gullible people !

  194. Tell us who is funding “LibertyWorks”

    • Damian. We’ve told you previously to look at our website. We are funded by donations and membership fees.

    • Your website doesn’t tell anything
      I am left to wonder who has an interest in promoting unscientific nonsense

    • Damian Curtain people who have learned to think for themselves.

    • Any connections with the fossil fuel industries?

    • Well, we drive cars, catch buses, use electricity, lives in houses, watch TV, use other manufactured goods, eat food planted and extracted with machinery and so on. So yes, we have a connection with fossil fuel industries. But I guess you do to… we all do…

    • Avoiding the question
      The fossil fuel industry is the people who profit from the sale of fossil fuel
      Who would have an interest in delaying the necessary transition to other forms of energy generation
      You seem to be very skilled and practiced at evading legitimate questions
      A very valuable skill for an astroturfing organisation
      But not helpful for the wider community who needs to know the truth

    • Damian Curtain you can go that way if you like, now I ask you a question do you work in a air con office of have air con at home, do u cook a home, do you drive a fuel car or public transport to work, do you buy farm food produce, if you travel overseas how would you travel, because all these use fossil fuels, so you must have a connection to fossil fuels also??

    • This is a distraction
      There is a difference between people who make money from the sale of fossil fuel and those who use the energy produced by fossil fuels because the alternatives are currently unavailable
      With better government policy the alternatives could be made available and we as a society could reduce our carbon emissions to a safe level
      Notice that I did not say that no fossil fuel should ever be used but that it’s use should be drastically reduce to a safe level

    • And you still haven’t told me who is funding LibertyWorks

  195. One of the biggest problems with the whole climate change scam are the climate scientists.,They are paid to find evidence of climate change and if they rely on a government or other grant to put food on their table, evidence of climate change is exactly what they will find. Never heard of a climate change scientist on a grant coming up with no evidence at all. They know that if they want to keep the money coming in, they have to find or fabricate evidence. I dare say if I was given a couple of hundred grand, I could find evidence that the Greens are intelligent people

  196. the climate change scam is designed to force up the price of energy to consumers.

  197. Another mob of right wing conspiracy nut jobs. The article itself is just a rehash of already debunked pseudo arguments. Pathetic.

  198. This page is froot-loop central

  199. “Why this page posts nothing truthful and should be scrapped”.

  200. These are paid announcements. ‘Liberty’ for whom? I get my power direct from the sun. 8 minutes, direct from the sun.

  201. This is full of a mix of lies, incorrect and misinformation. I think these so called “LibertyWorks” people are in for a big shock as even the most ardent deniers I know do not argue about cost competitive renewables and this is where we are at. In the case of battery powered cars the running cost is about 1/3 for example. As the cost of buying comes down then bye bye fossil burners.

    • Ha ha I roll around the floor laughting at you mob

    • John Ohl An EV uses 20 kWh per 100 k. At 15 cents off peak = $3. Most cars in real world use 10 litre per 100 k at $1.20 = $12. If using solar at feed in tariff rate EV cost drops to $1.50 per 100 km. EV have 40% less parts. EV are expensive because of battery cost which is coming down rapidly and economies of scale which will change very quickly. Also servicing costs minimal. Battery life 1000 cycles x 400 km = 400,000 km and then they are easily recycle. You can easily check all of this. Hope it makes you laugh even more!

    • Jim Oates well if all that is so simple as that, why are they more expensive then fuel cars if there is less parts, battery’s have to change every two years, as they get older the car uses more fuel, my mate has one and he said to use less fuel the battery’s have to be changed each few years

    • John Ohl More expensive because of battery cost and economies of scale. You have to make at least 500,000 cars per annum to get efficiency of scale. Tesla provide 8 year unlimited km for their 85 kWh battery. Hydrogen fuel cell hybrids like the Toyota Mirai are also now available. The Japanese are planning to power the 2020 Tokyo Olympics with hydrogen. So I think there will be a mix of EV and hydrogen powered not just cars but trucks, trains etc . There have also been technological breakthroughs in hydrogen production. All the car companies have been working on this because they know fossil fuels are on the way out.

  202. Once upon a time there was an island, a sunny island, where communities celebrated the earth and others tamed the soil and grew things. They began to dig holes and fight… it got drier and stormier. The island is called #strandedassets. The earth tamers are unhappy and cranky, those celebrating still live amongst the red hills

  203. Liberty Works: Please get this bullshit off my feed! You have nothing to do with liberty and I suspect you are all about corporate greed at all costs – even if it costs the earth!!

    • Ha ha another that cannot stand the truth. The earth climate has been changing for the last few billion years now how are you going to change nature

    • John Ohl , of course the climate has been changing over extended periods of time – we all know that. However, there is a significant amount of evidence from a number of very credible sources that we are not simply talking about Climate Change, but that we are talking about Human Accelerated Climate Change (HACC). We also know that Climate Change can wipe out many species and destroy habitat. HACC might certainly do this and, yet, if we humans took note, we could avoid some very nasty consequences. It is called precautionary investment.

    • Russell Jackson If you read the article you would note that our quibble is with climate related spending. The spending does nothing to ease warming. Therefore there’s no point spending.

    • LibertyWorks : That depends on what the spending is on. If we spend a lot of money on fuel subsidies for coal miners, obviously the spending will not work. If we actually spend money on the technology that either currently exists or is in development that will position renewable energy to also provide “base load” power (and don’t try to argue that this is not possible), then spending money does work.

    • Actually the removal of the carbon tax and instigation of “Direct Action” has had a measurable increase in our carbon emissions. Instead of dropping and getting money for the budget we are paying out money and increasing emissions. You can look at the figures budget and environment australia.

    • Russell Jackson in real terms how will it ‘work’? I mean how much future warming will be reduced if Australia was on 100% renewable energy today?

    • LibertyWorks I bet he can’t answer that, I am waiting?

  204. About 200years from now fry outside we won’t be here⛅

  205. can you link me to the peer reviewed journals you’ve published your hypothesis in also any research you’ve done that is more than just debunked opinion.

    • Our claim is that Aussies spending money on warming mitigation does nothing in terms of reducing warming. If you think you can post evidence to the contrary then we look forward to seeing it.

    • you are making a claim, i am asking what evidence do you have to back it up,there are numerous reputable scientific and economic journals that would print your research and allow for proper peer review and testing of your hypothesis, if not then its just opinion.

    • First things first. You support taxing people and spending their money on warming mitigation. If you’re going to do that, you could at least have the decency to advise how much benefit such spending will make to warming. But you can’t, you don’t know. But worse, you don’t want to know.

      Well, we’ve told you, and now you’re a denier…

    • Again you are making the claim, I wish to see your evidence don’t blame me for your shortcomings. I just think your a typical fossil fuel sponsored libertarian, no evidence just a 5 year old with a gun and a bong and nobody can make me do anything.

    • Actually the removal of the carbon tax and instigation of “Direct Action” has had a measurable increase in our carbon emissions instead of dropping and getting money for the budget we are paying out money and increasing emissions. You can look at the figure.

    • Steven Hicks the onus of proof is on those making the claim that decarbonising our energy production will reduce future global temperature. The claim is made everyday and you believe it. We are saying it’s not true, it won’t make a difference.

      If Australia used 100% renewable energy right now, today, by how much would the future global temperature be reduced? It is such a tiny amount that it’s insignificant and you’d be hard pressed to find a scientist on the planet who would disagree.

      Spending billions to no effect is actually an immoral use of public money which could be spent on beneficial environmental problems or medical research, or even left in the pockets of the tax payer.

      Sorry that these facts make you lose your cool and resort to ad hominem.

    • Peter Gellert exactly by how much were emissions reduced with a carbon tax, as opposed to direct action, and how much future global temperature decrease does that amount represent?

    • again i am making no claims at all, and the onus is on you to provide evidence of your claims you are making, economically and scientifically, as you are wrong scientifically your only argument can be economic so show us your empirical peer reviewed data.

    • Steven Hicks where are we wrong scientifically? Are you saying that if Australia ceased all carbon dioxide emissions today that future global temperature would be reduced by a significant amount? Would love to see some evidence of that! If you know of some please point us in the right direction.

  206. The paranoia, propaganda and scaremongering about mining and in particular coal mining is an absolute Disgrace, “coalafobics” are the most ungrateful and arrogant of so called environmentalists.
    They take everything for granted, enjoy all the benifits of the mining sector yet show appalling ignorance when it comes to the real world.

  207. Well as if that’s news.

  208. They can’t admit they are wrong and it gives them the right to bully people.

  209. Think of the savings and what it could pay for
    Putting our own country and its people first.

  210. Oh here is the anti science nutjobs.

    • Koch Brothers funded. And true to style 99% of the comments will have been bought @ roughly $10 for 100. That’s roughly the going price for Facebook comments.

  211. funded by the fossill fuel lobby. Getting desperate.

  212. Newsflash people carbon is essential for the growth of plant and animal life. Carbon = good, humans are made of 18% carbon for example

    • thats not the same thing

    • Steven Hicks well scientists and the media should stop using the term ‘carbon pollution’ and instead say ‘carbon dioxide pollution’. I guess it doesn’t quite conjure up the same dirty feeling.

    • LibertyWorks or ignorant people should learn the difference, as a libertarian you should understand that william is weak of mind and is too stupid to live and should be left to die from his stupidness.

Comments are closed.