Our education is the problem, not the climate

You know things have got to be bad when Zali Steggall OAM MP is launching The Australia Institute’s (TAI) ‘Climate of the Nation 2019‘ report which claims 81% of Aussies are concerned that climate change will impact droughts and flooding. Huh? The IPCC has already admitted, “available climate data do not show any increasing trend in extreme weather events (e.g. extreme precipitation, extreme drought, thunderstorms, winter blizzards) in any part of the world.”

Did TAI conduct the survey at the Australian Medical Association (AMA) which is now trying to dictate climate policy? Between the RBA, APRA and the AMA, we might need a beauty contest to see which of them takes over at the Department of Environment & Energy. CM is surprised that the AMA hasn’t demanded to take over the organization of the Royal Easter Show from the Royal Agricultural Society now they are experts in food security!

Why do people get so embroiled in talking about the “science being settled”. OK, let’s assume it is. We use all of the well publicized and peer-reviewed data scrapes from the IPCC reports, the EU’s in house statistics bureau, Eurostat, and the EIA.

We only need a basic Year 7 grasp of elementary mathematics to educate on the facts. The IPCC claim that CO2, as a proportion of the atmosphere, is 0.0415%. It also tells us that human-made CO2 is 3% of the total. 97% is natural. Australia for its sins is 1.08% of human-made global CO2 emissions.

So, 0.0415% x 3% x 1.08% = 0.00001345%. Let’s forget the science and say it was the interest earned on a 20-year compounding deposit of $10,000. If you doubled or halved the above percentage across that deposit you’d get virtually the exact same result in all three scenarios.

Farting cows are no different. Methane is an even smaller part of the atmosphere. 722 parts per billion. Animals (in total) make up 13% of the methane produced meaning that 0.00000939% of the atmosphere is down to animals. Angela Merkel was imploring Chinese don’t grow a meat habit so she can save the planet (aka justify a meat tax increase at home). By the way, Australia has 26mn cattle out of a total of 1 billion worldwide. So Australia is 2.6% of global head of cattle. So 2.6% x 0.00000939% = 0.00000024%. That is a disingenuous number because it doesn’t factor horses, ducks, sheep, household pets and budgies. Perhaps Africans need to educate lions to move to plant-based meat substitutes and leave water buffalo alone.

Do people realize that rice paddies account for more methane than cows? Where are the environmentalists and climate alarmists demanding that Asian nations, 40% of the global population, must cease eating rice? Better tell Mother Nature that she creates 45% of the methane out there through peat bogs and tundras.

How ironic that Zali Steggall, the Member for Warringah (home to the Northern Beaches Council (NBC)) is TAI’s champion. Did she read that NBC declared a climate emergency after having a sermon delivered by Tim Flannery, who has made countless dud predictions leading to the waste of billions of spending in desal plants?

In the  2017/18  NBC annual report it states the council saved 293 tons of CO2. Given that Australia produces around 561m tons, this amazing effort has meant a reduction of 0.0000522% of Australia’s total. Put it against Australia’s CO2 impact vs the entire atmosphere means that Northern Beaches have hammered home a mammoth 0.000000000699857% saving! Yes, 9 zeroes. C’mon Zali, you should be citing this impactless tokenism in your address. By the way, we’re still waiting for wind farms on Balmoral Beach.

The range of claims made in the TAI report speaks to little more than agenda based data gathering with leading questions.

For instance, if Labor was destroyed in the federal election over Adani, how could 73% of Queenslanders possibly want Australia’s coal-fired power stations phased out as soon as possible or gradually? Did the pollsters mistakenly manage to interview Bob Brown’s anti-Adani convoy which skewed the findings? If you want to get answers to questions that effectively make claims (climate change already causing) it is easy if it is written as though it is a fact to begin with,

“Melting of the Polar ice caps” (51%) – IPCC has already climbed down from such claims
“More heatwaves and extreme hot days” (48%) – no consistent data on this. 
“Destruction of the Great Barrier Reef” (44%) – it isn’t happening – just ask Peter Ridd or the Vice-Chancellor at James Cook University
“More droughts affecting crop production & food supply” (42%) – global crop yields growing
“More Bushfires” (36%) – fallen over time
“Water Shortages in the Cities” (30%) – haven’t experienced one 

Taking bushfires as an example. Facts from the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) show that 85% of bushfires are either deliberately, suspiciously or accidentally lit. The AIC sees that while the data is somewhat sketchy that the most common profile of arsonists was “white male, mid-20s, patchy employment record, often above average intelligence, but poor academic achievement and poor social development skills…56% of convicted structural arsonists and 37% of bushfire arsonists in NSW had a prior conviction for a previous offence. ”

In the US those figures are around 90%. A study in the journal Science determined the global burnt area from fires, rather than growing, had declined by roughly 25% from 1999 to 2017.

So do the stats support global warming or successful mainstream media coverage sensationalising the truth to feed narratives? Don’t get started on the Amazon fires. CM wrote about it here.

Energy source rank went Wind (76%), Solar (58%) & Hydro (39%) although nuclear power ranked above coal and gas. Surprise, surprise.  (p.11).

Apparently, 64% of Aussies want to be net-zero emissions by 2050. To do that we’d need to stop all mining, end farming and phase out all fossil-fuel power from transport to power generation. Just think of the UK’s plan to do this. Going to be a bit hard when 85% of British households rely on gas to heat their homes. Will the power grid hold up to a switch to electric heating?

On p.25, TAI makes reference to the Icelandic glacier, Ok, that lost its status 5 years ago. According to the UN Chronicle, “The sudden surging of glaciers is not related to climatic fluctuations, and surges can take place even at times when glaciers retreat. This is the usual behaviour of some glaciers and can not be evidence of an impending surge… unfortunately, direct observations of a change in the movement of a glacier at the onset of a surge are still very rare, and the causes for surges are not yet clear…It should be emphasized that the problem of climate change is extremely difficult to understand, and it has still not been possible to know what factors in the past decades — natural or anthropogenic — have caused the warming. There are still many uncertainties in solving this problem. IPCC estimates are rather wide in their range of accuracy and, therefore, cannot predict with confidence…at least not in the coming decades and centuries.”

Maybe we just need to accept that China produces more GHG in two weeks than we do in a year. At the rate it is going, by 2030 it will likely be closer to one week. Once again folks, education seems a bigger problem than climate change. Basic fractions are more valuable than deep knowledge of climate science. Even using numbers supplied by the organisations they constantly espouse as the oracle, the minuscule impacts we can have are never mentioned. Tokenism is somehow virtuous.

Okjökull lost glacier title in 2014. UN admits not due to climate change. Media knows better.


The Okjökull glacier used to stretch six square miles (15 square kilometres). Now environmentalists have dedicated a plaque to mourn its death. Sadly, it has been in the morgue (lost its title as a glacier) since 2014. Why weren’t the plaque makers firing up the molten brass to fill the die-cast 5 years prior? All about the narrative, not the science behind glaciers. CM understands why Iceland’s Prime Minister Katrin Jakobsdottir might want to virtue signal in this way but why did it require UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson to burn fossil fuels and fly all the way to morally preen? This is so typical of the obsession to misrepresent reality.

According to the UN Chronicle, “The sudden surging of glaciers is not related to climatic fluctuations, and surges can take place even at times when glaciers retreat. This is the usual behaviour of some glaciers and can not be evidence of an impending surge… unfortunately, direct observations of a change in the movement of a glacier at the onset of a surge are still very rare, and the causes for surges are not yet clear…It should be emphasized that the problem of climate change is extremely difficult to understand, and it has still not been possible to know what factors in the past decades — natural or anthropogenic — have caused the warming. There are still many uncertainties in solving this problem. IPCC estimates are rather wide in their range of accuracy and, therefore, cannot predict with confidence…at least not in the coming decades and centuries.

In Greenland, the Jakobshavn glacier around 2012 had been retreating about 1.8 miles and thinning nearly 130 ft per annum. In the past two years, according to a study in Monday’s Nature Geoscience, it started growing by the same amount. “A natural cyclical cooling of North Atlantic waters likely caused the glacier to reverse course“, said study lead author Ala Khazendar, a NASA glaciologist on the Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) project. Khazendar and colleagues say “this coincides with a flip of the North Atlantic Oscillation — a natural and temporary cooling and warming of parts of the ocean that is like a distant cousin to El Nino in the Pacific.

Approximately 11% of  Iceland’s total area of roughly 100,000 km2 is covered by glaciers. Vatnajökull is the largest glacier mass in Europe. It covers an area of roughly 8,000 km2, and is 950-1000 m where it is thickest. Its mean thickness is a little less than 500 m, and the total ice volume of Vatnajökull is probably in the order of 3,300 km3.

Glaciers on Iceland had their maximum Little Ice Age extension over 1890-1920. Glacier variations in Iceland since 1930 showed a clear response to variations in climate during the period: Most non-surging glaciers retreated strongly during the early half of the monitoring period, following the warm climate between 1930 and 1940. A cooling climate after 1940 led to a slowing of the retreat and many glaciers started to advance around 1970. Warming climate since 1985 led to an increased number of retreating glaciers. The estimated coverage loss per year is about 0.2% overall, which amounts to 20-30 km2 becoming ice-free every year. If the present trend continues, most glaciers on Iceland will have melted away within 500 years.

Major surging glaciers of Vatnajökull. Figure source: Björnsson et al. (2003)

A surge-type glacier experiences a dramatic increase in flow rate, which can be 10-100 times greater than normal flow rates. The velocities of surge-type glaciers can exceed 100 m/day. About 26 Icelandic glaciers are known to surge.  Glacier variations in Iceland have been recorded systematically since the 1930s.

One of the best known surging glaciers in Iceland is Brúarjökull which has had major surges in 1810, 1890 and 1963/64.  During the 1890 surge, the ice margin advanced about 10 km over a period of few months. Subsequent to the surge, the ice front became largely stagnant and the glacier retreated until it surged again in 1963-1964.

So while the mainstream media has got the desired effect of whipping up hysteria of receding glaciers caused by human-created CO2 based global warming, there is little effort to reference their own sources, such as the alarmist UN. How ironic it is that the UN doesn’t have any confidence in why these things happen yet the media seemingly does as long as it fits a narrative.

The plaque says 415ppm of C02. That’s right. CO2 is 0.0415% of the atmosphere. CM hopes his grandkids look at me one day and say, “why couldn’t people do simple mathematical fractions?

BoM strikes again


Jo Nova has an interesting piece which describes the shameless behaviour of our Bureau of Meteorology (BoM). She notes,

The Streaky Bay information (site 018079) tells us it opened in 1865 but the site only has monthly data from 1926 and daily data from an even shorter period. The rest presumably hasn’t been digitized yet. As best as I can tell, the station metadata appear to mark this site as being at the post office from 1865 to 2018, and record the ground cover as becoming asphalt in July 1987. That means for 31 years the Australian Bureau of Meteorology knew the site was sitting on hot bitumen and couldn’t be bothered to move it? The BOM gets more than a million dollars a day, and claims there’s a dire crisis running, and they don’t even care enough to measure climate change properly? They’re not even trying.

If you click on the Streaky Bay information site link above you’ll be directed to a “page not found.”

Jo Nova demands a Royal Commission (RC) into the BoM. CM agrees. If they have nothing to hide, there is nothing to fear. People might claim it is a waste of money to host a RC on the BoM but the savings of that investment would far outweigh the billions spent on poorly derived data-driven expenditure on renewables.

Toxic males and older folk still prefer Brexit to climate change

Activist group Christian Aid has published a survey of 2,072 people across representative age, gender, region and socioeconomic background to tell us that 71% of people care about the “long term” impacts of climate change than Brexit. 60% of people said that the UK government isn’t doing enough on climate change. Although looking at the questions in the ComRes survey we find when the word long term is removed it falls to 49%. Those damned toxic males make it 44% agreeing and 48% disagreeing with climate change being more pressing than Brexit in the short run. Don’t mention the older people! What do they know!? If Brexit occurs they’ll have stolen our “futures” twice!

Then by region, those pesky Northern Irelanders don’t think climate change is as important as Brexit. The double-barreled snobs in the South West are a given to be in favour of leaving the EU.

As can be seen from the Christian Aid website, it is an alarmist organization pleading its followers to bully banks into ending finance to fossil fuel industries.  HSBC is the main target.

When the next general election comes, CM thinks that Brexit will be given priority to climate. The EU elections proved that. Now that Corbyn has gone back on his word on Brexit and Boris is a “leaver” one imagines that the results of this survey will be disproven at the ballot box.

Peak climate change hysteria reached?

We must be near the top of climate change hysteria. A new report released by David Spratt and Ian Dunlop, titled, ‘Existential climate-related security risk: A scenario approach‘ points to climate Armageddon, which reads like an aggregation of every junk prediction ever made rolled into one.

The report suggests in its 2050 scenario,

While sea levels have risen 0.5 metres by 2050, the increase may be 2–3 metres by 2100, and it is understood from historical analogues that seas may eventually rise by more than 25 metres. 35% of the global land area and 55% of the global population are subject to more than 20 days a year of lethal heat conditions, beyond the threshold of human survivability.

Most regions in the world see a significant drop in food production and increasing numbers of extreme weather events, including heat waves, floods and storms. Food production is inadequate to feed the global population and food prices skyrocket, as a consequence of a one-fifth decline in crop yields, a decline in the nutrition content of food crops, a catastrophic decline in insect populations, desertification, monsoon failure and chronic water shortages, and conditions too hot for human habitation in significant food-growing regions. The lower reaches of the agriculturally-important river deltas such as the Mekong, Ganges and Nile are inundated, and significant sectors of some of the world’s most populous cities — including Chennai, Mumbai, Jakarta, Guangzhou, Tianjin, Hong Kong, Ho Chi Minh City, Shanghai, Lagos, Bangkok and Manila — are abandoned. Some small islands become uninhabitable. 10% of Bangladesh is inundated, displacing 15 million people.

Even for 2°C of warming, more than a billion people may need to be relocated and In high-end scenarios, the scale of destruction is beyond our capacity to model, with a high likelihood of human civilisation coming to an end.

If that is not pathetic enough the forward, written by a retired admiral, cues the violins,

David Spratt and Ian Dunlop have laid bare the unvarnished truth about the desperate situation humans, and our planet, are in, painting a disturbing picture of the real possibility that human life on earth may be on the way to extinction, in the most horrible way…

…Stronger signals still are coming from increasing civil disobedience, for example over the opening up of the Galilee Basin coal deposits and deepwater oil exploration in the Great Australian Bight, with the suicidal increase in carbon emissions they imply. And the outrage of schoolchildren over their parent’s irresponsibility in refusing to act on climate change.

Note Spratt & Dunlop do not believe the 2050 scenario is “far from an extreme scenario.

The sad thing is that global crop yields have never been better, the IPCC has had to backtrack to admit little or no confidence that storms, floods or any other catastrophe are out of the realms of normality. Perhaps the most telling quote in the report is,

and climate scientists admitting to depression as they consider the “inevitable” nature of a doomsday future and turn towards thinking more about family and relocation to “safer” places, rather than working on more research.

Perhaps that depression comes from the fact that nearly all the models have been shown to be duds. So many predictions have shown the complete opposite.

CM still believes that climate scientists need to have an independent regulator that ensures that any malfeasance or fraud by the science community results in heavy fines and jail terms. Whistleblower protections should be put in place. Provide a 6-mth amnesty for scientists to admit any wrongdoing. After that, they are on the hook. Then watch all those prophecies get scaled back to paint a  2050 picture of absolute wonder.

Oh, the irony

Oh the irony. Poor young Greta Thunberg was invited to speak at Davos. She may have wanted her audience to panic but it might have been better for her to focus outside her window on landing so she could see the utter hypocrisy of those she was addressing and their chosen mode of transport – 1,500 private jets.

Still, like the UN COP summit just past, we are supposed to believe that a 16yo has all the answers. Why go to university? What is the value in further education if a kid not even out of high school is smarter than all the adults in the room?

What a farce. The word “panic” says it all. It is hard to know who to believe. Thunburg? Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has only given us 12 years to live. Even The Pentagon wrote a report in 2003 that suggested by 2020 climate change would cause nuclear war, famine and natural disasters costing millions of lives. Not long to go til we get confirmation.

COP24 – checking cash, corruption and cars

It should come as no surprise that the COP24 summit is a time to put the money where the mouth is. Look at the numbers of the delegates from Africa to stake their claim of the wealth redistribution. Guinea has sent the biggest delegation of 406 people. In 2016 the country received over $10.7mn in climate grants. DR Congo’s 237 delegates garnered $45 mn in aid for climate mitigation projects according to the OECD. The Ivory Coast received $114 million in 2016 for environmental aid. Indonesia got $250 million in climate related aid in the same year.  Poland can be forgiven being the host nation to be 3rd place. It receives zip, much like the US and Australia. The COP summits are nothing more than networking events to collect cash from virtue signaling Western governments.


Putting that in context of the representation amongst all delegates to their representative population, Guinea is at 15.5x. America at 0.1x. Guinea is 86 people lighter than in 2017. The Ivory Coast had halved its delegates on the previous summit.


One has to question how efficiently these millions given away get to be spent on the intent. Take a look at Transparency International’s global 2017 corruption index. 180 is the worst. 1 is the best. Note the correlation of delegates attending COP24 to those countries with a higher prevalence of corruption?


There is a touch of irony that the transport recommendations to/from Katowice airport made by the UNFCCC are all diesel vehicles. Not an EV in sight. Surely there was an opportunity to team up with an EV maker to co–sponsor the event? Did the 7,331 observers going to the summit pick up on this? Why didn’t they take advantage of the virtual attendance technology that was available? Better to be there and enjoy the banquets and political graft.


Live free and negotiate