We are on track and why all because some computer program that cannot tell the weather in a week is forecasting the climate in a 100 hundred years.

These models have been proven wrong, ofcourse you donot hear that on MSM.

There is no threat, look at cyclones, bushfires and yes even those cuddly polar bears.

The info is there go and see for yourself or SUFFER what awaits all of us.

The system works because we tow the line rememeber that.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum/2016/11/10/shopping-i-cant-really-remember-what-that-is-or-how-differently-well-live-in-2030/?sh=64e6bdca1735

https://i.ibb.co/qjNwq9x/onhnplhbb.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/5TbvgWR/covid19-KS.jpg

The other day went to coles they gave me my shopping in a paper bag.

So now we are chopping down more trees...???

Geologist, Professor Ian Plimer, outlines the catastrophic consequences of Net Zero policies, in two and a half minutes:

"We have got this concept that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. That's never been shown... So the whole business of climate change is underpinned by an assumption."

"On that assumption, we've speared the countryside with wind turbines and covered all this prime agricultural land with a solar panels... Here's the problem: The solar panels, and the turbine blades, are made in China. Once we decarbonise, and get rid of our gas and coal generation, then we're at the mercy of China."

Source: https://watch.adh.tv/videos/save-the-nation-friday-28-october-2022

https://twitter.com/wideawake_media/status/1677997192626204783

Greenpeace co-founder, destroys the  "climate emergency" myth in under two minutes:

"For the last 300 years, we have been in a slight warming period. It started 150 years before we even used any fossil fuels, or emitted any CO2…”

https://twitter.com/LetsGoBrando45/status/1677689349419200512

Frank wrote on Jul 10^th, 2023 at 10:44am:

Geologist, Professor Ian Plimer, outlines the catastrophic consequences of Net Zero policies, in two and a half minutes...

An op-ed by Prof Ian Plimer in The Australian, which
was condemned as blatantly false by climate
scientists, has been found to have breached
standards by the Australian Press Council. In
November, his column titled ‘“Let’s not pollute
minds with carbon fears” argued that there “are no
carbon emissions. If there were, we could not see
because most carbon is black. Such terms are
deliberately misleading, as are many claims.”

The article also referred to the “fraudulent changing
of past weather records” and “unsubstantiated
claims polar ice is melting”, as well as “the ignoring
of data that shows Pacific islands and the Maldives
are growing rather than being inundated”.

In a lengthy adjudication the Oz was forced to
publish on page two on Friday, the press council
said the article contained inaccurate and misleading
material in its claims that the Bureau of
Meteorology had fraudulently changed weather
records and that Plimer’s claims that there was no
evidence polar ice was melting were misleading.

The newspaper breached two of the general
principles of reporting: ensuring factual material is
accurate (principle 1) and ensuring facts are
presented with reasonable fairness and balance and
opinion is based on fact (principle 3).

The council found that while it would have preferred
Plimer’s links to the mining industry were disclosed
in the column, The Australian did not breach
guidelines in not disclosing because Plimer’s “past
or present directorships of mining companies and
advocacy in the debate around climate change were
so well known” that it was not required.

In reviewing the article last November, University of
NSW professor Katrin Meissner wrote: “This article
is an impressive collation of the well known, scientifically
wrong, and overused denier arguments. It is ideologically
motivated and, frankly, utter nonsense.”

—Excerpted from The Guardian Australia, 24 July 2020.

AusGeoff wrote on Jul 11^th, 2023 at 3:54am:

Frank wrote on Jul 10th, 2023 at 10:44am: Geologist, Professor Ian Plimer, outlines the catastrophic consequences of Net Zero policies, in two and a half minutes... An op-ed by Prof Ian Plimer in The Australian, which was condemned as blatantly false by climate scientists, has been found to have breached standards by the Australian Press Council. In November, his column titled ‘“Let’s not pollute minds with carbon fears” argued that there “are no carbon emissions. If there were, we could not see because most carbon is black. Such terms are deliberately misleading, as are many claims.” The article also referred to the “fraudulent changing of past weather records” and “unsubstantiated claims polar ice is melting”, as well as “the ignoring of data that shows Pacific islands and the Maldives are growing rather than being inundated”. In a lengthy adjudication the Oz was forced to publish on page two on Friday, the press council said the article contained inaccurate and misleading material in its claims that the Bureau of Meteorology had fraudulently changed weather records and that Plimer’s claims that there was no evidence polar ice was melting were misleading. The newspaper breached two of the general principles of reporting: ensuring factual material is accurate (principle 1) and ensuring facts are presented with reasonable fairness and balance and opinion is based on fact (principle 3). The council found that while it would have preferred Plimer’s links to the mining industry were disclosed in the column, The Australian did not breach guidelines in not disclosing because Plimer’s “past or present directorships of mining companies and advocacy in the debate around climate change were so well known” that it was not required. In reviewing the article last November, University of NSW professor Katrin Meissner wrote: “This article is an impressive collation of the well known, scientifically wrong, and overused denier arguments. It is ideologically motivated and, frankly, utter nonsense.” —Excerpted from The Guardian Australia, 24 July 2020.

There is no factual evidence for AGW.
There is no 'carbon pollution', the shorthand expression is misleading and factually wrong.
CO2 is not a pollutant.
Anthropogenic CO2 does not change the climate.
None of Palmer's specific points were countered by Meissner. As usual, a blanket, non-specific dismissal was applied, in direct contradiction of the AGW-mongers' demand for FACTUAL evidence to support their catastrophising claims.
The Granuiad is "is an impressive collation of the well known, scientifically wrong, and overused arguments. It is ideologically motivated propaganda organ and, frankly, utter nonsense.”

There are more climatologists that disagree with the doomsday scenario than what there is preaching it.

1/3 preach it because they are on the gravy train.

2/3 disagree but never get any air time on MSM.

Ajax wrote on Jul 11^th, 2023 at 9:03pm:

There are more climatologists that disagree with the doomsday scenario than what there is preaching it. 1/3 preach it because they are on the gravy train. 2/3 disagree but never get any air time on MSM.

Quote:

There is no factual evidence for AGW.

Not so...

The American Association for the Advancement
of Science (AAAS) 'What We Know' site states:
"Based on the evidence, about 97 percent of
climate scientists agree that human-caused
climate change is happening."

These scientific organizations have not issued
statements in a void; they echo the findings
of individual papers published in refereed
scientific journals. The Institute for Scientific
Information (ISI) maintains a database of
over 8,500 peer-reviewed science journals,
and multiple studies of this database show
evidence of overwhelming agreement among
climate scientists.

The American Meteorological Society (AMS)
issued this position statement: "Scientific
evidence indicates that the leading cause of
climate change in the most recent half
century is the anthropogenic increase in the
concentration of atmospheric greenhouse
gases, including carbon dioxide (CO₂),
chlorofluorocarbons, methane, tropospheric
ozone, and nitrous oxide." (Adopted April 15, 2019)

   https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/isnt-there-lot-disagreement-among-climate-scientists-about-global-warming

AusGeoff wrote on Jul 12^th, 2023 at 12:27am:

"Based on the evidence, about 97 percent of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is happening."

The old 97%. ::) ::) ::) ::)

Cook et al 2013.

You can still read the abstracts at the SkepSci website.

https://skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search&s=a&a=&c=&e=1&yf=1991&yt=2011

A total of 65 papers (according to them), out of 11,000 odd pages, said AGW was more than 50%. ::)

934 papers apparently said there was some AGW

And 2934 didn't actually say they endorsed AGW, but the researchers thought they meant to... or something. ::)

AusGeoff wrote on Jul 12^th, 2023 at 12:27am:

Ajax wrote on Jul 11th, 2023 at 9:03pm: There are more climatologists that disagree with the doomsday scenario than what there is preaching it. 1/3 preach it because they are on the gravy train. 2/3 disagree but never get any air time on MSM. Quote: There is no factual evidence for AGW. Not so... The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 'What We Know' site states: "Based on the evidence, about 97 percent of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is happening." These scientific organizations have not issued statements in a void; they echo the findings of individual papers published in refereed scientific journals. The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) maintains a database of over 8,500 peer-reviewed science journals, and multiple studies of this database show evidence of overwhelming agreement among climate scientists. The American Meteorological Society (AMS) issued this position statement: "Scientific evidence indicates that the leading cause of climate change in the most recent half century is the anthropogenic increase in the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide." (Adopted April 15, 2019)    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/isnt-there-lot-disagreement-among-climate-scientists-about-global-warming

Oh, scientific consensus!



In 1952, the American Psychiatry Association (APA) Committee on Nomenclature and Statistics developed the first version of the DSM, which served as the first manual of mental health focused on clinical diagnoses and care and provided a glossary and description of psychiatric illnesses. The category of sociopathic personality disturbance included subcategories, such as antisocial reaction, sexual deviation, and addiction. Sexual deviation included different types of behavior classified as pathologic, including “homosexuality, transvestism, pedophilia, fetishism, and sexual sadism including rape, sexual assault, mutilation”. Given the current societal acceptance of homosexuality in many countries—and while it may be difficult to imagine today that homosexuality truly fits into “pathologic behavior”—it is important to understand that inclusion of homosexuality in the DSM served to move same-sex sexual behavior from being regarded as a moral sin and into the secular world of medicine by recognizing it not as a sin but instead as a disorder.
https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp-rj.2022.180103


The science said it wasnt a sin but a disorder. Now it's not a disorder but a source of pride. Next it will be compulsory. 
But it's all science, innit.

Frank wrote on Jul 12^th, 2023 at 1:45pm:

AusGeoff wrote on Jul 12th, 2023 at 12:27am: Ajax wrote on Jul 11th, 2023 at 9:03pm: There are more climatologists that disagree with the doomsday scenario than what there is preaching it. 1/3 preach it because they are on the gravy train. 2/3 disagree but never get any air time on MSM. Quote: There is no factual evidence for AGW. Not so... The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 'What We Know' site states: "Based on the evidence, about 97 percent of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is happening... Oh, scientific consensus! In 1952, the American Psychiatry Association (APA) Committee on Nomenclature and Statistics developed the first version of the DSM, which served as the first manual of mental health focused on clinical diagnoses and care and provided a glossary and description of psychiatric illnesses...

Any reference to the  Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSM)  is pointless and a faulty analogy. 
You're citing clinical science from 70 years past, without
acknowledging just how much the sciences, including
climatology, have advanced during that period.

So... do you disagree with the claim that "97 percent of
climate scientists agree that human-caused climate
change is happening"?     And if so why?

AusGeoff wrote on Jul 12^th, 2023 at 12:27am:

Ajax wrote on Jul 11th, 2023 at 9:03pm: There are more climatologists that disagree with the doomsday scenario than what there is preaching it. 1/3 preach it because they are on the gravy train. 2/3 disagree but never get any air time on MSM. Quote: There is no factual evidence for AGW. Not so... The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 'What We Know' site states: "Based on the evidence, about 97 percent of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is happening." These scientific organizations have not issued statements in a void; they echo the findings of individual papers published in refereed scientific journals. The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) maintains a database of over 8,500 peer-reviewed science journals, and multiple studies of this database show evidence of overwhelming agreement among climate scientists. The American Meteorological Society (AMS) issued this position statement: "Scientific evidence indicates that the leading cause of climate change in the most recent half century is the anthropogenic increase in the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide." (Adopted April 15, 2019)    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/isnt-there-lot-disagreement-among-climate-scientists-about-global-warming

97% consensus explained.

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1689117382

In Europe - The 48C that wasn't.


Quote:

The hysteria was started when climate sensationalist media outlets in Germany and elsewhere, like the Relotius Spiegel, uncritically cited a sloppily and manipulatively formulated July 13 report from the European Space Agency (ESA), that first referred to “air” temperature:     Temperatures are sizzling across Europe this week amid an intense and prolonged period of heat. And it’s only just begun. Italy, Spain, France, Germany and Poland are all facing a major heatwave with air temperatures expected to climb to 48°C on the islands of Sicily and Sardinia – potentially the hottest temperatures ever recorded in Europe.” The original ESA report continued, only later specifying that it was in fact referring to surface temperature (emphasis added):     The animation below uses data from the Copernicus Sentinel-3 mission’s radiometer instrument and shows the land surface temperature across Italy between 9 and 10 July. As the image clearly shows, in some cities the surface of the land exceeded 45°C, including Rome, Naples, Taranto and Foggia. Along the east slopes of Mount Etna in Sicily, many temperatures were recorded as over 50°C.” Meant here were not the standard temperatures recorded at 2 meters above ground level that we always here in daily weather reports, which are much cooler, but rather those right at the ground surface. That crucial difference went totally unnoticed by media and journalists, who reported of new record high temperatures. By the time the ploy was exposed by careful readers, the news had already gone around the world. Yesterday, the ESA  issued a (vague) clarification explaining the difference between surface and air temperature at 2 meters above ground, yet continued to mislead:     Land surface temperature is how hot the ‘surface’ of Earth feels to the touch. Air temperature, given in our daily weather forecasts, is a measure of how hot the air is above the ground.” The ESA did not bother to mention how the surface temperature is much hotter than the 2 meter air temperature. “Most intense climate lie” “What we experienced over the past days was most intense climate lie since temperature recording began,” reported Germany’s Achtung Reichelt here on the implications of the ESA’s sloppy, manipulative press release and the media firestorm that ensued: “The problem with that report is that none of it is true.” In Sicily the temperature reached only 32°C over the weekend – a far cry from 48°C, which illustrates the great difference between ground surface temperature and readings taken 2 meters above the ground. Once the trickery was exposed, Spiegel quietly changed the wording in its July 14 report: https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Spiegel-48-Grad.png Spiegel changed the text (left) from 48°C with “many heat deaths” over to (right): “48°C …but that the measurements were not the usual air temperature – which can be considerably lower.” It’s clear that the authorities and media tries to pull a fast one on the public, but were caught again thanks to careful readers.

https://notrickszone.com/2023/07/19/europes-48c-horror-that-never-was-esa-media-sharply-criticized-for-manipulative-reporting/

Of course there are those quick to promote it as AGW. ::)

So what is it with this CO2 theory of AGW, that the only warming occurs with an El Nino. And they are naturally occurring. ::)

Some peopleo thers have used the intense summer heat to make ridiculous statements.  On this score it’s a competition between Hillary Clinton and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. The former US secretary of state last week blamed “MAGA Republicans” for the heatwave. “Hot enough for you? Thank a MAGA Republican. Or better yet, vote them out of office,” she said on social media, linking to a tweet that attacked Republicans for not supporting the Inflation Reduction Act.


Meanwhile, Guterres said at a press conference in New York that “the era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived”, declaring climate change “here and terrifying”.

The two statements were stupid in their own ways. Clinton was trying to politicise the weather, something no government can control over any measurable time frame. Guterres was simply being hysterical, seeking to use fear to garner political support for more “climate action”, which not coincidentally means more power for governments and “experts”.

A 2021 survey of 10,000 young people aged 16 to 25 across wealthy nations – the next generation of leaders – found 59 per cent were “extremely worried” to the point that 45 per cent said climate change affected their “daily life and functioning”, according to the Lancet.

These two comments came as scientists had confirmed July was the hottest month ever recorded in 120,000 years of history, according to the Scientific Americ
an and a deluge of media articles. That reliable measures only go back a little over a century doesn’t seem to matter.

Even assuming the “global temperature” can be measured accurately, an average taken over three weeks is meaningless. Indeed, a quick internet search suggests the 1936 heatwave in the US, which killed thousands of people, was at least as bad, and lasted longer.

Government institutions as much as the media are to blame for this propaganda victory, increasingly starved of alternative voices to report on and biased published data.

Earlier this month the International Monetary Fund quietly disinvited John Clauser, an American scientist who won the 2022 Nobel prize for physics, from giving a presentation on July 25 about climate change models.

From the perspective of climate alarmists it’s not hard to see why. Some junior bureaucrats must have alerted the organisers to Clauser’s sacrilege of a few weeks earlier at Quantum Korea, a science conference in Seoul.

In his keynote address he told an audience of budding scientists the world was “awash with pseudoscience”. Then he committed a cardinal sin. “I can confidently say there is no real climate crisis, and that climate change does not cause extreme weather events.”

“The IPCC is one of the worst sources of dangerous disinformation,” said Clauser, who won the Nobel prize “for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science”.  I suppose he – unlike Greta Thunberg, who is feted by global institutions – is not a proper climate expert.

Similarly, the US Environmental Protection Agency on its website shows charts indicating the frequency, duration and intensity of heatwaves in the US have been increasingly steadily since the 1960s. If it was a UN event, perhaps one could understand, given the IPCC is ultimately a United Nations body. But the IMF is independent of the UN, suggesting the cancellation was another pathetic example of censorship by a supposedly intellectual institution stuffed with PhD graduates.

But dig a little deeper on the website and one finds a “Heat Wave Index” going back to 1895, which clearly shows the heatwaves were more common before the 1960s, especially in the 1930s, before human-induced climate change was even considered.

These two recent examples of bias and censorship in relation to climate change merely pave the way for stupid statements by senior political figures.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/experts-feel-the-heat-of-latest-climate-panic/news-story/a949fbf8e3499a68532a85931cbc5fef

Frank wrote on Jul 31^st, 2023 at 11:48am:

Some people have used the intense summer heat to make ridiculous statements.  On this score it’s a competition between Hillary Clinton and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. The former US secretary of state last week blamed “MAGA Republicans” for the heatwave. “Hot enough for you? Thank a MAGA Republican. Or better yet, vote them out of office,” she said on social media, linking to a tweet that attacked Republicans for not supporting the Inflation Reduction Act...

    https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/andrew-bolt/what-kind-of-idiot-thinks-that-hillary-clinton-blames-republicans-for-us-heatwave/video/11bfe675c0ba0e6eedec5a60d8048085

            ::)