At Last a Politician Mentions Climate Fraud: Queensland Senator Ian MacDonald

I’VE been unimpressed with new Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the nature of the Coalition’s election victory. During the recent election then Shadow Minister, now Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, repeatedly stated that “We agree… on the science of climate change, we agree on the targets to reduce emissions and we agree on using markets as the best mechanism.”

There has been no one prepared to publically put the alternative perspective on climate change, to speak up and explain that of course the climate has always changed, but there is no evidence to suggest we currently have a climate catastrophe or that a carbon tax will have any effect on the climate. Until yesterday. While I wouldn’t consider Ian MacDonald’s speech to the Australian Senate particularly well written, it is inspiring in so much as at last we have an Australian politician speaking plainly in parliament about the nonsense that is climate change and the carbon tax… Ian Macdonald

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (12:56): There is a long list of speakers on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2013. I am one of the few from the coalition who will be speaking. The Labor Party are quite clearly filibustering on this and every other bill to cause as much difficulty as possible to the Australian public. The Australian public want this bill passed before Christmas. They made their views very, very clear at the last federal election. The government is keen to honour its commitment to the Australian people to abolish the carbon tax and all the trappings that go with it, and that is why government speakers will be noticeable by their absence from this debate. We are, thanks to the Labor Party and the Greens, dealing with each bill separately, and I will not have the opportunity of speaking on any other bills, so my remarks, as I indicated earlier, are in the broader way. I am also keenly aware that we want to get on, so I will try to confine my remarks. I have already spoken for about eight minutes.

Before concluding, I just want to emphasise this point: I think this whole climate change debate will go down in history as one of the great frauds on the Australian people—similar to Y2K, I would suggest. The suggestion is that having the world’s biggest carbon tax, which will reduce our emissions by five per cent—that is, five per cent of the 1.4 per cent of emissions that come from Australia—will change the climate of the world. You have heard Senator Milne time and time again telling us all that this climate change process in Australia is what is going to save the world. She cannot possibly believe that. Nobody in their right mind could possibly believe that.

I have always said the climate is changing. Clearly it is. Australia used to be covered in ice once. The centre of Australia used to be a rainforest. Clearly the climate is changing. Is it man’s emissions that have done it? I do not know; I am not a scientist. But I say again that there are a great number of reputable scientists who doubt it. I acknowledge there are a great number of reputable scientists who are absolutely passionate about the argument, but I might say I am not convinced. But I do accept the climate is changing. But why Australia, which emits less than 1.4 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions, should be leading the way nobody has ever been able to explain to me. Why Australia should have the world’s largest carbon tax when it is such a small emitter again escapes me, and nobody, in any debate we have had in this chamber, has ever been able to explain to me why it is that we should destroy Australian industry, destroy Australian jobs, for no benefit whatsoever.

As the report I was referring to when I last spoke on this says, it is all pain for no environmental gain. It is clear that Australia acting alone cannot change anything. We will do what Australia committed to do—that is, reduce our emissions by five per cent. We will do it by the direct action method. But I emphasise, even in relation to our programs, that unless the rest of the world does something then it is not going to make one iota of difference. I have heard all the statistics, but I know the other statistics. China opens a coal fired power station every week. India continues to use fossil fuel. I am not critical of them for doing that. All I am saying is: why does Australia put itself at such a commercial disadvantage for something that is not making one iota of difference? The sooner we get rid of this authority and all the trappings that go round the Labor-Green con job, if I might call it that, of climate change, the better Australia will be.

I am quite sure that in years to come people will look back on history and say: ‘Remember how Y2K was going to destroy the world? Remember global warming?’—as it was originally—’Well, we’re still going.’ Whilst the coalition will do its five per cent, as we have always committed to, we are not going to do it at the expense of the Australian people. We took this proposal to the election. No Australian could have been under any doubt. Mr Abbott said many times: ‘This election will be a referendum on the carbon tax.’ Nobody could have been in any doubt…”

Thank you Mr MacDonald.


79 Responses to At Last a Politician Mentions Climate Fraud: Queensland Senator Ian MacDonald

  1. Beth Cooper December 10, 2013 at 9:19 am #

    Plus one ter Ian McDonald.

    Globul warming has the capacity ter destroy the world, not as green fascists predict,
    but by destroying economies. Efficient cheap energy has been the basis fer human
    advancement since the Industrial Revolution, ending famine in the west and previous
    high rates of early mortality. Three cheers fer ol’ King Coal!

  2. Denis Webb December 10, 2013 at 10:04 am #

    George Christensen, also from Queensland, makes comment questioning the scientific consensus in Australian Parliament House

  3. cohenite December 10, 2013 at 10:50 am #

    “You have heard Senator Milne time and time again telling us all that this climate change process in Australia is what is going to save the world. She cannot possibly believe that. Nobody in their right mind could possibly believe that.”

    There you go, categorical evidence that Senator Milne is nuts.

  4. handjive December 10, 2013 at 11:35 am #

    He used that word ‘fraud’.


  5. Debbie December 10, 2013 at 11:37 am #

    It doesn’t need to be especially clever or well written to state what is becoming bleeding obvious!

    ” Why Australia should have the world’s largest carbon tax when it is such a small emitter again escapes me, and nobody, in any debate we have had in this chamber, has ever been able to explain to me why it is that we should destroy Australian industry, destroy Australian jobs, for no benefit whatsoever.”

    ” it is all pain for no environmental gain. It is clear that Australia acting alone cannot change anything.”

    “We took this proposal to the election. No Australian could have been under any doubt. Mr Abbott said many times: ‘This election will be a referendum on the carbon tax.’ Nobody could have been in any doubt…”

    As Beth says….
    “Plus one ter Ian McDonald.”

    The political damage is indeed about social and economic damage to Australia and it is clearly highly doubtful that it could deliver a gain for the weather/climate/environment.

    The arguments re ‘the sky not falling in’ because of the introduction of the carbon tax and Milne et al ‘saving and/or leading the world’ speeches are devoid of the common sense that has been expressed in this speech, even though those ‘usual suspects’ will no doubt take some type of sniping pleasure in focusing on the ‘quality’ of the speech writing rather than paying attention to the message.

  6. Neville December 10, 2013 at 11:44 am #

    The MacDonald speech is a bit messy in places but 10 out of 10 for mentioning the F word and getting stuck into that stupid Milne.

    Here’s a very good article by Bob Carter in the latest Quandrant Magazine.

  7. Beth Cooper December 10, 2013 at 2:09 pm #

    I’ve got it on me list,* (a work in progress)
    ter wit ‘ Withdrawal of Funding’ from:

    # The IPCC
    # Most UN Bodies
    # Renewables= Technologies.
    (Removal of Taxes on Fossil Fuels.)
    # The ABC.

    H/t Schneider on lists.

  8. Johnathan Wilkes December 10, 2013 at 2:36 pm #

    C Milnes
    “the sky not falling in”

    Of course the bleeding sky is not falling in, people put up with many things, because they have no control, but it doesn’t mean we have to like it or more importantly that it’s good for us.

    I’m getting more and more convinced that a greater majority of the general population is nothing but a bunch of morons.
    How on earth do we get politicians like we have now? And I include most of them on the gov. side too.

  9. John Sayers December 10, 2013 at 2:40 pm #

    “even though those ‘usual suspects’ will no doubt take some type of sniping pleasure in focusing on the ‘quality’ of the speech writing rather than paying attention to the message.”

    No – they will attack the messenger as usual, cue Luke and his old codger, country bumpkin, too much sun and fried brain remarks.

  10. George December 10, 2013 at 4:06 pm #

    Good on you Macca. I’m going to use your argument against my local council. They are trying to stop me dumping rubbish in a national park (generations of my family have done it)). How could my tiny contribution make any diffrence – other than cost me money to cart it away. And where is the evidence to show rubbish does any harm eh? (other than from useless untrustworthy boffins).

    And please Ian et al, don’t weaken when the public and red neck farmers get blown away or waxhed away and start demanding real acction on “climate change” (LOL) – you tell ’em it’s all a fraud.

  11. Johnathan Wilkes December 10, 2013 at 6:51 pm #

    @ george
    “(generations of my family have done it)”

    killed you own argument right there! I take it you had a point?

  12. Robert December 10, 2013 at 6:52 pm #

    Some might find George tiresome, but I think he has a point. Let all the others dump their CO2 into their own atmospheres; our Australian National Atmosphere will be in lovely shape as soon as the European Union stops manipulating the carbon price. (That’s tricky for now, because the Eurobludgers need the Germans to stay rich enough and guilty enough to keep paying the tab, and Germany’s got all this brown coal they want to burn but not talk about.)

    Yes, Australia can have its own state-of-the-art atmosphere, unless you count the CO2 from avoidable bushfires and from failure to modernise coal power gen. And just about every other self-defeating green initiative. But once we put up that CO2 proof fence the trash stays on the other side where it belongs!

    Go get ’em, George. I wouldn’t be surprised if there aren’t green jobs and eco-tourism from foreigners yearning to breathe our low carbon Australian National Atmosphere. And imagine the boost to the brochure industry! Good on you George.

  13. sp December 10, 2013 at 8:00 pm #

    We have the Rabbit Proof Fence in WA, so why not a CO2 fence around Australia?

    Keep those wascally fowiegn CO2 wabbits out of Oz at all costs

  14. Beth Cooper December 10, 2013 at 8:44 pm #

    Is George Luke?

  15. Neville December 10, 2013 at 9:43 pm #

    George could be Luke, he makes about as much sense as Lukey. Come on George tell us how to fix your co2 problem and change the climate as well?

  16. Neville December 10, 2013 at 10:57 pm #

    Here’s a good talk by Mark Morano in Poland on the barking mad religion called global warming.

    He’s very funny but he shows just how many loonies there are all over the world pushing this absurd nonsense.
    It turns out that Luke isn’t that unusual at all because there are plenty of silly fools in every country who have the same mad religious fundamentalist point of view.

  17. CoRev December 11, 2013 at 1:37 am #

    I stopped by just to see what Loopey Luke would have to say. Guess he might have had to change names, but from my own experience it is an endemic condition among the AGW religious sect.

  18. Luke December 11, 2013 at 6:10 am #

    “Is George Luke” asks Beth ? Well who would know. I guess Beth would – as well as developing a new style of English and pretending ter be a medieval serf. There’s something for everyone isn’t there. It’s a rich old world out there. But good to see scepos doing a quick bit of delusion and seizing the latest idea with gusto.

    My sock puppet is actually sp and you all fell for it. Myself I’m also a druid and 14th century activist – Beth inspired me. Let’s all be nuts together.

    What’s for brekky at the home this morning guys?

  19. Neville December 11, 2013 at 7:00 am #

    SA is a good example of this delusional CAGW turning a state into a basket case. Their idiotic govt even has to bribe Mick and the Stones to pay a very expensive visit. What a farce.

    They’ve also gone down the Spanish path and switched private and REAL PRODUCTIVE jobs for more taxpayer funded, unproductive layabouts in the public service.
    All with the help of super expensive, useless windfarms that have blown out electricity prices to some of OZ’s highest since 2002. Labor at its best.
    Of course ZIP change to the climate or temp by 2040 or 2070 or 2100.

  20. toby December 11, 2013 at 7:53 am #

    Oh Goodness Luke, the only people deluded are those advocating a carbon tax, emissions scheme, green renewables etc in the wish that it will create some utopian climate.

    Ian Mcdonald is stating what is obvious to those that are not either ignorant or suffering from theory induced blindness. Its about time the real deniers woke up, even if your science is right, and clearly there are huge question marks over how much warming co2 actually will cause, the policies associated with CAGW are insanity personified.

  21. Neville December 11, 2013 at 8:02 am #

    According to the RSS record there has been little warming over the Arctic in the last ten years.

  22. toby December 11, 2013 at 8:27 am #

    I am sure there is a perfectly good excuse for the arctic not warming Nev…its all worse than we thought….an interesting graph if its believable!

  23. Robert December 11, 2013 at 8:29 am #

    George, some tiresome news. I hear there are many breaches in the South Australian CO2 Proof Frence, especially from the Victorian side. Also, quite a few molecules have been sneaking in from Broken Hill, which has become something of a CO2 smuggling hub. The illegaly entering molecules are called “sootbacks” by the local molecules. Tilll we have a single Australian National Atmosphere and National CO2 Proof Fence with strict border controls these tensions will persist.

    I have a dream that my own state of NSW wil become an economy of green jobs, eco-tourism and brochure design (bit messy and expensive to get the brochures actually made here.) At last Premier Barry O’Farrel will be able to make an historic speech from Broken Hill in which he demands:

    “Mr Weatherill, tear down your fence!”

  24. Robert LePage December 11, 2013 at 8:49 am #

    The Abbott Lib government has turned it’s back on AGW and is dismantling any measures taken to reduce CO2 emissions in Australia.

    They claim that the “Carbon Tax” is a big financial burden on the country and is unnecessary.
    In fact figures from the US show that the cost of not taking action is calamitous .
    It will cost Australia far more in the long term to not keep the so called carbon tax or it’s replacement with an emissions trading scheme, in the long term. This will of course be passed on to the people of Australia.
    The main reason for the coalition for denying AGW is that their corporation benefactors are only interested in maximum profits and anything that reduces them is to be denigrated.

  25. toby December 11, 2013 at 9:02 am #

    So Robert L, just how much difference to the worlds climate will a carbon tax make?

    do you really believe those links? when in fact the evidence suggests no increase in storm or cyclone or hurricane activity?

    do you seriously think that a tax raising 9b ( now apparently 6 b) from 23 m people is reasonable when the Europeans tax over 10 years has raised less from 300 m people?

    If you want to follow the money trail it only leads to one place…vested interests in the cause of CAGW!

    seriously wake up, there is no excuse for falling for this crap….not if you actually want to help peoples living standards.

  26. hunter December 11, 2013 at 9:23 am #

    If it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, it is likely a duck. AGW hype waddles, quacks and and swims like a fraud. Calling out the hype, rent seeking, phonied up evidence, and insider dealings for what they are is long over due.

  27. hunter December 11, 2013 at 9:31 am #

    Robert L,
    That bit of US government propaganda you are referring to is quite disreputable. The only reason we are getting more storm damage in terms of current dollars is the we have more things for storms to damage. Not because storms are behaving differently. It is rather pathetic that AGW promoters would try and avoid the obvious.Until one considers how much more lcrative it is for AGW promoters to blame the weather instead of manage the real estate improvements. Blaming the weather means plenty of nice fat grants and no actual hard work. Managing industrial and residential property development means actually ahving to do something that can be measured.

  28. Neville December 11, 2013 at 10:04 am #

    Well Robert LP here’s your big chance to show us how much we’ll reduce the planet’s temp by and when.
    Remember Labor’s co2 tax is 5% of 1.2% by 2020. Everyone here is waiting for you to show us the error of our ways. Please enlighten us. Just tell us how much and when we’ll see the result.

  29. Michael December 11, 2013 at 10:11 am #

    Ian Macdonald is an idiot. The know for a FACT that Y2K was a real issue. I and many other worked tirelessly and long hours to fix systems we KNEW would fail. We’d tested them. We knew that train was coming. And we knew the impact.

    The fact that is we worked like demons to drag that elephant off the train tracks and succeeded. Now, that elephant just says “What train?. You’re lying. There was no train.” It’s a bloody insult!

  30. bazza December 11, 2013 at 10:12 am #

    Other Liberal senators from Queensland seek to be better informed. For example Senator Sue Boyce informs her constituents in her newsletter “The World Meteorological Organization’s Statement on the Status of the Global Climate says that 2012 joined the ten previous years as one of the warmest – at ninth place – on record despite the cooling influence of a La Niña episode early in the year. “ Boyce once famously crossed the floor to vote for the ETS.

  31. Neville December 11, 2013 at 10:28 am #

    Geezzzz bazza tell us something we don’t know for a change. There are a few maths challenged loonies in the Lib party and there a number of sceptics within the Labor party.

    The facts are there is zip we can do about the climate or temp and the rest of the world couldn’t give a stuff anyway. Or haven’t you noticed? Also remember OZ’s EEZ sink removes 10 times more co2 than we emit.

  32. bazza December 11, 2013 at 11:06 am #

    The names of Labour Party sceptics are………..??

  33. Debbie December 11, 2013 at 11:59 am #

    That speech has certainly ruffled some feathers!
    Bazza, there are plenty of Labor pollies who admit that the policies achieved little to nothing and had a great deal to do with their loss in the recent election.
    Note in this speech what the scepticism is actually about. It’s not that they don’t believe that human activity can influence climate/weather/environment.

  34. Neville December 11, 2013 at 12:33 pm #

    Bazza for all practical purposes the Coalition and Labor parties are sceptical of any harm from CAGW.
    Both parties have busted a gut trying to export as much iron ore, coal and gas as they could over the last 40 years or more. That’s both state and federal parties and they still persist and even more so.

    They couldn’t care less about co2 emissions from those 100s millions of tonnes extra p.a over the years.
    Sure they all show a BS concern about the bee’s dick portion we use at home but that’s just delusional bi-polar hypocrisy because that can’t make zip difference at all anyway.

    Some of the Labor sceptics are/were Martin Ferguson, Michael Costa, Peter Walsh, Gary Johns. But Andrew Bolt outed Bill Shorten only a few weeks ago and got the info from one of his sources inside the party.
    The whole argument is a total con job and fraud and anyone who has tallyed our exports over the years will attest to this fact. Oh and you need a little commonsense as well, then you can work it out for yourself.

  35. bazza December 11, 2013 at 1:13 pm #

    If you don’t understand that the only way to tax consumption is where it is consumed and emissions where they are emitted, then you are pre kindy when it comes to understanding.

  36. toby December 11, 2013 at 1:24 pm #

    and if you don’t understand that the tax will not change the climate then pre kindy is a little generous don’t you think?

    platitudes are for fools and a carbon tax is a platitude to gaia that brings with it very considerable cost for no gain. a sure sign of mans insanity, I am amazed that intelligent people cant see that?

  37. sp December 11, 2013 at 1:50 pm #

    As Luke’s sock puppet I would like to make it clear to all – AGW is a fraud

  38. Neville December 11, 2013 at 2:06 pm #

    So bazza you want to tax Aussies 5% of zip but don’t give a toss about the soaring emissions in China and India? Remember the 94% and 6% ratio, or don’t facts mean anything to you at all?

    And in case you forgot we don’t much care about taxing 0.04% of the air we breathe anyway. But I also said you needed a little bit of commonsense, so I guess that leaves you out?

  39. Beth Cooper December 11, 2013 at 3:08 pm #

    Sometimes sp, the sock puppet may be more appealing than it’s master. )

  40. hunter December 11, 2013 at 9:10 pm #

    @Comment from: Michael December 11th, 2013 at 10:11 am,

    Michael, you misunderstood the point. Y2K was presented as an end of the world event. It was not. It was vastly over rated. There was talk well into 1999 that people had to be facing the end of computing and the infrastructure depending on it.
    None of it happened. It was extremely manageable.
    The problem in fact was trivial and easily dealt with.
    AGW kooks are like those who were selling emergency food supplies and bunker plans for Y2K.
    Yes CO2 is a factor in climate. It is not anything like what the loons and kooks here and elsewhere claim it is.

  41. Johnathan Wilkes December 11, 2013 at 9:47 pm #

    @Michael, didn’t see your post before.

    “The know for a FACT that Y2K was a real issue. “
    True, but the point is it was nothing of the kind of issue as it was made out be.

    “I and many other worked tirelessly and long hours “

    So did I, being in the IT industry, and worked tirelessly we milked it unashamedly for all its worth.

    Don’t know which part of IT you worked in but whichever, it never was critical or as you you state,
    an elephant on the train tracks, some of the software was way past its due date anyway and needed upgrading.
    Most would only would have produced an exception without the dramatic effect you are alluding to.

    I tell you what, I have some DOS Foxpro database programmes written well before 1997 and it works flawlessly without any patch!

    And the kind of scaremongering like yours, we are talking about, journos like crises and drama catastrophe , real life ain’t like that Michael.

  42. cohenite December 11, 2013 at 9:54 pm #

    Oh gawd Le Page has waddled in with hysteria and stupidity and his usual half-baked links in equal measure.

    Le Page makes luke sound like Einstein.

    And YK2 gets a mention! Can alarmists sink any lower? What a bunch of loons.

  43. jennifer December 11, 2013 at 10:23 pm #


    I would prefer you responded with substance, rather than name calling, to comments in this thread.

  44. John Sayers December 12, 2013 at 3:23 am #

    Jennifer, Cohenite responded as he thought fit, if you want us to contribute to your site then leave us alone – I’ve stopped posting here because of your domineering attitude to our contributions.

  45. Neville December 12, 2013 at 6:59 am #

    Interesting wish list from the previous post by the 18 scientists. They want a 6%/year reduction of fossil fuel use starting in 2013 but admit that this would have little effect by 2100.
    Or perhaps 2300 or 2500 or perhaps thousands of years? Who knows, but what a wank. See below.

    Emission Reduction Scenarios
    A 6%/year decrease of fossil fuel emissions beginning in 2013,
    with 100 GtC reforestation, achieves a CO2 decline to 350 ppm
    near the end of this century (Fig. 5A). Cumulative fossil fuel
    emissions in this scenario are ,129 GtC from 2013 to 2050, with
    an additional 14 GtC by 2100. If our assumed land use changes
    occur a decade earlier, CO2 returns to 350 ppm several years
    earlier; however that has negligible effect on the maximum global
    temperature calculated below.
    Delaying fossil fuel emission cuts until 2020 (with 2%/year
    emissions growth in 2012–2020) causes CO2 to remain above
    350 ppm (with associated impacts on climate) until 2300 (Fig. 5B).
    If reductions are delayed until 2030 or 2050, CO2 remains above
    350 ppm or 400 ppm, respectively, until well after 2500.
    We conclude that it is urgent that large, long-term emission
    reductions begin soon. Even if a 6%/year reduction rate and 500
    GtC are not achieved, it makes a huge difference when reductions
    begin. There is no practical justification for why emissions
    necessarily must even approach 1000 GtC.

  46. cohenite December 12, 2013 at 7:26 am #

    Sorry Jennifer I have argued myself blue in the face with Le Page at other places. I guess after replying in detail to his condescending faith in AGW for so long I just let rip; think of it as a sort of reverse indulgence, in the religious sense since AGW is a religion pretending to be a science.

  47. sp December 12, 2013 at 9:30 am #

    “What the IPCC couldn’t control was the climate. Although carbon dioxide emissions have continued their ceaseless rise, temperatures have not followed along in lockstep, as the global warming models had predicted. Instead, temperatures peaked in the late 1990s and have since plateaued at those levels. Even advocates of the global warming hypothesis – including James Hansen, Al Gore’s guru — acknowledge that global temperatures stopped rising.

    The global warming scientists — with their models defunct and now acting on hope rather than science — assert that temperatures will soon renew their climb. The global cooling scientists assert the opposite – that temperatures on Earth have peaked, as they have peaked countless times before in following nature’s cycles. And that consistent with Earth’s history, and with the laws of physics, temperatures on Earth will now be falling.”

  48. jennifer December 12, 2013 at 9:37 am #

    John Sayers,

    I will continue to request that those who wish to make a contribution at this blog comment/reply on the basis of substance, not with more name calling.

    When the name calling and snipping becomes really, really unbearable and I’m paying attention, I will continue to delete whole blocks of comment thread.

    Much thanks for your often insightful contributions over a long period of time.

  49. reb December 12, 2013 at 10:18 am #

    Egg would like everyone here to know that she can be found over here:

  50. Neville December 12, 2013 at 10:19 am #

    Christy and Pielke jnr testify before US Congress, this time a factual look at relationship between climate and weather.

  51. cohenite December 12, 2013 at 10:24 am #

    Just following on from Le Page’s comment, looking at his links which deal with extreme weather and insurance losses which, normalised, supposedly show both an increase in disasters and their cost.

    However, just like luke who is infamous for linking to papers which CONTRADICT his point so Le Page does the same. Take the Smith and Katz paper:

    This is an interesting paper which does not support Le Page’s hysteria. In fact Smith and Katz put forward many alternative [to AGW] explanations for apparent increases in losses from extreme weather events such greater crop cover. greater subsidisation of crops, greater insurance coverage, greater population and a systemic underestimation of past losses. One interesting point they briefly look at on page 7 is the greater cost which comes from declaration of areas as being prone to natural disasters; they say:

    “Dixon et al. (2006) found that the chances of purchasing insurance are higher for SFHA communities subject to coastal flooding/storm surge (63%) versus communities more at risk to riverine flooding (35%). Flood insurance coverage drops off steeply outside of the high risk flood areas, which is important as 25% of all flood insurance claims come from low-to-moderate-risk areas (FEMA 2011). The Dixon et al. study details how NFIP participation varies regionally inside and outside the SFHAs, showing high degrees of variability.”

    The point here is that declaration of risk is now becoming less a factor of past events and now based on IPCC modelling about future risk. A situation which demonstrates this is Lake Macquarie where the local Green run council has declared most of the Eastern side of the lake at greater risk to future flooding based on IPCC predictions of sea level rise. As a result houses have their insurance rates go up and their nominal value decrease but their actual value, as paid, and their replacement value increases. Any natural event which cause damage, such as a recent hailstorm is going to have an inflated insurance consequence due to these artificial factors; see:

    The second paper by Lott and Ross is even less supportive of Le Page’s position [which is basically head up backside] and is really a chronology of recent US climate events and an admission of faults in the methodology of calculating losses from extreme weather.

    There is a mountain of evidence which shows extreme weather is not increasing including AR5! In respect of insurance losses consider these:

    1 This paper looks at the inability of normalisation to factor in the general increase in wealth so that the damage bill from disasters is greater than in the past:

    2 Do insurance companies seek to profit from the predictions of more extreme weather by adjusting their losses and premiums accordingly? NO I hear you say, how cynical; Pielke Jr looks at Munich Insurance, one of the biggest:

    3 Crompton and McAneney show now normalised trend in insurance losses in Australia:

    4 Goklany shows no increase in death rates from extreme weather events:

    We have seen the Greens and other vultures jump all over recent bushfires and claim them as proof of AGW. This is despite even the IPCC stating this is not the case. There is no point arguing with reason and facts against such people because they BELIEVE in AGW; they are not susceptible to reason.

    In Le Page’s case I have attempted reason but he arrogantly dismisses all contradictions of his religion and always reverts to fake proof and the usual mantras like the consensus etc to ‘prove” his point.

    I’m sick of it; they are nutters and enemies of humanity. At the very least they deserve ridicule, which is what I will do at every opportunity.

  52. jennifer December 12, 2013 at 10:31 am #

    Hey Cohenite

    Thanks for taking the time to point out the many, many contradictions following on from LePage’s comment.

    I can understand that you are tired. And unfortunately, and increasingly, we are the ones seen by the mainstream as the nutters and enemies of humanity. But now is not the time to give up, or to become uncivil.

    Stay strong.

  53. toby December 12, 2013 at 11:17 am #

    I don’t suppose Robert LP will return, but if he does from the testimonials to us congress linked to above by Nev the following may help you to wake up to this con…….now ignorance is not an excuse for you spruiking CAGW garbage. The only deniers are those pushing the catastrophic consequences of additional co2. THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING FOR 15-17 YEARS!

    Take-home points from Pielke’s testimony:

     There exists exceedingly little scientific support for claims found in the media and political debate that hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and drought have increased in frequency or intensity on climate timescales either in the United States or globally.

     Similarly, on climate timescales it is incorrect to link the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.

    Here are some specific conclusions, with further details provided below:

     Globally, weather-related losses ($) have not increased since 1990 as a proportion of GDP (they have actually decreased by about 25%) and insured catastrophe losses have not increased as a proportion of GDP since 1960.

     Hurricane landfalls have not increased in the US in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900. The same holds for tropical cyclones globally since at least 1970 (when data allows for a global perspective).

     Floods have not increased in the US in frequency or intensity since at least 1950. Flood losses as a percentage of US GDP have dropped by about 75% since 1940.

     Tornadoes in the US have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950, and there is some evidence to suggest that they have actually declined.

     Drought has “for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U. S. over the last century.” Globally, “there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years.”

    The absolute costs of disasters will increase significantly in coming years due to greater wealth and populations in locations exposed to extremes. Consequent, disasters will continue to be an important focus of policy, irrespective of the exact future course of climate change.

  54. Toby December 12, 2013 at 11:27 am #

    “they are nutters and enemies of humanity. At the very least they deserve ridicule, which is what I will do at every opportunity.”

    hear hear Cohenite, if your destruction of his points cant wake him up then its hard to imagine what actually will?!

  55. Debbie December 12, 2013 at 12:04 pm #

    Good grief!

    ” the Climate Council says climate change is hampering fuel reduction burning, and causing more frequent high-fire-danger weather.

    “Professor Steffen says the fire season in southern Australia is starting earlier and finishing later, meaning there’s less time for fuel reduction burning.

    He says the longer bushfire seasons are a direct consequence of the climate becoming warmer.

    “So you are getting warmer periods earlier in the spring, you are getting warmer periods later in the autumn as well,” professor Steffen said.

    “It’s that effect that is lengthening the fire season.

    Professor Steffen says the warming climate is also leading to increased bushfire fuel-loads in some instances.

    “If you have periods of warm, wet weather, for example in the south-east, and get good growing seasons you tend to get more fuel.

    “But on the other hand, those conditions can flip and change the condition of the fuel the other way as well.”

  56. Robert December 12, 2013 at 2:37 pm #

    Since there is no such things as climate science – with most of the hydrosphere and lithosphere unknown and unvisited you tell me you have a science? – I don’t mind pointing out to Will what’s obvious to an aphid. He’s probably never been told.

    Fire season in much of northern NSW starts in August, or whenever winter westerlies start to have effect after the normally drier mid-year. When you’ve had good summer/autumn dumps with plenty of regrowth you may have probs if those inland winds are particularly strong and there have been no control burns for some years. The strength of pounding 3-day winter westerlies in the early 1990s meant big fire danger before winter even ended. (July 1990 after the Big Wet!) In many years September has been the peak of the fire danger. There should also be no surprise when you get mid-spring infernos such as in 1951, 1980 and 2013, just to name some recent NSW events. Think westerly winds, Will.

    This explains those “record” (to borrow a highly scientific term from our Green Betters) NSW fire conditions experienced in August…of 1895!

    Will, control burning has always been tricky, and bound to be more so when the task has been neglected – or bureaucratically hindered – over several years of regrowth. Let us know what analytical or philosophical problems you have with “always” and we will try to help out.

  57. bazza December 12, 2013 at 3:41 pm #

    Senator McDonald ought to get off his high horse and worry more about the good ship Esperanza checking out the Reef. Hope is on the way – it docked in Brisbane last week. Queensland is a perfect storm candidate for Greenpeace action with one of the world’s biggest coal ports underway. Where else could you get a 30 year Government plan with no mention of climate change. And where emissions/capita are extreme from a combination of coal, cattle, cane and cars. Couple that with extreme impacts from that part of the world where El Niño has first landfall and where climate variability is already as high as anywhere.

  58. cohenite December 12, 2013 at 4:00 pm #

    You see what I mean Jennifer, hysterical guff:

    ” Where else could you get a 30 year Government plan with no mention of climate change.”

    Anywhere sane adults are in charge.

    “and where climate variability is already as high as anywhere.”

    Anywhere except between your ears; go and take your meds, you’re hyperventilating; or taking the piss.

  59. Robert December 12, 2013 at 4:03 pm #

    bazza, while 1982-3 was savage in Qld – worse for drought than 1951-2 – we sure don’t want to go through a repeat of 1901-1903, the loooong one. They kept motor cars off the road and the rains finally came back a bit in 1904. Not sure how they got the rains back after 1983. Maybe it was all those anti-nuke demos? It’s always activists contemptuous of other people’s profitable activities who save the day. That’s been proven in multiple Jane Fonda movies.

    Anyway, as a man with an eye to “extremes”, you can take comfort in knowing that the 1890s haven’t been repeated in Qld – yet!

  60. Davefromweewaa December 12, 2013 at 4:30 pm #

    Wow Bazza,
    What would you have them do with all that coal and cane, all those cars and all them cattle ?

  61. Johnathan Wilkes December 12, 2013 at 6:02 pm #

    Sorry for the OT but just heard on the news that they predict 100 K jobs to go because Holden closes!

    I mean how irresponsibly alarmist can you go? WTWT

  62. Neville December 12, 2013 at 6:42 pm #

    German scientists calculate that the planet will be cooler by 2100. In fact it will be like the temp was in 1870.
    Seems like they agree with some of the latest Russian research. But who knows?

  63. hunter December 12, 2013 at 10:24 pm #

    Greenpeace pirates and criminals should be treated exactly as they are.

  64. Debbie December 13, 2013 at 6:31 am #

    Excellent question Dave!
    I need that like button.

  65. Neville December 13, 2013 at 6:51 am #

    Some interesting thoughts on future SLR from Prof Robert Brown of Duke University. This is in response to another what if, or maybe or could or perhaps study on SLR. Geeeezzzzz.
    His comment starts below.

    rgbatduke says:
    December 12, 2013 at 12:08 pm
    Of course it does, but who says that this pace will stay that way over the next 300 years? Perhaps sea level rise also goes in 60 year cycles so a linear extrapolation may not be warranted.

    Yes indeed. In fact one could look at the historical tide gauge data to see that this is precisely the case, and that SLR was as even more rapid than it is today during the first half of the 20th century in good alignment with the thermometric record of post-LIA warming. Gravitation-corrected SLR is currently lower than what the satellites appear to be reporting IIRC, at around 2mm/year, which is almost exactly the long term post-LIA average rate. There is no sign of “acceleration” due to supposed anthropogenic CO_2 effects.

    What amuses me about all of these predictions is that they are all — without exception — predicated on some sort of ill-defined mean increase in GASTA predicted by the various GCMs and on a whole raft of assumptions about things like how rapidly Antarctica and the Greenland ice pack are supposed to melt. It’s sort of like “If GASTA increases by 5 C by 2100, and if that increase suffices to cause the melting of a kilometer or so of Antarctic ice pack, and if the ocean expands by thus and such amount due to the warming, then we’ll see X meters of SLR by 2100″. Frequently the claims are literally absurd — melting Antarctica on a timescale of decades shows some sort of serious problem understanding latent heat of fusion (which is huge), high albedo, six months of night and low high-tilt summertime insolation, and surface to volume ratios.

    They also seem absolutely impervious to empirical data. “Boiling seas” Hansen was publicly making his wildly speculative 5 meter SLR by 2100 guess well over a decade ago (which is as irresponsible for a scientist to do as showing “fire” in a crowded theater because you have linearly extrapolated the temperature increase inside due to being recently filled with warm bodies to the ignition point of paper in 100 years). Here it is, 2013, one eight of the way through the interval from 2000 to 2100 and the total SLR of the last decade is (drum roll please) at MOST an inch. More likely 3/4 of an inch — a couple of lousy centimeters.

    So we have Yet Another Paper — one that lacks even an effort to pretend to analyze the physics of icepack melting on high-latitude plateaus but instead equates things like melt rates in mid-interglacial transition to melting rates today — calling for as much as 80 cm by 2100 and lord knows what by 2200. Hey, I should be glad — at least it’s down from the meter previously being called for in papers of this type as people are beginning to twig to the fact that if we’re going to see SLR of this magnitude it has to start sometime and gee, it hasn’t started yet. Nor is it likely to be starting, as the planet has experienced no significant warming since the burst associated with the 1997/1998 Super ENSO even, and may even be quietly cooling a bit in spite of recent attempts to rewrite the temperature record yet again, this time at the very tail end of inconvenient stasis, so that one can compare infilled kumquats to multiply-adjusted modern era oranges to sparsely sampled, non-infilled thermometric apples in the more distant past (all to get an ANOMALY as we can’t for the life of us actually compute the global average surface temperature TODAY to within a degree K).

    Some arithmetic: 80 cm by 2100 is roughly 0.9 cm a year or an inch every 2-3 years. It is over three times the greatest rate observed (on several occasions, not just in the recent past) in the entire reliable historic record (tide gauge data). Every year with only 2-3 mm of rise tacks on an extra 6-7 mm that have to be made up in the following years. Measuring SLR is actually enormously complex — simply determining the current “sea level” is highly nontrivial because it has to be extracted from sparse measurements on a fluid surface with both systematic (but imprecisely predictable) time variation and with an enormous amount of multiple-timescale fractal noise and then corrected for the motion of the Earth’s crust and slow variability in the near-surface gravitational field (both magnitude and direction). The sea level could be rising even if there is no contribution from melting icepack, or it could be rising far more slowly than one would expect from melting icepack because land uplift or subsidence could be cancelling the effect. We barely have the tools to start seriously examining the issue of SLR, and have a pitifully short data secant based on those tools, which are still in the process of showing mutual (e.g. gravitometric) inconsistencies in the whole system.

    Why do referees permit the publication of doubly conditional speculation like this? At the moment, the GCMs are busy failing, although there is a widespread effort to pretend that this isn’t the case. Basing physics-free multiply-conditional papers asserting that we are going to have all sorts of SLR that is going to start any decade now because the GCMs say so is a waste of time unless and until the GCMs start exhibiting any predictive skill at all!

    So far, they have no predictive skill at all. That doesn’t mean that they won’t in the future, but in the meantime, the paper above is like publishing a paper that says “If superluminal neutrinos are observed, maybe we can build time machines” without even including a single actual equation to explain why, but relying on the fact that in medieval times clocks often ran fast or slow by as much as an hour a day.

    Sure, and if pigs had wings, then they could fly, and I’ve got a predictive model for evolution that states that if we continue to throw pigs out of helicopters and breed only the survivors, pigs will have wings in less than 100 years. Maybe I should go ahead and found a pig-hunting club that only shoots pigs on the wing. Yeah. Why not?



  66. Neville December 13, 2013 at 7:17 am #

    Just to back up the SLR problems for the alarmists here are the ALL MODELS graphs AGAIN as used by the IPCC. This is from the Royal Society.

    This accounts for about 99% of the planet’s ice, 89% in Antarctica and 10% in Greenland. Antarctica is negative until 2300 and Greenland is positive.
    So where is all this future SLR to come from? Yes perhaps some thermal expansion and the 1% from melting mountain glaciers.
    But the problem is the much bigger Antarctica ( 89%) will be storing more ice for centuries to come and act as decelerator for future SLR.

  67. bazza December 13, 2013 at 9:44 am #

    Greenpeace forward agents aboard Esperanza must be quaking in their sandals as they check out the GBR. Not! They will be checking out the intellectual firepower of the disappearing denialist cabal and falling about themselves laughing . But they will enjoy the recycling on this ‘evidence-based’ blog as they search in vain for an original argument from the dozen despairing denialists trying to dint a dent in AGW.

  68. Robert December 13, 2013 at 10:55 am #

    “dozen despairing denialists trying to dint a dent”

    bazza, I like it. It’s up there with “nattering nabobs of negativity”. Spiro Agnew and Rush Limbaugh would be jealous.

    Incidentally, I hope those Greenpeace forward agents yearning for originality can save Qld from a rerun of those multi-year droughts flanking the very strong double La Nina of 1916-17 – which ended with Cyclones Mackay and Innisfail, two of our all time biggies. Who wants all that again? It’s too extreme, don’t you think?

    Have faith. With enough taxes, activism and reality adjustment anything is possible for stunting narcissists like Greenpeace.

  69. toby December 13, 2013 at 11:06 am #

    The only denialists visiting this site are those advocating insane policies such as a carbon tax or ETS as a fix for the worlds climate. That is insanity because you and I both know our efforts will have no impact.

    I might add that given that temp has not risen for 15-17 years, you either have to be ignorant, a zealot, a liar or a denier to be able to keep a straight face and say its worse than we thought and the science is in….or just suffering from theory induced blindness.

    However you dice it there really is no excuse for such stupidity.

    Just how many years of no warming will be required to falsify this pseudo science?…can anything show it to be false/ exaggerated ?

  70. cohenite December 13, 2013 at 11:25 am #

    Oh ok, bazza is taking the piss.

  71. Debbie December 13, 2013 at 12:41 pm #

    Looks like it Cohenite,
    I would also suspect that McDonald hasn’t wasted any time considering what Bazza thinks he ‘ought’ to be worrying about.
    But perhaps Bazza could offer his services as a speech writer? He has no problems with composing sentences with lovely examples of alliteration, analogy, imagery, rhetorical questions etc. His English teacher must have loved him.

  72. bazza December 13, 2013 at 3:26 pm #

    Alliteration is as cheap as chips. So the price was right for this audience.

  73. toby December 13, 2013 at 3:41 pm #

    We need the savings to pay for the NBN debacle and to clean up the damage done from the carbon tax etc. Not like a socialist to be worried about money though Bazza, must have been hard for you?…must have been your money you were spending not “ours”?!

  74. Debbie December 13, 2013 at 6:05 pm #

    While basically I agree with what has been done here….why is my BS meter going off?
    BTW…good to see you attempting a bit of humour ALMOST (!) devoid of sarcasm Bazza. There is hope for you yet.
    I’m willing to bet I’m right about your English teacher. I’m sure your English teacher loved your ability to compose and phrase and employ literary devices?

  75. hunter December 13, 2013 at 10:09 pm #

    It would be awesome if the Greenpeace thugs were harassed, their vessel blockaded, and they were publicly taunted as they go ashore. Greenpeace is not green except for money, and has nothing to do with peace. They are parasites who disrupt legitimate people working, seek to harm civilization and and demand payoffs from governments and corporations and duping the weak minded or like minded. They deserve push back, if not prosecution.

  76. hunter December 13, 2013 at 10:11 pm #

    As to bazza’s bloviation. Like most AGW kooks, he is maths challenged and is having difficulty counting election results.

  77. Debbie December 14, 2013 at 8:56 am #

    Well yes Hunter,
    If Bazza thinks there are numbers on his ‘side’ for the carbon tax, then he must be struggling with the math.
    McDonald does mention that here:

    We took this proposal to the election. No Australian could have been under any doubt. Mr Abbott said many times: ‘This election will be a referendum on the carbon tax.’ Nobody could have been in any doubt…”

  78. toby December 14, 2013 at 11:59 am #

    “Nobody could have been in any doubt…”…. unless you are a denier!?


  1. Jennifer Marohasy » At Last a Politician Mentions Climate Fraud: Queensland Senator Ian MacDonald | Cranky Old Crow - December 13, 2013

    […] Jennifer Marohasy » At Last a Politician Mentions Climate Fraud: Queensland Senator Ian MacDonald. […]

Website by 46digital