web analytics
≡ Menu

Professor Ian Plimer on carbon dioxide

Professor Ian Plimer on the carbon dioxide panic

What is it that makes ostensibly sensible people fall for mass hysteria? The Y2K bug for example. Maybe unsettled minds need a cause to feel grounded. A republic for example. Moving abode frequently believing elsewhere is better—until it’s not.  A cure-all for the ungrounded—until the next illusion presents. Hmm.

We face further turnover of prime ministers and governments until the costs and reliability of electricity are addressed and until the fundamentalist religious mantra that emissions drive global warming is rejected.

Source: News Corp

Repeat after me: carbon dioxide is good for us

Climate policy is underpinned by two fallacies. The first is that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. The second is that future climate can be predicted from computer models.

It has yet to be shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive climate change. More than 100 climate models over the past 30 years did not predict what actually happened because it was assumed carbon dioxide had the pivotal role in driving climate change and that the effects of clouds, back-radiation and the sun were trivial.

Climate projections also assume that planet Earth is not dynamic and that a temporary terrestrial vertebrate on an evolving planet can change major planetary and extraterrestrial systems.

Unless the past is understood, climate projections can be only highly speculative. Even in our own lifetimes, there is no relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide emissions by ­humans, yet there is a very close relationship between solar activity and temperature.

Since the beginning of time, water vapour has been the main greenhouse gas and carbon dioxide has had a minuscule effect on global climate.

Carbon dioxide is a trace gas in the atmosphere. We are expected to believe that emission of traces of a trace gas into the atmosphere is a major planetary driving force. If the atmosphere comprised 85,000 molecules, the total carbon dioxide emissions added annually would be 33 molecules, of which only one molecule would be from human emissions and the other 32 from natural emissions. Do we really believe that one bellowing fan in a crowd of 85,000 at the MCG can completely change the course of a game?

For the past 4567 million years, the sun and the Earth’s orbit have driven climate change cycles. In the past, the atmospheric carbon dioxide content has been orders of magnitude higher than now, yet there were ice ages.

We currently live in an interglacial during an ice age with alternating cycles of glaciations and interglacials. The current interglacial reached a peak about 5000 years ago. Since then, the planet has been cooling on a millennial scale and no amount of hot air, agreements, taxes, environmental wailing or legislation can change the fact that the Earth’s orbit is slowly taking us farther from the sun.

Just 1.25 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere-ocean system has been released by ­humans in the past 250 years. The ­atmospheric residency time of carbon dioxide is five years and it is quickly sequestered into plants, marine life, oceans and sediments. If human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming, why have there been slight warmings and coolings since the Industrial Revolution? Why is it that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming yet natural emissions do not?

Carbon dioxide is plant food. Horticulturalists pump warm carbon dioxide into glasshouses to stimulate growth. Over the past 30 years, planet Earth has greened due to a slight increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Without carbon dioxide, there would be no complex life on earth. It is neither pollution nor a poison, and in the past the atmospheric carbon dioxide content has varied enormously.

When the atmospheric carbon dioxide content was low, plants struggled. When it was high, there was an expansion and increasing diversity of vegetation.

In addition, when it was warm, life expanded, whereas when it was cold, life contracted. Over historical times, when it was cold there was human depopulation. When it was warm, economies thrived.

Biological, geological and planetary systems are extremely robust. Our evolving dynamic planet has survived sea level changes of hundreds of metres, super volcanoes filling the atmosphere with dust, asteroid impacts, mass extinctions, ice ages and global warming. For most of time, Earth has been a warm, wet volcanic planet with no polar ice.

Australia has uranium, coal and gas for generations. Fracking for tight gas and oil could further extend energy resources. We are the envy of the world. Australia once had cheap, reliable electricity and the states competed to provide cheap, long-term, reliable energy to attract industry.

Now the states rely on the weather and compete to reach the bottom. South Australia is winning: it has the most unreliable grid in the world outside Africa and the most expensive electricity. When South Australians buy electricity at $14,200/MWh, they are paying the equivalent of $400 a litre for petrol.

As soon as the word emissions entered the language and became part of a religious ideology, electricity prices skyrocketed, electricity supply became more unreliable, subsidies for wind and solar energy went through the roof and employers and consumers had massive cost increases. Never mind that the emissions of carbon dioxide to make and maintain a wind or solar industrial complex are far greater than they will ever save.

The Paris accord is non-binding. This is recognised by the major carbon dioxide emitters such as China, India and the US, which don’t comply. No EU state has met its target. Why should Australia be the only country out of step and aim for an impossible, bankrupting reduction of 26 per cent or more of our 2005 carbon dioxide emissions?

Pragmatism and principled inaction is the correct policy to ­address the non-problem of human-induced climate change promoted by the Paris accord. But do our politicians have the courage to thoughtfully do nothing?

We are in an electricity crisis because we are trying to decrease human emissions of carbon dioxide and have tied climate policy and electricity generation costs to emissions. A reality check is needed. Even if human-induced global warming could be shown, a reduction in Australian emissions, comprising 1.3 per cent of global annual emissions, is dwarfed by annual increases of 2 per cent globally and 4 per cent by China.

Australia’s symbolic suicidal climate policy just makes everybody poorer.

We face further turnover of prime ministers and governments until the costs and reliability of electricity are addressed and until the fundamentalist religious mantra that emissions drive global warming is rejected.

Politicians need to realise that the electorate wants cheap electricity and a reduction of emissions concurrent with subsidies for unreliable weather-dependent electricity can neither reduce costs nor increase reliability.

Meanwhile, employment-generating businesses will close, household costs will become impossibly high, international competitiveness will fall and governments will change.

Emissions must be banned. From the language. Not from coal-fired power stations that have provided cheap, reliable electricity for generations. It is only then that we will have stable government and cheap reliable electricity again.

Emeritus professor Ian Plimer’s latest book, Climate Delusion and the Great Electricity Rip-Off, is published by Connor Court.

{ 27 comments… add one }
  • Pensioner Pete 07/08/2018, 7:12 am

    Perhaps Professor Ian Plimer should be invited to Sky News to put this case forward, I bet he will cop the same level of leftard abuse as did Blair Cottrell for stating the truth. It seems to me, truth is the missing element in media and government and for what purpose? Is this redaction of truth some scheme to ensure control of the masses, or is there even more evil intent at work here?

    • DT 07/08/2018, 7:41 am

      He would be an excellent choice for an interview on Sky News.

      Coming to us on free to air television, 2 September I recall.

    • Botswana O'Hooligan 07/08/2018, 9:52 am

      Am reading a book about eccentrics printed many years back and before all this bloody nonsense. The author stated that if one person espouses something he may or may not be believed, but if a few people espouse something then they are believed and so it has come to pass. The bit that pisses me off is that people and people in government heed charlatans like Al Gore, Tim Flannery, and Elon Musk without consulting the people who know about the earth science, geologists and geophysicists.

  • Aktosplatz 07/08/2018, 7:42 am

    Great article, 100% correct.

    I believe that the whole AGW thing is about wealth distribution, CO2 emissions are just an excuse to rip off people like ourselves.

    Just follow the Money Trail

    • DT 07/08/2018, 7:50 am

      The strange thing is that UN Official Christiana Figureres admitted what climate change is really about, wealth distribution, socialism attacking capitalism as the world has known it and experienced advancement from it.

      She spoke about it in October 2015 before the UN Paris Conference started in late November 2015.

      Others have admitted this.

      One of the architects of the climate change based hoax and agendas was Canadian billionaire Maurice Strong who is now deceased. He escaped Canadian Police by moving to Communist China when it was discovered that he was exploiting fresh spring water from beneath a property he owned in Canada illegally.

      One of his cousins had been the girlfriend of Chairman Mao of China and Strong believed that controlled and managed capitalism, using cheap labour in factories, selecting who can participate in wealth creation activities, was the way ahead for socialists to get the best out of life.

      PM Tony Abbott said that he would not stand for socialism masquerading as environmentalism.

      • Joe Blogs 07/08/2018, 12:35 pm

        Just Google “Christiana Figureres” and check out the titles of the links to see how much pull she has. Then scan through her Wiki entry.

  • DT 07/08/2018, 7:43 am

    So in The Australian today the hoax stories continue …

    Earth ‘2 degrees from hothouse’
    Drought. Climate Change. Scorched cracked earth. Clay. Hot sun. Picture sourced from iStock.
    A two degree rise in global temperatures could spark a “Hothouse Earth’’ cascade of feedbacks with terrible consequences.

    • Bushkid 07/08/2018, 8:14 am

      Yeah, that was written by Will Stefan, a very well-known global waring catastrophist, probably ghost-written by that other CAGW luminary, Tim Flummery.

  • Penguinite 07/08/2018, 7:49 am

    See how MSM manipulates the stuff we read by waiting until the drought has reached fever pitch before printing articles about scorched earth!!! We’re being had!

    • DT 07/08/2018, 7:51 am

      Worst ever drought but no mention of the federation drought early 1900s and that then the Mighty Murray River was dry.

      • Pensioner Pete 07/08/2018, 8:39 am

        Quite correct DT, whilst this is undeniably a very severe drought, it is certainly not the first recorded in Australia, I can recollect in the mid 60’s there was an equally severe drought which led to the mass destruction of livestock in Central Queensland, and further afield. Sheep were being sold for $1 otherwise shot and with mass burials. Cattle fared no better, I clearly recollect walking skeletons of cattle in the yards at Lakes Creek Meatworks in Rockhampton at the time. In my last job before retiring, I was tasked with evaluation of rainfall/drought data which took me back to about 1893 when records were first kept out here, there were clearly a number of droughts during the period to nowadays, some lasting a few years, some quite a bit longer. Some were broken by massive floods, some were not. Currently out here, the rainfall is a total recorded so far this year of 173.6mm whereas the annual average total is 450mm. Hopefully, after this nice cold winter we are enjoying, the rains will come this wet season, at least the old hands reckon so.

      • Jack Richards 07/08/2018, 9:37 am

        PP. I remember that drought in 65-67 well. I was a school boy in New England at the time and we had all sorts of water restrictions. The graziers were shooting their sheep because they were only getting 20c-25c a head at the sale yards and with the cost of transport they were losing money. A .22 bullet was a cheaper and more humane option.

        I’ve lived most of my life west of the Great Dividing range in NSW. The simple fact is that out of every decade, on average, you’ll get 2 really good seasons with good rain at just the right time; you’ll get 4 average seasons; 2 seasons when the rains fail and 2 when it floods. The 1890s, 1930s, and 1960s the big dry happened and we’re having another one now.

        We had a hot dry spell from 07-10 – that’s when Flannery predicted it would never rain again, the dams would never be full again, and what rain did fall would be soaked up by the parched earth. Then in 2011 you needed a boat to get around in western NSW and Qld.

        Where I live in the Snowy Mountains it’s been a fairly mild winter – and a dry one. So far this year (to the end of July) I’ve collected only 220mm. The average from 2010 has been 420mm for the same period. The wettest year was 2012 with 592mm followed by 2016 with 512mm. There is a pattern here for good spring rains so I’m hoping for good falls through September-November.

        Since I moved to this valley at the end of 2003 the hottest day was in 7 February 2009 (Black Saturday) when it hit 47.8 and the coldest was 20 July 2006 at -11.6. The coldest night this July was -4.3.

  • Ian 07/08/2018, 8:02 am

    I read several blogs yesterday, with the usual green backed commentators sprouting that South Australia is a net exporter of power, (it isn’t). But even if they placed more wind farms out on the hills and on a windy day they could produce enough for themselves and a little left over, what then? Can we cut the interconnecting jumper lead? Can we let them buy up batteries to store that excess for the windless morning and evening peaks?
    In reality, the MSM and the public are too gullible, they believe that a small battery can supply back-up power for days. It can’t.
    What needs to be brought to light is the pathetic amount of energy that a battery stores in terms of the grid supply. Today, the peak demand, (6am and 6pm), across the eastern states is in the order of 35,000MW, falling to about 22,000MW during the working day.
    So SA’s battery, rated at about 130MWHr, (ie can supply 130MW for an hour before it is dead flat), can supply this peak volume demand for about 13 seconds.
    If you isolate the SA grid, the battery can supply SA’s peak for 234 seconds.
    If the public knew that the $100M spent on this battery wouldn’t even keep the lights on long enough to hard boil an egg, they might understand the futility of batteries.
    But, despite what the numbers say, the green advocates and the MSM preach for storage as the solution, “…the next battery efficiency improvement is just around the corner….”. Well, unless it is going to be nearly a 1000 times improvement, it isn’t going to make a dent in the problem of no power when the wind doesn’t blow for 3 or more days.
    Have you ever known an existing, (in the market place), technology to improve by over a 1000 times? Me either.

    • Bwana Neusi 07/08/2018, 11:03 am

      Very well said Ian. In my humble opinion, the only viable use for batteries will be at a domestic level for those who have installed sufficient solar panels.
      As the the cost of grid power continues to climb, homes will try to isolate themselves by producing and storing their own power.
      At present it is not economic to install batteries, but as power costs continue to increase, batteries will become the buffer that protects them.
      Industry on the other hand is doomed unless this farce is destroyed.

      • Neville 07/08/2018, 9:38 pm

        Quite true, BN. Wind and solar/battery is OK, more or less, for an isolated standalone system, such as an outback cattle/sheep station.
        But for us to be able to maintain the 21st century civilisation we’ve developed, and all its attendant benefits to our lives, we need constant, steady, synchronous, scalable, responsive, baseload power.

  • Margaret 07/08/2018, 8:07 am

    Turnbull says he takes advice on climate change.

    This article from Ian Plimer should be part of that advice.

    Turnbull must explain to the Australian people why he is refusing to listen to or take advice from any side of the argument other than the global warming side.

    We should have cheap reliable power. The Turnbull Liberals and the Shorten Labor Greens are deliberately doing everything they can to stop this.

    • Bushkid 07/08/2018, 8:22 am

      Indeed Margaret, Turnbull should be compelled, live to a national audience of taxpayers, business and industry (employers) and ordinary people, to explain why he refuses to take advice on the sensible, realist actual science on the matter.

      He would be completely unable to.

      We urgently need an open, public (compulsorily broadcast across all platforms at once) debate between REAL scientists, engineers and economists who actually understand reality. Maybe, just maybe, then the gormless and brainwashed public might get a glimmer of understanding of the origin of their woes, instead of blindly following like pathetic sheep on this trail of green socialist destruction.

    • Joe Blogs 07/08/2018, 9:22 am

      Democracy in Oz ends when the AEC declares the winner. After that it’s straight back to lies, corruption and incompetence.

      • Pensioner Pete 07/08/2018, 10:31 am

        JB: Never a truer word spake.

  • Austin Ayforti 07/08/2018, 8:39 am

    I’m re-reading a James A Michener book written in 1973. It has an interesting weather fact from that year in the introduction. It mentions that a lot of his research was carried out in Denver where it was pleasant to work except for experiencing the worst winter in 170 years and the hottest summer in 87.
    The usual suspects were of course about to warn of the imminent ice-age catastrophe, but it is nice to read of weather records that go back beyond last Tuesday.

    • Joe Blogs 07/08/2018, 9:16 am


      • Austin Ayforti 07/08/2018, 3:24 pm

        Yep, certainly is.

      • Joe Blogs 07/08/2018, 4:03 pm

        Great read, AA. Maybe even better nowadays with the internet’s ability to provide visual images, maps, etc.

  • angry 07/08/2018, 8:44 am

    Malcolm Turnbull – The Goldman-churian Candidate?


    Spread The Word – “Untouchable” Turnbull Is A Goldman-Plated Turd


  • angry 07/08/2018, 12:29 pm

    Carbon dioxide is required for the continuing existence of all life on Earth.
    Without it everything dies………
    Basic primary school science.

  • angry 07/08/2018, 12:32 pm

    The rise of Climate superstition: Droughts, heatwaves, random noise is “proof” of anything you like


  • David 16/10/2018, 4:51 am

    I loved the what Ian Plimer said about climate change. And he is right. It is just one big expensive con. The same thing has happend here in the uk. brain washed people in power.

Leave a Comment