Category Archives: Climate Unfrocked

Bullsh-t Detector at Work

Climate Alarmism of the Greenest Hughes

For a lot of my lifetime Macquarie University’s Distinguished Professor Lesley Hughes has been an activist scientist running a jihad against the planet’s life-affirming CO2 emissions. Old hands might remember her on Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s Climate Commission from 2011, which morphed into the crowd-funded Climate Council two years later, Dr Hughes morphing with it.

Our big three warming warners have long been Hughes, the false climate prophet Tim Flannery and the not-always-right ANU doom-crier Will Steffen.[1] In 2014 Hughes trumped both of them, winning the Australian Museum’s Eureka Prize for 20 years’ worth of science (read ‘global-warming’) communication.[2] The museum’s CEO, Kim McKay, noted in passing that climate change science was “settled”. That was a brave call as no other scientific issue is settled yet. Even less likely, Macquarie University claimed that one alarm course by Dr Hughes “even received praise from climate sceptics—for them, what had been lacking was a clear explanation of the science.” Oh really?

Five years later she collected the same museum’s lifetime achievement award. Any time anyone has a climate-alarm prize to hand out, expect Hughes to be on the short list.[3]

I don’t want to carp, but climate-alarm “science” is all about what will happen in the future, as foreseen by the modellers’ crystal ball. Doom-criers like Hughes and Steffen might be right about 2050, though we oldies will all be dead. Or they might be wrong and that big sun overhead with its sunspot cycle might cool planet earth a bit and force the next ice age. In that case, people would look back on Hughes, Flannery, Steffen et al as a bit weird and their science as junk. So I’m not a fan of Hughes’ innumerable (60, 100, 200?) futurist papers about future warming impacts.

What I do admire is her early career as entomologist. From her student days she was fascinated by insects. If you wanted to know about aphids, grasshoppers, Christmas beetles, lantana leaf-miners, Hemiptera (“true bugs”), thrips, or ant-tended butterfly ejaculations,[4]young Lesley provides her tour de force. But in the 1990s, her focus changed from studying actual bugs to studying what hypothesised global warming might do to them in 2050 or 2100 or whenever, and I rather lost interest in her stick-insect papers. But it’s this later line of work – future impacts of imagined warming on plants and bugs – that has given Hughes so many clouds of glory to trail.

If you intuit that I’m peeved with Distinguished Professor Hughes, you’re right but for the wrong reason. My big beef is that she was one of the earliest, if not the earliest, agitators to re-christen global warming (latterly “climate change”) into “climate emergency” cum “global heating” cum “climate crisis” cum “climate breakdown” cum “climate disruption”.

This inane warping of the English language is now standard among second-rate environmental journalists and mock-scientists in academia. Just for starters, the UAH satellite-based global temperature readouts now show no warming – indeed a little cooling- for the past six years and two months. Maybe someone should tell the climate scientists! And that’s despite two big recent and natural El Nino warming bursts.

The only place you can find a climate “emergency” is in the dud computer-based forecasting relied on by Hughes et al. The IPCC itself in 2013 said 111 of 114 tested model runs overshot actual warming.[5] Real-world studies show that climate sensitivity to CO2 is only a half or a third of early IPCC estimates. The IPCC even today can’t make up its mind whether CO2 doubling will create 1.5degC of warming or 4.5degC of warming or somewhere in between — the same uncertainty range it started with 30 years ago – and that’s despite academics wasting taxpayer billions on climate research. The empirical (i.e. real world) studies these days put the sensitivity at a harmless 1 to 2degC tops.

I DISCOVERED Hughes’ seminal role in the Western media’s “climate emergency”while idly reading annual reports of Future Earth , whose recent follies include certifying that pseudo-Aboriginal Bruce Pascoe is the real deal. Hughes helps run Future Earth, which is a satrap of the green-left Australian Academy of Science. In Future Earth’s 2018 report, you can read (emphasis added):

Professor Lesley Hughes, Pro Vice-Chancellor at Macquarie University, a climate change researcher for 25 years and climate science communicator for the last 15 years, professed shock at the level of ignorance of basic climate science. She pointed out the importance of using strong enough language—not using ‘change’ but words such as ‘disruption’, ‘emergency’ and ‘crisis’. In her view, the problem is that not everyone cares about the environment, but they care about other factors such as their own quality of life.[6]

Her crusade against sane language was endorsed a few months later by the United Nations avowedly-socialist secretary general, António Guterres, who talked of the “climate crisis” , adding for good measure: “We face a direct existential threat.” Among Dr Hughes’ other language crusaders is pint-sized seer Greta Thunberg, who a year after Dr Hughes’ rallying cry said:

It’s 2019. Can we all now call it what it is: climate breakdown, climate crisis, climate emergency, ecological breakdown, ecological crisis and ecological emergency?

Little wonder Hughes describes Greta as her “fellow Cassandra!”

Hughes’ and Thunberg’s verbal pyrotechnics were soon after picked up by the UK Guardian. Its environment editor, Damian Carrington, headlined, “Why The Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment”. He quoted the editor-in-chief Katharine Viner,

The phrase ‘climate change’, for example, sounds rather passive and gentle when what scientists are talking about is a catastrophe for humanity.

Carrington announced that The Guardian‘s style book for its reporters now recommended such “scientifically precise” terms as climate ‘crisis’, ‘heating’ or ‘breakdown’. No, I’m not making that up. The new style guide also rules out use of “climate sceptic” in favour of “climate science denier”, and advised its “journalists” against ever again seeking comments from sceptics. Such sceptics would include Professor Judith Curry, who has published 200 papers on atmospheric physics compared with, say, climate scientist Dr Hughes’ zero in that field.

The call to arms by Dr Hughes, Greta Thunberg and The Guardian has been further taken up by more than 400 unprofessional and partisan news outlets globally, with an alleged reach extending to two billion people. They’ve all signed on to a “climate emergency pledge” to ratchet up the warming scare (truth and the scientific method be damned!) and suppress any contrary scientific views. This shameful group includes (at last count) seven Australian media outlets and eleven in New Zealand. The ABC, while not a signatory, by policy ignores climate sceptic’s views and research.[7]

When I was young and naïve, like Julia Gillard during her liaison with light-fingered beau Bruce Wilson, I thought all the scientists on the IPCC were conscientiously objective about their deliberations. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, bless him, viewed them as “humourless people in white coats”. Dr Hughes was a lead author for both the fourth and fifth IPCC reports.[8] Yet she and her acolytes have never made a secret of her activism and in 2013, the same year she signed off on her pages in the IPCC’s Fifth Report, she stepped up to join the board of green-Left lobbyists WWF Australia. (Barrier Reef doom-crier Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, who sometimes co-authors papers with Dr Hughes, is another IPCC Australian scientist with WWF Australia connections). If you lift up any rock at the IPCC headquarters in Geneva, you’re likely to find green lobbyists wriggling about.

Hughes was well-known to WWF for years. In 2009 WWF and Earth Hour cited her as a reviewer of their 30-page report on cute animals like penguins and orang-utans at risk from global warming. (The apes are actually endangered by palm oil expansion to make supposedly greener fuels). Polar bears got a guernsey too – and contrary to World Wildlife Fund’s (WWF) doom-crying in 2009 reviewed by Dr Hughes et althey’re absolutely thriving today.

Maybe you think WWF does only pure good in the world, so what doess it matter if it gets a few things wrong for the right reasons? Well, our WWF is a loose affiliate of the global WWF or World Wildlife Fund. “Fund” is right – the WWF’s US boss Carter S. Roberts draws pay of $US1.4 million and 20 per cent of the fund-raising is leached off just in fund-raising expenses. These do-gooder groups include the Red Cross, which disappeared $US500 million for Haiti earthquake relief in 2015. It claimed to have resettled 130,000 Haitians when the number of permanent homes it built was six.

That was just a peccadillo compared with what cuddly-panda WWF (not the Australian arm) got up to in the Congo, funding and equipping anti-poachers in Salonga. The rangers whipped and raped four women carrying fish by a river. Two of the women were pregnant and one later had a miscarriage. The eco-guards tortured male villagers by tying their penises with fishing lines.

WWF commissioned an independent review by a UN human rights bigwig who reported late last year that WWF did “especially weak” oversight in the Congo, fearful of Congo government backlash and ignoring horrifying allegations even by its own low-level officials.WWF in response expressed “deep and unreserved sorrow for those who have suffered,” and said that abuses by park rangers “horrify us and go against all the values for which we stand.”Conveniently, the review did not review the culpability of top WWF officials.

I’m not of course suggesting that our WWF and Dr Hughes were implicated in torturing Congolese – just that scientists seeking public trust ought to keep activist lobbies at arm’s length. Au contraire, Dr Hughes actually shared the “Activist of the Year Award” from the Ngara Institute in 2019, jointly with diagram-challenged Will Steffen. What the dickens is the Ngara Institute? “A not-for- profit activist think tank which puts people, communities & the planet before increasingly predatory capitalism.” Karl Marx would be disappointed that, rather than destroying capitalism, the Institute was destroyed by capitalism, or anyway, “Ngara Institute anti-liberal think tank has sadly now closed.” Locally, WWF Australia is merely striving to destroy the beef and sugar cane industry, as Queensland growers’ group Agforce has demonstrated.[9]

DID I mention disturbed teen Greta Thunberg? Well Dr Hughes is more than happy to be mentored by Greta, whom she calls “a beacon of light”. Dr Hughes was out on the Sydney streets with her offspring in 2019 during the Greta-inspired School Strike 4 Climate. From the horse’s mouth:

I was there in Sydney, with my own two kids. Listening to the speeches triggered two very different emotions – deep shame for my own generation, and enormous pride for theirs.

I have since had the privilege of working with several of the rally organisers and they are some of the brightest, most mature, and most committed people I have ever met. If there is such a thing as passion bringing about change, we are in good hands, at least, just as soon as they are old enough to vote.

That’s not all on the Greta-Lesley Nexus to Reform the World. Way back in 2013 a climate fringe-dweller at the ANU called Joe Duggan of Science Circus Program at ANU/Questacon solicited hand-written missives from 40 of the usual climate-alarm suspects, including Dr Hughes, about their inward agonies researching the impending death of the planet. It backfired because Duggan managed to traumatise himself as well:

The results upset and unsettled Duggan whose partner was expecting a child. He withdrew into himself and put the project on hold for about three years. Recently, however, he returned to the project and asked the scientists to write again: had their feelings changed during the intervening years?

Dr Hughes rose to Duggan’s challenge:

My emotions haven’t really changed since I last wrote one of these letters, but things around me have. The beacon of light that is Greta Thunberg, speaking truth to power. Our own wonderful, passionate school kids taking to the streets, making me cry with pride. The only way to cope with all of this is to focus on what I can do, what I’m best at…

Does she mean stick insects? Probably not.

…and hope like hell that enough people, doing what they do best, can overcome. I have some very dark moments, but more than ever before, I feel wrapped in a blanket of collective determination. Hope is a necessary emotion, but more than that, it must be our fundamental strategy to keep us going. Lose it, and we are lost.

Lesley, I at Quadrant Online feel your pain. Talking of pain, Dr Hughes has no qualms about the extermination of the global methane-belching beef and dairy herd, maybe by 2025. She’s an enthusiast for artificial milk which makes Daisy the dairy cow unnecessary. In an over-long piece for The Monthly, she says detractors call this product “frankenmilch”. She writes,

But what if that two-litre container of white stuff looked like milk, tasted like milk, was chemically identical to milk without the bad bits, was cheaper, made a great cappuccino, came without most of the land, water, climate issues, and nothing had to die to produce it? Would you buy it? I would. In a heartbeat. Sorry, Daisy.

Dr Hughes is quite a comedian, not necessarily intentionally. Here she is in July 2019:

But there’s many other ways of taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, even machines to basic[ally] vacuum it out of the air and convert it into something that doesn’t warm the planet. In 2007, Sir Richard Branson decided to do something serious about this by offering a $US25 million prize in the Virgin Earth Challenge to promote greenhouse gas removal technologies. To date, no one has actually taken out the prize, but currently there are 11 finalists. Our own Tim Flannery is one of the judges, and I have to say that lately he has been giving out hints that perhaps the prize might soon be awarded – we may have to torture him to find out.

Sadly, I didn’t get to torture Tim “Perth Ghost Metropolis” Flannery to find out – I just looked up the wiki. It turns out that finalists were announced by Branson in 2011 and kept on hold for eight years while the self-promoting tycoon harassed them with technical demands rather than paying up. One finalist was finally told the $US25m prize was “on hold indefinitely” and at end 2019, a few months after Dr Hughes laudatory comments, Branson dumped the prize and its website went offline. One finalist who had raised $US60 million investments told a Dutch journal, “”If you want to encourage scientific progress with a prize, it’s not enough to open your mouth and say ‘25 million dollars.’”

Dr Hughes cited Branson’s prize in her speech, Six reasons for hope in the face of climate change.” Her stated goal was to “remove one trillion tons of carbon dioxide emissions from the planet’s atmosphere this century.” She concluded with a fond quote “from the 19th century Italian Marxist politician Antonio Gramsci, who wrote about the tension between the ‘pessimism of the intellect versus the optimism of the will’” — whatever that might mean.

I could go on but it’s called beating a dead horse. Instead, here’s an intellectual challenge for you all. Which of these quotes is from Dr Hughes, and which from Greta Thunberg. I offer the winner a prize of up to $US25 million (Terms and conditions apply).

1/ “Emissions reductions over the next decade [are] absolutely critical … because they will determine what happens in the second half of this century and will absolutely determine the nature of climate change as an existential threat to humanity… This is the absolute critical most necessary transformational decade that the human race has probably ever faced.”

2/ “Every year we kill more than 60 billion animals, excluding fish, whose numbers are so great that we only measure their lives by weight. What about their thoughts and feelings?”

3/ “So how to go forward? My emotions haven’t really changed since I last wrote one of these letters, but things around me have. The beacon of light that is Greta Thunberg, speaking truth to power. … I have some very dark moments, but more than ever before, I feel wrapped in a blanket of collective determination. Hope is a necessary emotion, but more than that, it must be our fundamental strategy to keep us going. Lose it, and we are lost.”

4/ “It’s overwhelming to sit at home feeling worried, alone and frustrated. So join Extinction Rebellion, become a Climate Council supporter, join your local climate action group or join the Greens – find the right group for your level of comfort.”

5/ “You say nothing in life is black or white. But that is a lie. A very dangerous lie. Either we prevent 1.5C of warming or we don’t. Either we avoid setting off that irreversible chain reaction beyond human control or we don’t. Either we choose to go on as a civilisation or we don’t. That is as black or white as it gets. There are no grey areas when it comes to survival.”

6/ “This is all wrong. I shouldn’t be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to us young people for hope? How dare you! You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction. And all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!”

Postponement: The launch of Tony Thomas’s next book from Connor Court, Foot Soldier in the Culture Wars, has been COVID-postponed from June 16 to the new date of June 30. The launch is at il Gamberos, 166 Lygon St, Carlton Vic at 6.30pm. All welcome, contact tthomas061@gmail.com.

Answers to Quiz: Macquarie’s Distinguished Professor Lesley Hughes, 1,3,4. Troubled teenager Greta Thunberg, 2,5.6.

[1] A recent Nature paper co-authored by Steffen included,

Correction 09 April 2020: The figure ‘Too close for comfort’ in this Comment incorrectly synthesized and interpreted data from the IPCC. The graph labelled the temperatures as absolute, rather than rises; misrepresented the levels of risk; misinterpreted data as coming from a 2007 IPCC report; extrapolated the focus of a 2018 report; and was not clear about the specific sources of the data. The graphic has been extensively modified online to correct these errors.

[2] “From a research background—predicting and then observing the effects of a changing climate on biodiversity— Professor Hughes moved to communicating beyond her scientific peers. Her goal is to translate the science of climate change in all its breadth and complexity to the wider public.”

[3] Last year she won the Tertiary Educator of the Year Award and Overall 2020 NSW Environmental Educator of the Year Award.

[4] Effects of mating history on ejaculate size, fecundity, longevity, and copulation duration in the ant-tended lycaenid butterfly, Jalmenus evagoras

[5] IPCC AR5: “… an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations [computer models] reveals that 111 out of 114 realisations show a [temperature] trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend [actual temperatures] ensemble. This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing, and (c) model response error.” [chapter 9, text box 9.2, page 769]

[6] Hughes was at it again in July 2019: “I strongly believe that moving from the benign phase “climate change” to words that embody the urgency of the action needed, is nonetheless powerful.”

[7] ABC reporters are to maintain “a balance that follows the weight of evidence”. These guidelines for ABC staff lump climate sceptics with anti-vaccination nutters and 9/11 “truthers”.

[8] Lead authors cobble together IPCC sections and chapters from raw material from many contributing authors.

[9] AgForce: “WWF is using tactics that force industries and individual producers to use expensive third-party auditing and certification schemes controlled or manipulated by WWF itself to prove sustainability.”

Cool the Planet or We Kill the Dog


My spaniel, Natasha, has outworn her welcome at our house. According to apex climate scientists doing their peer-reviewed work at universities, dogs and cats are harming the planet with their substantial carbon footprints (make that pawprints). I should replace Natasha, they say, with more climate-friendly pets like galahs, edible hens and rabbits, hamsters, and tortoises. If anyone’s got cause for climate grief, it’s Natasha.

They calculate that Natasha’s emissions stem largely from growing the meat in her pet food. There’s  also  the plastic poop bags that I sneak into other people’s red bins during her walks. Her CO2 emissions are about 30kg a year. That’s not counting her direct emissions while we’re trying to watch Kate Winslet slumming it in Mare of Easttown.

The tipping point to ditch the bitch and cull the kitten could be as early as 2023, a mere two years hence. That’s according to Harvard Professor Naomi Oreskes, a doyenne of the catastrophist community. No-one can doubt her credentials. Wiki lists her latest award as the Medal of the British Academy (2019) amid 27 climate honors, such as “Ambassador and Fellow, American Geophysical Union” and “Francis Bacon Award in the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, Caltech”.

In 2010 she wrote the solemn book Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. She’s followed up with an even scarier tract, The Collapse of Western Civilisation. In this book she says global warming will “wipe out” every Australian man, woman and child. Only a few scattered communities — some mountain people in South America, for instance — will survive the killer heating.

More importantly, she prophesises the agonising climate deaths of those puppies and kittens. One reader, she says,

started crying when the pets die, so I didn’t mean to upset people too much … I was just trying to come up with something that I thought people wouldn’t forget about, and I thought, well, Americans spend billions of dollars every year taking care of their pets, and I thought if people’s dogs started dying, maybe then they would sit up and take notice.

I looked up that bit in her book, and found the Kitten and Puppy Mass Extinction occurs in 2023, along with the climate deaths of 500,000 people and $US500 billion financial damage. Oreskes writes, in bold type no less:

The loss of pet cats and dogs garnered particular attention among wealthy Westerners, but what was anomalous in 2023 soon became the new normal. A shadow of ignorance and denial had fallen over people who considered themselves children of the Enlightenment. 

She was interviewed by the ABC’s science guru Robyn Williams AO AM, a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science and also showered with awards and three honorary doctorates.[1] He enthused with her:

Yes, not only because it’s an animal but it’s local. You see, one criticism of the scientists is they’re always talking about global things … And so if you are looking at your village, your animals, your fields, your park, your kids, and the scientists are talking about a small world that you know, then it makes a greater impact, doesn’t it.

 Oreskes responded:

Well, exactly. It was about bringing it literally home, literally into your home, your family, your pet, the dog or cat that you love who is your faithful and trusted companion.

But surely Oreskes’ pet doom forecast isn’t (trademarked) Peer-Reviewed Science? Yes, her book is kosher, she verifies.

Well, it’s all based on solid science. Everything in this book is based on the scientific projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. All we did was to add to the social and human aspects to it.

Back in the real world, the ABC introduced the Oreskes episode on its Science Show with a typical lie: “The Earth’s climate is changing at the highest of predicted rates.” Fact: The past 40 years’ warming to date is barely half of what the orthodox modelling predicted.[2]

This ABC wallow was all a while back, but there’s now a veritable industry of scholarship damning our pets’ CO2 emissions. Tax-funded full-time climate scientists have assessed the climate impact of St Bernards vs labradors vs Jack Russells. But two studies on dogs’ climate footprints are at loggerheads – one from Australian researchers, the other from Arizona. As a patriot, I support the Australian results showing the CO2 emissions as St Bernard, 90kg; Labrador, 60kg and Jack Russell 20kg. The Arizonans plumped for 20-30 times higher emissions: this is not yet settled science.

The assault on our four-legged friends hit Code Red last month, with Vox magazine USAheadlining, “Are our pets gobbling up the planet?” It’s sub-headed, ominously: “Pet care is unarguably bad for the environment. What can we do about it?”

The piece, copiously illustrated, noted that during COVID lockdowns lots of households acquired new pets, aggravating the global heating emergency. It quoted Gregory Okin, a geography professor at the University of California, Los Angeles: “Reducing the rate of dog and cat ownership, perhaps in favor of other pets that offer similar health and emotional benefits, would considerably reduce these impacts.”

One learned estimate is that a medium dog needs 0.84 hectares of arable land for its pet food. That’s more than the ecological footprint of a Fourth World citizen, and twice the ecological footprint of a 4.6 litre LandCruiser doing 10,000km a year.[3] Even a cat’s ecological pawprint equals that of a VW Golf, or so said a pair of British academic pet specialists, lately educating New Zealanders from Victoria University, Wellington.[4]

Professors Robert and Brenda Vale wrote a book, Time to Eat the Dog? Responding to a public outcry, Robert said, “We need to know what we’re doing when it comes to the environment. We can’t go blind into this debate. Nothing should be off limits no matter how uncomfortable it is to discuss it.” Their book title was deliberately provocative: don’t expect breast of kelpie from Coles. They didn’t want pups and kittens culled, let alone eaten, but they’d have no problem with tinned rats for cats, or dog-owners switching to pet rabbits and boiling the bunnies’ offspring for lunch. The smaller the pet, they say, the better for the planet. I think it was Woody Allen who claimed his parents gave him ants for pets. If bikie gangs had any climate conscience, they’d use chihuahaus and Pomeranians to guard their clubhouses instead of mastiffs and Rhodesian Ridgebacks.

 A 2019 study reported that the average Dutch dog’s carbon emissions just for food were up to 1.4 tonnes and cats were up to 0.25 tonnes. (Cats win again). This is nearly double the annual electricity carbon emissions for the average UK household just for dog food and about a third of household electricity emissions for the average cat’s food.

The 160-odd million pets in the US create 64 million tonnes of greenhouse emissions, equal to 13 million cars, says one of those sciency papers in PLOS ONE, which boasts “rigorous peer review”.

Moreover, humans and their pets are getting obese at similar rates. People replicate their food fads with pet foods, with about a year’s lag. Thus we get “No Carb” and Paleo Diet pet foods. Fido’s tin of lamb hotpot may now include rice, pearly barley, broccoli, spinach, blueberries, flaxseed, marigold petals, burdock root and alfalfa. That certainly sounds better on a label than cheaper pet food’s “hydrolysed feathers”, horse, Skippy and “animal derivatives” like hair, teeth and bowels.

Some climate scientists have flogged the reverse narrative that pets are victims rather than culprits of the global heating emergency. They scare the punters with tales that warming will worsen pets’ ticks, fleas and heartworms.

The climate scientists now want legal limits on the type and number of our pets. Although I am older than 17 and not as learned as Greta Thunberg, I still intend to mobilise schoolchildren the world over (except China) for a School Strike for Labradoodles. We march on Federal Parliament next week with our Staffies, groodles, spoodles and cavoodles, and your Siamese, Persians, Abyssinians, Maine Coons and Ragdolls. Cavalier King Charleses, united, will never be defeated.[5]

Further Reading: 7 signs you love your pet more than your partner. For example: You return from grocery shopping with a basket of treats for your dog and forget the one thing your partner asked for.

Tony Thomas’s next book from Connor Court, Foot Soldier in the Culture Wars, will be launched at il Gamberos, 166 Lygon St, Carlton Vic on Wednesday June 16 at 6pm. All welcome, contact tthomas061@gmail.com.

[1] His partner, Jonica Newby, is both an ABC veteran and a veteran veterinarian. Last March she published Beyond Climate Grief. It’s about “How do we find courage when climate change overwhelms us emotionally?”

[2] I forced the ABC to add the following to its iview page:

[Editor’s note: The original introduction stated that “Earth’s climate is changing at the highest of predicted rates, scientists have given up on the much talked about two degree ceiling …” In context these words telegraphed the premise on which Prof Oreskes’ work of fiction is based; however, it has been interpreted as a statement of incontrovertible fact and has therefore been removed to prevent any further misunderstanding.]

[3] The ecological footprint means the amount of land needed to support the pet.

[4] Robert Vale’s retired, his wife Brenda is a Professorial Research Fellow.

[5] Cavalier King Charles 1, admittedly, lost his head.

The Australian Academy of Drama Queens

The green-left Australian Academy of Science has produced another outburst of climate doomism: “The risks to Australia of a 3 degC warmer world.” Nearly 50 years ago the same Academy was assessing the risks to Australia of a cooling worldthat climate scientists feared might nip crops and leave us shivering under our Doonas. Who would deny that climate science is a slave to fashion? [1]

The Academy report of last March opens and closes with scary pics of fire-blackened bushland. It’s a vanity project, with the authors citing their own works multiple times, especially chair Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (16 self-citations), Mark Howden (11 times) Lesley Hughes (10 times), Will Steffen (10 times), and David Karoly and John Church (8 times). Even Sarah Perkins-Kilpatrick, who is supposed to be reviewing the document, is reviewing herself as she’s cited seven times in the references.[2] Reviewer Jason Evans is cited nine times. Another reviewer is Martin Rice, who works for Tim Flannery’s propaganda outfit Climate Council, but he features only four times in the body of the report.

Perkins-Kilpatrick is convinced by her climate models that warming is turbo-charging everything (but apparently not our cool summer of 2020-21, nor the current deep freeze in the Northern Hemisphere).[3] She’s so confident about the modelling that she’ll mortgage her house and happily bet her kids lives on it.[4] I will necessarily win this bet as the RCPs (Representative Modelling Pathways or official scenarios) she uses are discredited and climate models have overshot actual warming to date by a factor of at least two.[5] I’ll enjoy her house but I promise not to slay her kids.

The above-mentioned Will Steffen’s co-authored piece on “climate tipping points”, was headlined, “The growing threat of abrupt and irreversible climate changes must compel political and economic action on emissions.” The Nature paper included political rodomontade like:

In our view, the consideration of tipping points helps to define that we are in a climate emergency and strengthens this year’s chorus of calls for urgent climate action — from schoolchildren to scientists, cities and countries.

The Australian Academy’s 3deg scare paper in March, also co-authored by Steffen, draws on that Steffen et al Nature article and re-produces its text and graphics of tipping point “domino effects”. Five months after the Nature paper was published, the journal had to grovel horrifically because the seven apex climate scientists had screwed up.[6] Here’s the grovel – try to restrain your mirth (emphasis added):

Correction 09 April 2020: The figure ‘Too close for comfort’ in this Comment incorrectly synthesized and interpreted data from the IPCC. The graph labelled the temperatures as absolute, rather than rises; misrepresented the levels of risk; misinterpreted data as coming from a 2007 IPCC report; extrapolated the focus of a 2018 report; and was not clear about the specific sources of the data. The graphic has been extensively modified online to correct these errors.

Mercifully, Hoegh-Guldberg, Steffen et al have pasted the corrected graphic into their Academy report, not the discarded FUBAR version.[7] Maybe climate science isn’t so “irrefutable” after all.

Just in case, the Academy has given itself a free card to exaggerate and scaremonger:

We adopted the precautionary principle: if a potentially damaging effect cannot be ruled out, it needs to be taken seriously.

The Academy’s authors failed to heed the devastating critique of their scenario methods in a paper last May led by Roger Pielke of University of Colorado, titled “Systemic Misuse of Scenarios in Climate Research and Assessment.”  The Academy paper has about 20 mentions of official but discredited scenario RCP8.5 and about 50 mentions of other RCP scenarios. Typical:

RCP8.5 assumes little mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and is associated with global warming of 4°c or more above pre-industrial levels by 2100. Up to now, anthropogenic emissions have tracked the RCP8.5 pathway most closely…

Graphics misleadingly show the various scenarios as consistent and comparable. And RCP8.5 is used in the body of the report to imagine horrible warming outcomes, e.g. hailstorms, p32.

Pielke, who is not a climate sceptic, says that, at worst, the extreme and implausible projections of RCP8.5 are touted as “business as usual”. He wrote:

The misuse of scenarios in climate research means that much of what we think we know about our collective climate future may be incomplete, myopic or even misleading or wrong, and as such, ‘uncomfortable knowledge’.

Pielke tracked 4,500 scientific papers misusing the most extreme scenario RCP8.5. The dud scenario featured in 16,800 scholarly articles since 2010. In January-February 2020 alone, more than 1300 studies quoted RCP8.5, at the rate of about 20 per day, with serious misuse at the rate of two studies per day.

The consequences of RCP scenario misuse include a myopic perspective on alternative futures and a correspondingly limited view on policy alternatives, the creation of a vast academic literature with little to no connection to the real world, and an unwarranted emphasis on apocalyptic climate futures that influences public and policy-maker perspectives.

The objective of understanding scenario misuse is not to apportion or assign blame, but to understand how such a pervasive and consequential failure of scientific integrity came to be on such an important topic, how it can be corrected and how it can be avoided in the future.

Pielke and co-author Ritchie sheet some blame home to the incestuous connections among prominent climate scientists.

The IPCC scenario process has been led by a small group of academics for more than a decade, and decisions made by this small community have profoundly shaped the scientific literature and correspondingly, how the media and policy communities interpret the issue of climate change.

 The Academy paper, with its incestuous group of self-citing authors-cum-IPCC-contributors, could be a case in point.

Their chair Hoegh-Guldberg is a climate activist par excellenceAs the ABC put it in a fawning interview in 2009 “Hoegh-Guldberg’s work has been embraced by the likes of Al Gore and David Attenborough” and “his mission now is to travel the globe as he fights to raise awareness of what we stand to lose.” He’s been forecasting the bleaching death of the Great Barrier Reef from climate change since 1998, when his modelling put the Reef’s demise as early as 2030 – less than a decade from now. He lamented that his science peers were giving his research bad reviews: “They were meant to be anonymous but someone slipped them to me, and they were very scathing …” Climategate’s cynical emails of 2009threw plenty more light on this “anonymous” and gamed peer-review system.

In the same 2009 interview Hoegh-Guldberg forecast the disappearance of Arctic sea ice by 2019. He argued with Andrew Bolt: “This is four million kilometres square of ice that’s disappearing. It’s not a tiny thing! But wouldn’t you say that’s a bad sign?” Fact Check: Hoegh-Guldberg confused square miles with square kilometres – but in any event the ice extent last month was 5.7 million square miles or 14.8 million square kilometres. (Hoegh-Guldberg’s “This is four million kilometres square of ice” could not be more wrong. What he said, but doesn’t mean, is a square with sides of 4 million km to give a total area of 16 trillion sq km.)

 The ABC interviewer spliced in tape of Hoegh-Guldberg addressing a conference in Saudi Arabia (of all places) and saying, “Let’s now change the world.”

Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise has provided detailed history on Professor Hoegh-Guldberg, under the header, The WWF Activist in Charge at the IPCC(March 30, 2014). Among other things, she accuses him of using “drama queen language”,such as this (you be the judge):

The world is currently facing the greatest challenge of all time … Humanity is at the crossroads. The message is quite simple and the choice stark: act now or face an uncertain, potentially catastrophic future … World leaders can change the history of the planet and directly influence the survival of millions upon millions of people … Basically, the future is looking very gloomy unless we act immediately and decisively.

Laframboise wrote,

The fact that he has spent his career cashing cheques from Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) was no impediment to him participating in the latest [Fifth] IPCC assessment. The geniuses there decided he wasn’t merely lead-author material, but that he deserved to be placed in charge of a chapter it’s called  The Ocean.

WWF Australia published a spiffy, 16-page brochure titled “Lights Out for the Reef”. Hoegh-Guldberg’s photo and biographical sketch are one of the first things you see. In the foreword, he says that unless we “increase our commitment” to caring for the Great Barrier Reef, it “will disappear.” He knows what the future holds – and he knows it’s apocalyptic. Not content to merely express his own opinions, he presumes to lecture the rest of us. We need to “take action” and “act now.” We need to “deal decisively with climate change.” Behind all of this, of course, lurks a threat: if we don’t follow his advice, we’ll be really, really sorry.

Hoegh-Guldberg’s Queensland University biography lists four reports he did for Greenpeace from 1994-2000. After Laframboise’s post, Hoegh-Guldberg penned yet another tract for WWF, “Reviving the Ocean Economy – the Case for Action – 2015” and the following year he conducted a WWF seminar. The president and CEO of WWF (US), Carter Roberts, recalled schmoozing with him on a diving trip and:

Ove showed us maps tracking elevated levels of CO2 in the oceans, and how those levels corresponded with the declining health of the world’s coral reefs. If current trends continue, he told us, we will watch corals around the world wink out year after year until the only reefs left alive are found in a small remote spot in the South Pacific…

James Cook University’s Professor Peter Ridd was sacked in 2017 for demanding audits of alleged systemic flaws in Barrier Reef scientists’ methodology. He’s now taken his case to the High Court. As a further example of contested reef science, researcher Dr Jennifer Marohasy has challenged the standard methodology of assessing GBR coral die-back from the window of an aeroplane overflying at 120 metres. She says this is too high to give realistic results and when she has dived or used a drone on the same reefs, she’s found the corals perfectly healthy.

None of the Academy folk doing the 3deg report noticed that they were reinventing the (square) wheel. In 2007 climate guru of the era Dr Barrie Pittock wrote a 16,000-word tract for WWF headed: “Dangerous Aspirations: Beyond 3degC warming in Australia”. It’s full of the same guff and doomism as that of the Academy’s folk, who toiled a year over their “Risk to Australia of a 3degC warmer world” lookalike.[8]

The supposedly dispassionate Academy paper makes no mention whatsoever of nuclear power, and just one passing mention of China – whose emissions will swamp whatever cuts Australia tries to make.[9] The Academy paper appears even more ridiculous when set against the views this month of Obama’s chief scientist of the Energy Department, physicist Steven Koonin, who is by no means a sceptic. He expects only 1degC more warming this century – hardly worth spending trillions to combat and easy to adapt to. Further, he says the scientists, politicians and the media have generated a narrative that is absurdly, demonstrably false. That includes the “extreme weather” meme which the IPCC itself rates as “low confidence” – and which the Academy paper touts at least 27 times. The models can’t even agree on the current actual global temperature to within 3degC while claiming 1 per cent precision on key variables. The modellers’ guesses on the temperature impact of doubled  CO2 have not improved in 40 years and are now diverging even more widely, Koonin gripes.[10] The darling of catastrophists circa 2019 was David Wallace Wells with his scare book The Uninhabitable Earth. But even he is calling on fellow activists to revise their advocacy “in a less alarmist direction.”

The Academy – its members are overwhelmingly taxpayer-funded – wants to force Australia’s blue-collars, tradies and non-public servant middle classes into unpalatable and dark-green lifestyle changes. One example: “large-scale adoption of EVs [electric vehicles].” Let’s check the data (the report does not).

EV sales last year were just 6,900, up a mere 182 cars on 2019. That 6,900 total was not even 1 per cent of car sales. To date in 2021, EV sales (excluding Teslas at $73,000 upwards but including hybrids) are just 0.6 per cent. Last year 50 per cent of sales were fat gas-guzzling SUVs, up from 45 per cent in 2019. The Academy wants to push us into EVs via government subsidies and by penalties/restrictions on normal cars.

Ponder the  EV handwaving by the Academy, as evident in the passage below, taken from Academy paper March 31, 2021 (emphasis added):

On current estimates, lifetime costs of electric vehicles (EVs) are similar to those of conventional internal combustion engine vehicles and are likely to fall further.

Now check back into the real world, as described in a Federal Department of Industry, Science and Energy paper published last February:

Currently, closing the total cost-of-ownership gap with battery electric vehicle subsidies would not represent value-for-money. Analysis shows that this would be expected to cost the taxpayer $195-747 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent, depending on the vehicle type and usage. This is high when compared to the Emissions Reduction Fund price of $16 per tonne of carbon emitted. This translates to around $4,500 to $8,000 over the life of the vehicle, or around 10-40 cents per kilometre over a 10 year vehicle life.

The Academy leaves it to the omniscient government to fix the “adjustment challenges” to jobs and industries arising from its pro-EV policies. Otherwise, “Australia will be left with an inefficient car fleet, dependent on mostly imported oil, for many years to come.” What’s “inefficient” about my little family car Hyundai i30 (price new, $23,000)? It carries us like a charm on a whiff of petrol.

The Academy calls for “an immediate halt to new thermal coal mines and coal-fired power stations” and expects the bureaucracy to somehow find coal workers better jobs or earlier retirement. But anyway, it cites its own author, economist John Quiggin,

Thermal coal mining is not a major employer in Australia’s overall labour market and most employees in the industry have skills that make them employable in a wide range of industries. Only a small number of communities, mostly in central and northern Queensland, depend critically on coal mining…

Those thermal coal miners whom the Academy is happy to disappear, number about 20,000,out of about 40,000 coal miners in total, plus, of course, their household and commercial dependents. Nevertheless, the Academy continues:

Many coal-dependent workers and communities will be better off under a compassionate, pro-active transition program than by simply carrying on with ‘business as usual’ (Wiseman et al. 2017).”

Professor John Wiseman works at the dark-green end of Melbourne University at its Sustainable Society Institute. The title of one of his co-authored publications, “The Degrowth Imperative: Reducing energy and resource consumption as an essential component in achieving carbon budget targets” gives the flavour. “Degrowth” means reducing living standards like GDP per capita. As Wiseman’s co-author, Samuel Alexander, puts it, “And can we come together to build resilient, relocalised economies as globalised, carbon capitalism comes to an end in coming years and decades?” Wiseman’s also a writer on climate change and mental health, e.g. “And while many people feel grief and despair about the prospects of climate change, others see transformational hope…”

The Academy report starts with a full-page 230-word kow-tow to Aborigines, including a homily by Aboriginal Dr Emma Lee, one of the 15 members of the expert panel of authors. (The Academy signed up to a “Reconciliation Action Plan” in August 2019 to burnish its woke credentials). Dr  Lee told a conference in March about living in Country with ancestors “every day watching our midden sites along the coast getting washed away with increasing tides.”[11] One of the oldest-tide gauge benchmarks in the world is at Port Arthur in south-east Tasmania. CSIRO says it shows 160 years of sea rise there totalling a mere 13.5cm, or about two-thirds of my palm and fingers. A more precise study put the rise there at 1mm a year or 10cm per century. I had no idea that modern Tasmanian Aboriginals could so closely detect the tides increasing.

I checked other recent Academy reports for apologies for squatting on Aboriginal land, without success. One report reviewing “Decadal plans for Australian Astronomy” has 90 words of acknowledgements to whites but not one mention of Aborigines or the pioneering work of Aboriginal astronomers , now being dinned into Australian schoolkids by the ABC and officialdom.

How left can the Academy get? Last November it bagged President Trump and threw in its lot with the doddering fraud Joe Biden:

He will restore funding to environmental and climate programs and, most importantly for Australia, pressure other nations to raise their emissions reductions ambitions…

The [Trump] administration has also harmed the free movement of scientists and ideas. Travel restrictions have made it more difficult for foreigners from different countries to work or study in the US… Rising concerns about Chinese technological advancements have resulted in investigations into links between US-based scientists and China, leading to Chinese claims of McCarthyism—a claim familiar to Australians (My emphases).

What? Why is the Academy recycling propaganda from China intended to minimise the Communist Party’s wholesale stealing of Western know-how? I sought clarification from the Academy but got no response. [12]

And what’s behind the Academy saying that the China-alleged “McCarthyism” is a “claim familiar to Australians”? That comment appears to derive from a Senate committee hearing last October. Liberal Senator Eric Abetz asked three Chinese-Australian researchers whether they were prepared to “unconditionally condemn the Chinese Communist Party dictatorship”. One of them, a Labor candidate for Melbourne’s deputy mayor, later called the question “race-baiting McCarthyism.” [I make no suggestion that the three witnesses are in any way disloyal]. The Venona code-breaking transcripts proved that in the US, Senator McCarthy was not just imagining nests of traitors within the post-war establishment.

The Academy’s climate doomism is squandering prestige built over half a century. Someone there should have run a check on its 3degC warming nonsense before the Academy does any more damage – to itself.

Tony Thomas’s new book, Come To Think Of It – essays to tickle the brain, is available here as a book ($34.95) or an e-book ($14.95)

[1] The fourteen Academy people wrote sagely in 1976, “We conclude that there is no evidence that the world is now on the brink of a major climatic change. There is ample evidence that the world’s climate has changed widely during the geological past, and while there is every expectation that it will continue to change in the future, the time scale of these changes is in the range of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years rather than decades or centuries.” (My emphasis).

[2] There is scientific etiquette that a reviewer does not review his/her own prior publications, yet here we see senior climate scientists doing just that.

[3] The UK is copping its frostiest April in at least 60 years, CO2 notwithstanding, according to its Met Office.

[4] At 1.10.00secs in the video.

[5] IPCC’s Third Report 2001: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” (Chapter 14, Section 14.2.2.2. )

IPCC’s Fifth Report, 2014: 111 out of 114 model runs showed temperatures above actual data. [chapter 9, text box 9.2, page 769]

[6] “The Australian Academy of Science comprises 550 Fellows whose common link is their exceptional scientific achievement.

[7] Fouled up beyond all recognition.

[8] The Pittock biography incorrectly credits him with a share in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, which the ABC’s Sophie Scott elevated even further to describe Pittock as a “Nobel Prize winner”.[8]

[9] China, pretending at the Paris talks to be a less-developed country, intends to reach peak emissions only in 2030. It’s burning more than half the globe’s thermal coal consumption and is planning or starting 247 gigawatts of new coal-fired power, six times the total coal-power use of Germany and equal to about 80 Loy Yang power plants.

[10] The last official IPCC statement was a footnote in IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. SPM page 16. It reads ‘No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.’

[11] at 1.24.40sec.

[12] In a marvellous each-way bet, the Academy’s anti-Trump document says

  • This analysis has the endorsement of the Secretary for Science Policy, President and Chief Executive of the Australian Academy of Science.
  • “Views expressed in this feature remain those of the authors.”

Tim Flannery’s Latest Climate Triumph

Tony Thomas

Congrats to paleontologist Dr Tim Flannery for new international recognition in the peer-reviewed global climate literature. Dr Flannery is head of Australia’s Climate Council, a Fellow of the deep-green Australian Academy of Science, and previously federal Labor’s Climate Commissioner on a modest $180,000 a year for a three-day week. Now his credentials have been further burnished, having just been prominently cited in a peer-reviewed paper in the International Journal of Global Warmingthis week. The paper is itself extolled in a press release from the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Timbo, congratulations!

I thought I’d have to pay $US40 for the full paper – not that I’d grudge it for Tim – but chanced on a copy here. It’s by David C. Rode and Paul S. Fischbeck, both professors at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. They’re heavy hitters in the maths/engineering world of operations research, and believe in the orthodox human-caused catastrophic warming hypothesis. One of Professor Fischbeck’s earliest papers was as the co-author of “Risk Management for the Tiles of the Space Shuttle” (1994). That appeared midway between the Challenger and Columbia shuttle disasters. Co-professor David Rode has been an energy/electricity policy researcher for 20 years.

The paper’s title is “Apocalypse Now? Communicating extreme forecasts”. The authors are fed up with their climate mates dogmatically forecasting climate doom. Moreover, these forecasts typically lack uncertainty bands, which are the essence of real science. The professors complain that the dud doomism by 2000, 2020, 2030 or whenever generates disrepute and mockery of real scientists:

Recent evidence has also suggested that certain commonly accepted scientific predictions may indeed be exaggerated.

Rode and Fischbeck collected 79 “apocalyptic” disaster projections since 1970. They found that, in 48 cases, the predicted disaster dates have passed into history and it seems no doom occurred. The other 31 predictions are still in the future. As the authors say, “The apocalypse is always about 20 years out.” For example, the father of global warming scares, James Hansen, and fake Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann have catastrophic predictions maturing in the 2030s, although their forecasts for earlier dooms were all duds. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has already had one forecast of cataclysm fail but it has more cataclysms on the cab rank for 2029 and 2050, the paper says.

The authors warn that crying wolf undermines trust in the underlying science. But they say that it’s likely that their own warnings against exaggeration will be ignored, because

making sensational predictions of the doom of humanity, while scientifically dubious, has still proven tempting for those wishing to grab headlines.

So where does our Dr Tim fit in all this? Well he’s cited no fewer than three times by the study for his climate armageddons. No, make that four because his unlamented former Climate Commission is also cited. The only other forecasters to crack four mentions are scientist/agitator James Hansen and the IPCC itself.

Paul Ehrlich, who forecast that England would be underwater from rising seas by 2000, gets three guernseys.[1] So does loopy monarch-to-be Charles, Prince of Wales.

The other 70-odd doom specialists cited include six-mansion-owning tycoon Al Gore, the late sex-harassing grub and 13-year IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri, ex-UN climate tear-jerker Christiana “Tinkerbell” Figueres, Joe Biden’s far-left muse Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, and my least-impressive journo-turned-climate-guru mate David Spratt.[2] As his other pal, Potsdam climate wunderkind Hans Joachim Schellnhuber has put it,

It is all the more important to listen to non-mainstream voices [namely Spratt] who do understand the issues and are less hesitant to cry wolf. Unfortunately for us, the wolf may already be in the house.

I also spotted Democrat Senator Tim Wirth on the list. Wirth organised for James Hansen’s 1988 testimony about global warming to be on Washington’s hottest day and also sabotaged the air-conditioning of the hearing rooms to make everyone sweat for the TV cameras. Yet another climate clown cited is Cambridge physics professor Peter Wadhams, who has never given up predicting an ice-free Arctic even when his earlier predictions (like, by 2015) failed miserably.[3]

A few spectacularly cracked forecasts are cited, such as this one by former catastrophist James Lovelock, Fellow of the Royal Society and developer of the Gaia Hypothesis, “Before this (21st) century is over, billions of us will die, and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.” Lovelock is not wholly green these days, much to greenies’ chagrin.[4]

Other than Flannery, Australian sources given dishonorable mentions are the Academy of Science’s Frank Fenner, who was a great virologist but an over-the-top climate hysteric; and our very own former Chief Scientist Penny Sackett, famous for her prediction in 2004 that the world had only five years left to avoid disastrous global warming. Reading from the authors’ table, we find Flannery predictions dating from 2004 (for 2054), 2008 (for an immediate tipping point), and 2009 (for 2029). All his forecasts involve alarms about it being “too late to act” at that date to save the planet.

The paper’s authors check to see if their cited doom-criers would be alive when their forecast dates arrive. Flannery was born in 1956 so when his furthest-out apocalypse arrives, he’ll be 98 and either enjoying his vindication or explaining through toothless gums how he was misquoted.

Flannery’s copious earnings from warmist campaigning have financed a home “with environmental features at Coba Point on the Hawkesbury River, accessible only by boat.” Given the Hawkesbury  floods last month, the boat must have had a good workout. In 2005 Flannery was forecasting “permanent drought” for NSW: “If the computer models are right, then drought conditions will become permanent in eastern Australia … Water is going to be in short supply across the eastern states.” His other famous quote is about “the rain that comes won’t fill our dams” but being Perth born, I most love his forecasts about climate change turning Perth into a ghost city. (Perth median house price last year, $790,000).

Getting back to the Rode and Fischbeck paper, they’re warmist believers and their critiques are more in sorrow than anger. They want doom-forecasting to be

# more nuanced and with uncertainty bars

# progressive in the sense of a series of short-term ‘building block’ forecasts leading to the long-term doom date, enabling frequent checks on forecasters’ accuracy. This will “better motivate a public acceptance of climate science that has been plagued with growing scepticism,” they write.

# less group-think among climate communicators, such as always picking round-number dates like 2030, 2050 and 2100.

The paper begins with a delightful quote from climate scientist Greta Thunberg (then 17):

I’ve been warned that telling people to panic about the climate crisis is a very dangerous thing to do, but don’t worry – it’s fine – I’ve done this before and I can assure you: it doesn’t lead to anything.

They also quote an aphorism (attributed to Carl Sagan) that “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence’ and re-work it as “extraordinary predictions require extraordinary caution in communication.” They also note that doom forecasting is generally not done in a spirit of objective inquiry but to jab the authorities into action to shut down fossil fuels and destroy coal-fired power or whatever. For example, the lead-ups (should that be leads-up, by the way?) to the Copenhagen (2009) and Paris climate summits (2015) saw a surge in doom crying, serving

as focal points for the issuance of apocalyptic forecasts. For these ‘must act’ forecasts, the intent may not be literal, but emphatic, in order to encourage a belief in fear over rational scientific discourse. These apocalyptic forecasts may be issued specifically to apply political pressure to policymakers to take action on the meetings’ agendas.

Our shoals of environment reporters get beautifully slapped down. We learn that the reporters are mostly innocent of knowledge about uncertainties in science, and gravitate to quoting doom-criers who emphasise certainty that their disasters will arrive.[5] (The Australian’s Graham Lloyd always an honorable exception).

Doulton and Brown (2009) performed a study of UK newspaper articles on climate change between 1997 and 2007 and found that ‘potential catastrophe’ was the most common discourse in news coverage, concluding that the media were prone to ‘attention cycles’ that tended to be self-amplifying, and led to the news provoking a ‘rising sense of impending catastrophe’ from climate. This type and frequency of media coverage tends toward sensationalism and an increased (but unjustified) certainty in reporting.

The authors say a study of newspaper articles on climate change in six countries showed that ‘disastrous consequences’ was the most common frame in the stories, while references to risk or likelihood was the least common frame.

Much of the media operates with an express intent to do what Taubes (1997) refers to as ‘consciousness-raising’. In doing so, the media tends to sensationalise the consequences and suppress references to uncertainty in reporting apocalyptic climate-related forecasts…When the presentation of risks is ‘sensationalised’ through the media, non-scientists are apt to perceive a risk as a greater, more immediate threat. 

The salaried Rode and Fischbeck produce memes and insights that climate sceptics like Anthony Watts and Joanne Nova have long provided for free. Namely, that the IPCC and orthodox climate scientists might make respectably cautious forecasts, but the media’s idiots beat up the stories to boost their disaster narrative. Why then do the orthodox scientists never demand or issue corrections? (To me, it’s obvious that the orthodox scientists don’t care because (a) they get the fame and (b) they inwardly agree with the media’s agenda). Now, the new paper’s professors say,

The authors of the forthcoming Sixth Assessment Report of the IPCC should be encouraged to tone down ‘deadline-ism’ Forecasters should make an effort to influence the interpretation of their forecasts; for example, by correcting media reporting of them. The sequential releases of the IPCC’s Assessment Reports, for example, should consider calling out particularly erroneous or incomplete interpretations of statements from previous Assessment Reports. 

The authors also swipe the desperate attempts by warmist propaganda outfits like the Climate Council to link climate forecasts with horses of the apocalypse like floods, bushfires, storms, and hot and cold days or weeks.

Extreme caution should be used in extrapolating from forecasts of climate events (e.g., temperature or CO2 levels) to their social and physical consequences (famine, flooding, etc.) without the careful modelling of mitigation and adaptation efforts and other feedback mechanisms. While there have been notable successes in predicting certain climate characteristics, such as surface temperature (Smith et al., 2019), the ability to tie such predictions to quantitative forecasts of consequences is more limited. 

 The authors do betray occasional glimpses of humor:

Each study of apocalyptic prediction shares one common element: as far as we can tell, the apocalypse has not actually occurred (yet). What Festinger et al. noted, however, was that receipt of disconfirming evidence (the apocalypse not occurring as scheduled), did not diminish belief in the prediction. Rather, it tended to strengthen it – at least for a time. 

In their academic obtuseness, Rode and Fischbeck don’t understand that sceptics have built the coffin for climate scaremongering and their own peer-reviewed paper hammers down the lid on it. Thanks, guys!

Tony Thomas’s new book, Come To Think Of It – essays to tickle the brain, is available here as a book ($34.95) or an e-book ($14.95)

[1] In 1969 Ehrlich was predicting disastrous global famine by 1975 that would require compulsory birth control via sterilising agents in food and water. He forecast that 65 million Americans would die of starvation in the Eighties, and that the US population would decline by 1999 to 22.6 million.[14] Today’s US population is 330 million. Another Ehrlich climate forecast, from 1971: “If I were a gambler, I would take even-money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

[2] Spratt is described as “policy analyst”. That’s also what I am, if you stretch the definition to cover both of us. David Spratt is research director for the Melbourne-based Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration and co-author of the book Climate Code Red: The Case for Emergency Action (Scribe, 2008). 

[3] Wadhams has given his name to a measure of Arctic catastrophism, e.g. ‘Currently the ice area is well over 4 Wadhams (1 million sq kilometers) thick. A reader suggested using “Wadhams” as a unit for sea ice area in order to honor Peter Wadhams’s spectacularly failed prediction of an ice free Arctic by now.’

[4] Lovelock: “I bow my head in shame at the thought that our original good intentions should have been so misunderstood and misapplied. We never intended a fundamentalist Green movement that rejected all energy sources other than renewable, nor did we expect the Greens to cast aside our priceless ecological heritage because of their failure to understand that the needs of the Earth are not separable from human needs. We need take care that the spinning windmills do not become like the statues on Easter Island, monuments of a failed civilisation.”

[5] “ It will come as no surprise that a headline of ‘humanity doomed in ten years’ will get more prominence than a headline of “negative event of unknown severity might occur in the next ten to one hundred years.”

Making Kids Shrill, Scared and Stupid

Oh my goodness! Australian schoolkids by the million are being saturated with actor and climate hysteric  Damon Gameau’s ridiculous climate-zealotry film 2040[1]

“By the million”? I’m scrupulous with facts and Gameau’s actual quote on a marketing video was “reaching as many as 948,400 students”. But the video was made a year or so back. Since then his total of “lesson plans downloaded” has almost doubled, from 23,684 to 42,696, by this week. So a million brainwashed kids looks like an under-estimate.

The video also says more than 550 schools have been “activated” by teachers to promote Gameau’s green brainwashing. Let’s update the school numbers by 50 per cent, which is the corresponding increase in “Action Plans” run by Gameau since he did the marketing video.[2] That suggests over 800 schools – and there’s only 9000 schools in all of Australia.

For The Greens, schools are the bulk store for its recruits. No wonder, since kids in class are swamped with greenwash that teachers download from Cool Australia[3] [4]Scootle, an alphabet soup of green lobbies like WWF, ACF, AYCC (Youth Climate Coalition, which runs the kids’ climate strikes), the AAS (Academy of Science), the Tim Flannery-led Climate Council, Greenpeace and, I suspect, here and there, Extinction Rebellion. All lessons scrupulously tied to federal and state curricula under the Trojan horse of “Sustainability” mandated as one of three “cross-curriculum priorities”.

Speaking of Tim Flannery, the Academy’s Fellow has been paired with Gameau on climate gabfests. Gameau has also shared platforms with Extinction Rebellion co-founder and ibogaine drug-tripper Gail Bradbrook and he comes recommended by would-be revolutionary Noam Chomsky and the bonkers climateer Christiana “Tinkerbell” Figueres, who led the Paris climate schemozzle in 2015. Another panegyric for 2040 is from the SMH’s kookiest columnist Elizabeth Farrelly, famed for charging her peons $25 a month to build fences and dig holes on her Southern Highlands hobby farmlet. Her take on 2040: “Engaging persuasive and urgent. It’s an exercise in what you might call muscular hope.”https://www.youtube.com/embed/p-rTQ443akE?feature=oembed

Gameau, who gets around unshaven in jeans and old flannel shirts, is not only saving the planet but running a nice little earner out of his doco. A US blog-site called “Net worth post” puts his net worth at $US13 million (AUD 17 million). Maybe that’s nonsense[5] but he’s turned 2040 into an international industry. A US speakers’ bureau has him listed, and its clients’ charge-out is from $US5000 to $US200,000-plus. Local corporates can become a Gameau “Climate Guardian” for A$7500-$10,650 which entitles them to toolkits, marketing, film licence, virtual workshop, and guest appearance by a 2040 big-shot. In a raft of optional extras are a tailor-made PR movie about the corporate’s “climate action journey” and a “Tailored C-Suite Engagement” with guru Damon himself. (I had to look up “C-Suite”. It means only for executives with titles starting with C for Chief). You can become a Gameau cut-price “Climate Advocate” for $3900. He claims personally to have a low carbon footprint, although he criss-crossed the globe by air making his film about low emissions. IMDB says the film itself grossed $US1,363,654 worldwide but I don’t know how current that figure is.

The premise of his film fantasy is that he time travels to 2040 and discovers that all his green solutions have been a brilliant success. He helps his real-life four-year-old daughter, Velvet, to navigate through climate perils to 2040’s nirvana. The movie closes with rapturous music and vision of youngsters of all colors and creeds dancing through a forest to celebrate low CO2 levels. One 20-something gal in a white frock grows from her shoulder-blades giant butterfly wings that actually flap. This must be the cheesiest movie clip ever made or even imaginable.[6] He doesn’t actually tell kids, “Vote Green”, but calls for strong new political leadership. “Wouldn’t it be terrific if new leaders emerge who could navigate us to a better 2040,” he says. Hint, hint, nudge, nudge.

Somehow Australian schoolkids (as distinct from Singaporean kids) no longer just learn stuff; they’re incited to change the world green-wards.[7] Political activism is now mandated by the curriculum. A typical Cool/2040’s lesson opens with a “Thought starter: “What excites you about the future” and kids are then exhorted to discuss the merits of “Carbon sequestration” and “Sustainability”. Never mind that carbon sequestration is just another ruinously expensive and futuristic “solution” to harmless CO2 emissions, and “Sustainability” is an undefinable feel-goodism.[8] Kids obviously will parrot that “the environment” is their future concern (notwithstanding that our air has never been purer and we’re putting out up to five colored bins weekly). Kids must then scrawl on their workpads answers to “What is one possible solution” and “Who is responsible for this solution and why?” Thus kids who have trouble solving 9×13=?, are coached to guide our planetary destinies. The 2040“Factsheet”, by the way, finishes by telling kids to send letters to politicians and join the school-strike manipulators Youth Climate Coalition. They are also to run around ordering adults to cut their emissions. It’s the strangest “Factsheet” ever compiled by homo sapiens.

Education authorities bemoan that curricula are crowded with extraneous content. But they have endorsed prodigious school time being spent on 32 lessons about a woke fantasy film. Dig this 2040 lesson plan of 70 minutes –and this is before kids waste another 92 minutes seeing the film:

Work through this resource material in the following sequence:

10 minutes – Part A: Activating Prior Knowledge – OPTIONAL
20 minutes – Part B: Concerns For The Future – Barometer Activity
15 minutes – Part C: Thinking About The Solutions
25 minutes – Reflection

 The lesson templates would do credit to Soviet-era indoctrination. Boggle your mind on these:

Part C: Testing Out Tone

 Step 1. You are now going to create a climate change message for school students younger than you. You might want to warn students about some of the dangers relating to climate change, give them actions to take, or include other information that you find important or interesting. It’s up to you. You simply need to create three messages with three different intended tones.[For whom? Six-year-olds?]

Some intended tones you could use might be: angry, sad, positive, hopeful, anxious. Example –

Angry. “Adults are ruining the world that we have to grow up in. Act now!” TIP: Show your three messages to someone in your house. Ask them which message they think is the most effective, and why.”

Sample – I saw: – Huge wind turbines with beautiful green background.

Tone – Positive

This made me feel – That the future could be like that.

A further Soviet-style technique pits the majority in class against any child with non-conformist views, such as “My parents say zero CO2 by 2050 is total b/s”. (Dissent is encouraged over orthodox detail like whether we should give up meat or how soon the planet risks frying up). Kids are paired and one writes down the other’s ideas about renewables. Then the ideas are “shared” with the class.

Clarify any questions or key points raised by students, including the following:

Sunlight – The sun is always shining somewhere. Renewable! [In reality, Unreliable!]

# Coal – Coal is formed from the remains of ancient organisms and can take millions of years to develop. Non-renewable! 

Given Victoria alone has supply of brown coal till about AD2400, running out of it isn’t urgent.

The teaching materials claim, “Most forms of renewable energy generally have a much lower environmental impact.” Sure, take a squiz at any wind farm stretching to the horizon, and scores of thousands more would be needed for “zero” emissions. I have found no mention of where electricity is to come from at night during a wind drought, although I find stray and misleading references to batteries.[9] Frankly, if teachers want to teach kids about electricity grid optimisation, let the teachers first swot up via electrical engineering textbooks (Caution, teachers: maths are involved).

The brain- and green-washing is having serious impacts on kids’ positive attitude to life and mental health. Hardly surprising when teachers confront kids with rubbish like:

In the IPCC’s most pessimistic scenario, where the population booms, technology stagnates, and emissions keep rising, the atmosphere gets to a startling 2,000 ppm by about 2250. That gives us an atmosphere last seen during the Jurassic when dinosaurs roamed, and causes an apocalyptic temperature rise of perhaps 9 degrees C (16°F)… If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted… CO2 will need to be reduced… to at most 350 ppm,” Columbia University climate guru James Hansen has said. We sailed past that target in about 1990, and it will take a gargantuan effort to turn back the clock.

Kids are even told air travel must cease:

Flights need to stop, or at the very least, be reserved only for emergency situations. 

Similarly,

You can take a positive step right now and Pledge to never buy another gas powered vehicle again and get the “Last Gas Car” bumper sticker.

Gameau says he had climate scientists fact-check his masterpiece. They’re all obviously crap at maths. Gameau in the film quotes that “Governments spend $10 million a minute subsidising fossil fuels.” That would be $A5.3 trillion a year. Australia’s total GDP is only $2 trillion.

The Cool/2040 crowd also spruiks WWF’s insane “Earth Hour” which sees kids and adults turn off lights for an hour to virtue-signal for the planet. It’s a pity the lessons don’t include info about the 800 million  peasants without electricity, and the life-threatening discomforts involved. Instead, and incredibly, 2040 promotes Bangla Desh as the energy model the rest of the world should emulate. Remember, maybe a million schoolkids in 500-1000 schools are being bombarded with these dark green fantasies.

The zealots throw science and truth out the window. They lie to kids that CO2 caused episodic warmings in the paleo-climate when ice cores show that warming preceded CO2 rises. They lie that warming causes droughts, even after Professor Andy Pitman has contradicted that. The warmist materials cite the 2011 Texas drought to prove their point – never mind that Texans lately have been freezing and flooded.

Even more ludicrous is the teachers’ notion that 11-year-olds can do field experiments demonstrating climate-change inter-relationships of food, transport and energy. “Develop a plan for research (what would happen and why this approach has been chosen). Use the Experiment Proposal Template provided by your teacher to record your ideas.” Someone should submit that Template for a Nobel.

Gameau is more catspaw for the Greens than even a rudimentary authority on global warming.

Interviewer: How much did you know about the specifics of climate change prior to making the film?

Gameau: Absolutely nothing. I found myself struggling to connect with it.

He claims he did homework for eight months before starting the shoots. This involved briefings from the usual pack of academic alarmist shills posing as “scientists” and offering their faux “solutions”. He’s candid that his forte remained the cinematic arts of emotion: “It’s really important that all artists get involved and disseminate the messages but also use evocative language that people can connect to.” His USP (unique selling proposition) is optimism, e.g. that growing and eating lots of seaweed will make life gay in 2040. He originally injected 45 minutes of politics into a three-hour filmic marathon – one can guess what partisan line he took. But luckily most – but far from all – of the politics fell on the cutting room floor. He still imagines Left and Right can unite to fight CO2. Perhaps, if one assumes Malcolm Turnbull represents the “Right”.

+Cool’s lessons on 2040 excoriate “climate deniers”. For example, kids can click on Cool’s link to Melbourne University’s Dennis Muller, who rants that the climate peril is worse than nuclear war. Muller says, “Media ‘impartiality’ on climate change is ethically misguided and downright dangerous.” Muller, who remarkably is Senior Research Fellow in the so-called Centre for Advancing Journalism, writes to laud our universities’ Conversation editor Misha Ketchell for his “zero tolerance” against any readers’ deviation from the party line on global warming. Ketchell was so troubled by commenters taking his academic catastropharians to task he banned comments on the site. Ironic, no? A ‘conversation’ in which only one party is allowed to be heard!

The green-brained Gameau has set up something called the Regeneration Group to help solve the “climate crisis”, adding, “We won’t tolerate posts or comments disputing the legitimacy of climate disruption.”

Because the Murdoch press hosts some sceptic and right-of-centre information (unlike Their ABC), kids’ lessons include anti-Murdoch propaganda. Says the class material:

Rupert Murdoch owns almost 70% of the newspapers that are read daily in Australia. He is the prominent ‘narrative gatekeeper’ in our country … 55% of stories that accepted the science contained incorrect facts or impacts.

Talking of “facts”, the Cool/2040 Factsheet[10] admits that recent warming is merely “believed” to be from human’s CO2 emissions, and that dire forecasts of warming are the mere product of “a range of models”. The fictive “facts” then arrive in legions. They include that sea ice in the Antarctic is “frequently at record lows” (record highs more like it) and that hotter weather is harming quality and availability of crops and foods. Not so. Recent bleaching supposedly harmed 93 per cent of the Barrier Reef. (Not so, but auditing that figure will get you fired, like Peter Ridd). Plants, fish and animals are scampering from the equator towards the poles. “Facts” include “Other impacts we might see…” such as species’ extinction, weather extremes[11] and worse diseases.

The doozy of all the Factsheet “Facts” is that “Sea-levels are expected to rise approximately 2.3 metres for each degree Celsius of temperature rise.” For starters, sea rise for the 20thC global warming of 1degC was about 20cm not 230cm. Second, the IPCC forecasts sea rise for the next century of under a metre. If Cool/2040 think we’re in for at least 3degC of warming by 2100, that implies 7m of sea rise, nearly twice the height of my townhouse. I fear for Tim Flannery’s waterfront mansion on the Hawkesbury

In a decade of googling Cool and other class materials, I have not once come across any reference to world-reputed sceptics like Anthony Watts, Joanne Nova or Ian Plimer. Rightists like Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones are sometimes cited but only as Aunt Sallies for kids to mock, while Gameau’s materials push kids to videos by “woke” oracles like “Bill Nye, the Science Guy”, a mechanical engineer turned actor-comedian-propagandist.

Gameau’s material for kids blithely advocates overturning Western civilisation:

Tackling climate change requires large-scale, systemic changes across all aspects of society. Simply aiming to reduce our C02 emissions is not enough: we need to rapidly decarbonise our planet. While this might sound challenging, the good news is we already have the knowledge and tools to do it…

Warmist dogma has been failing at federal elections for the past decade. The green-left’s strategy is to use schools as battering rams into office. I must say it’s “progressing” well.

Tony Thomas’s new book, Come To Think Of It – essays to tickle the brain, is available here as a book ($34.95) or an e-book ($14.95)

[1] A full account of barmy material in 2040 can be found here.

[2] 20,500 Action Plans when the video was made, today 29,652 Plans.

[3] Cool Australia operates in 8400 primary and secondary schools — 90 per cent of all schools. Nearly half our teachers use the lessons, downloading them 2.1 million of them in 2019.[i]

[4] herehere, here

[5] Another US celebrity site puts Gameau’s age at 62, noting that he is “still alive”. But considering he graduated from NIDA in 1999, around 40 seems nearer the mark.

[6] Australian actress, Davini Malcolm, plays a shaman in the film. She was born “Lindy” but received the name “Davini” from her Indian spiritual teacher, Osho, in 1994. She went on to help produce and write the 13-part children’s TV Series Teenie Weenie Greenies and do a film, Lotus Birth, of her experience having twins in the bath. The births were preceded by her partner, Peter, and their two boys around the piano singing what the DVD notes call their famous and delightful “fart song”.

[7] “Our units follow the narrative of the film encouraging students to discover information, identify and solve problems, students then make plans to take action.”

[8] “Perhaps the most significant new weasel word to have emerged from the UN’s equivalent of the Ministry of Truth is “sustainable.” Commitment to sustainability is now mouthed by every politician, bureaucrat, marketing executive and media hack on Earth. It sounds so benign, so reasonable, but what it actually means is “bureaucratically controlled and NGO-enforced within a UN-based socialist agenda.” Like most aspects of socialism, it is based on incomprehension and/or hatred of the nature and function of market capitalism, not least because markets — which signal scarcity, reward economy and promote profitable innovation — are the only true source of sustainability.” – Peter Foster, Jan 5, 2021. 

[9] Gameau claims that somehow we will get solar household batteries “so cheap you are not even going to notice”. The cost of a battery system is currently between $2000 and $20,000, which are certainly numbers large enough to be noticed.

[10] Much Cool/2040 material is password protected so not linked here

[11] Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore bluntly states: “The fact is there is no hard evidence that any of these things have been or will be triggered by human-caused emissions of CO2. It is all conjecture based on the hypothesis that carbon dioxide controls temperature, which itself has never been determined as fact.”

The Frozen Wastes of the Warmist Mind

The Frozen Wastes of the Warmist Mind

Tony Thomas

On New Year’s Eve I took a $3000 seat on an overnight 787 Dreamliner from Tullamarine down to the Antarctic and back. It was sensational to see some of this mysterious, beautiful and inhospitable continent by the light of the midnight sun, in crystal-clear air and from a low altitude. Not so pleasant was the tour-guide commentary from a couple of old hands from the Australian base, one a glaciologist and the other once an Antarctic maintenance plumber. The cockpit crew weighed in too with descriptions and opinions.

The pair of 70,000lb-thrust engines provided a low whining accompaniment to the talks. But there was already plenty of verbal whining, as if each talker wanted to outdo the others on the perils of global warming in the Antarctic. I cocked an ear briefly but then tuned out, as every speaker was talking nonsense. Normally, I’d have taken down their verbiage in shorthand to pillory them in print. But I was rivetted by the views as glaciers came and went, sea ice dotted the coastline and the smoking crater of Mt Erebus hove into sight. So I’ll just summarise: they blamed global warming for everything down there that moved, and everything there that didn’t move as well.

I think they had guilty consciences. After all, we were polluting the pristine Antarctic air with jet-A1 exhaust gases, and our plane was full of elitists (myself included). We cheerfully paid  as much as 7000 for a night’s trip to regions off-limits to 99.9 per cent of Australians. Sure, the Antarctica flights business professes to be carbon neutral by donating to things like the Yarra Yarra Biodiversity Project, near Geraldton in Western Australia.[1] If we really believed in fairy tales about the looming Year 2100 hothouse extinction, we’d be building dykes in Port Melbourne and lunching on lentils. Our commentators were either out of touch or fibbing: the Antarctic is not warming. Sea ice there is growing, not contracting. The Antarctic refutes the climate modelling orthodoxy that global warming will be amplified at the poles relative to the equator.

Here’s a paper that appeared in Nature just last October: “Low Antarctic continental climate sensitivity due to high ice sheet orography [mountains]”. It’s by Hansi A. Singh & Lorenzo M. Polvani:

The Antarctic continent has not warmed in the last seven decades, despite a monotonic [steady] increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases … Antarctic sea ice area has modestly expanded and warming has been nearly non-existent over much of the Antarctic ice sheet.

The paper uses modelling to blame the non-warming on the high altitude of the Antarctic land mass. Nice try — except real modelling experts says these “state of the art” models areincapable of dealing with climate complexities, being especially ignorant about clouds and future solar irradiance.[2] Meanwhile, scientists by the dozen have been scrabbling for explanations why their pet hypothesese is a dud in the Antarctic, eg.,the ozone hole and even a “negative greenhouse effect”.[3]

There appears to have been a bit of warming along Antarctica’s Western Peninsula, which scientists of warmist bent bang on about interminably. However, in 2017 researchers discovered no fewer than 91 subsurface volcanos well matching the geographic peninsula hotspots. Some were as big as the 4000-metre Mount Eiger. This Antarctic science is not exactly “settled”. Meanwhile, a lot of scientific commentary simply invents a warming narrative down there to bolster their “climate emergency” nonsense.

There are 19 temperature stations in the Antarctic with long track records. It would seem useful to analyse the readouts. Maybe, unlike applying for research grants, that’s too sophisticated a task for “climate scientists”. Luckily  there is young lay blogger in Japan who calls herself “Kirye” and has downloaded and graphed the 30-years of data from NASA records. She finds around half of the 19 stations show no warming or slight cooling, and the minor warming of the others is “nothing unusual”. Two stations show slight warming but are near the South Pole, where the mean temperature is 50 degrees below freezing, so their fractional warming is hardly significant in melting any ice.

Kirye did a further check of 13 temperature stations along the West Peninsular (about which all sorts of horror-show predictions are constantly bruited), plus some stations on Antarctic islands to the north. She found all 13 showed slight cooling over the past 20 years. Let me pause here for a personal aside about the incoherent rage that mere mention Antarctic cooling can incite. At a charity club’s social gathering in January, I was told to shut up because “no-one is interested in your sceptic crap”.  Professor Chris Turney, like my uncharitable social nemesis, was convinced the Antarctic has been warming, and eight years ago he and his Pied Piper followers got badly stuck in the ice on the Good Ship Climate Change aka the Akademik Shokalskiy aka Ship of Fools. Much the same happened to climate warriors who imagined they could take their rowboat happily into and through the “melting Arctic”.

As for the land-based Greenland ice sheet, it’s been growing for the past five years, along with some major Greenland glaciers.[4] Have you heard about  Glacier Girl, the P38 twin-boom fighter that force-landed on the Greenland ice in 1942? Ice has increased and the plane 50 years later was found 82 metres below the surface. In 1903 Roald Amundsen’s small boat traversed the North-West Passage, and a small ship made it in 1942.[5] Further back, Vikings settled in Greenland around 1000AD because it offered relatively warm green pastures.https://www.youtube.com/embed/fNEmGaAplgI?feature=oembed

After my Antarctic jaunt I flipped through climate books at Readings Carlton, where there are scores in stock, and observed how authors really let their heads go about the Antarctic. Know-all Barry Jones writes in What Is To Be Done? ($29.99, and described as “essential reading”): “If large areas of the Antarctic ice sheet and Greenland were to melt, it would lead to significant sea-level rise and risk drowning major urban coastal cities and towns.” That’s a big ‘if’, Baz.[6]

Gillen D’Arcy Wood in Land of Wondrous Cold ($31.56), writes that losses from Antarctic melting will top a trillion dollars annually by 2050, plus lead to 200 million climate refugees worldwide. The UN Environment Program (UNEP) in 2005 forecast 50 million climate refugees by 2010. When they failed to show up, UNEP furtively advanced the date to 2020. Hey, UNEP, where are they all? It’s 2021!. Wood continues that after 2100, things will get worse: stand by for over 200 feet of sea-level rise. Humankind will be like the Patagonians, he ventilates, leading brutish lives before dying out on their unrecognisable shrunken continents.

The fabulist animal fancier David Attenborough, in A life On Our Planet, (Kindle $15.99) frets about a billion people in 2100 fleeing 500 coastal cities, like Miami, and another billion farmers trekking to cooler climes. “In the background the sixth mass extinction would become unstoppable,” he writes. If you’re prone to depression, don’t even think of buying Attenborough’s book.

For some reason feminists adore the Antarctic. In late 2019, 112 ladies, each with at least a Bachelor degree, went down there on the Hebridean Sky, touring 10 bases in three weeks and doubtless distracting the real scientists from their work. The Antarctic Peninsula is one of the fastest-warming places on the planet, they claimed ignorantly. Their expedition, at $A40,000 a head, was subsidised by a Spanish renewables pork-trougher Accione, “to promote women in science diplomacy and climate action.” These massed female expeditions were an annual event for the prior three years and, of course, all were claimed to be carbon neutral. The expeditions are the brainchild of Melbourne-based women’s leadership consultant Fabian Dattner and her “Homeward Bound” program.[7] She aims to send a total 1000 women down with the support of woke UN hypocrites like Christiana “Tinkerbell” Figueres.

The women had supranormal powers, apparently, as they claimed to have observed “with our naked eyes” the melting of the glaciers, the oceans warming and, “with breaking hearts”, the dying of the wildlife. As at play-school, they decorated the ship’s walls with their cheerful drawings. The women took inspiration from Sur, a novel which imagines a group of nine South American women beating Raold Amundsen to the South Pole in 1909-10. The plot is used

to ironically criticize and then undo both misogyny and colonialism. The nine women of Sur destroy the entire masculinity of explorations when they secretly arrive at the Pole before the official discovery by Amundsen and refuse to leave behind a mark of their success. The narrator recalls she was glad ‘for some man longing to be first might come some day, and find it, and know then what a fool he had been, and break his heart.’

Ms Dattner explains, “We are not custodians and stewards, we are conquerors and rapacious consumers. And so, we are now officially an outbreak species.” In somewhat circular reasoning, the 112 women tourists, having joined about 55,000 other visitors that year, “agonised” about the harms tourists like themselves do to Antarctica. Conversations were lugubrious as they “discussed the despair and depression about climate change”. One woman ecologist said she’d already felt “full-blown panic” over the “dying” Barrier Reef (she needs counselling by sacked Professor Peter Ridd), and she began “prepping” supplies in case of societal breakdown. “It felt like it’s all going to unravel, like what’s going to be next, the forests?” she said. “Everything is dying so fast, things are disappearing before we can even understand them.” I hope she included a shotgun to drive other families from her dugout.

They lamented that their children were “suffering from climate anxiety” and from worry about the planet’s future. Maybe they ought to let kids enjoy their childhood, rather than subject them to gore and terror, as features in the clip below. One tripper said, “I do too, every day, and I have done so for many years. I have felt helpless about how we treat and destroy our planet.”https://www.youtube.com/embed/qAkfEX0sqAI?feature=oembed

The Homeward Bound ladies are relatively sensible compared with those engaged in the new field of feminist glacier research. A key paper, funded from a $US413,000 grant from the US government’s National Science Foundation, was the work of a team led by Professor Mark Carey at the University of Oregon – the professor writing through a ‘feminist lens’. The other male, Alessandro Antonello, is an environmental history post-grad, who acquired his credentials at the University of Canberra. Those in need of a chuckle can read the exquisitely woke Carey’s thoughts on sexism and racism in glaciology at this link. Remember this man is a professor.

The paper — I’m not kidding — is titled “Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research.” The epic, 15,000-word monograph cites Sheryl St Germain’s rightfully obscure 2001 novel, To Drink a Glacier, where the author is in the throes of her midlife sexual awakening. She “interprets her experiences with Alaska’s Mendenhall Glacier as sexual and intimate. When she drinks the glacier’s water, she reflects:

That drink is like a kiss, a kiss that takes in the entire body of the other … like some wondrous omnipotent liquid tongue, touching our own tongues all over, the roofs and sides of our mouths, then moving in us and through to where it knows … I swallow, trying to make the spiritual, sexual sweetness of it last.

Continuing in the tradition as something akin to ’50 Shades of Ice’, the paper further cites Uzma Aslam Khan’s (2010) short story ‘Ice, Mating’. The story

explores religious, nationalistic, and colonial themes in Pakistan, while also featuring intense sexual symbolism of glaciers acting upon a landscape. Khan writes: ‘It was Farhana who told me that Pakistan has more glaciers than anywhere outside the poles. And I’ve seen them! I’ve even seen them fuck!’ (emphasis in original)

Icy conditions normally inhibit tumescence, but the paper’s four authors seem to be in a state of sustained arousal. To them, even ice core drilling evokes coital imagery:

Structures of power and domination also stimulated the first large-scale ice core drilling projects – these archetypal masculinist projects to literally penetrate glaciers and extract for measurement and exploitation the ice in Greenland and Antarctica.

In passing, and just to tick another of the progressive boxes, the study notes that climate change “can lead to the breakdown of stereotypical gender roles and even gender renegotiation”, whatever that may be. (Godden, 2013).”

 The Australian Homeward Bound circus gets a mention in the paper, to do with a program for smashing “stereotypical and masculinist practices of glaciology.” The program sent 78 international women to Antarctica in late 2016 to ‘explore how women at the leadership table might give us a more sustainable future’, the paper says.

By about 7000 words into Carey’s paper, readers are subsumed in an Alice in Wonderlanddiscourse. The Cold War, we learn, was apparently not about the contest with the Communist bloc, but a tussle “pursued by a particular group of men as policy-makers who were products of specific elite masculinities (Dean, 2003), operating in the context of anxieties about American masculinities (Cuordileone, 2005), and with particular discourses of masculinity and male bodies, especially in distant places like the Arctic (Farish, 2010.)”

The study includes citation of Scottish visual artist Katie Paterson, who made long-playing records out of glacier melt-water. These LPs play glacier whines and other noises for ten minutes until the ice disks themselves melt. Maybe caution is needed with 240-volt apparatus.

The paper insists on respect for folk knowledge about glaciers. Yukon indigenous women, for example, say glaciers are easily excited by bad people who cook nearby with smelly grease, but glaciers can be placated by the quick-witted, the good and the deferential. Cooked food, especially fat, “might grow into a glacier overnight if improperly handled”. Such narratives

demonstrate the capacity of folk glaciologies to diversify the field of glaciology and subvert the hegemony of natural sciences… the goal is to understand that environmental knowledge is always based in systems of power discrepancies and unequal social relations, and overcoming these disparities requires accepting that multiple knowledges exist and are valid within their own contexts.

Here is the study’s ringing conclusion:

Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.

It’s evening tipple time: could someone please add ice to my Barossa Pearl?

(Hat-tip Dennis Ambler for research help.)

Tony Thomas’s new book, Come To Think Of It – essays to tickle the brain, is available hereas a book ($34.95) or an e-book ($14.95)

[1] “10,000 hectares has been revegetated capturing 1.257 million tonnes of carbon. Carbon credits are legally protected by 100 year Carbon Right and Carbon Covenant registered on the land titles.” China’s annual CO2 emissions are 13 billion tonnes a year.

[2] https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/09/a-climate-modeller-spills-the-beans/

[3] Singh and Polvani: “Other factors have been suggested to have contributed to the absence of warming over the Antarctic continent in the past several decades, but these suggestions have been shown to be off target.”

[4] The surface mass balance data for the Greenland Ice Sheet from the Danish Meteorological Institute shows that over the past five years, the surface of Greenland has averaged a gain of about 400 billion tons per year, which is slightly above the 1981-2010 mean.”

[5] Amundsen: “We encountered no ice with the exception of a few narrow strips of old sound ice, carried by the wash. Of large Polar ice we saw absolutely nothing. Between the ice and the land, on either side, there were large and perfectly clear channels, through which we passed easily and unimpeded. The entire accumulation of ice was not very extensive. We were soon out again in open water. Outside the promontories, some pieces of ice had accumulated; otherwise the sea was free from ice. The water to the south was open, the impenetrable wall of ice was not there.”

[6] Jones’ book title appears to be a homage to V.I. Lenin’s What is to be done (1901-02) containing chapters like The Primitiveness of the Economists and the Organization of the Revolutionaries

[7] With Dr Jess Melbourne-Thomas, no relation although I am from Melbourne.

Beware, Parents, Your Kids Are Being ‘Scootled’

Tony Thomas

When I noticed that a top-tier federal-state education body is providing lesson materials for teachers, I decided to take a look. The body is Education Services Australia (ESA), a company set up by federal-state education ministers. ESA provides free supplementary online materials for teachers via 20,000-plus pages on its Scootle portal. No mickey-mouse operation, it’s all keyed precisely to the curricula and used in 2019 by some 60,000 teachers, who chalked up 2.8 million sessions involving 18.8 million page views. From 2000-09 this on-line exercise chewed up about $130 million of taxpayer money.[1] Today ESA self-supports on revenue of $40 million a year from projects and subscriptions.

Scootle is just one of many third-party inputs to schooling. More than 90 per cent of teachers and 8400 schools, for example, use online lessons supplied by the anti-capitalist green-left Cool Australia outfit (See hereherehere, here). I fully expected that Scootle materials would be part of the Leftist miasma pervading education, which is so all-encompassing that even the 50 per cent conservative-voting parents long ago ceased to notice what their kids are being taught.

In the immortal words of Victoria’s one-time education minister and premier Joan Kirner, education must be reshaped to be “part of the socialist struggle for equality, participation and social change, rather than an instrument of the capitalist system”. This was consummated in 2008 when PM Julia Gillard and her Labor premiers brought in their “Melbourne declaration”.[2] Conservative governments don’t seem to mind that schools have been converted to breeding grounds for green-minded woke warriors.

ESA is supposed to promote “improved students outcomes” and classier teachers and schools. As we know, our kids’ performance is sliding down the international league tables, despite ESA’s best efforts. So, as an amateur auditor,  having logged on as a “guest user”, I had a look around.

“Paul Keating” gets 17 hits, virtually all laudatory; Gough Whitlam gets 56 hits, none hostile and most laudatory. Whitlam’s dismissal (1975) gets a dozen tracts. “John Howard” gets more than 20 cites, but sadly none are laudatory and most hostile.[3]

I got a surprise when I searched on “WWF” to check that green lobby’s input. Instead of cute pandas, I got a dozen propaganda film clips from the Communist-led Waterside Workers Federation of the 1950s, such as “Banners Held High, 1956: May Day”. Scootle tells kids this film is “honouring the achievements of workers across the world”. Actually, a few months after its May Day love-in, the WWF backed the Soviets as their tanks crushed the Hungarian revolt.[4]

Scootle’s asylum-seeker treatment is straight from The Greens’ playbook.[5] Search for “asylum seeker” and the request generates exactly 100 hits and ‘refugee’ alone 169 hits.  Scootle’s intense interest in the topic includes: Discussion paper – ‘Towards a fairer immigration system for Australia’, 1992.

This is the cover of a 55-page paper titled ‘Towards a fairer immigration system for Australia‘. It states that the current immigration system is unfair to some groups and discusses how to guarantee fair access to Australia’s immigration system. The paper was prepared by Andrew Theophanous and published in 1992… The dimensions of the discussion paper are 29.60 cm x 21.00 cm.

I’m sure it’s a lovely paper from 28 years ago for kids to study, being 29.60cm x 21.00cm and all, about fairness and victim support. Author Andrew Theophanous was MHR (Labor) for the seats of Burke and Calwell from 1980-2000. But as Wikipedia puts it, “He was later jailed for bribery and fraud offences relating to visa applications and other immigration matters.” Specifically, “he was charged with defrauding the Commonwealth by making false representations in relation to an immigration matter, taking an unlawful inducement and soliciting an unlawful inducement.” He got six years, and served two of them. Maybe Scootle should footnote that?

Another example is:

Anthem – An Act of Sedition, 2004: MV Tampa and September 11

This clip presents an interpretation of the Howard government’s response to the arrival of refugees in Australian waters on the MV Tampa in August 2001. The narration states that John Howard had often used scare tactics for his political advantage and that the refugees were now to be used in a ‘race election’. Views defending the refugees are juxtaposed with images of troops. Scenes of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in New York dramatise the narration, which states that the government used fear of terrorism to override international law and civil rights.

The tone here seems similar to what East German kids used to get. Scootle’s explanatory notes say the film argues passionately that PM John Howard cynically exploited Tampa and 9/11 “to create fear, undermine the rule of law and secure a win in the November 2001 election.” The notes say, “the desperation of the passengers led the captain to attempt to land under conditions of emergency”. In fact the Afghans effectively took over the ship by threats, which led to SAS troops storming the vessel.

Scootle cites Julian Burnside QC, most recently a failed Greens candidate, who “condemns the ‘Pacific Solution’ legislation as being a clear-cut infringement of international law, and another lawyer sees it as being undemocratic.”

In a mealy-mouthed way, Scootle says,

In this case no attempt is made to present the case for the Howard government, the narration puts its views strongly and the use of dramatic footage heightens the sense of crisis, reinforcing the filmmakers’ view that these events marked a serious attack on civil liberties and democratic processes.

Impressionable kids are treated to a tear-jerking film (aka “powerful account”) about an Australian family with four kids visiting an Afghan teen in detention in Port Hedland in 2004. The visiting mother describes ‘a heavy gate being locked behind’ them, the children ‘huddled together wide-eyed and silent’ and the guard ‘unlocking the third door’, with an echoing, sombre and “slightly fearful” sound track. The film, asserts Scootle, “raises questions about the government policy that imprisoned children in the name of border protection.”

Kids also get a poem, ‘When I think of Australia’ by Amelia Walker. Extract: “I switch on the TV and see wire with children behind it. If this isn’t their country it isn’t mine.” Images include chicken wire and “refugees’ children in detention camps”. There’s also a color cartoon provided from leftist New Matilda[6] showing

a dilapidated ship crowded with asylum seekers approaching a pier where an elderly woman stands with outstretched arms, saying: ‘I know it’s extremely unAustralian of me, but I’d like to welcome you to our shores …’

So where does Scootle offer kids the conservative government’s case? A search on “people smuggler” finds one hit from a 1990 incident, and none contemporaneous. Another search fails to turn up reference to the 1,200 asylum seekers drowned after Labor’s PM Rudd overturned Howard’s policy and encouraged people smugglers to ship 50,000 people south in those infamously leaky boats.

Among other role models provided for kids are Greenpeace-affiliated saboteurs. Under the heading “Greenpeace takes a stand against GM crops” kids are treated to Greenpeace propaganda via ABC-TV Education (2011): “Watch Greenpeace activists mow down a research crop of genetically modified (GM) wheat grown by CSIRO.” They used brushcutters to wreck a year’s CSIRO research and cost the agency $300,000. A personable young Greenpeace lady says all such trials need to be shut down because of risk to foods like bread. Scootle instructs kids, “Consider some arguments for and against GM foods and find out the number of GM crops being trialled around Australia.”

Virtually all Scootle material on GM foods is of the pros-and-cons variety, with one piece emphasising “Who funds GM research trials?” while waxing suspicious about commercial funding. The main bias is via omission: Scootle offers kids nothing about genetically modified “golden rice” and its role in saving 100 million-plus Third World kids from Vitamin A deficiency, possible blindness and death.

Scootle slaps woodchipping (yesteryear’s big villain) with a 1991 report on excess use of paper: “The footage is in fast motion and is accompanied by a compelling music score.” Inevitably, Greenpeace  gets a flattering mention. Kids are encouraged towards further Greenpeace worship via an ABC-TV feature — Four Corners – French Connections, 1985: Connecting the dots — on the sinking of Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior back in 1985, before many of today’s kids’ parents were born.

Sometimes kids are (pro forma) advised to research the conservatives’ arguments but with no or minimal guidance. For example, searches of “Institute of Public Affairs” get no hits and “National Farmers Federation” generates only two hits, one from 2012.

Scootle also dishes up four episodes of ABC Education’s worship of faux Aboriginal Bruce Pascoe and his nonsense about pre-colonial Aboriginal agriculturists living in permanent towns.[7] Scootle’s material falsely describes Pascoe as a Yuin, Bunurong and Tasmanian man, although he’s been rejected by all three groups and himself admits he’s “solidly Cornish”.

China’s Mao Tse-tung gets half a dozen mentions, including, of course, Whitlam-meets-Mao. The others include two on the Communist army’s 1934-35 Long March and one on the Cultural Revolution. They are reasonably balanced but there is nothing on Mao’s so-called Great Leap Forward (1958-62) leading to 30 million deaths by starvation. China’s current supreme leader, Xi Jinping, gets no mention at all, nor is there any discussion of how China has arrived at its world-power status.

Scootle gives “human rights” in general 471 mentions, some involving multiple lessons. I waded through 300-plus mentions of China on Scootle and only four related to China and democracy. They included a brave one on dissident Xu Wenli and another on the ‘umbrella protests’ in Hong Kong.[8] Ancient China gets about 20 mentions, 19th century and pre-1940 China get about 60. I counted fewer than 25 items dealing with contemporary China such as urbanisation, energy and pollution (including one that deliberately muddles CO2 with particulates). Not one dealt with our minerals/energy trade with China, as if our $235 billion annual two-way trade doesn’t exist. Although “engagement with Asia” is one of the three all-important “cross-curricula priorities”, kids will graduate from high school as full bottles on Chinese gold-rush diggers, circa 1860, and I reckon that’s about it.

Kids are coached to wallow in remorse about last early-century’s White Australia policy, with an ABC-aided documentary (from 1992) relating how we “tried to fill Australia with ‘pure white’ immigrants.”[9] The wallow includes “Sheet Music Cover for ‘White Australia’ 1910” with the song’s lyrics,  ‘Australia, the white man’s land, / Defended by the white man’s guns, / Australia! Australia! / For Anglo-Saxon race and Southern Cross’.[10] Scootle also cites much White Australia material from Canberra’s National Museum. That museum from the outset was a leftist workshop, and when I last visited (2017), it had a major exhibition fawning over the Communist Party of Australia.[11]

On the perils of global warming, Scootle pulls out all stops: “Personal activity — Make a pledge to halt climate change.” Scootle asks: “Has your influence on people increased since studying about climate change?”  Kids are supposed to make a list of all the people they influence, rather like for Tupperware sales. Parents are to be badgered about their carbon footprint. Consistency is not Scootle’s strong point. On one page, 6degC would melt the Greenland Ice Sheet. Next page, 3degC would melt it. The latter page, in a fit of candour, does mention that “it would not happen immediately and it is estimated that this would take a few thousand years.”

Kids are given three scenarios about emission cuts, with an obvious push towards the maximum-cut scenario. They are asked, “Has undertaking this activity influenced your decisions about how you will try to adapt your lifestyle in the future?” They’re exhorted to redesign their homes for “sustainability”, a typically utopian project. Kids might be better educated with lessons on how houses are designed, engineered, project-managed and built, which might encourage Jack and Jill towards tradie careers rather than Whiteness Studies or Lesbian Dance Theory at Big Six universities.

Talking of pie-in-sky, kids are presented by Scootle with maniacal projects like fertilising the ocean by “adding huge quantities of iron and other nutrients to encourage the growth of algae and phytoplankton”; “artificial trees: A machine like a tree which can act as a ‘carbon scrubber’ to capture carbon dioxide from the air”; and best of all, \

Building a fleet of specially designed wind-powered ships that would spray sea water particles into the atmosphere to create clouds to make clouds more reflective.

I’d like to see the environmental impact statements first.

Scootle provides kids with (stale) material from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The authority “educates” about “ocean acidification”, a non-problem, using a cartoon movie about “Hermie the hermit crab” (2009). The Scootle-endorsed Authority is brazen about its propaganda:

This is a highly complex topic and this animation does not explain the process in detail, rather uses a characters [sic] experience of this phenomenon to illicit an emotional understanding that ocean acidification will alter life on coral reefs.” [My emphasis].

The lovable Hermie’s shell crumbles from the acidic seas and every time he finds another shell, it too crumbles from the acidic impact. Meanwhile nasty sea creatures aim to gobble up Hermie. Little kids would despair at Hermie’s fate (close to 50,000 kids have seen the video). In reality claims about the oceans now being 30 per cent more “acidic” are junk-science. Attempts to measure the “acidification” even over past decades are laughably imprecise [12], corals evolved when CO2 was multiple times today’s level, shellfish live happily around sub-sea volcanic vents spewing CO2 , and whatever “evidence” is around, comes from dunking acid into fish tanks, hardly analogous to oceanic forces. (For example, “In a lab experiment, a sea butterfly {pteropod} shell placed in seawater with increased acidity  slowly dissolves over 45 days.”)

Aussie kids are told they can “help the [Great Barrier] Reef in the face of climate change” by reducing their CO2 emissions with new light bulbs, shorter showers, biking and (somehow) offsetting their remaining emissions. Fact check: nothing Australia does about emissions will change the climate, let alone the Reef, as Chief Scientist Alan Finkel has confessed. Asia’s emissions dominate all.

It’s interesting that in 2013 the “Reef Scare” via Scootle and the ABC was about possible uranium exports from Townsville. It’s now all morphed into Adani coal-export scares. Surprisingly, “Adani” gets no hits on Scootle.

Scootle is happy to offer (stale) material from the Britain’s Royal Geographic Society (RGS), that bunch being over-the-top in their climate zealotry. RGS asks kids to speculate on

How will local places be affected by sea-level rise? Different scenarios can be examined. For schools close to sea-level, lower-impact scenarios of 1-5 metres will still have very significant implications. For schools further inland (for example on inland river flood plains), the effects of more extreme sea-level rise could be considered. [What? More extreme than 5 metres of sea rise, the height of a house?] If there is no risk the nearest threatened settlement could be substituted. ‘Create an opportunity for students and make a link with a different subjects like English and look at geographical data in literature, perhaps excerpts from a novel such Richard Doyle’s Flood [2002which anticipates a serious event for London and tells of a worse [sic] case scenario of inundation in the capital. Whilst this is not a scientific book it does make some predictions that may not be commonly anticipated. [My emphasis].”

‘As any fule kno’ (quoting Nigel Molesworth), the IPCC sea-level-rise estimate for 2100 is only from 61cm to 110cm, and that’s a scenario from computer models tailored to pump up the scare.  

The “1-5 metres” doesn’t seem a typo (e.g. for 1.5m); the author is just an idiot and abuser of schoolkids trust.[13] For what it’s worth (zero), here’s the recommended novel Flood and its “geographical data” (so useful for geography teaching):

Can fifty feet high gates be overwhelmed by a wave? Then there is an explosion the size of a small Hiroshima: a supertanker is ablaze in the estuary and most of the Essex petrochemical works are going up with it. The Thames catches fire and the wall of fire and water thunders towards Britain’s capital. This is the story of what happens next, and the desperate attempts to save the capital from destruction.

Even more ludicrously — indeed, reprehensibly — RGS material frightens kids with the 2004 Day after Tomorrow horror movie, which posits climate-change causing the warm North Atlantic conveyor currents to stall, plunging Britain and Europe to plunge into an Ice Age. “This scenario shows the implicit connectedness of human and physical processes on the planet,” the RGS writes, which and Scootle dutifully passes along without question.

RGS refers kids to the British Royal Society’s paper of 2005 (yes 2005), “Guide to facts and fictions about climate change”. It ignores the 43 Royal Society fellows who revolted over that paper being issued in their names and forced the Society to issue a revised paper with less activism and more uncertainties. Typical of Scootle’s erratic content, a search on “Australian Academy of Science” fails to turn up mention of that green-left body’s primers on global warming of 2010 and 2015. At least those primers look scientific, even if the AAS believes computer models’ output is “compelling evidence” of global warming.[14]

Scootle shoves at kids aged 9 to 11 (no kidding) a Jackie French book

about the possibilities from the greener world of tomorrow … where the future is filled with environmental hope — and practical solutions, such as common usage of solar and wind power. Lively, fun and positive, this book … shows them that a lot of environmental solutions are simple and relatively easy to put in place.”

Actually, Australian taxpayers are subsidising green energy to the tune of $13 billion a year, but that’s a bit advanced for Grade 3 kids.

You may be curious by now about Scootle’s parent, ESA, as a Melbourne-based woke outfit. Apart from disseminating Stasi-style facts, ESA’s been rolling out an online version of kids’ NAPLAN testing. The teachers’ unions detest any measures to make teachers accountable, but unions’ description of ESA’s 2018 NAPLAN rollout as a ‘debacle’ and the 2019 NAPLAN roll-out as a ‘disaster’ seem close to the mark. Mercifully for ESA, COVID-19 scotched further rollout this year.

From chief executive Andrew Smith’s 2018-19 report:

The second transition year to NAPLAN Online saw over 2.17 million tests successfully completed by 670,000 students using the assessment platform infrastructure. ESA is proud to play a significant role in delivering these adaptive tests, which students find more engaging, and which provide richer data that helps teachers tailor their teaching to student needs.

The first day of testing saw the disruption of many student test sessions. The cause of the incident is within ESA’s responsibilities and we sincerely regret the distress caused. I commend our staff for their calm and systematic handling of the incident on the day, their ability to keep focused on delivering a successful assessment program for the remainder of the testing period, and their work and resolve to avoid a recurrence of the issue.”

The fortitude of Mr Smith’s 120 staff may stem from ESA’s unique conditions of employment. Apart from “competitive remuneration”, staff enjoy

regular fruit supply, fun activities and competitions [sack races?], and much more – all aimed at building a culture supportive of healthy lifestyle choices.

Maybe a banana diet is augmented by rotten tomatoes from the NAPLAN users.

Notwithstanding its sedentary workplace, ESA remains convulsed by efforts to curb its own CO2 emissions. Last year it tracked emissions from 3,678km of staff commutes by car and public transport to work. All staff have been provided with a personal keep-cup for coffee. Recycling facilities are on hand for Expressi coffee capsules, dental floss containers and contact lens packs. Sadly, these savings pale before the team’s 666,364 km of CO2-spewing air trips for vital meetings.

ESA’s carbon-neutrality tickets have been won by carbon offsets supporting things like the Guohua Wulate Zhonggi and Hebei Chongli wind farms in China. Talking of China, its emissions of 14 billion tonnes CO2-equivalent rather swamps ESA’s emissions of 824 tonnes last year. But I guess every recycling of a contact lens pack helps save the planet.

ESA’s report is seriously unhelpful about its top people’s pay. All we learn is that combined, they pocketed $2.008m.

Tony Thomas’s new book, Come To Think Of It – essays to tickle the brain, is available here as a book ($34.95) or an e-book ($14.95) 

[1] The Federation absorbed $74m from taxpayers in 2001-2006 alone  for on-line “learning resources” for teachers at all levels. It budgeted for a further $55m from 2006-09 to broaden its offering by 4000 elements, which seems a tad expensive.

[2] The declaration introduced cross-curricula priorities of Aboriginality, sustainability and Asia relations.

[3] Many links have become broken over time, making the Scootle reference useless, and others now merely point to the ABC Education TV home page rather than the specific video in question. Much material is ridiculously out of date. Items from 2000-2007 are common and many are from the previous century.

[4] Asked when Australia would become socialist, WWF leader Jim Healy replied, ‘When fifty-one per cent of the people think as we do’.

[6] New Matilda’s website today features rabid journalist John Pilger as “an eyewitness to the agony of Julian Assange”.

[7] Australia’s finest historian Geoff Blainey debunks Pascoe’s thesis: “I think I have read, in the last 50 years, every book written by an early European explorer of Australia. They do not support Pascoe in any way.”

[8] “Uyghur” gets no mention.

  • [9] Scootle: “The final chapter in this sad story of prejudice and discrimination came with the reforms of the Whitlam Labor government in 1973.”

[10] Scootle had the guts to mention Labor coming to power in 1910 on an explicitly racist platform.

[11] “At the time of the 1967 referendum, the Communist Party of Australia gained support from indigenous rights campaigners for their vocal stance against racially discriminatory policies.” The poster was “donated by Mr Peter A Murphy, Sydney District Committee, Communist Party of Australia.”

[12] “The Royal Society pH estimate for 2100 is thus consistent with a linear extrapolation of the eighteen years of data from Ocean Station Aloha. Such an extrapolation would appear to be unwarranted or questionable at best…the eighteen years of Ocean Station Aloha or similar data appear to have been linearly extrapolated out to 2300. This is even more questionable than a linear extrapolation to 2100.”

[13] Elsewhere, Scootle offers obsolete IPCC dogma: “By the mid-2090s, for instance, global sea level could reach 0.22 to 0.44 m above 1990 levels.”

[14] “Together with physical principles and knowledge of past variations, models provide compelling evidence that recent changes are due to increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere …”

The Climate Cult’s Brat Brigade

In the Iraq-Iran wars of the 1980s, Ayatollah Khomeini sent 12-year-old Iranian schoolchildren swarming into no-man’s-land to detonate the mines. The keen kids wore devotional slogans on red headbands and each carried a small metal key to open the gates of Paradise.

The analogy with enrolling Australian kids as zero-emission fanatics is not perfect. The kids’ task is not to blow themselves up but to blow up 130 years of Western progress based on reliable electricity. Still, climate cult leaders love throwing indoctrinated children into the front lines of the climate wars. These kids’ keys to the promised Green Paradise are ruinous wind and solar energy.

Right now, School Strike 4 Climate is launching a campaign called ‘Action Your Adults’ (AYA). In the words of the official email circular from someone called “Bubble”, it is “all about getting the adults in your life involved with the fight for climate justice!” Pulling the strings as usual are the zealots of GetUp!, the Youth Climate Coalition [of adults], Stop Adani and, of course, Greens organisers. The prose, meant to sound like kids’ talk, is straight out of Balmain advertising agency-speak. We learn:

An adult can mean your parent or guardian, a grandparent, an auntie or uncle, or any other person in your life that isn’t in school. It’s all about connecting with them and talking about the current crisis!

AYA [Action Your Adults] is a great way to express your concerns about the climate crisis to people in your life. It is important to keep talking about what is going on and not let the government’s destructive schemes go unnoticed.

How to get in contact with your adults? You could call or video chat with them, you could go for a walk together, or go out for coffee/lunch with them, that’s the great thing – you can do pretty much anything you want as long as you are having constructive conversations with them! We are all very excited about Action Your Adults and we hope you are too! Have a great day!

If you have kids or grandkids in the family, here’s how they’ve been briefed to advise you, in “Six Easy Steps”. The advice might come from  kiddies who only recently learnt to tie their shoelaces, or 14-year-olds redirecting their attention from TikTok and acne treatments.

When these kids ask you pleasantly, “How have you been?” and “What have you been doing recently?”, they don’t actually care, they just want to lead you in to a climate-crisis conversation (not that any “climate crisis” is in evidence). Alternatively, if you ask how they’ve been, they’re scripted to say they’re feeling anxious and frustrated about the government’s [presumably federal] anaemic response to that ‘climate emergency’. As the script tells kids, “You can use this to segue into your next points!”

Because forecasting these climate apocalypses in the year 2100 is not science but witchcraft, the kids are told to emphasise their feelings, as distinct from climate models and any quaint concern for evidence. This reminds me of the great song

Feelings, nothing more than feelings,
Teardrops rolling down on my face,
Feelings, for all my life I’ll feel it.
Feelings, wo-o-o feelings,
wo-o-o …(repeat & fade)

The kids’ Svengalis say,

Express your worries! Be personal and let this come from the heart; make it clear why you care about climate change, and be completely open with your feelings E.g. my future, my job, natural wonders like the Great Barrier Reef, my health, my house/farm, etc.

Just as the phone-fake “Nicole from NBN” has a conversation tree to extract your bank details, these climate kids’ agenda is to turn you into ignorant likenesses of themselves. The script says to ask, “’Have you noticed how the environment has changed?’ This makes it personal, and lets you build on the knowledge they already have

# “Have bushfires always been this bad?” [No, only since greenies sabotaged controlled burning]

# “Was the Great Barrier Reef dying when you were my age?” [No, nor is it now]

# “Have farmers always been struggling against such bad droughts?” [Victorian floods are imminent, but don’t worry about such detail][i].

# “How has climate change impacted you?” 

# “How has [sic] opinions on the climate crisis changed since you were my age?” [Disaster was always prophesised ten years out from the present]

# If they’re from a migrant background – ask about the effects of climate change where they come from. [Don’t ask Africans, they might know that extra CO2 has caused the Sahara to shrink and green in the past 30 years by an area as big as France and Germany combined]

The authors provide a handy list of lies about climate and economics for kids to parrot:

“Let them [adults] know about the government’s proposed gas-fired recovery and why it stinks! 

* Facts/statistics are useful, so we have a list below, but put them into your own words and make sure to still keep it a casual conversation

# Morrison’s budget is proposing to spend $42 million of public money on gas

# Gas is a dirty fossil fuel which is 3x more destructive than coal [Nonsense]

# The government claims that a gas recovery will help our economy, but it will help less than 1% of manufacturing workers [that’s about 10,000 workers, who cares about 10,000 workers?]

# On top of this, climate change will cost Australia over $4 trillion unless we change, causing more intense disasters like fires, flooding and drought [arrant nonsense]

# Meanwhile renewable energy can create 3x as many Aussie jobs as fossil fuels! [Nonsense on stilts]

The kids next try to get out the adult vote — necessarily against the Coalition and preferably for the Greens.

Because this isn’t just a ‘young people’ issue – climate change will impact every single generation to come, and it affects us all now! Because we’re running out of time!

However, this chance to invest in and rebuild our economy is the ideal opportunity to ensure a just transition! [i.e. to generate omnipotent Left government]

Each kid should tell “their adult” what they should do (with exclamation marks). Don’t backslide, adults, because your kid will “follow through” to make sure Mr/Mrs Adult really does change light bulbs and mount a bike to offset China’s burgeoning emissions. Kids are then to report back to their Stasi-like masters masquerading collectively as “Bubble”, preferably with recorded conversations with their Adults. Kids also pass around their “top tip for having a productive conversation”.

The exercise is supposed to generate a deluge of emails and phone calls to Prime Minister Scott Morrison and local members, telling them to “fund our future” rather than natural gas. After all, who needs electricity at night or when the wind doesn’t blow? And every brainwashed schoolkid knows that dear electricity is better than cheap electricity.

Adults, be warned of this climate attack. Even though the enemy at the gates is from Lilliput.

 Tony Thomas’s new book, Come To Think Of It – essays to tickle the brain, is available hereas a book ($34.95) or an e-book ($14.95)

[i] Flood Summary, issued at 12:06 pm EDT on Monday 19 October 2020: ‘The following Watches/Warnings are current: Minor Flood Warning for the Kiewa River / Final Flood Warning for the Ovens and King Rivers /Final Flood Warning for the Seven and Castle Creeks / Final Flood Watch for Upper Yarra’

Turning Kids’ Grey Matter a Mushy Green

Tony Thomas

Australian schools in the past decade have forced literally millions of kids to watch Al Gore’s error-riddled propaganda movie, An Inconvenient Truth. In 2007 an outraged English truck driver and parent took the education minister to the High Court in 2007 over the film’s gross inaccuracies, with Justice Burton ordering UK teachers must not show it without first warning kids it is politically partisan and contains nine significant errors. Those include Gore’s absurd claim that many low-lying Pacific island populations had already been  evacuated to New Zealand. Despite his vast wealth, Gore has never edited prints of his film to remove the errors.

No such mandatory warnings have accompanied Australian screenings. The Australian Academy of Science, our supposed bulwark against science misinformation, has made no objection to the brainwashing, although its president rushed to condemn a sceptic equivalent film in 2007.

The propaganda cycle is now being repeated. Kids in class are being drenched with Damon Gameau’s saccharine documentary 2040 about purported solutions to a purported climate crisis. The film doesn’t actually tell kids, “Vote Green”, but it calls for strong new political leadership. “Wouldn’t it be terrific if new leaders emerge who could navigate us to a better 2040,” Gameau hints.

Pushing the film into classrooms is Cool Australia, which has provided teachers with at least 32 ready-to-use lessons based on the documentary. The film is backed and part-funded by bedfellows, the Australian and Victorian governments.

Gameau reveals his inner Zeitgeist in interviews, which include an urge to re-shape our democratic ways. He imagines a “shift from a society built upon industry to a life-sustaining civilisation” which he called “The Great Turning”. As he spoke at Byron Bay (where else?) a year ago, a certain Olivia Rosebery “boldly stood in the audience” and sang her own song, ‘No more need for greed and hunger if we respect the Mother’s ways.’”

In an interview last May regarding COVID-19, he likes all the “silver linings”. He says,

Do we really need all these things, this excess of all these things we’re told are going to make us happy? In fact, I’m happier with a lot less of this stuff. And that excess is the very thing that would be destroying us ecologically…. So, I think that’s been a great win. So, how do we take this time to now rebuild with a lot more resilience … with food or energy or even our democracy. This is the time to have those discussions and think quite radically. And thankfully some countries and regions around the world are doing that.

Interviewer: What is bringing you hope during these unprecedented times?

Gameau: I would say, the fact that we do have closed shops, the streets are empty and we’ve got these silent skies. I think that’s a clue that we do care about each other, somewhere deep down…

As a documentary, his 2040 would normally be laughed away, but played in class to susceptible kids from about age 6 upwards, it’s pernicious. He’s also happy to do speeches on how to save the planet. But, “Please note that a speaker fee will be applicable.”

This essay will first detail the workings of leftist lobby Cool Australia, then analyse the content of 2040.

Few parents know that Education Departments around Australia have farmed out much of their kids’ schooling to green/Left lobbies. The most significant is Cool Australia, operating in 8400 primary and secondary schools —  90 per cent of all schools. Nearly half our teachers use the lessons, downloading them 2.1 million of them last year.[i]

Cool Australia delivers’s a win-win for everyone except Coalition supporters. Its agenda is anti-capitalism, anti-growth, and anti-coal, gas and petroleum. It’s pro the re-writing of the Constitution for the benefit of the Aboriginal industry, and watering down our Western heritage in favor of a licorice allsorts multi-culturalism. Cool Australia’s CEO and founder, Jason Kimberley, boasts how Cool turns kids into green activists, whether or not they’ve yet learnt to tie their shoelaces.[ii]   The video below shows how it’s done.https://www.youtube.com/embed/arfjqWQf1-A?feature=oembed

While most of Cool Australia’s ready-to-use topics are innocuous or praiseworthy, recall that the Antifa and BLM mobs now torching US cities are “mostly peaceful”. Our kids are lining up as Greens cadets, demanding “zero carbon” and the up-ending of two centuries of capitalist progress. Another example is Cool Australia’s foisting the anarchism of dark-green Canadian raver Naomi Klein onto teens and pre-teens.

I’ve been documenting Cool Australia’s work for half a decade (herehere, here) and have noticed how the organisation has ratcheted up in the past year by pushing into classes a barking-mad climate “documentary” called 2040. The film, after five years’ gestation, sports high production values, cute actors and storyline. It’s had respectful reviews in the New York Times and LA Times and, according to Gameau, ‘the UN is going to show three minutes [of it] to all world leaders’. Taxpayers paid for some of it via the Australian Government and Screen Australia and the Victorian Government and Film Victoria.[iii] Below is a sample of what taxpayers got for their money.https://www.youtube.com/embed/p-rTQ443akE?feature=oembed

Cool’s 32 lessons are half an hour or more.[iv] Add the kids’ viewing of the entire 92-minute film, and a typical nipper might tangle with this travesty for  a full day of school. Never mind the 3Rs, where Australian kids’ performance is sliding internationally.

The Cool Australia charity was founded in 2008 by Just Jeans heir[v] and climate alarmist Jason Kimberley, now teamed with leftist warriors including WWF, Earth Hour and the Human Rights Commission, and titans like Google, Atlassian and Foxtel. Cool Australia gets into classes on-line with 1400 ready-to-use lessons tapped by 120,000 teachers for 3.2 million kids.

Cool Australia has only eight full-time staff, $1.3 million in revenue (none from government) and a flock of savvy pedagogues. (Charity watchdog ChangePath rates it zero stars out of three for transparency). But Cool Australia has leveraged its way into almost all schools by mapping its free lessons according to teachers’ required curricula. Because of a mandatory cross-curricula priority for “sustainability”, Cool Australia is pushing against an open door. The priorities were designed in 2008-09 by Julia Gillard and state Labor governments.

At a recent gathering with Cool Australia, the former president of the Education Union, Angelo Gavrielatos, is quoted by Jason Kimberley, “Only UNICEF has a greater school’s penetration and they had a 50-year head start … You are, quite seriously, the good guys in education.”

Cool Australia saves teachers 1.65 million hours of lesson-preparations yearly, and plugs the yawning holes in their worldly knowledge with its own climate, refugee, “global citizenship” and gender tropes. Teachers love it, since about 45 per cent of them are teaching outside their expertise and three-quarters complain of unmanageable workloads. Says one teacher: “I haven’t touched Geography since the mid 1980s, and there I was, explaining resources – with an eventual focus on water – to Year 7! Cool Australia rescued me at a time of dire need and ever so slight panic.”

The Human Rights Commission is notorious for its years-long persecution of innocent Queensland University of Technology students who complained on social media about being kicked out of an Indigenous-only computer room.[vi] Cool Australia quotes ex-HRC head Gillian Triggs, “With values such as empathy, collaboration and real world learning there [has been] a close synergy with Cool Australia. In just a few months, our animated video, interactive time-line and lesson plans reached more than 1,200 schools.” This HRC grievance-mongering involved 640,000 students and 14,000 lessons.

Cool Australia’s overt goal is to turn kids into child soldiers in the culture wars, via its “unique action-based pedagogy”. Jason Kimberley says, “Cool Australia’s role is to educate in a way that empowers young people to take agency and tackle the many challenges that urgently require twenty-first century skills. Our focus is always on what can be done.”

Cool Australia’s surveys show that after absorbing its materials, 70 to 80 per cent of kids adopt its positions, change their behaviour towards social and environmental issues, and are ready “to take action”. Here’s from a set of guides for 10-to-12 12 year olds, most unable or unwilling to put their singlets in the wash.

Step 1: Think about some of the big issues that are facing the world at the moment. How can we ensure that the world’s population can have its basic needs around food, water, housing, clothing, employment, education and health met whilst also looking after the environment and reducing the effects of climate change? … Your idea could aim to make a change in your house, your street, your school or your neighbourhood.

A mainstream Cool Australia cause is Earth Hour, when the woke folk dispense with electricity for 60 minutes (renewables’ unreliability is already achieving that). But Cool Australia’s Earth Hour folderol by last year had reached 2.3 million kids via 50,000 downloaded lessons.[vii]

 Now let’s get back to the 2040 doco. By time travelling into the future, the film can pretend that every green policy works. Make way for rainbows and unicorn stampedes! Its climate solutions include swapping steaks for seaweed and pulling down levels of evil CO2 to return the atmosphere to 350ppm CO2 (now 412ppm). That’s some feat.

To scare and prime the kids, the perceived status quo is from Al Gore’s climate-porn: allegedly CO2-caused cyclones, floods, droughts, acid oceans, bushfires, melted ice-caps and those long-foreseen but invisible millions of climate refugees. While touting its message as positive, there’s enough doom-talk in this film to give kids and even credulous adults a lot of what Gameau calls “climate grief”.

The end-result of the solutions in 2040 is ecstatic kids literally playing ring-a-rosy in the park (I’m not making that up) and birds twittering in a car-less CBD (ditto). Car parks become vege plots and push-bikers wave to sharers of electric driverless cars. Trucks? Who needs those when we live in green self-sufficient communes?

In the plotline 2040‘s protagonist helps his real-life 4-year-old daughter, Velvet, to navigate through climate perils to his 20-years-hence nirvana. He spends half the film in airports and planes to Bangladesh, Stockholm etc. He’s begged off the guilts by using carbon credits and planting a few trees to save 90 tonnes of CO2 by 2040. China happens to be putting out 10 billion tonnes CO2 a year, but Gameau doesn’t mention China once. Here’s how director Gameau shows kids how to deal with sceptics.

# Governments spend $10 million a minute subsidising fossil fuels.

He doesn’t say which governments or which currency, but it looks like $A5.3 trillion a year. Australia’s total GDP is only $2 trillion.

# US fossil fuel vested interests are now spending $US1 billion a year preventing us from lowering emissions, using the tobacco-lobby playbook of creating doubt and confusion.

This $US1 billion appears sourced from a debunked 2013 paper by “environmental sociologist” Robert J. Brulle in the journal Climatic Change.[viii] He added up the total spending of 91 US conservative organisations instead of their fractional spending on climate, and mysteriously lumped even arch alarmist James Hansen among his list of “deniers”.[ix]The tobacco analogy is febrile hand-waving from Naomi Oreskes in her Merchant of Doubttract, 2010.

# Sceptics create websites full of misinformation like claiming the science is not settled and that climate-peril is a religion.

No science is settled, as Einstein would vouch. The IPCC’s now-disgraced skirt-chasingleader Rajendra Pachauri himself said his cause was religious.[x]

# Exxon-Mobil finances multiple “denier” groups to make it look like “denialism” has broad support.

The oil giant funded 43 skeptic groups with a total $US16 million from 1998 to 2005. That was $US260,000 a year per group and it ceased 15 years ago. For perspective, Australia’s climate princess, Dr Joelle “Paper Withdrawn” Gergis, got $A692,000 taxpayer money just for one study, which she had to retract in 2012 because of statistical flaws pointed out by skeptics, and she re-did it over the subsequent four years 2013-16. Renewables are now a $US1.5 trillion per year juggernaut. Meanwhile, world-leading skeptic bloggers like JoNova (Perth), Paul Homewood (UK) and Anthony Watts (US) mostly live off tip jars.

# “Deniers” create algorithms and “bots” masquerading as humans to populate the web with climate falsehoods.

The source list points to a 2011 blog post. Its content is just nuts].

The film’s “fact-based dreaming” has spooky or inspirational music to reinforce its messages. It starts with Gameau’s house getting filled with choking smoke after he stokes his fireplace. That represents rising CO2. He mourns that little daughter Velvet will be facing “a deteriorating environment” as ice caps “melt faster than scientists predicted”. That’s odd as the Arctic ice extent has been stable for half a decade and the Antarctic is cooling, not heating.

The oceans, which are alkaline anyway, we’re told are getting so acidic that its animals struggle to make their shells (nonsense). In fact NOAA concedes the historic ocean pH measurements are unreliable, so no conclusions are possible.[xi]

Sea rise, continues the flick, threatens “hundreds of millions” of people. (The UNEP in 2005 predicted a 50 million horde of climate refugees by 2010. When none showed up, it sneakily changed their arrival date to 2020. Now they’d better advance it again to 2030).

Every ten minutes Gameau interviews some of his 100-kid stockpile in the six-to-eleven age bracket, and they repeat memes from adults, like

Ten-year-old girl: “I would like for the government to have done something on global warming and pollution as now I think they are not really doing anything about it.” [Except waste $US1 trillion a year]

“I don’t want to see people eating meat because that is from animals.” [Gameau says we’ll be salivating over “pretty convincing” meat substitutes].

 “The sea looks like a big big mess.”

“The beach would not be the same if you could not swim in the water and whales are all gone.”

 “I wish they would stop killing off animals and forests like that. That would be cool.”

Gameau comments without irony: “It’s sobering to learn how pre-occupied kids are with the state of the planet.”

Daughter Velvet, berates a guilty adult: “What were you guys thinking?”

Adult (shame-facedly): “Well sometimes we weren’t.”

Gameau’s first solution is from Bangladesh (would we all just love to live like Bangladeshis? OK, probably not), which he celebrates for deploying “solar microgrids” powering what looks like 15W light globes. (The others enjoy fossil-fired mains 220V power. Renewables in Bangladesh are currently 2.5 per cent of its electricity capacity, and the renewables target is only 10 per cent.[xii] Mustn’t tell schoolkids that inconvenient truth, Mr Gameau.

His narrative also claims that somehow we will get those all-important solar household batteries “so cheap you are not even going to notice”. The cost of a battery system: currently between $2000 and $20,000., which are certainly numbers large even to be noticed. Many countries, he dreams, could be close to 100 per cent renewables by 2040, presumably when the sun will be shining at night and the wind never stops.

He trots out a succession of “experts”, like Oxford’s Dr Kate Raworth. She’s a “renegade economist”  and “the brain behind the widely influential theory of Doughnut Economics.” She plans for a free economy where the value created is shared more equitably, granting prosperity to everyone in the world without climate change or pollution, the film says.

Cars are scrapped or converted to electric drive (wow, what would the mechanic charge?). The film provides another of those wonderful ‘peak oil’ forecasts:  “If no-one buys (normal) cars, oil demand will peak and go down dramatically and never come back”. We will have “less road rage” and actually hear birds singing in the city. (The flick’s sound editor splices helpfully “tweet, tweet” into the sound-track at this point).

Another of Gameau’s talking heads is author/film-maker Helena Norberg-Hodge, who “has been promoting an economics of personal, social and ecological well-being for more than 30 years.” She pushes purer living patterns in both “North and South” hemispheres, according to her blurb, which explains she mastered her green methods over decades of work in Ladakh, Kashmir, which is famous for its religious mask-dancing and weaving. Her books include Learning from Ladakh and the rather ambitious Schooling the World.

Australian actress, Davini Malcolm, plays a shaman in Gameau’s film. She was born “Lindy” but received the name “Davini” from her Indian spiritual teacher, Osho, in 1994. She went on to help produce and write the 13-part children’s TV Series Teenie Weenie Greenies and do a film, Lotus Birth, of her experience having twins in the bath. The births were preceded by her partner, Peter, and their two boys around the piano singing what the DVD notes call their famous and delightful “fart song”.

In 2040 a glum fellow Eric Toensmeier lectures our kids that “even if we ceased all our human emissions altogether, cut emissions to zero, we would still be toast” because we’ve passed some phony tipping point “and on our way to a point of no return”. So we have to sequester and store existing “carbon” (he means CO2 but only nerds do chemistry). Experts describe how to “flip” global crop and livestock farming to cut emissions through soil regeneration and fence-free cattle grazing. Gameau’s case study is Cole Seis who has reworked his 2000 acres at Shepparton and claims savings of over $2 million – except “I don’t know where the $2 million went,” he says.[xiii]

 The future-stepping Velvet explains that someone did get stung for the costs of all this transformation: “Those who polluted our era with excess carbon [she means CO2] had to pay a penalty and the money raised paid farmers to clean our air.” This innovative economic planning is acompanied by vision of “smoke” aka steam, billowing from a coal-fired power station.

Next up is marine permaculture for the oceans “to get the overturning circulation going again”, quite a task. A 100 square kilometre patch of oceanic desert between Australia and America would be switched to permaculture, producing food to stave off those “unprecedented numbers of [climate] refugees”, according to Gameau. Seaweed farms flourish for thousands of kilometres in the Bay of Bengal and around the coast of Africa, contributing to ‘thriving local economies’.

The film’s explanatory notes say, “Kelp and seaweed are nature’s climate warriors … Researchers estimate that if 9 per cent of the world’s ocean surfaces were used for seaweed farming, we would be removing 53 billion tonnes of CO2 per year from the atmosphere.” Hmm, what’s 9 per cent of the oceans? On my estimate, four times the size of Australia. That’s a challenge.

Cool Australia tells kids:

Students will investigate the relationship between seaweed farming, the health benefits of eating seaweed and climate change. They will use this info to develop an infographic that uses numbers to convince their peers to eat more seaweed.

Can we surmise Cool Australia founder Jason Kimberley does his bit by lunching on kelp and algae? Somehow I doubt it.

De-commissioned oil rigs, we learn, “become exciting tourist destinations for those keen to explore marine life.” Who needs silly old oil and plastics? Newsreader Angela Pippos is wheeled on to read this fake script: “Big banks continue to take a hit as the public shifts its money away from organisations that support fossil fuels.”

But no flick, even 2040, can be all bad. It earns my one-star review for urging that Third World girls be educated for later marriage and family planning. It shows Nobel Peace-winning Malala Yousafzai saying, “One pen can change the world.” I’d like to know which religionist shot Malala in the head and why, but that’s a message too far for Gameau and Cool Australia.

He closes his concoction with rapturous music and vision of youngsters of all colors and creeds dancing in a hi-tech ambience through a forest. One white-clad 20-something grows from her shoulder-blades giant butterfly wings that actually flap. Gameau rhapsodises that this generation is “celebrating regeneration” (geddit?) because CO2 levels are coming down. This must be the cheesiest movie clip ever made or even imaginable.

Gameau leaves his world-straddling Boeing at the airport and heads home to start planting stuff, as distinct from planting stuff in kids’ heads. There are so many helpers involved in this 92-minute mock epic that ten minutes are needed for the closing credits.

Cheryl Lacey is an education strategist and author of Marching Schools Forward (Connor Court, 2019). She comments:

Whether schools are being used by Al Gore, Cool Australia, Gillard, the Greens, or even the Liberal party, the truth is that schools have become nothing more than a playing field for power and wealth distribution. This ‘child abuse’ isn’t new. Education’s been bastardised for at least 50 years: the Greens especially have  deeply penetrated young minds.  It’s no surprise that 90% of all schools are buying into Cool Australia’s propaganda. Just print and distribute. No teaching required. As for thinking? Impossible.

Remarks in Tagespiegel article from Germany last week seem quite applicable to Australian schools. The former Potsdam Climate Institute Director, Prof. Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber is quoted: “The closing of ranks of science and youth in the fight for a new society that is sustainable in its management and living is like a ‘big bang’. We need these heroes and heroines who are not even of age”.

Tagespeigel comments,

These minors are well organized in their own schools – that is their basis. But something has changed fundamentally. Whereas ten years ago, the climate and environment clubs in the schools themselves were not taken seriously by students and particularly frequented, today they are the smallest units from which mobilization and organization for the big demonstrations are done. (Translation by Pierre Gosselin, Notrickszone)

I know conservative politicians are timid but why are they supporting schools’ campaign for their own extinction?

Tony Thomas’s new book, Come To Think Of It – essays to tickle the brain, is available here as a book ($34.95) or an e-book ($14.95) 

https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/hinter-den-kulissen-von-fridays-for-future-berlin-was-die-jungen-aktivisten-treibt-und-wer-sie-sind/26197788.html

[i] Cool Australia Impact Report, 2019

[ii] Impact Report: “The outcome is better engaged students who commit to individual and community action. This approach goes beyond a simple transfer of knowledge. It builds on an individual’s capacity for transformational change.”

[iii] Some items I’ve tracked include Film Victoria: 2018-19, $22,000; 2017-18, $88,000; 2016-17, $10,000. Screen Australia, 2016-17, $15,000 (development), unstated (production).

[iv] In a search, “2040” comes up in 64 lessons

[v] Craig Kimberley sold his Just Jeans empire for $64m in 2001. 

[vi] The HRC also trawled for complaints about The Australian’s cartoonist Bill Leak, who died of a heart attack during the furore.

[vii] Cool Australia Impact Report, 2019

[viii] Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations

[ix] Hansen is known as “the father of the global warming movement” from his 1988 testimony to Congress.

[x] Pachauri: ‘For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.’ 

[xi] The data collected prior to 1989 are typically not well documented and their metadata is incomplete; therefore, such data are of unknown and probably variable quality.

[xii] 48 power plants with a combined generation capacity of 16,875 megawatts (MW) are under construction in Bangladesh. State Minister for Power, Energy and Mineral Resources Nasrul Hamid says the power division has been working on uninterrupted, reliable and quality power at reasonable and affordable prices.

[xiii] “Colin Seis discovered a new way of farming after his 2,000-acre family farm burned to the ground in a devastating bushfire. The disaster forced Colin to rethink his approach and develop a radical new farming technique. It was so successful it became a global agricultural movement, known as ‘pasture cropping’.”

The Most Disgusting Climate Cult of All

Part One of this exercise documented how scores of academics at RMIT, Monash and Melbourne University pledged fealty to Extinction Rebellion (XR). Part Two discloses the real agendas of XR’s UK founders and leaders. This gives our own academic signatories an opportunity to cross their names off, since they obviously signed by mistake without having done any research.

Part 1: The Asylum Atop Their Ivory Tower

A sinister new development is XR strategising this year for the publicity benefits of a member suicide – especially given public indifference to XR since the ChiCom Flu crisis. A leaked XR document from XR’s UK “Action Strategy Group” sets out its essential core principles and projects for coming months.

It says XR must be ready to embrace ‘extreme sacrifice’, arguing:

We must encourage more extreme actions to achieve meaningful change … Extreme self-sacrificial actions can act as a vanguard for the movement, inspiring people in their rebellious journey and focusing the world’s attention.’ The same document refers to “Self sacrifice”, “Hunger strike to the death”, and “1 person → Suicide, stock exchange.

I don’t know if this means one person suiciding at the Stock Exchange or one person recommending it. An XR spokeswoman told Spectator UK, unpersuasively, that these proposals were ‘brainstorming’, and that the group would ‘not encourage anyone to put their own life at risk’.

“Top ideas” in the document include

# Scare the f*** out of people

# Fear of death → famine, air pollution, placards with facts, roll call of people who have died,

# FEAR OF HELL, hell on earth, fire, floods, children & vulnerable people on the frontline

# Spray traffic lights black

# Hit targets that would hit back harder than the police [a classic Leninist strategy]

ABC print ran a puff piece for XR last October, at the tail-end quoting Stuart Basden, one of XR’s 15 co-founders, that “climate” is just a pretext for XR’s societal overhaul. Basden’s goal is to overturn white supremacy, the patriarchy, Eurocentrism, hetero-normativity and “class hierarchy”. Basden says

So Extinction Rebellion isn’t about the climate. It’s not even about ‘climate justice’, although that is also important. If we only talk about the climate, we’re missing the deeper problems plaguing our culture. And if we don’t excise the cause of the infection, we can never hope to heal from it. This article is … a call to the XR community to never say we’re a climate movement. Because we’re not. We’re a Rebellion. And we’re rebelling to highlight and heal from the insanity that is leading to our extinction. Now tell the truth and act like it.

Big surprise, XR has been part-funded by the J. Paul Getty oil heirs’ $US5 billion wealth. The Getty’s Climate Emergency Fund has given $US600,000 to XR and one of the Getty heir’s websites touts XR’s work: “The only way to force a change is to disrupt the status quo through legal, non-violent direct action.” XR’s UK finance director, Andrew Medhurst, oversaw a UK inflow of £2.6m of general donations last year. He discloses that many XR agitators are mercenaries on the XR payroll.[1] Co-founder Roger Hallam gets £400 a week, and XR agitators get various fractions of that.

The other UK founder in 2018 was Gail Bradbrook, who met up with Hallam like this: In 2016 she travelled to Costa Rica “seeking a ‘mystical’ transformative experience to draw her out of a personal and political impasse. While tripping on ayahuasca, peyote, and other powerful psychedelics, the environmentalist prayed for the ‘codes for social change.’ Her prayer was answered when, upon returning to the UK, she met Roger Hallam, a 53-year-old organic farmer-turned-civil disobedience expert, at King’s College London. Among his writings were “Escape from the Neoliberal Higher Education Prison: A Proposal for a New Digital Communist University.”

Hallam possessed the supposed globe-changing codes for rebels sought by Bradbrook (no, this is not the script for another Da Vinci movie). Hallam was busy spraying greenist graffiti on King’s College gates and in its Great Hall. He was fined £500 but then cleared by a jury last year after claiming he was tackling a “climate crisis” in a proportional way. This is odd about the “crisis” since the latest HADCRUT global temperature series shows a mere 0.8degC warming in the past 80 years.

Hallam was charged with alleged conspiracy with an XR splinter group in the drone-flying saga that disrupted Heathrow last September. He claimed in court that “Heathrow expansion constitutes a crime against humanity.” The beak, unimpressed, remanded him in custody to Wormwood Scrubs prison after Hallam declined bail.

Six weeks later, Hallam released himself from porridge, telling his Facebook followers, ‘I know I’m a bit weird, sitting on a bed all day reading biographies of Gandhi, having my food made for me, is pretty much as good as it gets. Going to prison is not the end of the world.” This drew outrage from low-income ex-supporters who produced pushback such as, ‘Yes it’s white middle class privilege. Absolutely ridiculous to think working class people can afford the luxury of lawyers, a stint away, flowers for the police … Do you seriously think working class people can afford the ‘honour ‘ of getting banged up like it’s some pantomime?.” He was to go on trial last February 17 but a Court of Appeal win by third parties against Heathrow expansion seems to have scotched his prosecution.

His post-gaol mouthings have been catastrophic for Extinction Rebellion. In November , interviewed by weekly Die Zeit , Hallam said the Nazis’ murder of six million Jews was “almost a normal event… just another f***ery in human history.” He said: “The fact of the matter is, millions of people have been killed in vicious circumstances on a regular basis throughout history.” In the interview he repeated calls for the climate crisis to be treated with as much emotion as the Nazis’ Auschwitz, where 1.1 million people died. “Emotionality is the only way you can get people to do something,” he said.

XR’s PRs of course went into meltdown trying to wish away their founder’s despicable comments. The trauma within XR UK was so great that it had to set up “Care Councils to care for individuals, teams and the movement.” XR flaks said, “We would like to recognise again how painful this situation has been for so many and to let you know that we have given everything we can to hold it for the organism … As a new and rapidly growing movement, XR UK did not have clear systems and processes set up to respond to the challenging situation where an individual made comments that were polarising and which caused harm to individuals, the movement and the wider public.”[2] [3] XR UK eventually sacked Hallam as XR’s spokesman for three months, a dubious compromise. His rustication ends about now.

Hallam, pre-sacking, managed to further befoul the XR nest on January 18 with comments like these:

Interviewer: Would you think it bad if people were injured in or by the climate fight?

Hallam: Civil disobedience is not for cowards. Martin Luther King also made people sit on the streets. He also knew that statistically someone would die, the fascists and the racists would kill someone.

Interviewer: Would you accept that?

Hallam: Our activists know what they’re doing and what they’re getting into.[4]

Hallam was already on the nose with XR Switzerland for accusing XR ‘Rebels’ of “environmental degradation” because they used dye to turn the Limmat River through Zurich lurid green. He also yelled, “You will die!” at a climateering audience because they had mostly flown in.

He explained, saying he operated like doom-crying 19th century evangelical missionaries,

We go out and tell people that they will die. That emotionalises them. Building on that, it works like project management: we want to get these people to break the law. After that, it’s just a numbers game. If three are arrested, nobody will be scratched. If a million people are arrested, things will change.

Hallam’s running mate, Gail Bradbrook, is an adult version of Greta Thunberg, spouting pure weirdness. In a speech sponsored by HSBC Bank, she began,

I am speaking to you as a rebel, as a mother, and more than anything, a mother of life on earth … [School strikers] are not protesting, they are begging. Begging for their lives …

We are f***ed. Humanity is f***ed. It [climate] is a disaster of Biblical proportions. We have to let in that feeling of grief. This is a feminine peace for all of us, men, women and other genders, to feel the grief …[5]

Hallam’s Holocaust obscenities were two months after the Australian academics published their XR manifesto, but none that I am aware of has yet removed his or her name as XR loyalists. At the two XR events at Melbourne University I went to a few months back, there was no mention of the Hallam drama.

To sum up XR, I can’t put it better than Brendan O’Neill, formerly of the UK Revolutionary Communist Party:

This [XR] is the deflated, self-loathing bourgeoisie coming together to project their own psycho-social hang-ups on to society at large … Extinction Rebellion is a reactionary, regressive and elitist movement whose aim is to impose the most disturbing form of austerity imaginable on people across the world … It wants to propel us backwards, to the Stone Age. It wants to reverse the most important moment in human history – the Industrial Revolution. It wants to undo that revolution’s liberation of mankind from the brutishness and ignorance of life on the land and recreate that old, unforgiving world in which we all ‘ate locally’, never travelled, danced around maypoles for fun, and died of cholera when we were 38.

If XR achieved its aim for Western decarbonisation by 2025, there would inevitably be an even bigger holocaust than Hitler’s, through famine and disease of the world’s poor deprived of cheap electricity.[6] Currently there’s a billion people without electricity at all.

Entering today’s Australian academic scene is like visiting a 19th century mad-house. Except that it’s worse. The academic inmates are top-salaried influencers of tomorrow’s “educated” societal leaders. The Left’s successful long march through Western culture is indisputable.

(Hat-tip for XR research help: Dennis Ambler)

Tony Thomas’s new book, Come to think of it – essays to tickle the brain, is available as book ($34.95) or e-book ($14.95) here.

[1] This is a contrast to sceptics like Perth’s world-renowned blogger Joanne Nova who exists on a tip jar.

[2] It goes on: “We acknowledge that this situation has been painful and challenging for rebels. We ask the most affected rebels to gather together face to face, to listen to each other, and feel heard, which will help with enabling everyone to take whatever next steps feel appropriate to them. It is in our principles and values to openly challenge ourselves in the toxic system that we all carry with us in some form. We are committed to creating something new to hold and transform conflict in our organism, and humbly ask for your patience, as this takes time to get right.”

[3] XR in the UK gave up on its noble attempts to square the circle and sort out the Hallam debacle: “Many attempts at dialogue have been made in this process. The meeting on the 15th December did not reach final agreements. At the end of January, the Restorative Justice Process team proposed to conclude the Restorative Process, due to the withdrawal of participants, and the weight and pressure put on the shoulders of both participants and facilitators.”

[4] “Climate change is the biggest crisis since World War II,” he said in the same interview, a great example of green delusional mindset. 

[5] From the start and then 8mins20secs in.

[6] Zero CO2 emissions by 2025 would require Australia to create the equivalent of an emissions-free Turkey Point, Florida, nuclear power plant – nearly the output of Hazelwood in Victoria – each 11 days from now to January 1, 2026. That’s 33 nuclear plants per year. Green academics are always crap at maths. (Turkey Point Nuclear, 1400MW. Hazelwood -coal – 1600MW)Show your supportDonate Now

3 comments
  • Lawrie Ayres – 30th April 2020What on earth makes you think that the academics that sign up for this rubbish are any smarter than the fools who run XR? It seems you do not have to be very smart to become a professor these days. Flannery, Karoly and Steffen could be exhibits one, two and three.
  • brandee – 30th April 2020What happens to Adrian Piccoli, a former NSW Nationals politician and hopeless NSW Education Minister from 2011 – 2017? His woke record obviously has lead to him being appointed Professor at UNSW.
  • Tony Thomas – 12th May 2020From reader Pete Ridley:
    Much more about the rabble-rousing founders and other significant members of Extinction Rebellion can be found in my article “spitlightON ExtibctionRebellion/RisingUP?/CompassionateRevolutionLtd! (https://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/2019/04/spotlighton-extinction-rebellion.html).Some revealing quotes –” .. Extinction Rebellion isn’t about the climate .. never say we’re a climate movement .. we’re not. We’re a Rebellion .. coming together through .. mass political action that breaks the law. It’s the most effective way .. to actually create a
    crisis in society .. Through mass civil resistance, we’re going to create a
    new global regime .. we are creating a separate, true, fundamental democracy ..
    Extinction Rebellion is not.. just about democracy .. we are calling for a fundamental change of the political and economic system .. We believe .. that confrontation through mass civil disobedience is necessary .. “.
    ” .. I run a charity and its mostly about securing your own salary .. “.Anyone supporting this lot of mad anarchists should be licked up for a long, long time.
  • Your review is awaiting approvalReader Pete Ridley writes:
    In Parts 1 and 2 of his Quadrant article on Extinction Rebellion – that enthusiastic scaremonger about predicted almost imminent global climate chaos/catastrophe/emergency arising from our burgeoning use of fossil fuels – Tony mentioned a few of the rabble-rousing XR founding and fellow members, i.e:
    – “mother” of XR, Gail Bradbrook,
    – XR’s inspirational fantasist, Roger Hallam,
    – theologian Stuart Basden,
    – XR spokesman, philosopher and environmental activist Rupert Read.Given their doom laden CACC message, it is reasonable to expect at least some of those XR members would have relevant education, training or experience in the hard scientific disciplines required for any hope of understanding the processes and drivers of the different global climates. There is virtually no evidence of this, with only one founding member (Gail Bradbrook) appearing to have relevant education – but without relevant training or experience)..More on each of these members (and many others) can be found in the article “SpotlightON-ExtinctionRebellion/RisingUP?/CompasdionateRevolutionLtd!” (https://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/2019/04/spotlighton-extinction-rebellion.html), Sub-section 3.1 “Founding Members and Associates”.
    Meanwhile, here are some snippets:-
    :
    3.1.1 Gail Marie Bradbrook .. is a molecular biophysicist by training, though she hasn’t worked in that capacity for quite some time. Not long after finishing her post-doctoral research into ‘protein saccharide interactions’, she became a consultant for several ‘political charities’ and has, for the past 18 years worked exclusively as a professional campaigner – a role which, during a talk at Off-Grid Festival, she admits is ‘mostly about securing your own pay-check’ ..3.1.2 Julian Roger Hallam .. is a researcher into social and political issues .. He holds several directorships, including with Compassionate Revolution Limited .. and Radical Think Tank Ltd .. since its incorporation in 2016 ..
    Gail Bradbrook said that, following having her brain rewired by psychedelic drugs in Costa Rica .. ” .. When I arrived back to the UK I was introduced to Roger Hallam and together we began to create the movement that would become Extinction Rebellion. Roger is an academic who specialises in radical campaign design and at the end of our first meeting, which involved the sharing of lots of ideas, information and data, he joked that he had just given me ‘the codes for social changes’. The hairs on the back of my neck stood up .. “.His “Open Democracy” blog profile says ” .. Roger Hallam is an activist and social entrepreneur. He is currently doing a PhD at Kings College on the design of digitally enhanced political resistance and empowerment strategies .. ” .. He appears to believe that .. ” .. climate change is about race. .. ” .. It is claimed that he recently said .. “My PhD is in how to cause trouble effectively .. Through mass civil resistance, we’re going to create a new global regime .. ” (https://newint.org/features/2018/11/01/climate-breakdown).In her 13th April 2019 Mail-On-Sunday article “The middle-class zealots who’ll make Monday a misery for millions with eco-activist group planning to bring chaos to Britain” reporter Holly Bancroft (who infiltrated the XR organisation) commented ” .. The most prominent – and radical – of the XR leaders is failed organic farmer and PhD student Roger Hallam. After years in a succession of Left-wing groups, the 52-year-old says the ‘name of the game’ for XR is to ‘bring down all the regimes in the world and replace them’ .. In a recent interview, he said XR protesters should be ready to cause disruption through personal ‘sacrifice’. If necessary, they ‘should be willing to die’ .. “.3.1.5 Stuart Jeffrey Basden .. Although there is a dearth of information about Stuart Basden’s qualifications, in his article “Positive encounters .. ” .. he does provide a link to his 2007 theological thesis for the Degree of Master of Arts in Philosophy at the Institute for Christian Studies, Toronto, Ontario, Canada .. He then volunteered for a year on organic farms in various European countries (perhaps that’s how he teamed up with Extinction Rebellion’s inspirational co-founder and failed organic farmer Roger Hallam) ..In July/August 2012 Stuart Basden became Director of Operations for the University of Toronto student group Toronto350 .. ” .. We are building a global, grassroots movement to solve the climate crisis. We started in June 2012 .. ”
    He resigned from Toronto350 and moved to Bristol in January 2017, where he ” .. quickly got involved with a group of people who were excited enough by the RisingUp mentality .. ” .. This was shortly after Gail Bradbrook’s return from Kosta Rica following her ” .. brain being rewired .. ” by psychedelic drugs (see sub-section 3.1.1).In order to understand better the abnormal mindset of XR’s founders and associates it is worthwhile reading the entirety of a Stuart Basden rant archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20190423164501/https://xrblog.org/2019/01/18/extinction-rebellion-isnt-about-the-climate/).3.1.52 Rupert Read .. Philosopher and Green activist .. Associate Professor of Philosophy in the School of Politics, Philosophy, Language and Communication Studies at the University of East Anglia (one of the UK’s hotbeds of CACC hysteria. He was a Norwich Green Party Councillor from 2004-2011 ..
    His web site boasts that ” .. Most recently, I have been a frequent spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion and I am a member of their political liaison team .. We need action, and soon, against the values of greed and materialism that have placed us upon the precipice of catastrophic climate and ecological collapse .. ”On 20th August 2018 the Irish Sun newspaper .. article .. “Time to forget climate ‘debate’” by comedian Oliver Callan .. told one of his funniest satirical jokes yet, referring to politics/economics philosopher Rupert as an ” .. ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERT .. “.