So much for carbon dioxide and global warming!

I’m obliged to for putting up this Australian video debunking the alleged role of carbon dioxide in global warming.  It illustrates, as nothing else does, the insanity – and outright lies – of those pushing this fraud.  It’s very short, and well worth watching.

Next time someone wants to impose a “carbon tax”, show them that, and demand that they explain themselves.



  1. The Big Lie is deployed everywhere.

    Michael Bane talks about how it works for "Universal Background Checks" here.

    But the Big Lie is only the beginning. Ted Cruz on the Senate floor showing how Google manipulates votes here; it's facilitated by the Big Lie.

  2. Having looked at their "fact sheet", the sparsity of verifiable information, inability to explain anything beyond repeating their claims, and constant dilution with things that are technically true but of no actual relevance to the point being made… I'm not inclined to believe a word he's saying.

  3. m4 is correct, this man is a well known zealot and has a history of cobbling together unlinked "facts" in order to prosecute his arguments. Be very wary of his views, you are much better going to the source documents of reputable organisations than relying on his filtered views.
    Roberts is a member of an Australian far right fringe party called One Nation that holds only 2 seats out of 76 in the Australian Senate (down from 4 seats in 2016).
    I know there are those who think there is some type of worldwide conspiracy amongst all the researchers, universities, government climate agencies, the UN, NASA etc etc, but really, how could they believe that such a worldwide conspiracy would be sustained with 97% of all researchers and scientists maintaining such consistent views regarding climate change. It's amazing to think that people prefer to believe the conspiracy view, discount the mountains of scientific evidence, and allow charlatans such as Roberts and his highly selective assembling of half-truths receives so much exposure.

  4. You don't need a conspiracy of scientists to get the bias we're seeing.

    The funding is controlled by people who BELIEVE in global warming.

    You toe the line, or no funding. Conform, or no tenure.

  5. Angus McThag
    Frankly, that's a gross mischaracterisation of scientific methodology. Firstly you put a hypothesis forward (and you must have at that stage some belief that your hypothesis is true, if you are trying to prove something, or untrue if your trying to disprove something), you collect and analyse relevant, valid data to see if it correlates with your hypothesis and then you draw your conclusions. The whole process is then externally reviewed to ensure the validity of the process and the outcomes published. Of course, once this process is completed you are going to "BELIEVE" in your outcomes as you say.

    There is "bias" because the evidence (not half-baked theories, opinions or conspiracies) is overwhelming.

    Regarding the funding argument, do you really believe that the government funded agencies, research bodies or universities in countries with conservative governments such as USA, the UK, Australia etc are better off financially by supporting climate change? A recent Australian Prime Minister said climate change was crap, the current PM brandished a lump of coal in Parliament. Yet against the political and financial threats, our Bureau of Meteorology, the CSIRO and all our universities continue to support the outcomes of climate change research.

    Do you really believe (and actually have evidence) that all of these bodies and the hundreds of thousands of dedicated individuals are so dishonest and organised as to somehow conspire to conduct a hidden, worldwide campaign to corrupt the whole structure of scientific research?

    Surely, if these individuals and bodies were chasing money or tenure, they'd partner with those with really big budgets such as energy companies, miners, car manufacturers etc in order to fund research disproving climate change.

    As they say in sport, look at the scoreboard. When across the world there is virtually unanimous agreement across all relevant and respected fields of research, across vastly different international cultures and governmental systems and over a sustained period of time, something must be happening.

  6. This one drives me nuts,

    "97% of all researchers and scientists maintaining such consistent views regarding climate change"

    This was debunked a long time ago.

  7. Luchs
    Debunked by who?

    In a July 2013 study by Skeptical Science and also published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the abstracts of nearly 12,000 peer reviewed climate studies published between 1991 and 2011 showed a 97.1% agreement with human-induced climate change.

    A paper by J Cook and others in April 2016 "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming" reached the conclusion: "We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer reviewed studies."

    NASA states that "Multiple studies in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97% or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree".

    There were an additional six papers into man-made global warming consensus, from 2004–2015, by Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Neil Stenhouse and J. Stuart Carlton. They came up with the following (in order) 100%, 97%, 97%, 91%, 93% and 97%.

    It must drive you nuts because the 97% is true.

  8. Look, I get it. You believe for whatever good reasons you have that climate change is bunk.

    But here's the thing. What evidence would you need to change your mind?
    You see, if the answer is none then this isn't a discussion. You've made your mind up right or wrong. It's just an argument. You can believe what you like, who cares?

    The problem with climate changes is that we don’t know what to do about it, and even if we knew, we wouldn’t have the means to actually do it. But that's another discussion.

    Here's another link:

  9. Science by definition is never settled. Ever. Anyone who says otherwise is liar and/or a fool. Not even gravity is settled (look up "dark matter" and "dark energy", which are gigantic fudge factors to try and explain the non-Newtonian movement of bodies that are hundreds of millions of light years away).

    And look at the behavior of Dr. Mann. When asked to produce the data behind the "hockey stick curve", he said “Why should I give you my data when you just want to find problems with it?" Does that sound like the words of a scientist or a con artist? Scientists want their findings to be tested by others. It’s a cornerstone of the scientific method.

  10. Look, when the answer, EVERY TIME, is more government control of our lives and our money, I stop giving a damn what the question is.

  11. Peter: You seem to believe this gentleman. A obscure politician, as some fellow commenters have stated before. Well, his numbers may be true or not, but he kept out of the equation that a given equilibrium can be changed by very little input.

    Let us repeat this wonderful demonstration, but based on the weight of a human body and botulinum toxin. Right, that's the stuff which helps a lot of vain people to get rid of their wrinkles. In a very, very low dilution.

    A big hill of rice grains stands for the human body. One rice grain symbolizes 1 nanogram. Let's not take Peter G. or me as an example – we would need too much rice 🙂 – but Joe Average.

    So, on the left side we have nanograms – roughly 175 pounds – of body weight. This means 80 billion rice grains. Which is a big hill. A very BIG hill. Try to imagine 220 tons of rice on the left side.

    Versus 3 nanogram of Botulinum toxin.

    3 tiny rice grains on the right side.

    Come on, Peter, that simply can't be dangerous!!!

    Which is – by the way – the lethal i.v. dose of botulinum toxin. Feel free to look up the numbers.

    So, Peter: would you take that syringe and inject those 3 nanograms into your vein? Because that righteous Aussie told us in his wonderful video that 3 rice grains never could make any difference to 220 tons of rice…

    I hope you won't. But you asked me to share this video with my friends. Nope, won't happen.

    Science is a bitch. Just like most politicians….

  12. Nice little rope-a-dope by hdemand.
    Botulinum toxin is a deadly poison in trace amounts.
    CO2 is a necessary component for plant growth, greenhouses actually add extra CO2 to accelerate plant growth.
    CO2 levels have in the past been considerably higher, until the industrial age exclusively from natural sources.
    No thinking person denies climate change, but questioning what component of it is man induced is a legitimate topic for investigation, as is the true costs and benefits of a potential warming climate.
    What governments and numerous NGOs are doing is using Climate Change as a threat in order to force people into agreeing to massive increases in government controls on their lives as well as crippling restrictions on some economies while giving a free pass to others causing tremendous transfers of wealth and power.
    Far as I'm concerned "settled science" is just another buzz phrase used by hucksters and scam artists. And credible evidence of cherry picked or even falsified data does not help my confidence levels for any of the AGW proponents.

  13. First, separate *climate change* from *man made climate change*. A living system reaches equilibrium when it dies, so all 'living' systems, including our universe, are changing. We can argue all day on how much mankind is influencing this change. I say very little, as in the change is lost in the noise of measurement error, but it is nigh impossible to quantify without testing on a global scale. The models being used are deeply flawed, and the measurement techniques are extremely questionable. Call it the dark ages of climate science…we just are making far too grandiose claims with far too little hard data and understanding if the system.

    What is NOT hard to see and understand is that so far every significant 'solution' to the supposed 'man made' portion of climate change is worse than the problem. Humans have been adapting to a changing climate for all of recorded history. We will continue to do so just fine WITHOUT all the government controls and interventions.

  14. for this video, i'm gonna finally figure out how to post videos to facebook.

    thanks very much for posting this.

  15. As CDH says, the climate is always changing. The earth has been warming for 10,000 years as it continues to come out of the last ice age. Of course the planet is warming, naturally. But the question is this: is man contributing to the warming, and if so is it damaging? We know that CO2 is necessary for life, and makes up only 400 ppm in the atmosphere. Throughout time, the CO2 levels have supposedly fluctuated between 180 and 2000 ppm, and life continued.

    30 years ago the supporters of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) developed this new theory that rising CO2 levels would somehow cause a massive rise in atmospheric water vapor, which would then cause dramatic warming, and used computer models as their hypothesis. Yet global temperatures have been essentially flat for 18 years, which none of the AGW models predicted, in spite of continually rising CO2 levels. Thereforethe hypothesis has already been disproved, but it's now become a religion to many, and therefore is immune to logic and facts.

  16. We "climate heretics" don't believe because there is no evidence. None.
    The temperature records have been altered, and the originals destroyed.
    The tree rings were from one side of one carefully selected tree.
    The ice cores show the opposite of what is claimed.
    And now they're altering the satellite temperature data because it shows no warming for the past 20 years.

    What do the Warmistas have? Peer pressure. Fake studies. Falsified data. Unreliable computer models. In other words, there is no science in their "science".

  17. If the political baggage attached to this bullshit wasn't so damaging, it would be funny.
    Just look at newspapers and magazines since the late 1800's up to the mid 70's, and you will see that "science" has claimed that the world is heading for disaster due to climate change, and the direction of the temperature changes every 1/4 century! Oh, the world is going to freeze, then it was going to boil, then it was freeze, and now it is boil. Assholes can't even be consistent with their predictions! Look for Newsweek and probably Time magazines about '75-'76, cover shots of an ice sheet over NY City.

    Do none of you remember that the Vikings called the NORTH EAST coast of America "Vineland"? Grape vines growing into Canada! They had settlements on GREENLAND for a couple hundred years. Farmers and cattle, IIRC. They reversed the names for Iceland and Greenland, to encourage people settling Greenland so they would have a way station for their trips to the coast of America.

    Food production in Europe was very abundant, and life flourished as a result of the warmer weather.

    A warmer climate is something to be feared? Are they stupid, or do they think we are?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *