The standard of climate debate in Australia – an example

Climate alarmism pays my mortgage

Climate alarmism pays my mortgage

Here we have a classic example of the ridiculous standard of the debate on climate change in Australia, and a perfect example of why the public do not have a clue about what’s going on. Steve Howard, CEO of the Climate Group, was interviewed by Virginia Trioli on ABC2’s Breakfast Television on Friday:

Trioli: And Steve Howard, finally, what if we’re wrong and what if those naysayers are right, if global warming is not human-induced but actually is a cyclical thing. Are you prepared to take responsibility for the economic and financial damage that might be done to some industries in the rush to try and fix it?

Howard: In the same way, yes, if we discover the world is flat then I’ll actually pay for all of the little globes to be reproduced. [You sarcastic little jerk. As if lumping climate realists with flat-earthers will end the debate – and it’s not even original, loser – Ed]

Trioli: No, the suggestion is not as outrageous as that.

Howard: It’s close to it.

Trioli: It’s just some honest dissenters and I think they have to be given their place too.

Howard: I think it is actually akin now to saying tobacco is not linked to lung cancer. It’s about that level of certainty on the science. [Yet more recycled BS – Ed] But let’s say, even then they are right, the worst we will do is create a greater energy security, a clean economy, we’ll clean up air pollution, and we’ve done a macro-economic (study) with our partner, with Tony Blair, and we found that if we have very deep emissions reduction cuts we’ll overall stimulate the global economy, we’ll create more jobs, so overall we’re better off if we do this. The worst we can do is be better off. We have the technology, we understand the policies, let’s just get on and do it.

Total, utter, unadulterated, undiluted, ill-considered, uninformed CRAP. But hey, the guy makes a living out of the climate crisis, what do you expect? At least Trioli asked the question, which given the ABC’s previous form, is a goddam miracle.

Read it here.


  1. People need to understand that the debate is over. The UN IPCC has declared that humans are responsible, and at the Copenhagen meeting, in the earliest parts of the treaty there is a paragraph which makes the signer agree with that conclusion. Once this paragraph is signed, any further scientific investigation is not needed anymore. This will silence debate. This also means all of the climate science funding will dry up, Climate science will not be needed anymore, and the science will fall back into obscurity once again. It’s an amazing paragraph. So get with the program, the Copenhagen meeting will not be a discussion of the truth of the science, it will be about population control, how much money we will pay to 3rd world countries for ‘climate debt’, and the creation of the UN as our Global Government. Forget the science, it’s over. The UN has moved on to bigger issues and the fasteer we wake up to it the better we’ll all be. We need a national debate about what the UN is up to, not more of this blogg crap.

%d bloggers like this: