Climate Commission's unceasing alarmism and spin

Climate activism

Why should we be surprised? Tim Flannery is a “climate activist” (thanks to the Sydney Morning Herald for confirming that – see screen grab here in case it gets posted down the memory hole) and Will Steffen is one of the most committed alarmist climate scientists on the planet. Although I was under the impression that the Climate Commission was supposed to be independent, it is actually anything but. A quick read of their terms of reference reveals that it’s nothing more than a mouthpiece for implementing government policy (my emphasis):


The Climate Commission (the Commission) has been established to inform Australia’s approach to addressing climate change and help build the consensus required to move to a competitive, low pollution Australian economy.


The Commission will provide information and expert advice to:

  • Explain the science of climate change and the impacts on Australia.
  • Report on the progress of international action dealing with climate change.
  • Explain the purpose and operation of a carbon price and how it may interact with the Australian economy and communities.

Like I have said on previous occasions, organisations like this are a shambolic kangaroo court: a crazed lynch mob pummelling the poor victim (CO2 and the Australian public) without any defence. Just the prosecution, with free rein to say precisely what it likes, and no opportunity for cross examination or presentation of an opposing viewpoint. Judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one.

And the inevitable result of all this is the kind of laughably alarmist nonsense spruiked all over the media yesterday, which concentrated (bizarrely) on Western Sydney:

NSW is becoming hotter and drier. Record-breaking hot days have more than doubled across Australia since 1960 and heatwaves in the greater Sydney region, especially in the western suburbs, have increased in duration and intensity.

This is the critical decade for action. To minimise climate change risks we must begin to decarbonise our economy and move to cleaner energy sources this decade. The longer we wait the more difficult and costly it will be. (source)

They must genuinely think we are complete morons. How will decarbonising the economy of Australia help Western Sydney? Extrapolating this kindergarten logic, maybe if I don’t use my coal fire in winter, my garden won’t get so hot in summer. In case they hadn’t noticed (and even if one assumes the significant effect of CO2 on the climate they claim), it requires co-ordinated global action to make any reduction to CO2 and therefore, allegedly, to climate. This kind of call to action is ludicrous when China will continue to increasing its emissions fast enough to wipe out any possible domestic reduction hundreds (thousands?) of times over?

But it’s the psychology of this kind of announcement that is so fascinating. The alarmists must realise their message has lost its impact, so instead of taking the correct course, namely backing off from their entrenched position, reducing the fear mongering, acknowledging doubt, a little more contrition perhaps in the delivery, rather than the arrogance and contempt for dissent to which we are all accustomed, they do the precise opposite: more alarmism, more ridiculous quotes, more nonsensical crystal ball gazing. Steffen yesterday used the term “climate on steroids” without any hint of irony. Is it any wonder that the public have utterly disengaged from such pronouncements?

Flannery was interviewed on 2GB yesterday afternoon by Ben Fordham. He was challenged about his prophecies about rainfall and refused to back down even an inch. It was painful to listen to. Instead, he should have said, “On reflection, some of my comments displayed a little too much certainty given the complexities of the climate system” or something like that. But no, he pressed on, defending his failed fortune teller impression in the typical “just you wait and see, I was right all along” type way.

Not only is the tone of delivery all wrong, but the methods used are decidedly suspect. Jennifer Marohasy shows how data has been cherry picked to show a recent trend in hot days, despite the existence of records going far further back, which, if included, would have shown far less of a trend.

UPDATE: The Australian reports that the Commission cherry picked certain locations to show more warm days, whereas other sites show fewer warm days. Note that “attempts to contact the Climate Commission were unsuccessful.” Why? Has the phone been cut off? Not paid their bill? 

Why do they have to be so dishonest?

All I can hope is that when a Coalition government is finally elected and the current corrupt bunch of incompetents are swept into the dustbin of history, the Climate Commission will be one of the first organisations to be abolished.


  1. Old Sailor Man says:

    “All I can hope is that when a Coalition government is finally elected and the current corrupt bunch of incompetents are swept into the dustbin of history, the Climate Commission will be one of the first organisations to be abolished.”
    Absolutely disagree…..the words “one of” and the plural “s” of “organisations” should be removed

  2. They are concentrating the spin on Western Sydney because that’s where Gillard heartland is and they are trying to sell a pup to them – but they are told they will be compensated for ‘leading the world on tackling climate change!”
    Tell that to the worker who loses their job or is stood down as a result of the sovereign risk!

  3. Simon Colwell says:

    I hope when a Coalition government is finally elected and the current corrupt bunch of incompetents are swept into the dustbin of history a royal commission is held into the entire fraud that is anthropogenic global warming. I would want politicians, scientists and journalists hauled in front of this commission to explain their actions. In much the same way the Nuremburg Trials were essential after WW2, such a royal commission would be necessary so that history can record what was done in the name of ideology.

  4. gyptis444 says:

    Before they are abolished there should be a citizens inquiry to expose their incompetence and perhaps prosecutions for misleading politicians and the public.

  5. Kevin R. Lohse says:

    Is there any sign that Julia is about to ban exports of Australian coal to China to cut down CO2 emissions and aid them in moving to a competitive, low pollution economy? Just asking, like, as Julia’s present policy on coal exports is aiding and abetting one of the World’s major polluters. There are parallels with evil tobacco companies flogging their death-dealing product to un-enlightened 3rd-world nations here. /sarc

  6. Richard N says:

    Ben Fordam actually grilled Fanners pretty good. But it was like water off a ducks back. Flanners reckons that all the weather events that have occured since his infamous Warragamba dam wll never fill again call, match precisely with both his predictions and the “irrefutable ” climate models. In Flanners mind there will never be any doubt about CAGW even if the climate continues to cool for the next 20 years , because 20 years of cooling would still not be a significant trend changer . We have about as much chance of getting Flanners to retract any of his stupid statements as Christine Milne talking sense. They are both on another planet.

  7. thingadonta says:

    I would mention, that alot of the science driving AGW is being driven by another agenda outside of the basic data-which is also why its so shoddy-no, not world socialism, but the lack of oil in western countries.

    As far as western academia is concerned, the lack of oil in the west means we have to make a change to more renewable energies, and the whole AGW thing is being allowed to be based on shoddy science, because behind it all, there is little oil left in the west.

  8. Simon,
    Can I suggest that you and your readers send questions to the Climate Commission. They have a page where we interested persons can ask questions.

    The only caveat I have is that I think (given past events) that it would be wise to close your questions with the statement that: “Note: This is NOT a death threat.”

  9. Thingadonta.. you are incorrect.. the Western world is awash in oil. A reserve larger than the Saudi’s off the shore of Italy.. Another of the shore of Brazil, let alone Canada’s oil sands and the shale oil and gas in North America which strips the Middle East of the the title of “Oil King”

%d bloggers like this: