“Core of my heart, my country! Her pitiless blue sky, When, sick at heart, around us, We see the cattle die, But then the grey clouds gather, And we can bless again, The drumming of an army, the steady soaking rain”. Excerpt from the poem My Country by Dorothy Mackellar written in 1904 when she was 19 years old. Records of extreme weather events that occurred then still stand today.

Murray River Stopped Flowing 1914/15
Click to enlarge

Satellites, the most reliable means of measuring average land and sea temperatures combined, have shown very little global warming in the 38 years since their introduction, nowhere near what the various climate models have been showing.The latest satellite measurements show a 0.32 C above the twentieth century average temperature as of July 2018. Hardly a justification for panic and the closing down of our coal fired power stations. NASA calculated the probability that 2014 was the hottest year on record to be 38 per cent, whilst NOAA’s analysis came in at 48 per cent – both leaving significant wriggle room for other years to take out the top spot. (Eve of Paris conference)

In 1998, NOAA mistakenly announced a global average temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit (16.91 degrees Celsius!!)


for 1997 claiming it was the warmest year on record, surpassing the previous record set in 1995, also wrongly measured, by 0.15 degrees Fahrenheit.

NOAA Error In Global Temperatures
Click to Enlarge

As their most recent modelling indicates they were more than 2 degrees C hotter than what they had measured for average global temperature in 2017.  And more recently NASA announced that their measurements for 2014, claiming it was the hottest year on record, were 38% uncertain.

Morrison with a lump of Coal in Parliament
Click to enlarge

Prime Minister Scott Morrison, the man who literally lugged a piece of coal on to the floor of the House of Representatives, has appointed another coal-hugger, Angus Taylor, to set the country’s energy policy. “Angus Taylor, according to Bandt of the Greens, has made a name for himself amongst the hard-right by undermining renewable energy. Since he entered Parliament, he has been on a crusade to destroy the Renewable Energy target. Having the coal crew running Australia’s climate and energy policy is a recipe for more drought and more bushfires. When Parliament resumes, I will be confronting the new Energy Minister about his record on climate change and renewables. We must stand up to these coal-hugging zealots before they destroy our country and our planet,” Bandt said.

United States have ditched the Paris Accord because all the predictions made by scientists have proven hopelessly inaccurate and the lack of verifiable evidence to support global warming. Canada and several other Countries have indicated they may join USA.

Paris Accord

US Exit Paris Accord                                                     Click to Enlarge!/media/104826/dorothea-mackellar-s-my-country-as-a-song


  1. Simon Naismith says:

    There is no doubt in my mind that the Liberal party will win the next election if they continue with a policy of reducing power bills which will inevitably involve the re-employment of coal fired power stations. Though it won’t be said as much, it is crystal clear that the failure of intermittent power to be an economic alternative to meet electricity demand, will in the long run, spell the end of our commitment to the Paris Accord. Besides how can we distance ourselves from the emissions of the coal we export to countries that are not bound by the agreement and those that are allowed to increase their tally of coal fired power stations? S.N.

  2. Kelvin says:

    They were teaching this global warming bull dust in many of our primary schools from about 1990 onward. The theory was accepted as gospel among our left wing teachers. I recall my younger daughter asking me what I thought about the dangers of carbon dioxide and whether the world will become too hot for survival of mankind. I reassured her that the problem was being addressed and there was nothing to be concerned about…How dare they indoctrinate our children with this rubbish!

  3. Martino says:

    These climate scientists could not have envisaged the wealth of information that would follow with the digital revolution before they embarked on the ice age and global warming scams. They are on the back foot now that satellites are being used to measure temperatures and that cannot be tampered with.
    John Holdren, who was senior science adviser to the Obama government, warned of an ice age before he switched over to global warming. He also suggested that mass castration be adopted if the world’s population got out of hand. He, along with his sidekick Paul Ehrlich, helped Al Gore complete his inconvenient truth documentary.

    1. Florida Mansions says:

      If, according to the Paris Agreement, the central aim is to strengthen the global resolve to keep global temperatures this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius! How come they changed to climate change when their key purpose is the reduction of global temperatures.
      It would be ironic if there was a significant natural drop in global temperatures over the next decade, imagine the relief for the IPCC members who could then claim it was the Paris Accord to reduce emissions that saved the world.

  4. Lyle Jackson says:

    Temperature Data from Satellites: Inconvenient but Accurate By Jennifer Mahrohasay

    IT is my prediction that in not so many years time weather station data will be collected more for fun, a sense of history and for site-specific information, than for serious regional and global climate statistics. In the future it will be data from satellites that is recognised as much more reliable for understanding regional and global temperature trends.
    The recent debacle with the global temperature data set compiled by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) from thousands of thermometers in little white boxes all over the world will probably hasten the transition from a primary reliance on thermometer to satellite data.

  5. Sandra says:

    This is quote I read from David Frost (1874-1963) which I think appropriate:
    “Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference”….. Sandra Ford

  6. Nick says:

    We can adapt to global warming if it is really happening but we won’t be able to contend with plastic garbage when it chokes our planet. No limitation on plastics or any discussion concerning overpopulation control at the Paris meeting. Poor world… it was nothing more than a junket ..a booze up!

  7. No name says:

    There has been a small amount of warming of the planet, that had followed a small amount of cooling, there is no doubt about that, but not to the extent that scientists have exaggerated both scenarios. It seems there is now a contest among climate experts to see who can produce the most diabolical forecast for global warming to decide who receives the most generous of grants.

  8. David says:

    It is no wonder there is an ever growing number of people having doubts and reservations about the climate science when you read about these wild predictions such as the north west passage becoming permanently navigable and our alpine areas being no longer suitable for skiing. Recently a captain and crew almost lost their lives when their ship was crushed when attempting to navigate the passage and the Australian snowfields have had a record depth of snow this winter.

  9. Talford says:

    I always thought the climate change/global warming dogma would strike a snag and come under greater scrutiny if consumers had to pay the high cost of subsidising renewables. In fact it could decide the outcome of the next federal election, the separation of the environment and energy portfolios by the new prime minister suggests that the lowering of emissions might not have priority.

  10. Rogers says:

    The New York Times explains, “many of the Paris pledges remain fairly opaque, and most nations have been vague on what specific policies they will take to meet them. There is no official mechanism for quantifying progress.” What sort of an agreement is that?

  11. Caroline D. says:

    It strikes me as odd that we don’t adopt nuclear energy it is clean and safe and would put an end to all this warming propaganda because there are no CO2 emissions. Even the flooding of the Japan nuclear plant from tsunami disaster did not result in the loss of life of any of it’s workers.
    Currently the world as a whole has 440 operating nuclear reactors. The United States has by far the most, followed by France and Japan. France has about 60.

    1. Seldom Seen says:

      We would will still have to reduce our tail pipe emissions in our transport system and in our agriculture (methane), which might result in the slaughter of a large proportion of our livestock. They make no mention of what we will eat unless we can grow meat in the laboratory or how we can convince the people of India where the cattle are sacred.

    2. Noholme says:

      We gave nuclear power a good try but, after more than 60 years of trying, nobody has managed to build a nuclear power plant that can run without massive public subsidies. And we still have no idea what to do with the waste from fission or how to decommission old nuclear power stations and return the land to a useful state.

      1. Seaholme says:

        I don’t know where you got that info from! In France subsidies to the 58 nuclear power plants are tiny. Subsidies to nuclear are less than half subsidies to solar and far less than subsidies to all renewables put together and nuclear power produces more electricity than all renewables combined.

  12. Honeywell says:

    Oren Cass, of the City Journal, describes the much vaunted Paris Agreement as just a lot of papers stapled together with most countries agreeing to do nothing, for example; CHINA one of the major emitters of CO2 had pledged that their current rate of increase would continue till 2030 by which time it would peak! INDIA made no pledge except that it agreed to “reduce the intensity of emissions”. PAKISTAN pledged they “would reach a peak at some point after which to begin reducing emissions”.

    1. Anonyme says:

      The countries you refer to are increasing their tallies of coal fired power stations because they can’t afford intermittent energy. That is why they won’t commit to any reduction of emissions in the short term because it would only increase poverty.

    2. DB says:

      How can you take the Paris Accord seriously when it makes no mention of overpopulation and no clear policy on deforestation or the pollution of our oceans?

  13. Kim says:

    Global warming and cooling has existed since the very beginning of creation. Man made global warming is a joke. Only arrogant modern man can believe he’s that powerful to be able to change and control the weather on a global scale!?

  14. Lucy says:

    IPCC statement found, with 95 percent confidence, that humans have caused at least half the observed warming since 1950. The data sets that indicate world warming by the decade from 1950 till 2010 show a warming of 0.52 C…13.95 to 14.47 degrees Celsius. This would mean that man could be responsible for more then o.27 C, which spread over the 60 years, equates to virtually nil. However over the last 7 years (2011 to 2017) average global temperatures have increased from 14.47 C to 14.63 C. This was due to record temperatures in 2015/2016, 14.80 C and 14.84 C respectively otherwise much the same as the previous decade. The forecast temperature for 2018 is expected to come in slightly below average for the period. We cannot deny that the earth has warmed, albeit in fits and starts, since the little Ice age when Londoners skated on the Thames. The notion that man has created unprecedented global warming since 1950 is not supported by the data. Will there ever be an admission that the scientists might have misled the community? Not unless Al Gore returns his Nobel Prize to the Foundation which is highly unlikely.

    1. Grant says:

      NASA admitted they were 38% uncertain about the global temperature for 2014, they had claimed as the hottest year on record at 14.59 C “Numerically, our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by 0.01 C) that of the next warmest years, 2010 and 2005 both at 14.52 C, three hundredths of a degree warmer than 1998 at 14.50 C, but by much less than the margin of uncertainty”. A difference of 0.06 C.
      Prior to the Paris conference they needed some spectacular increase in warming to justify the draconian measures imposed on the western nations so they announced that 2015 would be the warmest year on record at 14.80 C an increase of 0.27 C on the previous year!

  15. Zebrance says:

    While it is true that global temperatures had remained at a standstill between 1940 to 1980 the world has been heating up since. However the warming does not appear to match the claim that CO2 is the cause. Global temperatures actually dropped during the rapid increase in emissions after 1940. Milankovitch Cycle seems more plausible.

  16. Arthur George says:

    Despite the green line that all power generating companies are only in it to destroy the earth, the fact is they are here to make lots and lots of money. That is their only objective.

    If solar, renewables or burning budgerigars produced power at the least cost, that is the method they would use.

    The fact is that currently, the green dream can not compete on cost with fossil fuels. It does not matter how much green spin you listen to and believe. these companies are driven by profit.

  17. Coalfire says:

    Australia will double its coal exports in the next few years and will continue to import cheap goods from countries such as China, manufactured by the use of Australian Coal. Was this part of the Paris Accord?

  18. KISS says:

    Get the word out – climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years! We should be more concerned about POVERTY!?

  19. Edwin says:

    Comments from the Australian newspaper re Paris temperature limit:
    2C above what? Can anybody tell me what the global temperature was in 1880? Measurements are known from Oxford, Berlin, Paris, etc, using different methods and accounting for an area of 4.75% of the globe. The hockey stick temperatures are all deceit. The Paris agreement also stays clear of telling us what the pre-industrial temperature was. Equally, if we don’t know where we’re starting from, what is the temperature we shouldn’t exceed according to the agreement? So no starting and no end point, hmm? Who indeed is the one, who knows what the ideal temperature for the globe should be? Are you smelling something here? Isn’t the whole agreement based on hot, I mean, cold air? And in addition the Paris agreement is a voluntary one. Mr Morrison, please get out quickly.

  20. Tecamirer says:

    There will be another UN meeting later this year when Australia will required to sign a document which will effectively allow the UN to dictate our level of immigration and who we allow into the country. If our government signs this document, like what they did with the Paris agreement, without consultation, it will be the end of our sovereignty. Poor blind fools Australians!!

Leave a Reply

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