“No climate change” coughs Scummo amid thick Sydney smoke

Via The Australian comes a choking Scummo:

Scott Morrison has hit back at claims his climate change policies have contributed to the fire season, declaring it “doesn’t bear up to credible scientific evidence”.

With fires burning in Queensland, South Australia and NSW, the Prime Minister said Australia’s emissions had no impact on the dry and hot conditions that have brought on the blazes.

“The suggestion that any way shape or form that Australia, accounting for 1.3 per cent of the world’s emissions, that individual actions of Australia are impacting directly on specific fire events, whether it is here or anywhere else in the world, that doesn’t bear up to credible scientific evidence,” Mr Morrison told ABC radio.

This is not a message coughed out for anyone but QLDers, which are “the quiet [coal mining] Australians” keeping Scummo in power.

Indeed, Scummo appears to now be governing almost exclusively for this clique, following up his choked denials with this little pearler, via Domain:

The federal government has stepped up plans for a controversial scheme to subsidise cyclone insurance across northern Australia after rebuffing calls for greater investment to mitigate the growing risk of damage from climate change.

The move puts a mammoth insurance “pool” on the agenda to cut the cost of premiums for Australians in the north, as Coalition MPs warn of soaring costs to households and business owners since Cyclone Yasi battered Queensland eight years ago.

But the proposal revives a contested idea from four years ago that risks a clash with industry and will place more demands on the federal budget, given Treasury estimates of a “10 to 20 per cent chance” of a $2 billion cost to taxpayers over a decade.

So, we’re all going to subsidise QLD denialism directly. Nice.

The truth has gone up in flames here as well of course. There is climate change. In all likelihood it is man-made. It has made fire dangers worse, as expected. In its most recent State of the Climate report, the BOM and CSIRO noted:

Australia’s weather and climate are changing in response to a warming global climate. Australia has warmed just over 1 °C since 1910, with most warming since 1950. This warming has seen an increase in the frequency of extreme heat events and increased the severity of drought conditions during periods of below-average rainfall. Eight of Australia’s top ten warmest years on record have occurred since 2005.

The year-to-year changes in Australia’s climate are mostly associated with natural climate variability such as El Niño and La Niña in the tropical Pacific Ocean and phases of the Indian Ocean Dipole in the Indian Ocean. This natural variability now occurs on top of the warming trend, which can modify the impact of these natural drivers on the Australian climate.

Increases in temperature are observed across Australia in all seasons with both day and night-time temperatures showing warming. The shift to a warmer climate in Australia is accompanied by more extreme daily heat events. Record-warm monthly and seasonal temperatures have been observed in recent years, made more likely by climate change.

Examining the shift in the distributions of monthly day and night-time temperature shows that very high monthly maximum temperatures that occurred around 2 per cent of the time in the past (1951–1980) now occur around 12 per cent of the time (2003–2017). Very warm monthly minimum, or night-time, temperatures that occurred around 2 per cent of the time in the past (1951–1980) now also occur around 12 per cent of the time (2003–2017). This upward shift in the distributions of temperature has occurred across all seasons, with the largest change in spring.

Australian rainfall is highly variable and is strongly influenced by phenomena such as El Niño, La Niña, and the Indian Ocean Dipole. Despite this large natural variability, underlying long-term trends are evident in some regions. There has been a shift towards drier conditions across southwestern and southeastern Australia during April to October. Northern Australia has been wetter across all seasons, but especially in the northwest during the tropical wet season.

Year-to-year variability occurs against the background drying trend across much of the southern half of Australia (south of 26° S). In 17 of the last 20 April to October periods since 1999, southern Australia has had below average rainfall. Recent years with above-average rainfall in this region were generally associated with drivers of higher than usual rainfall across Australia, such as a strong negative Indian Ocean Dipole in 2016, and La Niña in 2010.

Fire weather is largely monitored in Australia using the Forest Fire Danger Index (FFDI). This index estimates the fire danger on a given day based on observations of temperature, rainfall, humidity and wind speed. The annual 90th percentile of daily FFDI (i.e., the most extreme 10 per cent of fire weather days) has increased in recent decades across many regions of Australia, especially in southern and eastern Australia. There has been an associated increase in the length of the fire weather season. Climate change, including increasing temperatures, is contributing to these changes. Considerable year‑to‑year variability also occurs, with La Niña years, for example 2010–2011 and 1999–2000, generally associated with a lower number of days with high FFDI values.

Australia can contribute to mitigation by reducing emissions and thereby putting pressure on others to do the same yet we’re failing to do so.

But Scummo knows which side of his lump of coal that his power is buttered upon.

David Llewellyn-Smith
Latest posts by David Llewellyn-Smith (see all)


  1. Scummo clearly thinks that “credible scientific evidence” comes from Newspoll, Roy Morgan, Ipsos and YouGov

    • David WilsonMEMBER

      Do you really think that CO2 which is the claimed boagy man in so called global warming is the problem
      Lets look at the maths
      CO2 is .0407% of the atmosphere, human caused increase in CO2 is 3.0% of the .0407% of which Australia’s emissions are 1.3% .
      If we stopped ALL emissions of CO2 climate will not change, if world wide CO2 emissions stopped (which is impossible because natural emissions of [email protected] are 97% ) all plant life animals and humans would die.
      Climate change is natural, fires are in the main caused by ratbags and expanding population into heavily treed areas thus unfortunately more people die.s and more homes are burned down which is a terrible thing.
      Did you know we as humans inhale CO2 2 .0407% but exhale it at 4.0% , should we start culling ourselves???
      Did you know it was warmer in Roman times, warmer in medieval times ( when Greenland was being farmed) and cooler in the little ICE age just 300 years ago and lets not forget we could walk from New Guinea to Tasmania just 13,000 years ago due to sea levels being 120-130mtrs lower than today.
      Climate has and will always change and has nothing to do with coal fired power stations and by the way those olar pundits should also know that solar panels do not save the amount of CO2 it takes to produce them during their whole life cycle and the biggy is that solar panel fields actually add to air temps as they heat the air around them by 1.5% adding to so call global warming

  2. if he wants to take this stand
    “The suggestion that any way shape or form that Australia, accounting for 1.3 per cent of the world’s emissions, that individual actions of Australia are impacting directly on specific fire events, whether it is here or anywhere else in the world, that doesn’t bear up to credible scientific evidence,”
    than he clearly needs to include burning of all of Australian coal, regardless where it gets burned than the number increases to 8.5% of worlds CO2 emission – or third largest in the world

  3. From what I am seeing, as a lot of SE Qld is bathed in choking smoke, that attitudes are not as denialist as Scummo thinks. he is clearly misreading the electorate. Shorten was on the nose, the retirees were not happy about franking credits and Bob Brown’s climate tour pissed off a lot of people, both left and right.

    I think Scummo needs to be careful on this. I’d be interested to hear what others think and have seen, given that my information comes from a small sample.

    • From what I gather, it was the Hanson heartland and Palmer pull throughs that gave ScuMmy office. It’s going to take a lot to shift that mindset including hobbling that fvcken idiot Bob Brown.

    • With any luck QLD will choke to death and we can be done with their ‘tarded influence on our politics.

    • You know, good point.
      I reckon QLDers may have had immigration, franking credits etc on their minds while voting.
      So being a climate change denier may not work out as well for Scummo. You raise a good point, he might be misreading this lot. They are also homen proud, so with their houses burning, meeting cricketers and providing only one off help while denying climate change.. this might backfire.

  4. I always like to take this test : at what point will they believe?**
    Is it at 800ppm when our brains literally stop working?
    What if the entire eastern seaboard is ablaze?
    And there’s no water.
    Because there’s been no rain.

    It’s just madness. There are some very angry people out there….

    ** I used believe ironically. As if you need to “believe” science. The data is the data. But because we have a happy clapper fkwit theocrat in power, there’s a belief element. Anyone who can believe unquestioningly in an almight being obviously can choose to disbelieve something as they so wish.

  5. reusachtigeMEMBER

    Yeah smoke sucks. I want to go back to the good old days before climate change when we didn’t have any smoke.

    • Reusa you need to create a blog. You are constantly on the money in regards to Australia’s prospects (house prices / mining).

  6. I hate to spoil the party – and I am not a climate sceptic – but Scott Morrison is technically correct when he says that Australia’s emissions are insignificant on a global basis.

    The realpolitik is that this is a “collective action” problem in with each player (i.e. each country) faces a Prisoners’ Dilemma: acting unilaterally will change nothing and will inflict costs on the player who does so, but if all players do nothing then the outcome will be sub-optimal for all.

    Some Australians (usually those who have been born and bred in Australia and never lived outside it) talk of Australia “setting an example” for others.

    What they fail to realise is that others are not just unimpressed by Australia’s example; for the most part they’re barely conscious of Australia’s existence. Australians – living in provincial isolation – tend to vastly overestimate how important they are in world affairs. Foreign politicians and businessmen may be aware of us and our policies, but they’re sufficiently hard-nosed not to be affected by such virtue signalling. (I use that term in a non-pejorative sense.) The mass of the human race are barely aware that we exist.

    The optimal strategy is to continue negotiating to make cuts which are contingent on other players making cuts.

    Prisoners’ dilemmas often make people behave irrationally. That’s because human beings are largely driven by moral drives which evolved from our evolutionary history of living in small groups in which repeated games made virtuous gambits a successful strategy, not only for the group but for the individual.

    When transposed onto the global playing field that evolutionary psychology does not necessarily work.

    Unilateral action might make people feel virtuous, but it is – strictly speaking – not rational.

    The rational strategy continues to be quid pro quo.

    • So, when I lived in Brisbane before 2011 when the dams were almost empty and water restrictions were in force, it was really silly of me to comply with those restrictions? After all my 20 minute shower would make no difference and who would find out?
      Where do morals come into this?
      Besides, if, by moving to alternative energy sources, sun perhaps, a country can gain an economic advantage in a new technology why is that such a bad thing?
      Just asking….

      • If there was an economic advantage, we would already be moving.
        The horseless carriage replaced the horse because it provided an advantage.
        EV’s aren’t replacing IC cars at any significant rate because for the most part they don’t.

    • Good point.
      So if all countries and people do as you suggest then what then?
      Heard of leadership or community?
      Bet you don’t give to charity either. What good would it do?
      Bet you don’t pay taxes? Your contribution is statistically insignificant.
      Hopefully you don’t vote. Your vote is statistically insignificant.
      Should anyone care if you fell under a bus?
      You are statistically insignificant.
      Your logic is cancerous and selfish.

      • “Prisoners’ dilemmas often make people behave irrationally. That’s because human beings are largely driven by moral drives which evolved from our evolutionary history of living in small groups in which repeated games made virtuous gambits a successful strategy, not only for the group but for the individual.

        “When transposed onto the global playing field that evolutionary psychology does not necessarily work”

        Cancerous, selfish . . . . but nevertheless logical!

        Is it better to engage in self-indulgent virtue signalling and fail by reason of Prisoners’ Dilemma, or to be brutally realistic and logical with the small possibility of actually saving the world?

  7. People talk like there’s never been a drought before!
    Droughts and floods are all I seen growing up in the bush. Some worse than others. Bushfires, we had them as well. 😱

  8. Skeptics in the comments, stop implying that the experts are blaming ALL natural disasters on climate change. It’s been repeated again and again and again – we live on a continent that is already prone to bushfire and drought, and climate change will increase the FREQUENCY and SEVERITY of these natural events. If we mitigate climate change, there’ll still be bushfires, just FEWER of them.

    It’s one thing to question the data behind the argument, but if you can’t even spell out what the experts are arguing, geez…

      • For those outside NSW, take a quick squiz at fires near me (and no you naughty skeptics, this isn’t a conspiracy by the RFS for Moar money)

        Just look at the scale of devastation from the MNC northward. vast swathes of coastal forest to the slopes is on fire. And there’s literally no way to stop it absent rain.

        All the deal animals, all the biodiversity. We’re talking millions and millions of acres, and still burning.

        Look at the map. Fires across hundreds of km. It’s staggering.

        All those little pockets of rain forest and wet gullies acting as breaks? Gone, dried out. Like, some of it has never burned (Nardi fire in particular, and I think the Dorrigo plateau Gondwana forest).

        Worse, some of these fires, which are already comprised of lots of smaller fires, could join up into a supra fire. I think an RFS person this morning was saying a joined fire front of 6000km? That’s Perth and back from Melb.

        The Wardell fire is into peat near the Richmond river and is sometimes wet. There’s no way to extinguish it absent rain. And I am not talking 10mm-20mm. We’re talking 100mm-200mm (or more). By the way, the normal Oct-Nov storm season hasn’t appeared.

        No rain in the Northern Rivers since I think June.

        Think about that.

        And don’t blame hazard reduction, that’s just retarded nonsense, seriously.

        This isn’t normal, and sh$t is gonna get real serious, real fast once we actually hit summer.

        It’s f#cking frightening, once you step outside MELSYD

        We’re going to need to reconfigure our housing standards, we’re going to need to contemplate massive investment in standing fire services and equipment, everyone is going to need 10000L concrete tanks with firefighting outputs on their place, water recycling….everything.

        Anyway, the skeptics can GAGF because you’re a bunch of tards, to be brutally honest with you.

        Meanwhile Scummo and Gladys continue their sh$fu$ckery unabashed

        • only one disagreement with your statements: you missed at least one zero on your concrete tank size estimate. I store a shade over 200,000 litres for the house and have half a million or so left in the dams for the stock and firefighting (total capacity 7M litres). I’m seriously contemplating much more tank storage in the future, to reduce evaporation losses, ‘cos the last time the dams were full was less than three years ago now and summer evaporation runs 6k litres a day…

        • The normal is outlined by the CSIRO increase in Temperatures reflected by Dr Christy that I linked. I an not a Tard but I do not agree with the IPCC models. We have had lethal fires in Victoria for a long time. We have had millennium droughts and Federation droughts, and the Murray has run dry. I know that does not make what is happening in NSW at the moment any better. I hope that things get better for you very soon.

  9. The90kwbeastMEMBER

    As others have commented David, how can Australia show any leadership domestically on climate change when our economy so heavily relies on us exporting coal and other minerals to Asian countries to burn or create things? It’s hypocritical in the extreme. We will be dragged kicking and screaming into the climate change debate because the economy depends on it not being discussed.

  10. This post hurts my head.

    Scommo is spot on. 1.3%… Guess who does the bulk emitting? If you don’t like the current state of play, ask yourself, do I buy items from / consuming content from China/USA. Asking Australians to stop selling coal, when the product clearly has global demand is insane. What happens if Australia stops supplying coal? Despite the insane increase in welfare and job loss from failing industry, the world will source its coal from nations with lower quality coal (i.e. higher emissions).

    ‘Climate change’ articles are not worth reading/considering unless they mention China/USA for perspective. Normally, once this occurs, most are redundant as their arguments don’t stack up.

    Also, link/discuss the impact of ‘suggested policy’ on other issues occurring in Australia. Are Australian politicians being influenced by o/s agents? Is there high immigration/no wage growth/crowding of infrastructure? Guess what would happen if large revenues from export royalties are removed… these problems will be exacerbated.