God condemns SmoCo

God is condemning SmoCo this morning, via Domain:

Church leaders are using their annual Christmas messages and sermons to intensify pressure on Prime Minister Scott Morrison to take greater action on climate change, backing striking school students and fire-affected citizens in calling for increased efforts to tackle global warming.

In a video message to be streamed for the church’s thousands of parishioners on Christmas Day, Uniting Church Australia president Deidre Palmer said the church stood with its Pacific counterparts “in seeking to address the threat of climate change”.

The president of the Uniting Church in Australia has used her annual Christmas address to back school children and farmers’ calls for action to tackle global warming.

“We need to invest in renewable energy for a sustainable future,” Dr Palmer said in an interview.

“The level of distress of people in bushfire zones, and others affected by the smoke lingering around our cities, it’s heightened for Australians that we need to address the problem of climate change.”

She said Uniting Church chaplains at the front line of the bushfires had witnessed a high level of anxiety about global warming at evacuation centres.

It appears he will burn in this life:

And the next:

That said, we can always rely on the demons at Murdoch to inhale deeply on the SmoCo. Not only is there no sign of the Church condemnation at the champion of religious freedom, The Australian, it has recycled this garbage:

The stand-in host of the Nine Network’s embattled Today show, Jonathan Uptin, has been accused of embarrassing the network in an awkward interview with Scott Morrison, prompting some critics to call for Karl Stefanovic’s immedi­ate return.

The 48-year-old fill-in was attempti­ng to grill the Prime Minister on Monday morning over a perceived lack of leadership but ended up stumbling his way through the segment, with viewers labelling the exchange “amateurish” and “embarrassing”.

…Not satisfied, Uptin continued to press Mr Morrison as the Prime Minister became increasingly frustrated by the repetitive line of questioning. Uptin then demanded to know whether Mr Morrison intended to take another holiday before year’s end.

“Before the end of 2019?” Mr Morrison asked. “At the moment, if I get to take a few days with the family, I will always seek to do that, if I get the opportunity.”

“Make sure you will tell us as well, Prime Minister, won’t you?” Uptin interjected to awkward silence­. The audience was quick to savage the show online, with one viewer saying: “The interview made no sense and acting out of emotions. Your (sic) right, Channel 9 is such an embarrassment to Australia. Bring back Karl.”

Nice work. Amusingly, The Australian’s headlining critique of the excellent journalism comes only from the comments on the story, with the very real possibility that they were planted there by Coalition astroturfers.

SmoCo is not the only one going to Hell.


Latest posts by David Llewellyn-Smith (see all)


  1. haha church leaders… as relevant as Christianity Today in the US commentating on DT as POTUS. People only quote Christians when it serves their prejudice. Ironic for the self-righteous but they don’t see it.

  2. Well it’s nice to see the church taking the lead on science. Galileo would be proud. Theres a word can’t think of it at the moment where people reinforce thier beliefs or opinions because they only read or talk to like minded people. Can’t think of it at the moment. I think we should be careful that’s happening at the moment that people believe he has been damaged by the recent events. It’s a long time to the next election and I think he is more at risk of a party spill than losing the next election. I’m much more concerned at the lack of fire or even charisma from old man albo.

  3. rob barrattMEMBER

    I’ll be so happy when we stop generating energy completely and only have to deal with the remaining 98.7% of the problems caused by everyone else. Talking of which, when is Saint Thunberg due to arrive in Tiananmen Square to give the Chinese a lecture? Mind you, if this lot:
    are to be believed, she might just have to pilgrimage backto the EU.
    Meanwhile I hear the champagne & standard of accomodation for UN employees (who pay NO income tax) served at the recent climate conference was of the highest quality. Good Stuff

    • Not just the UN. Watching the wife’s array of international friends working for entities like the World Bank and WHO is eye opening.
      Big salaries, lots of help with the help, school fees, accommodation (top shelf) etc and very frequent travel (business of course over 3 hours). All while preaching the gospel of progressive orthodoxy.
      It has been a revelation.

    • You need to read the full article and comments and then follow the links to get a better idea of where the world and which parts are headed in regards to coal fired power stations.

  4. Hang on a second. Why doesn’t the Supreme Being do something about climate change?

    If ‘he’ can’t do anything about it I very doubt that ‘we’ can do much.

    • Newsflash! Its ‘our’ panic mate. Of ‘our own’ making. Why conjure belief? Science is settled, so expecting ‘god’ to do something means what what?

      • I sure hope my little joke wasn’t taken seriously – if so, I’ll be sure to flag it as such next time round.

        On a different note I was rather alarmed by this comment from you: “Science is settled”

        This highly intelligent person begs to differ ..
        “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
        – Michael Crichton

        • Do you live in constant fear of flying off into space because the science of gravity isn’t “settled” ? If not, why not ?

        • Smithy, once again you cherry-pick your way to ‘proving’ your thesis. Physics is but one branch of science.

          Michael Crichton meanwhile, is not a highly intelligent, over-achiever whose thoughts may warrant consideration. No sir, Brisvegas’s very own drsmithy puts Mr Crichton in the shade where career achievements and intellect are concerned.

          Always a pleasure to read the good dr’s thoughts — I know they are widely appreciated here 😉

          • Crichton is misrepresenting what consensus means in context, and knows it.

            There is consensus in many areas of science.

            In others there remain substantial gaps in understanding.

            You would struggle to find a field in human history more closely scrutinised than climate science, and there are no reasons to doubt the fundamentals. That is what “consensus” means.

            Do you simply not have the stones to say “I do not think climate change is real”, or is the problem more along the lines of “my worldview is incompatible with the implications of climate change” ? What’s the point of the nudge-nudge, wink-wink ?

          • …and there are no reasons to doubt the fundamentals…
            science stops when a reason is required to doubt anything in science. Doubt is what advances science. Church craves “no reason to doubt…”

            Gravity is one of the good examples of what we still don’t know well enough and we do not have to model and adjust anything to empirically prove that one will not fly off the face of earth because we don’t understand it yet: because no one flew off the face of the earth ever (without assistance). Ask one Sire Branson, or NASA, how easy is to fly of the face of the earth.

            Alarmist and dogmatic climate “experts” make more damage for adaptation of human effects on pollution than all the plain ole deniers of science at low level.

          • Doubt is what advances science.

            No it doesn’t. “Doubt” affirms science.

            “Why”, “what if” and “that’s weird” advance science.

            “Consensus” does not mean ignoring someone who comes along with a new idea and evidence. Stop trying to pretend anyone says it does.

            Alarmist and dogmatic climate “experts” make more damage for adaptation of human effects on pollution than all the plain ole deniers of science at low level.

            Yes, of course. That’s why no matter where you go in the world, the policy responses and public attitudes towards “alarmist and dogmatic” climate science are the same. 🙄

          • Smithy,

            more than 2000 yrs ago someone said By doubting we come at truth.
            Doubt is the road to inquiry, it is seminal to questioning, inclusive of “Why”, “what if” and “that’s weird”
            Science is an endless search of truth and implying that there is no reason to doubt something in science is door shutting to new information – and a possible inconvenient truth.

          • Science is an endless search of truth and implying that there is no reason to doubt something in science is door shutting to new information – and a possible inconvenient truth.

            As I said, stop trying to pretend anyone is suggesting that new ideas, with evidence, should not be considered. That is not what is meant by “consensus”, as you well know.

            There are no final answers in science. There is only what we know now. People suggesting we need to wait for one before we act on the knowledge we have, are just using “science” as a fig leaf for saying we should not act.

          • I’ll stick with Crichton on this one, thanks.

            As Crichton quite rightly says: consensus means nothing – just because there’s a consensus doesn’t make the science ‘right’. Plain and simple. You’ve never studied the science, personally, and are simply relying on the consensus itself to ‘be right’. In other words you (and most other hysterical bleaters) are little more than sheep – you are being led by the nose. You have no more idea than I do. Climate hysteria has become a religion – a simpering claque of ‘believers’.

            Strange to relate but there’s a whole host of ‘climate scientists’ whose jobs rely on the climate emergency being real. But I can’t believe they’d vote for unemployment and broad vilification by peers by claiming otherwise 😉

          • “As Crichton quite rightly says: consensus means nothing – just because there’s a consensus doesn’t make the science ‘right’. Plain and simple. “

            And yet, you fly on planes, will live to 80ish and you somehow write complete horse manure on the internet on physics and science that has consensus. Yep, we don’t know everything about gravity (we have only just detected gravity waves), but I don’t see you jumping off the roof of your house.

            Science works. Science is as certain that the world is warming and that humans are the cause of it, as we are that if you jump off your roof you will fall to the ground

          • Oh dear glamb. As I pointed out to drsmithy above, you’re cherry picking a few instances in which there is broad agreement. However, every day a scientific paper is debunked by a new study. Climate change hysteria is nowhere close to being ‘settled’ – in fact there are plenty in the science establishment that have grave doubts – most of them not currently earning a living from studying the phenomenon, I grant you. Pun intended 😉

          • “in fact there are plenty in the science establishment that have grave doubts”

            Ok, I will bite. Point me to a single scientific establishment (not funded by the fossil fuel industry) that does not believe that the world is warming and that humans are the cause of it?

          • Fossil Fuel Giants Claim To Support Climate Science, Yet Still Fund Denial –

            You are what is being called a #Gullibilist https://twitter.com/hashtag/Gullibilist?src=hashtag_click
            “”sceptic” person who weighs the available evidence,& finds the current interpretation wanting.
            That’s not you.
            The current evidence is quite clear about Global Warming.
            I feel that you are a “gullibilist” (sorry, new word) – a person who is gullible and cannot recognise true data”

          • I regret to say it glamb but I haven’t diligently been making a list of every scientist I’ve seen comment on the subject — silly me, I know, but some of us just have more time than others, evidently. That said, now you have asked, I’ll do exactly that. You’ll just have to be patient.

            In the meanwhile, in the interests of balance, I’d ask you to diligently make a list of every scientist who supports the idea of a man-made climate emergency that isn’t directly or indirectly benefitting financially from the situation. In other words, every scientist who isn’t earning a salary or receiving a grant or funding of any other sort for researching/commentating on climate change or any associated situation.

            Thanks – I’m sure the list will lengthy and comprehensive.

          • Actually, because of the way ‘Science’ works, the paper “Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming” by Cook et al (the 97% consensus paper – https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002) actually states EVERY scientist and EVERY paper and EVERY sponsor of those papers, because that is what you have to do when you publish a peer reviewed scientific paper!!! Over 11,000 papers.

          • Oh, okay. So what you’re saying is that there’s a consensus among people who are all ‘on the take’.

            Don’t get me wrong here: I’d support the whole notion (uncritically) if my livelihood depended on it. I’d have zero qualms.

            There is nothing worse than being unemployed and there’d be a HUGE number of unemployed scientists if global warming were exposed as a fraud, all of a sudden. I’d be making hay while the sun shines as there is no money to be made by holding an alternative view …

          • “if global warming were exposed as a fraud, all of a sudden.”

            So you believe Global Warming is a conspiracy theory??? FFS. What about the conspiracy theory of China funding all the Denier Science so they can dominate the renewable industries? What about the conspiracy theory of the earth being round?

            A conspiracy? Really? Just stop. Stop wasting our time. Stop showing how gullible you are.

            So EVER SINGLE SCIENTIFIC ORGANISATION IN THE WORLD IS ‘ON THE TAKE?’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change
            “Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[30] no national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.”

            You really believe that 97% of the world’s scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.

    • rob barrattMEMBER

      Well actually he’s been rather busy aranging several large earthquakes. Obviously it’s not easy fiddling with tectonic plates and things have to be planned carefully to get just the right tsunami. I believe he’s also had to arrange a couple of asteroid impacts out there somewhere ending a couple of civilisations over in the Andromida galaxy.
      Of coures, we should say “it” not “he” as to assume God is male is outright sexist..

  5. “… as the Prime Minister became increasingly frustrated by the repetitive line of questioning”. What? If you don’t answer the question, it gets repeated. It’s not your PR dept, Smoko.

    The “second rate people” from the Lucky Country quote also infest our MSM, unfortunately. This is a very important piece of the Australia puzzle.

    • Arthur Schopenhauer

      There are plenty of Smokos in the upper ranks of the corporate world too. They deploy the same techniques. Seems to be a symptom of 20 years of Dutch disease.

  6. Talking about science why doesn’t anyone ever mention the spectral fingerprint of Co2 and its maximum possible radiating force of around 2w/metre squared. The Suns is 1369 – maximum heating uplift from CO2 is around 1 degree tops. Bigger
    Fish to fry than CO2 emissions.

    • desmodromicMEMBER

      Because Science isn’t about cherry picking the data to suit your narrative. If you want to ‘talk about Science’ you have to address the ‘weight of evidence’ in its entirety.

      • Whose cherry picking? Radiative forcing is what climate change is predicated on – measure a molecules radiative forcing – multiply it by the percentage that radiation heats up the atmosphere and will understand its impact on the atmosphere. The big question is what percentage of heat is transferred via radiation as opposed to conduction and convection. The IPCC assumes radiation is 70% of all heat transferred in the atmosphere. This is a big assumption-
        A tungsten lightbulb radiates 95% of heat as infrared and 5% as light – it’s temperature is 3000 degrees which is just over 10 times the heat of the earth in kelvins.

        Btw – I wouldn’t call the work of Plank, Einstein and Bohr as cherry picking- they all received Nobel prizes for their work on radiation energy and their understanding of its force particle the photon.

        • desmodromicMEMBER

          Plank, Einstein and Bohr stated nothing on the topic of climate change. So the discussion is about how to incorporate fundamental physics into a global model. I’m certain there is more to consider than the single point you raised in your original post.

          • Of course they didn’t incorporate Climate change. It’s a morherhood statement that is not driven by any algorithm. They did however hypothosise many theorems that have stood the test of time that don’t fit the model that CO2 can absorb heat endlessly. Understanding the impact of CO2 and its role in absorbing/reemitting heat requires an understanding of quantum physics. Repeating hysterical motherhood statements doesn’t.

          • “Understanding the impact of CO2 and its role in absorbing/reemitting heat requires an understanding of quantum physics.”

            How so? What is currently wrong with the current classical physics understanding and where has it failed?

          • Footsore – you expect me to answer that – if Einstein and Bohr couldn’t merge the two theories what makes you think I can. Google “god doesn’t play dice”, Einstein, Bohr

    • Talking about science why doesn’t anyone ever mention the spectral fingerprint of Co2 and its maximum possible radiating force of around 2w/metre squared. The Suns is 1369 – maximum heating uplift from CO2 is around 1 degree tops. Bigger
      Fish to fry than CO2 emissions.

      Well clearly someone does talk about it or you wouldn’t be here repeating it. So, who is it ?

          • Yeah Nah what. Go and do your own research if you don’t believe me. Radiative forcing, spectral analysis, the sun, kinetic energy/heat, photons, bosons, blackbody radiation, electromagnetic radiation, plank, Bohr, Einstein, photoelectric effect, decreasing negative logarithms

          • Yeah, nah, your high school physics and chemistry didn’t go into the depths of climate science.

            Or are you trying to suggest some “principle” taught in high school hasn’t occurred to thousands of climate scientists across the world over the last century or so, to take into consideration ?

    • Hey random internet dude (or dudette) sprouting random physics and chemistry. How about you point us to some peer reviewed publication which shows that your pseudoscience babble either shows that the world is not warming or why humans are not the cause of it! Otherwise it is just random noise from another clueless internet troll wasting everyone’s time.

        • When your argument is ”science doesn’t work” then you are in the same camp as the Flat Earthers and the anti vaxxers.

          • True, for when one uses such argument. Lemme know when someone does.

            But if incomprehensible inconvenient assertion is rejected because it comes from a) unknown participant and b) is inconvenient, well, that’s dogma, a blind faith and absence of science.

        • ‘Science’ (the type that has doubled our life expectancy and allows us to communicate like this) has ‘rules’. Only certain people can play (phd) and there are formal ways to ‘make moves’ (peer reviewed publications).

          Random people posting stuff on the internet is not Science. Your post is like walking into theatre and telling a brain surgeon operating on a patient that he is doing it wrong! And most people and the Mainstream Media don’t get it. They have their art degree or economics degree (or no degree) and think you actually are qualified to have a say in ‘Science’. But every Scientist qualified to have a say puts you in the same camp as flat earthers.

          So I know any random post that denies climate change will be horse manure and I COULD waste 5 mins looking up why it is horse manure, but I would rather work out what makes some random person think they know better than the collective wisdom of Science?

  7. matthew hoodMEMBER

    A statement from the Uniting Church now = Christianity?
    Based on the above MBer will now have to accept the following.
    Mitchell Marsh = Test cricketer

  8. Infinite intelligence, constantly reaching most finite conceptions of itself, fragments into material creation that must work back inward. We ourselves are the Supreme Being.

    • Sure. Sounds non-controversial for anyone who has done the work. But for others there will be a lot of gaps you may need to fill in.

  9. Not even catastrophes like these seem to bring any political action. How is this possible?
    Because we still fail to make the connection between the climate crisis and increased extreme weather events and nature disasters like the Australia Fires
    Greta you-know-who

    For once I agree with what was written for this exploited child.to tweet.
    Until we make a clear connection, broad action will simply not be adopted by most, particularly if it means lower house prices or rise in cost of living at no perceived gain. Once the clear connection to human effects is there… no one will care for anything else.

  10. Gary HollandMEMBER

    If you’re all so concerned about ‘Climate Change’ and its alleged cause (CO2) why don’t all of you brave people jump on a plane to Beijing and start protesting there?
    With China responsible for 27.5% of the world’s CO2 emissions (vs Aust’s 1.08%) it’s obvious to any sane person that Beijing is where your protest efforts should be aimed.
    But you know why you won’t protest China? Because you’ve got mouths the size of whales but balls the size of peas.

    • John Howards Bowling Coach

      Gary, have you ever been to China? I have spent a lot of time there, enough that I am sure their file on me is multiple volumes. But it is a totalitarian state, a Dictatorship in all sense, and it is not easy to protest in China at all.

      BUT I agree with your point, China is trashing this planet and must be held to account for it. They love nothing more than money, trade, and influence. The best way to protest against China’s absolute destruction of the global habitat is to cease trade and stop buying not only anything they make, but also anything they own.

      China is completely dependent on trade and other methods of bringing in foreign wealth to their actually fragile economy, so we should cease giving our money to them and force change upon them. Money is the only thing China (and most Chinese) care for, so take it away.