The question is, are the people who go along with the scam fools, or complicit?
Transcript
One Nation will not be supporting this motion to suspend standing orders. The real question is something that lies beneath this suspension order request, and that is: are the Greens patsies and fools, or are they complicit in fraud? They’re claiming an escalating climate emergency—a climate breakdown. Here we go again, with no data to back it up. We know that the Greens have never provided any empirical scientific evidence or logical scientific points to back up their assertion of an escalating climate emergency.
I challenged Senator Waters to a debate in public in 2010—13 years ago—and she still will not debate me. She jumped to her feet and said, ‘I will not debate you.’ I’ve challenged her again, almost daily and weekly since 9 September.
Senator Waters: Leave me alone!
Senator Roberts: Now we hear calls of: ‘Leave me alone. I haven’t got the data.’ No. There is no evidence the Greens have that backs up their claim.
Secondly—
Senator Cox: Read the report.
Senator Roberts: I will get to the report in a minute. The second thing is (a)(ii) of the motion, the statement by the United Nations Secretary-General. Did we know that Greta Thunberg, who did not finish high school, was yesterday given an honorary doctorate in theology by the University of Helsinki? It’s a religion, this climate stuff, and the great god is the United Nations. Did you elect the United Nations Secretary-General to run our country? No. I didn’t. They’ve never been elected.
Let’s have a look at the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. The first, in 1990, was built on fraud, but even that showed that the medieval warming period was warmer than today’s temperatures. That was quickly whipped out of the United Nations next report, in 1995. The scientists gathered under the UN banner said there was no evidence of warming due to human production of carbon dioxide. Yet Ben Santer, one of the scientists, went in and changed that report and presented it in 1995 based on a fraud.
In 2001, 2007, 2013 and 2020 there were reports by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Let’s look at chapter 12. In each of those reports there was only one sole chapter claiming warming and attributing it to carbon dioxide from human activity. In 2001 it was chapter 12. In 2007 it was chapter 9. In 2013 it was chapter 10. Not one of those reports’ sole chapters claiming warming and attributing it to human carbon dioxide contains any evidence for that claim. It’s the same in 2020.
The Deputy President: Senator Whish-Wilson, do you have a point of order?
Senator Whish-Wilson: I can put up a lot in this chamber, but having Senator Roberts directly yell at me from five feet away is very difficult to take. Could you ask him to address the chair, as he should according to parliamentary rules?
The Deputy President: He was going through me, but it’s a lesson to us all to speak through the chair.
Senator Roberts: We always see that when someone has no evidence they rely upon slurs, innuendo and misrepresentation. Thank you for not being able to challenge my argument.
Let’s have a look at the basis of this United Nations report. Maurice Strong was a crook. He died in 2015 after returning from self-imposed exile in China.
Maurice Strong started the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a political tool to get his way for his objectives globally. Maurice Strong started the Chicago Climate Exchange. He was a director of the Chicago Climate Exchange. He sought to make billions of dollars of profit from the Chicago Climate Exchange. He was then pursued for the oil-for-food scandal in the United Nations—complicit; another scandal in the United Nations. He was also wanted by American law-enforcement agencies for serious crimes in the United States, including one very big crime in western United States. He fled in exile. He’s a crook!
That’s what the Greens are basing their policies on. That’s what the Labor Party is basing its policies on. That’s what the Liberals and Nationals, with a few exceptions—I note Senator Rennick—are basing their policies on. These policies that are destroying everyday Australians’ lives economically, socially, mentally and morally are based upon a crook, and you’ve fallen for it. What’s more, you’re now getting the people of Australia to pay for it. That is inhuman, it’s irresponsible and it’s dishonest. Are the Greens guilty of fraud or are they simply patsies and fools?
I note that China produces 4.5 billion tonnes of coal and gets more of our coal, while we’re not allowed to use the 500 million tonnes that we produce in this country. They produce nine times as much and yet they have got no agreement for 2050 net zero.
This is fraud, and this is why we will not support this suspension.
Thanks so much for daring to speak the truth.
I know how difficult it is.
Respect is earned.
One Nation
All the crews involved.
You ALL have my respect.
Good job
🤝 🐦 🕊 ♥ ☰
Excellent speech! I have never accepted the notion that carbon dioxide is the driver of global temperature. At only 0.04% of the atmosphere, it is an essential, trace gas, without which there would be no plants and hence no animals on the planet. Net Zero is insanity. It will impoverish the West, whilst other countries such as China rub their hands in glee as they watch their agents, green lunatic politicians, destroy their competitors. Thank you, Malcolm, for exposing the fraud and the idiots that have been taken in by it.
I had once considered being involved or running as a candidate for the Government, but I am glad I didn’t as over the years I have noticed that the majority of those who choose to be Ministers have had some serious operations – 1. Give away a minimum of 75% of their brain. 2. Throw common sense out of the window. 3. Be at least 100% deaf unless it involves money that is all hush hush.
Need I go on? There is no climate disaster at the moment that can not be fixed immediately.
STOP ALL MINES – be it coal, gas, etc.
STOP ALL DEFORESTATION – be it for any reason, new suburbs, logging, industry.
IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED – Plant trees that will absorb the CO2 and they in turn give us O2, The more we plant the less CO2 in the atmosphere.
I totally agree Barb,
We have such a minority of tremendously informed Senators who have to speak honestly amongst a group of deaf dumb and blind politicians who should be ashamed of themselves they are putting Australians at risk by their blatant inability to listen to common sense. If they are so worried about the environment they would stop jetsetting about at the expense of tax payers, allowing the destruction of more trees, the implementing of chemicals pesticides fertilizers which end up in our food & water There are way too many issues to mention that they turn a blind eye to. Senator Roberts is a wonderful speaker & I applaud the fact that he speaks from research, truth & knowledge that they lack the decency to accept.
Please keep releasing this information. This is another money grabning fraud just like covid and the world wars that. Certain politics brings about.
I agree with Barb with one exception. To stop mining will only cause hardship for miners and without coal there will be no electricity. Thank you Malcolm for rising above the vitriol dished out by self-interested politicians.
It seems that wealthy are getting richer and amassing more and more power on the back of the climate change hysteria
Malcolm,
Thirteen years ago I engaged via email to enlighten you re global warming / climate change.
in the exchanges that followed I tried to explain an understanding of
1 )the Greenhouse Effect,
2) increasing use of fossil fuels.
3) use of fossil fuels and increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.
Recently, in the last few months I asked you to explain the greenhouse effect.
The nearest comment that may be considered as a reply was the question,” what is a greenhouse gas?” (please note, I replied and answered your question but no response)
To quote
Senator Roberts:” We always see that when someone has no evidence they rely upon slurs, innuendo and misrepresentation. Thank you for not being able to challenge my argument.” unquote.
I have tried to check on Maurice Strong via Google and the only contrary comment was on Quadrant.
The article started in a very derogatory manner referring, illogically, to the Wizard of Oz and associated characters.
Rather disappointing, considering your comment above.
Consequently I find the article rather difficult to accept.
I am still very interested to read your description of the Greenhouse Effect.and prepared to engage with you privately on Climate Change, or via this website if you wish.
Cheers,
Col
Since 1900 according to the IPCC there has been 1.3 deg C warming .The IPCC says there is low evidence for floods and drought being caused by climate change.
Where climate change cultists are so dishonest is that they don`t focus on imminent global problems like global swarming and glob al warming but virtue signal on mild climate changes that have been positive in their outcomes.
The Greenhouse effect is a belief system that is unrelated to earth’s energy balance and, therefore, has no influence on climate.
Climate models provide the proof of this whereby all climate models predict open ocean water sustaining temperature above 30C – some even show that for 2023 when it has never occurred and never will. Sustained temperature above 30C over an annual cycle for any open ocean water surface is a physical impossibility for Earth’s atmosphere. You will not find any open ocean water exceeding 30C average over any year. Once the surface reaches 30C, convective instability causes persistent monsoon that limits surface sunlight such that the temperature regulates to 30C. This is well known but the scientific papers were buried and the authors moved on to other tasks that supported the IPCC fraud. You can still find them if you are able to do scientific searches.
So CO2 is not doing what it is supposed to do. The concept is based on a simplistic understanding of how Earth’s climate system works. The one that suits the UN/IPCC agenda.
Climate change is predominantly driven by the Earth’s precession cycle. The Northern Hemisphere started to warm more about 600 years ago and the Southern Hemisphere is beginning to cool. So far Antarctica and the Southern Ocean show that cooling trend over the satellite era.
RickWill,
Your opening sentence indicates a complete lack of understanding the greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse gases (predominantly water vapour and CO2) at present warm the Earth by 30 to 33 celcius degrees.
This level of heat energy has a significant effect on the Earth’s atmosphere and thus weather / climate..
Subtract 30 to 33 celcius degrees from the temperature at any Earthly location and see the importance of these gases.
Please show the satellite data that supports your last sentence.
Cheers,
Col
Any competent individual can find the satellite data for the regions I have nominated. The data is displayed in chart form here:
https://149366104.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/NCEP_Three_Trends-3-1657607161.2964.png
Only religious zealots believe things that cannot be proven such as the “greenhouse effect” altering earth’s energy balance. Open ocean surface cannot sustain more than 30C – it is a physical impossibility and is well known. More of the northern hemisphere ocean surface will reach the 30C limit but that means more snowfall. Autumn and winter snowfall has been trending upward since the start of the 20th century. The annual maximum coverage of snow has been increasing:
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=1
Dear RickWill,
There appears to be many difficulties with your submission but we will only consider one issue here.
Your claim
To quote
“Open ocean surface cannot sustain more than 30C – it is a physical impossibility and is well known. More of the northern hemisphere ocean surface will reach the 30C limit but that means more snowfall.”
Is at variance with the following website
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/voyager-how-long-until-ocean-temperature-goes-few-more-degrees
UC San Diego
Scripps institute of Oceanography
To Quote
“The average temperature of the sea surface is about 20° C (68° F), but it ranges from more than 30° C (86° F) in warm tropical regions to less than 0°C at high latitudes.”
Which source do we believe?
Your unidentified source or
The Scripps institute of Oceanography?
Cheers.
Col
Dear Rickwill,
Comments re cyclone Ilsa.WA 16-17 April 2023 obtained from news reports.
To quote
‘Tropical Cyclone Ilsa formed over waters up to 31 degrees C – well above the threshold needed to fuel a cyclone’ unquote.
Looks very different to your maximum of 30 degrees C.
NB “fuel a cyclone” should be “form / drive a cyclone”
Cheers,
Col
Col, the narrow bands in the IR spectrum that are absorbed by carbon dioxide are already fully absorbed at the current atmospheric rate as CO2 effect is approximately logarithmic so no matter how much more the CO2 rate goes up there will be very little to no more global warming from it but there will be more global greening as CO2 is a powerful plant nutrient.
Frank,
What do you mean by saturation?
You appear confused between absorption and transmission.
EG Raise CO2 to a level where half of the incoming IR is absorbed..
Doubling this level will further reduce the transmitted IR by another half.
That will reduce the overall transmitted IR level to 1/4.
Increase the CO2 by the same amount again will further reduce transmission by a half now to the overall level of 1/8
And so on for each time the level of CO2 is raised.
The transmitted levels will be
1/2 then 1/4 then 1/8 then 1/16 next 1/32 etc.
The absorbed levels will be
1/2 then 3/4 then 7/8 then 15/16 next 31/32 etc.
Please Note.
The transmitted IR (though reduced) will still reach the Earth’s surface.
As the CO2 levels increase more and more IR radiation will be absorbed by, and heat, the atmosphere..
This is the basic principle of Global Warming of the Earth’s atmosphere by IR absorption.
Please contact if any further explanation required.
Cheers,
Col.
PS (1). re CO2 as a plant nutrient: Google search the effect of increasing CO2 levels on plant life.
Expect to be surprised.
PS (2) there is no need to consider water vapour in this discussion as 70% of the Earth’s surface is liquid water which will keep the vapour level practically constant.
This initial comment was submitted about three weeks ago.
It included a deliberate error intended to check if anyone reading the comment had any understanding of the Greenhouse Effect.
The error was the implication of IR radiation from the Sun being absorbed by atmospheric CO2 by amounts dependent on the concentration, the remaining unabsorbed radiation reaching the Earth’s surface.
In fact incoming Solar IR is of a wavelength too short to be significantly absorbed by CO2 because of the Sun’s photosphere temperature approx 5600 degrees Celcius.
The Earth’s average surface temperature (approx 18 degrees C) radiates IR of longer wavelengths that are absorbed by CO2.
This is the essence of the Greenhouse Effect.
Incoming Solar IR reaches and heats the Earth’s surface. The longer IR radiation from the Earth is absorbed by CO2 and escape to space is restricted thus heating the atmosphere.
The numerical examples (absorption and transmission) apply to outgoing Terrestrial IR.
Am I to conclude that no one denying Global Warming actually understands the Greenhouse Effect?
Cheers,
Col
The onus of proof lies with those who are making claims. In this case, those who claim we are heading for a “climate catastrophe” are the ones who should provide proof. We have only had accurate thermometers for about 100-150 years yet the climate alarmists are making unsubstantiated and outrageous statements based on that and we are expected to believe that we are headed for extinction if the climate changes by a degree or two. That is not science -that is a religion. None of the climate models factor in the output of the sun or water vapour in the atmosphere. Are they going to dry up the oceans in this foolish climate change scam? We also saw the BOM remove thermometer readings from the station at Thredbo a few years ago because they were showing lower temperatures that would contradict the narrative of a furnace future.
In the late 70s there were “documentaries” and articles in Time and Newsweek stating that within the next 10-20 years we would be in a new ice age. Within those same 20 years they did an about face and decided we were all going to cook. Same “evidence”, completely opposite conclusion. In fact they don’t call it global warming, it’s now climate change – that covers all bases. The climate has always changed and always will. We have been warmer in the past than we are today – so what. We survived as a species. Why was Greenland so named? It was not always covered with ice, that’s why. It was actually green. It is cold that is more dangerous to human life.
There are numerous fair dinkum scientists around the world who question and challenge the climate alarmism but you don’t hear from them. Why? Because the lame stream media will not give them air time or column inches. They are censored on Fakebook, Google, Twitter(brains), etc because what they are saying doesn’t accord with the preferred narrative. That is not how science progresses. It advances by asking questions and challenging things.Instead anyone who is not a parrot is cancelled. Just look at what happened at JCU to Peter Ridd a few years ago.
If you want an easy to listen to commentary on this, look up Lord Monckton. He will provide you with a wealth of data about this fraud trying to pass itself off as science and he will do so in a way that is entertaining and informing.
Climate alarmists need to answer the questions that are raised and they need to provide the raw data they use to back up their claims. Simple as that.
Mick,
The scientific data is there.
All that is required is the level of knowledge necessary to understand the science.
Do away with conspiracy theories etc and look at the measured facts.
Cheers,
Col
PS. A challenge,
Prove Global Warming / Climate Change is FAKE
Such “proof” would make interesting reading
Thanks Col. I have a B. Sc. so I think it is reasonably safe to say that I can think at least marginally well.
Most people arguing in favour of a climate catastrophe (with out presenting any evidence) have no idea of the composition of the atmosphere. What percentage of CO2 comprises the atmosphere? Is it 20%? 10%? 5%? No, it is 0.04%. Nitrogen is 78%, oxygen is 21% and all the other gases (hydrogen, helium, etc) including CO2 make up the remaining 1%. I know that if I turn the dial on the oven 0.04% the oven is not going to overheat. Why are people so concerned about a molecule that is essential for life? In any event, the entire human CO2 output pales into insignificance compare to a single volcanic eruption and that produced by the billions of termites around the world. Are we proposing to eliminate both those causes of CO2 emissions?
The “predictions” of the warming effect say we will be 1 or 2 degrees warmer by some variable date. (I wonder why I keep thinking or Paul Erlich saying back in the 70’s that billions would be dead within 10 years, or Tim Flannery predicting in 2005 that Australia would be in permanent drought by now.) I would ask you, if you are at the beach and the temperature is 36 degrees instead of 35, are you really going to know it? The historical record shows our species does far better in warmer times than in colder times. More people die as a result of cold than of heat.
It is important to understand why a particular narrative is being pushed. With the current climate change craze, it is because of money. If we have the introduction of carbon credits and cap and trade schemes, a small number of people stand to make an extremely large amount of money. If governments push for electric vehicles and subsidise them, more people make money (at taxpayer expense).
Follow the money.
Hi Mick,
There are many areas of concern in your posting but I will only consider one of your claims above.
Anthropogenic CO2 compared to volcanoes..
Check the following website of the US Geological Survey.
https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vsc/file_mngr/file-154/Gerlach-2011-EOS_AGU.pdf
There is an interesting graph early in the article
showing Anthropogenic CO2 emissions about 135 times greater than volcanic emissions ( note data ends about 2011)
The introductory paragraphs also make for interesting reading.
Cheers,
Col
Mick,
Here is another problem with your post.
Quote
. “I know that if I turn the dial on the oven 0.04% the oven is not going to overheat.” unquote
What do you mean by that statement?
The interior of your oven has nothing to do with CO2 or the Greenhouse Effect.
If you are trying to use the above to discredit the concept of Global Warming / Climate Change you are totally off the mark.
In fact the “Kinetic Particle Theory of Gases” easily explains why every gas in your oven will be at the same temperature.
Regardless if the oven is switched on or off, hot or cold.
Cheers,
Col
PS
1) The heat energy absorbed from IR radiation by CO2 molecules is quickly transferred to other molecules in the atmosphere.to be re radiated in a spherical distribution pattern (more of that later)
2) The IR radiation produced by the heating element in an oven is not absorbed by CO2 (wrong wavelengths).
Hi Mick,
Sorry about the delay, some times I think a bit slowly.
Just a quick question.
What areas of science were covered in your B.Sc studies?
Cheers,
Col
well said senator , keep them on their toes.
These people are killing this country on absolute lies and false information. It is criminal to see it happen. China is breathing down the back of our necks and we are slowly making our country weaker and poorer from them to take over. Wake up Australia.
Gary, that is so true. China is building something like 2 coal fired power plants a week. And they are using our coal. How stupid is Australia to strangle our economy when the same “emissions” coming from China are acceptable. Talk about double standards and brain-dead policies.
Thanks again Malcolm. Clear and precise, there’s no wriggle room for the Greens or the other patsies/fraudsters. They should do some research to see which one they are! And how come hardly anyone knows about Maurice Strong etc when i read about all this years ago? This is what should be taught in schools!
Rick Will countered Col correctly
CO2 has a logarithmic system to it – as do all so-called “greenhouse gases”. It has 2 bands that inhibits long wave IR radiation. The more the saturation the less important it becomes. Devoid of any observable positive feedback to water vapor the GE is a on a pack of cards. The atmosphere is an open system and the dynamics of convective cooling plays a large part. Climate change based on CO2 is a lie.
.
Glen,
See my reply to Frank Blunt above.
Cheers,
Col
PS My offer to help also extends to you
Global warming is real. All the world’s major navies have the data. Since ocean temperature profiles are an essential input into Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) operations this data has been collected for over one hundred years. Unfortunately it is nearly all classified.
The causes of global warming are largely known, although their relative contributions are open to some debate. Their is a tight correlation between Carbon Dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere and the earth’s average temperature. Some people argue that the CO2 concentration is the CAUSE of the warming, others suggest it might be an EFFECT of the warming. It could, of course, be partially both.
Undersea volcanoes are a significant source of both global warming and release massive amounts of greenhouse gases. Again, the major navies have these things fairly well mapped out as they not only influence the temperature profiles of the oceans but also the ambient noise profiles.
The major reason the present CO2 atmospheric concentrations are continuing to increase is deforestation, particularly in the global south. You can see this from the temporary decrease in CO2 concentrations that occurs during the northern hemisphere spring and summer (the spring drawdown).
There are good reasons to decrease fossil fuel use, not least of all that they are FOSSILS. When they are used up they are gone and won’t be replaced on biologic time scales. They are also important feedstocks for many manufacturing processes, so burning them is rather wasteful. Cutting down on their use also reduces pollution which is a positive outcome.
Ending subsidies to fossil fuel producers and users would be a good first step. Loss making forestry operations should cease. Reforestation should be strongly encouraged. Action is needed, but they should be sensible actions based on solid evidence.
Richard, yes there is a link between CO2 and temperature – as the temperature increases over about an 800 year period the CO2 in the atmosphere increases. We just have it ass-about. Also, ice core samples show we have had much higher CO2 in the atmosphere than we have now and animal and plant life flourished. CO2 is not a toxin – it is essential for life. Greenhouse operators pump it in to the greenhouse to get plants to grow!
Regarding fossils, they are the ultimate renewable. The sunlight and CO2 cause plants to grow, the plants die and are buried and through heat and pressure become “fossil” fuels. They are packaged sunlight. The subsidies do not go to conventional fuel operators, they all go to windmills and solar farms. Why? If these things are so good they do not need to be subsidised – people will use them because they want to not because they are being coerced.
If people are concerned about pollution, they should be cutting down on sulphur emissions and getting rid of known carcinogens such as glyphosate (RoundUP). CO2 is not a pollutant.
Actually subsidies do go to fossil fuel operators. What needs to happen is for ALL fuel and energy subsidies to stop and various forms energy generation compete on their merits. Subsidies, with the corresponding bribes and kickbacks are completely out of control in Australia and several other countries. Totally agree with your view on pollution. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
Mick,
Referring to the 800 year CO2 and Temperature rises.
These events occurred several times over the past hundreds of thousands of years.(Ice bubble data).
Each cycle lasting about one hundred thousand years.
Scientists are unsure which was the leading cause (CO2 or Temp). Some say it is to close to call.
However, we must acknowledge at these times there were NO coal mining industries, Oil drilling,or other industries with a high demand on fossil fuels.What was the human population numbers at those times?
Consequently we cannot compare the distant past with today because there are TOO MANY differences.
Today’s rising temperatures and CO2 levels are occurring faster than in the 800 years you mention.
NOTE
1) If rising temperatures are causing the increase in CO2 levels, would you please explain the mechanism for these cyclic temperature rises
2) The Greenhouse effect is well understood and driven by increasing CO2 levels.(from fossil fuel usage)
Cheers,
Col
No one denies Global Warming Richard. We just deny humans have much if anything to do with it. The Earth has been far hotter in the past including during Medieval times when obviously the world population was a minuscule fraction of what it is today and no one was using anything powered by fossil fuels.
Further, science has established the relationship between warming and Co2 but it is precisely the opposite of what is claimed. This is evidenced by examining ice core samples, for example.
As for fossil fuels, even I wish to work towards finding alternatives in the long run (as in by the end of the 21st century) but I do not believe there is any need to rush into it, destroying billions of lives and decimating economies in order to do so. There is more than enough time to get nuclear right the first time and to develop e-fuels. E-fuels in themselves will create a vastly less polluting and environmentally damaging footprint than endless solar panels, windmills and EV with their short lives and recycling challenges.
Just as bad, we have basically surrendered our country to China. China will be able to bring Australia to its knees any time they wish, without having even launch one single fire cracker. They can simply with-hold supply of renewable infrastructure or simply double the price overnight.
We have got it completely wrong and commonsense must prevail now.
Regarding your comments RickWill, i agree but the elephant in the room is ADIABATIC HEAT. The weight of the atmosphere generates heat (PV=nRT). Together with the Sun, just these 2 sources provide the steady-state temperature at Earth’s surface. That’s it! No other heat source is involved. There are numerous forcings (oceans, night&day) but these only create short-term temperature variations.
Another important point is there is no Natural Greenhouse effect. The mathematical
formula used to find “the missing 33 degC” was found to be invalid. Search for Ned Nikolov.
Chris,
Would you please explain your use of the equation
PV=nRT
Thanks,
Col
Col, shorthand for temperature is proportional to pressure. Ned has shown that the Sun and the weight of a planet’s atmosphere (not just Earth’s) is the only other source needed to create the measured steady-state temperature at a planet’s surface. By deduction, there is no Greenhouse Effect.
Chris,
The Earth’s atmosphere formed thousands of millions of years ago.
Surely by now the heat energy released during formation and initial compression of our atmosphere would have dissipated,
In any case the measured global atmospheric temperature is increasing long after one would expect (from the above assumption) the atmosphere to have reached thermal equilibrium.
If the Sun is the source of the present thermal energy then the Greenhouse Effect must be considered as important.
PS would you please explain the significance of each term in PV=nRT.
Cheers,
Col
Chris,
P stands for pressure of the gas.
V is the gas volume,
T temperature on the kelvin scale.
R is the universal gas constant (Units depending on the pressure and volume measurements)
n the quantity of gas in the sample ( measured in moles)
As the equation deals with a specific quantity of gas isolated from other influences it CANNOT be applied to open, planetary atmospheric systems.
Sorry, Ned is in error.
Cheers,
Col
When I look through modern history it seems that nothing lasts for long. Any person in this country, for example, upon reaching 50 years of age will no longer recognise anything whatsoever about this country that was familiar to them as a child, save perhaps a few untainted haunts from their childhood tucked deep away in far flung country Australia that have yet to be infested with Woke Disease. Look at the many western “micro cultures” that evolved over the last few hundred years. They have all come and gone and been surpassed. How long, for example, will the Great British and Aussie Pub and the Aussie Barbecue remain?
I now fear that the next decade will be the end for Australia Mark 1. The three great frauds – The Voice, The Climate Cult and Globalist elite takeover will work in consort to not only being this country to its knees, but outright destroy it. I cannot see any way that the existing Australian way of life can be preserved when no one has reliable electricity, 97% of us are lesser citizens than someone whose great great grandfather might have possessed some indigenous DNA and when most of us no longer even have access to private transport and a reliable, healthy food supply. All this will put us back a few centuries which means the modern life and culture we have known will no longer be tenable.
And yes, I realise that a point (hopefully well before that) will be reached when even the Wokest of the Woke will snap and say enough is enough, but by the time we reach that point, the damage will already have been irreparable. If people do not wake up soon, there won’t be much left worth waking up to.
Once again the only person ( with a few exceptions) representing us. This Climate Babble is just more criminal activity from the parasites.
Thanyou Malcolm, …….. Talk about the “PRIVATELY OWNED ” Reserve bank !
Thank you Malcolm for yet another succinct explanation of the extraordinary situation that Australians have now placed themselves in politically, ignoring real science in favour of myth & superstition.
As you rightly identify – the climate catastrophe has lost all sense of common sense & has sadly become a religion, as evidence by those who promote it (ie The Greens primarily, but Laborites too), but point blank refuse to stand up & defend their claims by open debate regarding the science surrounding that claimed demon gas called carbon dioxide – that minuscule, invisible, tasteless, odourless, non-toxic atmospheric trace gas necessary for life on this planet. Without it we’d be dead! Sheer madness. There is no climate emergency.
Please stand your ground Malcolm. There are far too few within our political ranks prepared to stand up & be counted regarding the science behind the claimed climate catastrophe!
I can’t say it any better than did Jim Simpson
If the majority of Australians – who, judging from elections are STUPID – could only realise that those for whom they vote are the cause of an infinite number of problems in society, and the only way in the non democratic, self serving system is to inject some ‘chili powder’ into politics.
Malcolm, Antic, Rennick, Latham and even Ted O’Brien (re Nuclear) and Canavan seem to be the only NON puppets.
A point that I feel has not been sufficiently stressed is that the approach used by the IPCC is not the scientific method. It depends on seeking consensus by reviewing publications on climate topics. Consensus is not a criterion for determining the validity of a theory. The correct scientific method is that of hypothesis-deduction as outlined by Karl Popper. I have tried to point this out in a book I recently published: Applying the scientific method to learn from mistakes and approach truth (Taylor and Francis, 2022, e.g. p. 82).
Keep up the good work, Senator Roberts. We need to have faith that truth will ultimately triumph.
Best wishes,
Finlay MacRitchie
Finlay,
I am of the opinion the IPCC rather than performing scientific experiments on climate etc collected data from published papers that had been submitted for peer review etc.
The purpose being to present a collection of findings in “one place” to assist persons analysing the data collected over the period of the last 2 years
The analysis of the data was left to the scientific expertise of the readers.
Sadly, some people appear to be troubled by this task of analysis.
Cheers,
Col
I have started to educate myself more on this topic and have read a book by Dr Tim Ball called Human caused Global Warming. I can’t believe the Government has screwed our economy based on lies!
Caution Adrian.
Quote from a Google search re Dr Tim Ball.
“Ball received a bachelor’s degree with honors in geography from the University of Winnipeg in 1970, followed by an M.A. from the University of Manitoba in 1971 and a PhD in geography with a specific focus on historical climatology from Queen Mary University of London in England in 1983”
Point 1
His PhD would have been completed before 1983, so at best his research would be at least 40 years out of date.
Point 2
PhD in geography with a specific focus on HISTORICAL CLIMATOLOGY.
Again, How many years out of date?
Sadly, he is now deceased.
Cheers,
Col