The BBC thinks Australia is becoming “unlivable”!

Saw this on Instapundit:

WELL, NO. IT MIGHT BE COMING. I MEAN, THEY WANT TO GO CARBON-FREE:  Australia Becoming Unlivable–BBC.

Personally, seeing this mentioned by the Poms on an American website does make me laugh. I can only say I consider it my greatest good fortune that I ended up in Australia, not in Canada where I was born, nor in the UK where I spent two-plus lovely years in the 1970s, nor in the US which I lived next to growing up and visited many times.

It may not last the way things are going, but if one surveys the entire planet at the present moment, there is nowhere else better. This is a secret we should, of course, keep to ourselves since it is better to discourage others from overrunning the place.

Hopefully this is also a sign of things to come: Labor return Sri Lankan asylum seeker boat as Operation Sovereign Borders enforced.

As for climate change which is supposedly what will make Australia uninhabitable, this was a comment at Instapundit:

In 2015 – Australia absorbed between 37 and 45 million kilotons of CO2, according to peer reviewed science
https://acp.copernicus.org/…
.
In the same year – Australians emitted an estimated 376 000 kilotons of CO2 total.
.
(2015 was an El-Nino year (typically a year of low vegetative growth in OZ) with the only aspect at all unusual was 17% above average rainfall across the Top End – despite the impact of a positive Indian Ocean Dipole)
.
If the Australia’s goal was to become ‘carbon neutral’ – this peer reviewed scientific study confirms that Australia has ALWAYS been carbon neutral.
.
Job done, next…

Not that I think any of it actually matters, but for the crazies who take climate change seriously, we are certainly doing our bit.

PLUS: There is then this which I just picked up at The Spectator Online [for subscribers only].

31 thoughts on “The BBC thinks Australia is becoming “unlivable”!”

  1. There was a bloke named Chris Warren, at Don Aitkin’s now defunct blog, who foamed at the mouth at any suggestion that Australia is a nett absorber of carbon dioxide.


    Report comment

    2
  2. It took the American “Democrats” a bit less than 6 months to fundamentally stuff the USA so this Australian mob wont have a problem beating that timeline as there are no State “governments” to slow them.

    It’s Teal Ducks All The Way Down!


    Report comment

    10
  3. I was made aware of Australia already achieving Net Zero and more about a year ago or so. As this can be scientifically proven, then how do we get the Australian Government and others on board? Or, does Net Zero also refer to the average IQ of all Australian Politicians and that we have no chance of doing this.


    Report comment

    22
  4. It’s not about the environment, climate change or any other atmospheric concern, it’s all about re-establishing feudalism. The liege lords found out that they don’t really like democracy but can’t say it aloud so it has to be couched in “saving the world” terms.

    There was no problem with the climate or even weather, the elites simply didn’t like the commoners and serfs enjoying themselves, having a comfortable lifestyle, great appliances and cars and travelling the world. They were crowding the best tourism places so it all has to stop.

    The hoi polloi weren’t taking any notice of the climate catastrophists so the masters of the universe had to pull the emergency cord, the pandemic(s). I shudder to think what will be next when even the viruses don’t do the trick. The nuclear option?


    Report comment

    19
  5. According to Professor Ian Plimer, Australia doesn’t need to worry about the ‘Net Zero’ goals that caused the guilt-ridden, city-dwelling rich list to vote Green (well, Teal but same-same).

    That last bit is rubbish.
    The Greens Vote crashed in the Seats the Teals won, and The Greens don’t run dead.
    The simple answer is that The Teals presented a moderate Liberal alternative that 40% of the voters in a handful of electorates liked.
    Dave Sharma isn’t liberal or a Liberal, his positions on everything were determined by focus groups. The voters in Wentworth switched him off, but they didn’t give The Greens any joy.


    Report comment

  6. There was a proposal from some UN Body to relocate the population of Australia to Northern Canada at the time of massive flooding in NSW in 2007.
    It made the papers, the idea was that Canada will get warmer due to Global Warming.
    The Global Warming reasoning has since fallen over, but thye UN desire to remove Australians is still strong.
    Any connection between massive flooding and the election of Federal Labor Governments?


    Report comment

  7. Every election brings another batch of brainwashed children into the voter pool. We are screwed for years to come. The Libs did nothing to counter the indoctrination of the youth.


    Report comment

    19
  8. Ah, but our esteemed academe and reluctant hero activists insist that we include the CO2 emitted overseas from our exports be counted as ours – even though they are counted again in other countries list of sins. And given that there are doubtless other dodges they use when calculating emissions.

    For example, I do not believe they include the oceans as CO2 sinks, even though it enriches the entire food chain while they are telling us the seas are becoming as barren as the Sahara.


    Report comment

    9
  9. Dick Ed

    The Global Warming reasoning has since fallen over, but thye UN desire to remove Australians is still strong.

    The UN/WEF desire to reduce world populaton massively is still strong.

    Being, as they are, fully detached from reality, they do not realise that their comfortable lives depend on a vast array of (those they regard as) serfs, whose disappearance will leave them drawing straws to see who goes on the fire each evening.


    Report comment

    6
  10. I for one am happy for the rest of the world to believe that Australia is unliveable.Hopefully a couple of million climate voters also think that and leave permanently.
    Result paradise.


    Report comment

    14
  11. I for one am happy for the rest of the world to believe that Australia is unliveable.Hopefully a couple of million climate voters also think that and leave permanently.
    Result paradise.

    We can but dream.


    Report comment

    3
  12. It may not last the way things are going, but if one surveys the entire planet at the present moment, there is nowhere else better.

    Maybe once this was true, and not even that long ago, but it has unravelled hugely in the last 30 years or so. This downward trend is accelerating geometrically. Speaking personally, I can see no signs of it reversing, or even slowing, bar an unprecedented cataclysm.

    The hoi polloi weren’t taking any notice of the climate catastrophists so the masters of the universe had to pull the emergency cord, the pandemic(s). I shudder to think what will be next when even the viruses don’t do the trick. The nuclear option?

    Indeed. Ask Jabba the Hutt … I mean George Soros. He is already peddling the notion of WWIII and salivating at the prospect.


    Report comment

    7
  13. Australia Becoming Unlivable–BBC

    From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

    By Paul Homewood

    This may come as news to the Aussies!

    then

    Perhaps somebody should have told their 19th ancestors!

    THE CLIMATE OF AUSTRALIA.

    A correspondent of the Grafton Observer Tue 13 Oct 1868 writes to that journal as follows:—

    ” From observations made by those who have had the best opportunities of forming a correct opinion, there is little doubt that Australia is subject to long periods during which dry seasons prevail, and again, intervals of some years, in which there is a prevalence of floods; and it may prove of interest to some of your readers to have before them a record of the observations made since the colony was first established, which bear upon this subject.

    ” I therefore append at foot, an account of all the recorded floods and droughts which have taken place since the colony was established. It must be borne in mind that these observations are of necessity confined to those districts which were settled at the various periods, and will not, until lately, refer to any part north of the Hunter or Port Macquarie.

    ” This table was for the most part prepared by Dr.Jevons, and I extracted it from a document in the Sydney Observatory.

    “The theory of alternate long period or prevailing wet or dry seasons may be confirmed in the mind of any one who will observe the numerous small swamps in which there is a growth of gum trees, which must have required a period of at least fifteen years, during which there was no standing water on the ground, and after they had attained their present growth, a succession of hot seasons has left sufficient water on the ground to kill them. “It is, of course, impossible to predict that any particular year will be wet or dry, but we may reasonably conclude that there is every probability of a greater number of dry seasons than floods during the next fifteen or twenty years, and those whose interests are likely to be affected either way, will, in my opinion, be acting prudently, by taking precautions rather against droughts than floods.

    ” I am, Sir, yours, &c.,
    ” THOMAS CARTER.
    “Grafton, October 3rd.

    DRY period.
    1789 . Drought
    1791 . Drought
    1797 . Drought
    WET PERIOD.
    1799 . Flood
    1800 . Flood
    1801 . Flood
    1805 . Flood
    1806 . Flood
    1808 . Flood
    1809 . Flood
    1810 . Flood
    1811 . Do, slight drought
    1812 . Flood
    1814 . Severe drought
    1815 . Severe drought
    1816. Flood
    1817 . Flood
    1818 . Slight drought
    1819 . Flood
    1820 . Flood
    1821 . Flood
    DRY PERIOD.
    1823 . Slight drought
    1824. Slight drought
    1826 . Flood
    1827. Do., severe drought
    1828 . Severe drought
    1829 . Severe drought
    1830 . Flood
    1831 . Flood
    1832 . Flood
    1835 . Slight drought
    1836. Slight drought
    1837. Extreme drought
    1838 . Extreme drought
    1839 . Extreme drought
    1840 . Flood
    1841 . Slight drought
    WET PERIOD.
    1842 . Flood
    1843 .. Flood
    1844 . Flood
    1845 . Drought
    1846. Flood
    1847. Flood
    1848. Flood
    1849 .Drought
    1850 .Flood—drought
    1851. Flood
    1852. Flood
    1853 . Flood
    1856. Flood
    1857. Do., slight drought
    1859 . Flood
    1861 . Flood
    1862 . Flood
    1863 . Flood
    1864 . Flood

    Plus

    The great Hawkesbury-Nepean Flood of 1867:

    “If a flood similar to the 1867 flood occurred today, around 90,000 people would need to be evacuated, an estimated 12,000 homes would be impacted and the damage bill would be approximately $5 billion”.


    Report comment

    9
  14. Perhaps all the climate change worriers should move to a country that is actually doing something about it so they can feel better.

    Like China / Sarc off.


    Report comment

    9
  15. Labor claim to have turned back boat people on the day of the election? Really? They weren’t sworn in at that time. I don’t trust them one iota.


    Report comment

    5
  16. Rossinisays:
    May 26, 2022 at 11:05 am
    Do we know what net zero means?

    Whatever the fanatics want it to mean, with a change in the definition as the old target is approached.


    Report comment

    2
  17. The Chief Scientist 2009: “The Co-operative Research Centre for Greenhouse Accounting has estimated that Australian forests store about 10.5 billion tonnes of carbon. This store of solid carbon has accumulated over an assumed life of 100 years for native eucalypt regrowth. That translates to our forests storing an amount of carbon equivalent to almost 38.5 billion tonnes of gaseous carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, about 70 times Australia’s annual net greenhouse gas emission.”
    https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2009/12/which-plants-store-more-carbon-in-australia-forests-or-grasses


    Report comment

    2
  18. I do subscribe to The Spectator. However the article from which the author quotes is available without a paywall .
    moderated

  19. Are we able to grow the Californian redwood trees here in Oz.
    If so where.

    I remember seeing a couple of young Redwoods (only 150 years old) in a large open Garden in the NSW Blue Mountains while doing a walking visit there a few years ago. It was in the Mount Wilson area from memory. So I expect that these trees could grow anywhere in the Blue Mountains or anywhere like that. Maybe the Southern Highlands or even around the Snowy Mountains and highland areas of Victoria. Also along the Great Dividing Range up towards southern Queensland and further north.


    Report comment

  20. From our brief amount of enforced watching here in the UK on holidays in hotels and Airbnb’s the BBC are still at the level of Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ when it comes to reporting on matters climatic.
    The poles are melting, polar bears are dying, sea levels are rising, Pacific islands are sinking, glaciers are disappearing. Australia, the imply and often intone, has no Barrier Reef left to speak of, while bushfires have destroyed much of our agriculture and landscapes. That’s the general tenre whenever Australia comes up. Al of it, of course, is completely wrong and scientifically nonsensical. Australia is unchanged in climate and is doing very well. Try telling that to them though in pubs and they won’t believe you. Not the BBC line at all. The climate cult has just a grip on this poor little kingdom.


    Report comment

    3

Leave a Reply

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