What is Australia doing in Poland?

“Australia should sign nothing, agree to nothing and signal its intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.” – Viv Forbes

What is Australia doing in Poland?

Viv Forbes

The climateers are celebrating their 24th annual shindig in Poland – COP24.

Here are three questions for PM Morrison and his ministers:

  • Who represents Australia?
  • What authority have they got?
  • Will there be a report to the Australian people?

Australia should sign nothing, agree to nothing and signal its intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.

COP24 will produce zero benefits for Earth’s climate, but their goals are economically irresponsible.

The Paris Agreement they seek to enforce is negative for the Australian people, and for everyone not on the climate gravy train.

Viv Forbes


Washpool   Qld Australia

15 thoughts on “What is Australia doing in Poland?”

  1. True. No signing anything. Already in South Australia we have the highest electricity bills in the world thanks to the ‘renewables’ they are forcing on us. Carbon Tax has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with financing a World Government for which we have no say over!! Also, since we are heading to a Grand Solar Minimum it is going to become increasingly harder to grow crops etc. We need all our money here on projects to feed Australians when the time comes. We have about 5 years before food becomes scarcer. (Adapt 2030)

  2. Attending the Global Warming Conference in Poland may give delegates first hand experience of COOLING. According to news reports all state leaders attending G20, excepting Trump, renewed pledged support for the Paris Accord. The yellow vest protests in France is apparently about global warming-related fuel levies/carbon taxes, although the msm try to play down the real cause.

  3. AGW is not true. Australia should withdraw from the Paris Agreement. They changed the name from AGW to Climate Change. Now every extreme weather event is blamed on Global Warming. The change in name of their theory is extremely suspicious. If AGW was true there would be no need to change the name or theory.

  4. Well said Viv. All climate alarm is based on the false prermise that carbon dioxide is a “warming gas”, when in fact it is the direct opostie: a cooling gas. Over ad abve that fact, there is no radiative “greenhouse effect” in our atmosphere nor in an actual greenhouse. Sending infrared radiation back to the source does not make the source any warmer than it was. Every single “fact” put on the proverbial table by the UN IPCC is 180 degrees removed from the truth. Get the facts, make the right decisions.

    • I don’t agree that one can state conclusively that CO2 is a “warming” or a “cooling” gas.

      At 0.06% of the atmospheric mass it is basically an “irrelevant” gas in terms of its interaction with energy flows.

      The “greenhouse effect” as cited by all of the “experts” is provably incorrect mathematically – any other discussion about it is thus rendered irrelevant.

      The recent assertion that slowing down the rate at which Earth radiates to space in the face of the continual input of powerful solar radiation which must cause global warming IS a compelling argument.

      However, ALL of the satellite evidence clearly says there is COMPELLING EVIDENCE that as the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere of Earth have increased the radiation Earth emits to space has also increased.

      See the graph here :-


      NASA show a positive anomaly for most of the period 1979 – 2005 and this means there is NO “HEAT TRAPPING” but it is entirely consistent with a warmer Earth.

      I believe this has been due to an external forcing due to the late 20th century and early 21st century series of solar maximum cycles- unprecedented in the observation record – and not an internal forcing from a trace gas.

      This cycle of solar maximums appears to have dramatically ceased to date and Earth has stopped or at least slowed any warming for most of this century. They could conceivably ramp up again – no-one really knows.

      I don’t believe it is consistent with any increase in the atmosphere’s emissivity due to CO2’s IR emission bands for 2 reasons:-

      1. The emission bands of CO2 represent only a small fraction of the radiative emission spectrum at typical Earth ambient temperatures; and,

      2. At ~600 grams of CO2 in every 1,000,000 grams of the atmosphere the effect is virtually incalculable.

      However, it is interesting that either side can produce evidence that CO2 is a “warming” or a “cooling” gas.

      The link above says it may be responsible for higher emissions to space over the period when the concentrations of CO2 began to climb rapidly and hence it is a “cooling” gas.

      Alternatively alarmists believe this link –


      clearly shows the reduction in Earth’s emissions to space coinciding with the most active band of the CO2 absorption spectrum – between ~600 and ~800 wavenumber – and hence could be evidence of a “warming” gas as it reduces the rate of emissions to space combined with the continuous input of solar energy.

      I tend to think the Sun is the major player.

      • 400 ppm or 600 ppm are grades of b…all. 4 or 6 parts per 10 000. It’s measured in a rather odd place, over Hawaii, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean (oceans a major source of CO2 through degassing) . Far away from the world’s major industrial areas (negligible man-made CO2). A volcanically active area (volcanism a major source of atmospheric CO2).

      • Try 0.04% a much smaller and more correct number for sea level, a number, a third less than you have quoted.
        Yet 50X that amount is stored in the Oceans, the solar warming to top 200M of the oceans are the less CO2 it can carry, the colder the oceans the more CO2 is retained.
        CO2 isn’t the control knob of the world, merely the lagging indicator of how warm our tropical oceans are. The true control knob is radiation from the Sun, and in particular UV and EUV absorbed by our atmosphere .

  5. Good Q Viv, abc all over it like a rash BUT..damned if I have heard mention of who is there either
    flimflams getting airtime but hes touting a new book on paleo matters, which IS his field- NOT climatology.
    the agitpropped kids protest of parliament got airtime but was seen by saner people as annoying, and the speaker for it was VERY evasive on who funded and supported them.
    Id reckon turkey Turney and sobbing will steffen would have been/ or are pushing for a nice trip OS at someones elses expense, and the media attention.ditto greens thingies and shortens shonkies might be sniffing too
    with luck sco-mo wont have sent any REAL representative of govt.
    I can dream can’t I?

    • Laurel – we’ve gotta wonder why Scomo is just letting his government implode instead of mounting the one policy that could save them ?

      This must a real fight over whether Australians prefer higher electricity prices or the ALP’s insane 45% emissions reduction which has to result in fuel prices of $5.00 a litre or even higher because the only mechanism of achieving the 45% without totally destroying the economy is to tax private transport – petrol – because we really need agriculture, mining and what manufacturing we have left.

      Maybe they really do believe CO2 controls climate as well as the rest of the intellectual lightweight alarmist pollies ?

      • hard to tell Rosco, reading today that termitebull is now doing the backstabbing on sco mo over not doing enough on CAGW
        funny that cos the libs sounded a LOT like the greens n laborites promising 100mil subsidies on home battery setups
        and cash bribes of 2,250$ to fools willing to install solar panels.
        and yet he was fence sitting himself.
        petrol dropped a few cents a litre the other day but we’re paying around what france is per litre and not a yellow shirt in sight. if diesel goes up too much it will make a huge dent locally as most cars utes etc are diesel out in rural areas
        im unfortunate enough to run a v6petrol 4wd and its hurting. might have to roadreg my tractor n drive that;-)

  6. Imagine,… Until Trump backed us out of this Paris insanity. Your tax dollars were going to be paying for most of this insanity. MAGA.

  7. Notice how our MSM has jumped on David Attenborough’s plea to the world. There is no debate in our media nor a discussion of alternatives. The choice is do what the IPCC states or the world burns. Anyone who thinks any different is considered a fool. We have moved so left as a country, we are told how to think and when to think it. We are a democracy however only one side of the story is told. When crops continue to fail I fear our country we be no different than other socialist countries. Yes we will have the right to vote, Our choice will be a left liberal party dictated to by IPCC or a left labour party supporting all IPCC policies. All my peers consider I am a fool for believing the sun is our main climate driver. Our sun dictates our oceans and our oceans the climate. If it is hot it is CO2, If it is wet it is CO2 if it is Dry it is CO2, if it is cold it is CO2.

    • The UK media is bought and paid for via Public Service taxes you have to pay or go to Jail, and dont pick up $200 on the way there.
      The same with ITV dont do what we say , and we put up the levies you have to pay.
      News print, shut up or get stuffed with D Notice.

      I look forward to the next No Brexit General Election in the UK, a great many wrongs prepetrated by the left and the EU federalist since 1999 will get paid back during that election, with the 2nd Republic not far way, after all, Germany voted Hilter into power.

  8. Axe the renewables sunbsidies. I hear over and over that they are cheaper than conventional power such as coal, gas and nuclear. If so, they dont need subsidies and can stand on their own merit. If the merit is worth it, capital will flow to them, if not, capital will go somewhere else. That is why governments should never be in the business of poicking winners in the market place.

    1. It is not their money, someone else’s, so the risk of investment is not personal – effectively no skin in the game.
    2. becasue of 1. they stay in way past the time sensible investors would leave.
    3. Captial flows towards return. Without the subsidy, would the return be sufficient to keep attracting capital? I dont think so, but let the market decide.
    4. When we know the true cost, we can decide if we want to PAY for it. We – not the government.
    5. it is the poor who pay now, because they cannot offset the increased cost of power.

Comments are closed.