Former Advisor to Aussie PM Declares UN climate agenda ‘more about Marxism than science’ – Laments World succumbing to ‘bogus science & catastrophism’


By: - Climate DepotDecember 28, 2015 2:51 PM with 12 comments

Maurice Newman

Maurice Newman has blasted the United Nations climate agreement reached recently in Paris. He says in a newspaper column that the UN is more about Marxism than science. Photograph: Julian Smith/AAP

Tony Abbott’s former business advisory council chairman, Maurice Newman, has criticised Malcolm Turnbull and Barack Obama for prioritising “collectivist visions” over “private choice” in relation to climate change.

Newman, who was not reappointed to the council by the Turnbull government, has accused world leaders of acting “like ancient druids pleading with the gods for good seasons” at the recent Paris climate talks.

Newman blasted the final Paris agreement, which aims to hold global temperatures to a maximum rise of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, saying there was “no empirical scientific evidence” to support the policy.

He lamented that “without a Tony ­Abbott in Canberra or a Stephen Harper in Ottawa, no world leader utters a peep in protest”.

A noted climate change sceptic, Newman has accused western capitalist societies of giving up on rational thinking.

“They embrace junk ­science and junk economics and adopt wealth-destroying postmodern pseudo-economics, which teaches that taxpayer subsidies can produce desirable ‘economic transformation’ and faster growth,” Newman wrote in the Australian.

“Pigs may also fly.

“Climate change has cowed once great powers into meekly surrendering sovereignty and independent thought to unelected bureaucrats in Geneva. From the White House to the Lodge, private choice now runs a distant second to collectivist visions.”

“But then climate change is not about credible scientific evidence,” he wrote.

“It has its roots in Marxism, and ultimately the Green Fund is presided over by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, run by Costa Rican MarxistChristiana Figueres.”

Newman warned the 1.5C target would be “relentlessly pursued” by the UN with the help of the media.

“The media, in step with the Green ­Machine, will bombard us with climate alarmism to the applause of the leader of the free world, Barack Obama, who says: ‘My mission is to make the world aware that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism.’ ­Really? That’s serious. Clearly authority, not common sense or science, now rules the world.”

Newman also accused the world’s largest emitter, China, of “adroit politics”, using climate change to act on its domestic air quality issues while promoting emissions restraints for other countries “for its own competitive advantage”.

He ridiculed plans for the United Nation’s Green Climate Fund to transfer money from “42 guilt-racked nations” to developing countries “regardless of the direction of world temperatures”.

“[Developing nations] left Paris happy that the UN’s Green Climate Fund, which aims to reach $US100bn a year by 2020, will give them cash for anything they can pass off as remotely ­related to their intended national contributions to world CO2­–reduction,” he wrote.

World leaders were succumbing to “bogus science and catastrophism” and considering abandoning fossil fuels – “the world’s cheapest, most ­efficient and wealth-creating power source” – in favour of “costly, ­­inefficient renewable energy”.


  • Gregson14

    Planet Earth has spent as much as 25% of its 4.5 Billion year existence with atmospheric concentrations of CO2 at levels of 4000 parts per million (ppm) or greater – an order of magnitude (10x) greater than current levels of CO2 in our atmosphere – and guess what?… the Planet survived just fine… all by itself!

    On an existential scale – Planet Earth is today experiencing near-historic low levels of CO2 in our atmosphere (400 ppm). The argument can be made that there is a greater chance of Planet Earth becoming a frozen and lifeless planet (much like Mars); simply because we are closer to a CO2 deficiency on the planet than we are to an over-abundance of CO2 – a compound that is essential for the survival of all plant-life on Earth.

    The unfortunate reality is that plant-life begins to shut-down (die) when CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere drop below 150ppm – whereas today’s commercial growing operations pump upwards of 1600ppm into their Greenhouses to facilitate optimum growing conditions. Take a walk in your favourite forest or woodland and you will at times be exposed to CO2 concentrations at levels close to 600ppm… but no worries!… you’ll be just fine. In fact, Princeton Phd Physicist, Freeman Dyson in an April 2015 interview with The Vancouver Sun explains that Planet Earth has greened-up by close to 20% in the last 70 years “… increasing our tillable land, increasing crop yields and feeding more people…” as a direct result of increased levels of CO2 in our atmosphere. In the interview Dyson states emphatically that: “… in the aggregate, increasing levels of CO2 in our atmosphere are a “net benefit” for our biosphere.”

    I find it comically ironic that an entire movement that calls itself “green” has positioned itself as the greatest demonizer of the very compound (CO2) that is responsible for “greening” our Planet in the last 3 generations.

    Carbon Dioxide also forms the very basis of the food chain in our Oceans!… CO2 is consumed by vast quantities of algae and plankton in our Oceans – these micro-organisms feed the small shrimp and krill that sustain the baitfish, who in turn are prey for the larger ocean predators. Without CO2, our Oceans would be lifeless – our Atmosphere would be toxic and the Planet would be dead!

    All life on Planet Earth originated in our Oceans – it is our Oceans that act as vast storage sinks for CO2; as they absorb CO2 during our prolonged Glacial Eras and release it back into the atmosphere following the centuries-long warming process of our interglacials.

    The UN’s Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has CO2’s relationship to climate exactly backwards!… CO2 does not cause warming… it follows warming!… It is a trailing indicator of “warming events” that occurred in the near past (600-1000 years past). The reason; is that our Oceans are so vast… they literally take centuries to warm-up and it is this warming process in our Oceans that releases and emits CO2 back into our atmosphere to complete the cycle during the warmer interglacial periods like our current Holocene Epoch – which reached it’s maximum warming 8,000 years ago of 2-3 degrees centigrade higher than today.

    Mankind with all of his Industry, Agriculture, Manufacturing, Transportation and Land-use needs is responsible for emitting approximately 30 giga-tons of CO2 into our atmosphere per year worldwide. Yes!… that is 30 billion tons… but it is a mere 4% of the 750 giga-ton footprint of CO2 that is emitted naturally into our atmosphere every year by our oceans, lakes, deltas, volcanoes, forest fires, dying vegetation, animals of all kinds and microbes with whom we share the planet.

    Why then is CO2 the source of such angst and hysteria from Academia, our bureaucracies and Progressives?… Answer: In today’s world of misinformation, CO2 has been tagged as the prime candidate onto which our Progressive elites can attach a brand new tax, to pay for the entitlements that 1st World Nations have promised to their constituencies. While at the same time, the UN’s IPCC has become a hypocritical advocate for limiting the growth potential of most 3rd World Nations who are desperate to utilize their own carbon-based energy sources in order to develop their new and emerging economies.

    I suppose under the auspices of the United Nations IPCC and alarmists everywhere, we can expect the hype and ramped-up rhetoric to increase during the COP-21 Climate Talks in Paris — soon to be augmented by the Progressive Carbon Tax, the Fresh Water Tax, the Sunshine Tax and last but not least, the Oxygen Tax!

    Just some of the “inconvenient truths” to buttress the above narrative!…

    • stephaniehrackley

      ❝my neighbor’s stride mother is making 98$ HOURLY on the internet❞….

      A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
      cs.
      ➤➤
      ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsMedia/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

    • kathyjsimmons786

      ❝my neighbor’s stride mother is making 98$ HOURLY on the internet❞….

      A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
      vs…
      ➤➤
      ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsJobs/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

    • selenaflocke

      ❝my neighbor’s stride mother is making 98$ HOURLY on the internet❞….

      A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
      ds….
      ➤➤
      ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsMedia/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

    • virginiacmason

      ❝my neighbor’s stride mother is making 98$ HOURLY on the internet❞….

      A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
      6yxj……..
      ➤➤
      ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsLight/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

    • elizabetmhudsn

      ❝my neighbor’s stride mother is making 98$ HOURLY on the internet❞….

      A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn More right Here
      6owj……
      ➤➤
      ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsMeta/GetPaid/98$hourly❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

  • Chemist

    The kicker is Goldman Sachs had a hand in the ouster of Tony Abbot: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-26/did-goldman-sachs-sacrifice-australias-prime-minister-his-doubts-about-global-warmin. Focusing on Abbot’s views on “climate change.” They are at the root of so many evils…

  • Will Haas

    The problem is that there are gaping holes in the AGW conjecture. It is based on only partial science. Consider the following:

    The climate change that we are experiencing is typical of the Holocene for the past 10,000 years. Models have been generated that show that climate change is caused by the sun and the oceans and hence Mankind does not have the power to change it. We are in an intergalcial period and are currently warming up from the Little Ice Age much as we warmed up from the Dark Ages Cooling Period more than a thousand years ago. There is nothing unusual about it to indicate that Man might be the cause.

    Despite all the cliams, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no evidence that this additional CO2 causes any more warming. If additional greenhouse gases caused additional warming then the primary culprit would have to be H2O which depends upon the warming of just the surfaces of bodies of water and not their volume but such is not part of the AGW conjecture. In other words CO2 increases in the atmosphere as huge volumes of water increase in temperature but more H2O enters the atmopshere as just the surface of bodies of water warm. We live in a water world where the majoriety of the Earth’s surface is some form of water.

    The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O, which averages around 2%, is the primary greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.

    Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total, H2O provides negative feedback’s which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller then the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effects.

    The entire so called, “greenhouse” effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon is at best very questionable. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.

    The AGW conjecture talks about CO2 absorbing IR photons and then re radiating them out in all directions. According to this, then CO2 does not retain any of the IR heat energy it absorbs so it cannot be heat trapping. What the AGW conjecture fails to mention is that typically between the time of absorption and radiation that the same CO2 molecule, in the lower troposphere, undergoes roughly a billion physical interactions with other molecules, sharing heat related energy with each interaction. Heat transfer by conduction and convection dominates over heat transfer by LWIR absorption band radiation in the troposphere which further renders CO2’s radiant greenhouse effect as a piece of fiction. Above the troposphere more CO2 enhances the efficiency of LWIR absorption band radiation to space so more CO2 must have a cooling effect.

    This is all a matter of science

    • Dorian

      I and many other people have stated the same facts and science as you so eloquently have stated here in your comment, Will Haas. However these facts, science, and truths can be stated all you like, but nothing will change. Everybody has to start understanding this whole issue is NOT about whether or not AGW is factual, this whole troubling discourse is all about crime, White-Collar crime. The trouble is that nobody in the Scientific Community dares to start accusing their brethren of fraud because of the implications that every one in Science will then face, that is, they will lose their shield of protection, tenure, that antiquated thing that belonged in the 19th century but has no place now with the Internet. Shield laws, or job protection only protects the apathetic, liars and criminals. Science has been corrupted by all the lies and the falsehoods that are occurring in published scientific papers and thesis’s, and all too just find a a hard to find juicy job or for much sought after money. Furthermore, if the policing of Science is begun, is not then too much of a long stretch of the imagine to then start looking at other areas of endeavour, such as Economics, and dare I say it, Politics (and how about Jurisprudence!).

      I personally can bare witness to this corruption, in having refereed so many papers that are so bad that the lies and outright deceptions committed in scientific and engineering papers is tantamount to out right fraud. I can further state, that I know many people in the broad engineering/scientific community that collude through quid-pro-quo relationships all to enhance their scientific stock via citing each other’s totally unrelated papers and supporting each other’s grant applications. Why doesn’t anybody check how the grant money is allocated? That is, cross reference referees of grant applications with their citations in papers that are given by those who are applying for grants. There are many so ridiculous relationships, but nobody does anything to stop this defrauding.

      In short, the time for debate about AGW is over. Has been over from day one. It is time for debate on how to clean up Science. Science is corrupted by criminals masquerading around with Ph.Ds and Professorships all to attract money through lies and deception, and those who aid and abet them all with the promise of a position or money. White-collar crime is the issue here. Until we start prosecuting and jailing White-Collars as we do Blue-Collars, nothing will change.

      Will Haas, I appreciate your input, but with all due sincere respect, you miss the mark. We are talking about a criminal enterprise, it is time, to prosecute the criminals, put them in jail, and strip them of their degrees!

      • Will Haas

        From my experience getting papers published, peer review can be quite political and does not insure that what is published is correct. I believe that I have adequate education and professional experience to discuss the science but I do not have the professional expertise to discuss the politics. I can only assume that ones ignoring the holes in the AGW conjecture comes from a lack of knowledge. At first the AGW conjecture seems to be quite plausible but then falls apart under closer examination. To me, quoting the idea of ‘scientific consensus” as a reason to accept the AGW conjecture means that there must be something very seriously wrong with it. I am sure that there are some that are pushing AGW for what some believe are sinister reasons but many is because AGW is what they were taught and they do not possess the expertise to investigate it further. I believe that there are many good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them. The climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans and Mankind does not have the power to change it.

  • brew_it

    This is all true.