bill shorten and his allies, the greens economic vandals, believe climate change is a moral issue. so is telling the truth. with his elite private school education, the oppo­s­i­tion leader would have learned about the roman warming, the dark ages, the medieval warming and the little ice age. these took place before industrialisation and were all driven by changes in the sun. he would have learned that ­natural warm times, like now, bring great prosperity, increased longevity and less disease, whereas jack frost brings death, depopulation and economic stresses. in biology, the labor leader would have learned of darwinism and environmental adapta­tion of species. humans live on ice and in the hills, valleys, tropics and des­erts, at altitude and on coastal plains. like countless other organ­isms, we move and adapt when the environment changes. species thrive when it is warm. read next qanda wrap should olympic athletes be vaccinated first? joseph lam from his education at a relig­ious school, he would have learned about the apostle thomas. one of the strengths of our western civilisation is doubt and scepticism. surely shorten does not believe the catastrophism promoted by green activists and self-interested alleged experts at the expense of the nation. if he does, he is unelectable. if he is knowingly promoting a falsehood, he is unelectable. critical thinking was fundamental to our culture and should be embraced in policy formulation. in school science, shorten would have learned carbon dioxide is the food of life and without this natural gas, which occurs in space and all planets, there would be no life. he also would understand from his maths lessons that when 3 per cent of total annual global emissions of carbon dioxide are from humans and australia prod­uces 1.3 per cent of this 3 per cent, then no amount of emissions reductio­n here will have any effect on global climate. a quick search would show him that whenever in the past there was an explosion of plant life, the carbon dioxide content was far higher than at present. if we halve the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, all life dies. shorten should know that for thousands of millions of years the earth has been changing, with cycles­ and one-off events such as an asteroid impact, super-volcano or a supernova explosion. he should know that climate always changes and that the planet would be in serious trouble if it did not. there are cycles of air, water, rocks and continents. there are measurable cycles with the sun, earth’s orbit, oceans and moon that drive climate change, especially if cycles coincide. it has yet to be demonstrated that the climate change today is any different from those of the past. despite hundreds of billions of dollars of expenditure during the past few decades, it still has not been shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive ­global warming. yet wind and solar industrial complexes pepper the landscape allegedly to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. they run on subsidies, not the wind or the sun. wind and solar are transfering money from the poor to the rich, not saving the environment. these subsidies, paid by the long-suffering consumer and employer, add to emissions because coal-fired elec­tricity needs to be on standby for when there is no wind or sunshine. the amount of energy used to construct solar and wind facilities is greater than they produce in their working lives. the amount of carbon dioxide released during construction and maintenance is far more than is saved. renew­ables such as wind turbines are environmentally disastrous because they pollute a huge land area, slice and dice birds and bats, kill insects that are bird food, create health problems for humans who live within kilometres of them, leave toxins around the turbine site and despoil the landscape. union superannuation funds have invested massively in renewable energy. labor’s promise of 50 per cent renewables will cost electricity consumers hundreds of billions but will benefit the unions. as soon as renewables were introduced into the grid, electric­ity prices increased and delivery became unreliable. increased elec­tric­ity costs have created unemployment, and many pensioners and the poor cannot afford electricity. an increase in renewables will make matters worse. does shorten’s energy policy consider those who lose jobs and have the power cut off in his race to achieve 50 per cent renewables to fill the pockets of labor union mates? and what about the scams siphoning off tens of billions that slosh around the world as carbon credits, carbon trading and renewable energy certificates? rather than take this money from the poor via higher electricity prices, it would be better spent at home. to smugly claim that valid questions about energy costs are dumb or deceitful is a loud warning bell. shorten refuses to tell us how he will spend our money or to give any detail on energy ­systems that are proven failures. it is our money and, if he will not give us the financial details, we should be very scared of his shiftiness. i have never written a blank cheque for a used car. why should i now?
the truth of climate change is revealed at school