“Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.” – Top Google engineers
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” – Bertrand Russel
“IF this had have been a transmission line connecting a coal power station, these far left brainwashed climate change believing nutters, would have been there in their thousands.”
– John Clarkson
IN the latest example of ‘Green’ eco-hypocrisy, 200 year-old rainforest trees have been cleared to make way for wind ‘farm’ transmission lines in Tasmania’s Tarkine.
THE obvious question is a simple one: Where are the @Greens or @Greenpeace or @GretaThunberg when pristine landscapes and old-growth rainforests are being destroyed to satisfy the whims and superstitions of Global Warming Climate Change catastrophists and EU elites?
MATTHEW DENHOLM exposes the latest eco-hypocrisy that seems to haunt consistently the globalist climate change do-gooders…
*
Old-growth trees cut down for windfarm transmission corridor
Rainforest trees 200 years old have been cleared to make way for a wind farm transmission line in Tasmania’s Tarkine, prompting claims of green “hypocrisy”.
Myrtle and sassafras trees were among those felled along a 10.5km corridor widened for transmission lines associated with the $280 million, 112 megawatt wind farm at Granville Harbour, in Tasmania’s remote northwest.
Special species timber advocate Andrew Denman, who discovered the felled trees, said it raised concerns about environmental impacts, wastage of high-value timber and wind power’s “green” credentials.
He estimated that some of the felled trees, highly valued in specialty timber production, were 200 years old, given they typically grow at 0.3cm a year and were 60cm in diameter.
With more wind farms planned for Tasmania, including another in the northwest requiring a 170km transmission line, he believed any further clearing, if it must occur, should be co-ordinated to ensure timber was not wasted. “With much of the special timbers in short supply … there could have been a more co-ordinated effort in utilising it to make sure that timber was going to a sawmiller in a timely manner so it could be processed and not wasted,” said Mr Denman, a boatbuilder.
While not critical of the wind farm proponent, whom he did not doubt had complied with regulatory requirements, he understood clearing for electricity infrastructure was exempt from the Forest Practices Code, which seeks to mitigate impacts on keys species.
He believed it was hypocritical of the Greens to oppose “sustainable” harvesting of rainforest timbers while backing the Granville Harbour wind farm and, by implication, associated logging of such trees. “An old-growth tree is an old-growth tree,” Mr Denman said. “Why is it acceptable to cut it down for a transmission line but not acceptable to cut it down sustainably and regenerate that area and put it to good use?”
A Greens spokeswoman said while the party was a “strong supporter of renewable energy”, it “consistently opposed logging or clearing within reserves”.
The wind farm’s website says the transmission line, providing power to the grid at the Reece Dam, was being handled by state-owned TasNetworks.
A spokeswoman for project developer Granville Harbour Operations said it required all works to comply with approvals. “These impose clear procedures and requirements on us and our contractors to mitigate and manage environmental impacts, including impacts to native vegetation,” she said.
TasNetworks said its widening of an existing transmission corridor was “considered optimal”. “It reduced the extent of clearing required to connect the wind farm to the electricity distribution network,” a spokesman said.
Matthew Denholm is a multi-award winning journalist with 25 years’ experience. For the past decade, he has been Tasmania correspondent for The Australian, and has previously worked for a variety of newspaper an… Read more
WHEN will the CSIRO, Australia’s premier ‘scientific’ body retract their 2001 “no snow by 2020” prediction?
SNOWFALL will become “A very rare and exciting event… Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Dr David Viner – Senior scientist, climatic research unit (CRU)
“Good bye winter. Never again snow?” Spiegel (2000)
“Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” IPCC (2001)
“End of Snow?” NYTimes (2014)
“Good bye winter. Never again snow?” Spiegel (2000)
“We must face up to the fact that if our societies are not prepared to make changes to their greenhouse gas emissions and the pumping of massive quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, then in a worst case scenario, we won’t even get to 2020 with a viable snow sports industry in this country.“ – Andrew Fairley, head of the Alpine Resorts Co-ordinating Council.
***
REAL science has provided humanity with an unequivocal advantage over the ravages of nature’s most potent enemies – weather, climate and the A-Z of viral and bacterial intrusions.
IT has achieved this through a simple yet rigorous process known as the scientific method. The goal, to prove a hypothesis wrong, not right.
IF all tests and computations of empirical evidence cannot be falsified, then the hypothesis stands until such other evidence disproves the finding.
“97% CONSENSUS” U.N. climate ‘science’ fails the ‘scientific method’ time and time again.
A classic example of this failure of scientific rigour and the unwillingness to disprove a hypothesis is in the arena of snow.
GLOBALLY, winter and spring snow levels have risen significantly since records began in the late 70’s, according to, accredited, Rutgers University data. With a significant rise in snowpack recorded over the past decade – the years we are constantly told are “the hottest ever”.
THE big question still remains: Is Australia’s premier science body, the CSIRO, and the Ski industry willing to retract their 2002 “no snow by 2020” prediction?
HERE’s some recent ‘global’ evidence that these “experts” should consider…
Deep winter conditions on Rogla, Pohorje mountains, north Slovenia today, May 15th. 1500 m elevation. Report: Aleš Rozman / @NeurjeSipic.twitter.com/klzjpju4qR
— severe-weather.EU (@severeweatherEU) May 15, 2019
Mt Stirling has turned into a stunning Winter wonderland! There is so much snow that the Resort will be opening early this season commencing this Saturday! Make plans! 😍❄
— SNOWSEARCH australia (@SNOWSEARCH_aus) May 29, 2019
Still some pretty impressive amounts of snow on Campo Imperatore, Abruzzo, central Italy today, May 18th! Video: Meteo Aquilano pic.twitter.com/K6h8987Nbq
— severe-weather.EU (@severeweatherEU) May 18, 2019
Thick snow depth in Engelberg, Switzerland (1013m ASL) yesterday, May 5th. Report: Jure Tomas pic.twitter.com/j8dtRBDtIj
— severe-weather.EU (@severeweatherEU) May 6, 2019
Memorial Day weekend coming to New Mexico in three days. Time to bust out the skis and enjoy the summer heat. pic.twitter.com/Ome6paVfdg
Germany's Zuspitze Mountain peak reaches 6 METERS OF SNOW on May 23, 2019: HIGHEST MAY LEVEL IN 20 YEARS! Rekord-Schneehöhe im Mai: Zugspitze knackt Sechs-Meter-Marke | https://t.co/pLUEUCh9ZV via @BR24
❄️ “Good bye winter. Never again snow?” Spiegel (2000) ❄️ SNOW will become “A very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” – Dr. Viner (2000) ❄️ “…decrease heavy snowstorms” IPCC (2001) ❄️ “End of Snow?” NYTimes (2014) https://t.co/4JMb54iv6xhttps://t.co/qIIb6pQTEm
WHAT THE ‘EXPERTS’ : CSIRO, CRU, IPCC et al. ASSURED YOU ABOUT SNOW
IN 2000, climate expert Dr David Viner of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) assured us that :
Snowfall will become “A very rare and exciting event… Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” Dr David Viner – Senior scientist, climatic research unit (CRU)
IN 2001, the UN IPCC predicted diminished snowfalls as human CO2 increased, claiming that “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” due to the activities of mankindpersonkind…
“Snow has become so rare that when it does fall – often just for a few hours – everything grinds to a halt. In early 2003 a ‘mighty’ five-centimetre snowfall in southeast England caused such severe traffic jams that many motorists had to stay in their cars overnight. Today’s kids are missing out . . . Many of these changes are already underway, but have been accelerating over the last two decades. Termites have already moved into southern England. Garden centres are beginning to stock exotic sub-tropical species, which only a few years ago would have been killed off by winter…” – Mark Lynas
Winter is no longer the great grey longing of my childhood. The freezes this country suffered in 1982 and 1963 are – unless the Gulf Stream stops – unlikely to recur. Our summers will be long and warm. Across most of the upper northern hemisphere, climate change, so far, has been kind to us…
2006 : Daniela Jacob of Max Planck Institute for Meterology, Hamburg …
“Yesterday’s snow… Because temperatures in the Alps are rising quickly, there will be more precipitation in many places. But because it will rain more often than it snows, this will be bad news for tourists. For many ski lifts this means the end of business.”
2006 : The Independent‘s somber editorial admonished us that the lack of snow was evidence of a “dangerous seasonal disorder”…
The countryside is looking rather peculiar this winter. It seems we have a number of unexpected guests for Christmas. Dragonflies, bumblebees and red admiral butterflies, which would normally be killed off by the frost, can still be seen in some parts of the country . . . Some might be tempted to welcome this late blossoming of the natural world as a delightful diversion from the bleakness of this time of year. But these fluctuations should be cause for concern because it is overwhelmingly likely that they are a consequence of global warming . . . all this is also evidence that global warming is occurring at a faster rate than many imagined…
“Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters” … “Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change.”
2007 : Western Mail (Wales Online) … article, entititled “Snowless Winters Forecast for Wales as World Warms Up” quotes one of the global warming movement’s key figures, Sir John Houghton, former head of the IPCC and former head of the UK Met Office…
Former head of the Met Office Sir John Houghton, who is one of the UK’s leading authorities on climate change, said all the indicators suggest snowy winters will become increasingly rare He said, “Snowlines are going up in altitude all over the world. The idea that we will get less snow is absolutely in line with what we expect from global warming.”
A study of snowfall spanning 60 years has indicated that the Alps’s entire winter sports industry could grind to a halt through lack of snow…. In some years the amount that fell was 60 per cent lower than was typical in the early 1980s, said Christoph Marty, from the Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research in Davos, who analysed the records. ”I don’t believe we will see the kind of snow conditions we have experienced in past decades,” he said.
2014: the global warming theory-obsessed New York Times touted “The End of Snow?”…
“The truth is, it is too late for all of that. Greening the ski industry is commendable, but it isn’t nearly enough. Nothing besides a national policy shift on how we create and consume energy will keep our mountains white in the winter — and slow global warming to a safe level.
This is no longer a scientific debate. It is scientific fact. The greatest fear of most climate scientists is continued complacency that leads to a series of natural climatic feedbacks…”
Australia’s ski resorts face the prospect of a long downhill run as a warming climate reduces snow depth, cover and duration. The industry’s ability to create artificial snow will also be challenged, scientists say.
“For the first time, they realised that their attention should be directed to a common enemy,” says Andrew Fairley, head of the Alpine Resorts Co-ordinating Council, which advises the State Government and oversees the management of Victoria’s six snow resorts. “And that enemy is climate change.”
Like those who rely on the Great Barrier Reef, the Australian ski industry sees itself as a frontline victim of global warming. A 2003 CSIRO report, part-funded by the ski industry, found that the resorts could lose a quarter of their snow in 15 years, and half by 2050. The worst case was a 96 per cent loss of snow by mid-century.
CSIRO – Simulations of future snow conditions in the Australian alpine regions
Conclusion:
The low impact scenario for 2020 has a minor impact on snow conditions. Average season lengths are reduced by around five days. Reductions in peak depths are usually less than 10%, but can be larger at lower sites (e.g. Mt Baw Baw and Wellington High Plains).
The high impact scenario for 2020 leads to reductions of 30-40 days in average season lengths. At higher sites such as Mt Hotham, this can represent reductions in season duration of about 25%, but at lower sites such as Mt Baw Baw the reduction can be more significant (up to 60%)…
We have very high confidence (at least 95%) that the low impact scenarios will be exceeded and the high impact scenarios will not be exceeded.
NOW, of course, climate ‘scientists’ are trying to dig themselves out of snow that’s kept falling…
Looking back at 65 years’ worth of statistics, Environment Canada’s senior climatologist David Phillips noted that since 1948, winter temperatures in the prairie regions have increased by an average of four degrees Celsius… Ironically, warmer weather can mean greater snowfall. “As we warm up, we may see more moisture, we may see more moist air masses, and therefore we could very well see more snow rather than less snow, because the air masses are going to be more moist and so therefore you’re going to be able to wring out more snow than you would be if it was dry air,” Phillips said.
*
CONCLUSION
LISTEN to what the ‘experts’ promised you back then. Because, if they got it wrong then, how can you trust what they are foretelling today or tomorrow? The answer is you cannot, because they have no idea what long-range conditions Mother Nature is going to serve up in such a “chaotic” and complex system as our climate.
AND, most importantly, does the CSIRO and “97% of all climate experts” still stand by their “end of snow” predictions? Or is their alarmist sophistry simply more global warming climate change fear-mongering based on CO2-centric ideology, eco-religious dogma and overheated UN IPCC and CSIRO climate computer models that do not accord with observed reality?
Australian voters just shredded the notion that the proletariat is wedded to heavily subsidised and chaotically intermittent wind and solar.
Labor’s Bill Shorten sought to ram a 50% Renewable Energy Target down voter’s throats; a concept which the vast majority of them duly rejected.
Sure, there were plenty of other issues that sank the Green/Labor Alliance. However, it should be remembered that 2019 was billed as the ‘Climate Change Election’, with wind and solar pitched up as the only panacea to what has now become a ‘climate emergency’.
Pundits professed, with great certitude, the notion that the Australian public just can’t get enough intermittent, unreliable and unaffordable electricity. Well, that didn’t quite pan out. Bill Shorten slunk off the political stage, a wounded and embittered hero of renewable energy zealots and rent seekers, alike.
Another part of the meme was that the markets had already turned their back on fossil…
‘Man-made’ Climate Change = Global Socialism / Communism
“The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man.” – Club of Rome,
(environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations)
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.“
– TimothyWirth,
(President of the UN Foundation)
***
“They don’t have to worry about CO2 because it is not a pollutant and is not causing climate change. No significant environmental problems are threatening the world. All the stories about impending environmental doom are fictions deliberately created to make people surrender control to the government. It is time to break the emotional stranglehold of those who used the environment to create global socialism.”
Dr. Tim Ball, in a must read piece, unveils the cloak behind the ‘man-made’ Global Warming Climate Change hoax that has absolutely nothing to do with the “environment” or “Saving The Planet”, rather, everything to do with power, control and “World government”…
We now know 50 years later that every single prediction concerning the environmental demise of the Earth and the people made in the original Earth Day Report was wrong. We also know that every additional claim, such as overpopulation, global warming, sea level rise, desertification, deforestation, and sea ice collapse, among many others, were wrong. I challenge anyone to produce empirical evidence that proves anything happening today is outside any long-term record of natural activity.
Like the majority of people, Elaine Dewar assumed environmentalists were commendable even heroic people. She began research for a book singing their praises. It didn’t take long to learn the basic premise was wrong. Following the traditional and proper methodology, rarely seen these days, Dewar identified the duplicitous characters involved in the Canadian environmental movement and laid them out in her book Cloak of Green. She spent five days at the UN with Canadian Maurice Strong arguably the world architect of official environmentalism. He was praised excessively, as in this article, “The World Mourns One of its Greats: Maurice Strong Dies, His Legacy Lives On.” Another article recognized the evil he personified, “Who is Global Warming Propagandist Maurice Strong?” After the five days, Dewar concluded,
“Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.”
The environmental movement as the basis for a socialist world government was in the minds of people like Strong and fellow members of the Club of Rome in the late 1960s. However, it was launched on the world on April 22, 1970, by a small group centered at Stanford University. The date is critical because it was the first Earth Day. It is also very important to know the choice was deliberate because it is the birthday of Vladimir Lenin. The environmental movement was a deliberate program to impose communism on the world.
The underlying theme of the environmental movement makes the following false assumptions.
That almost all change is a result of human activity. The UN claim, using computer models, that 95%+ of temperature increase since 1950 is due to human-produced CO2. This works because they don’t consider most natural causes.
That humans are unnatural. The 1990 “Greenpeace Report on Global Warming” says CO2 is added to the atmosphere “naturally and unnaturally.”Yes, that unnatural production is from humans.
That we are not part of nature. Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) comment explains.
“Mankind is a cancer; we’re the biggest blight on the face of the earth.” “If you haven’t given voluntary human extinction much thought before, the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But, if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”
That we should be eliminated or dramatically reduced in number. In May 2015, the Pope produced Laudate Si an Encyclical about his view of the state of the Earth. It is a socialist diatribe, but that is not surprising since the main contributor was Hans Schellnhuber, a pantheist. This group believes the world population should be below 1 billion people.
That if the western world reduces levels of CO2 production, the rest of the world will follow. China has 2,363 coal plants and is constructing 1,171 more. The US has 15 and is not constructing any.
The US can build as many clean-burning coal plants as they want and burn coal pollution free. They don’t have to worry about CO2 because it is not a pollutant and is not causing climate change. No significant environmental problems are threatening the world. All the stories about impending environmental doom are fictions deliberately created to make people surrender control to the government. It is time to break the emotional stranglehold of those who used the environment to create global socialism.
THE disgraceful use of children as “climate leaders” and tools of climate change propaganda, summed up by the excellent Brendon O’Neill, on his coverage of 16 year-old Greta Thunberg…
“Young people, Ms Thunberg isn’t your leader. She’s a patsy for scared and elitist adults. Don’t do as she says. Instead, refuse to panic, mock the blather about hellfire, and appreciate that mankind’s transformation of the planet has been a glorious thing that has expanded life expectancy, allowed billions to live in cities, and made it possible for even the less well-off to travel the globe.” The cult of Greta Thunberg – spiked
NOW, extend those same sentiments to “3-year old” babies … !
WE really are living in the age of climate change aka global warming insanity and wilful child abuse…
It was bad enough listening to a 16-year old lecturing us on climate change, but now they are even indulging babies!
Around 20 home-educated youngsters from across the county, aged between three and eight years old, presented handwritten letters to City Hall councillors to express their concerns on climate change,
Mum Toyah Dye, 38, from East Runton, said the children were inspired by the recent demonstrations of the environmental movement Extinction Rebellion and also of David Attenborough’s Our Planet, which highlighted the effects of climate change in the natural world.
Ms Dye said the children were particularly struck by a scene in the series which showed walruses in Russia climbing and falling from a cliff due to the retreating sea ice.
“I was watching Our Planet with my children and the walruses made us really sad,” Ms Dye said. “So I asked my…
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
– H.L. Mencken
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” – Bertrand Russel
***
DAY by day, all around the globe, Global Warming Climate Change is being exposed as simply a moral issue for the wealthy urban elite.
BLUE collar workers and the silent majority are not buying into the relentless fear-mongering and warming hysteria driven by climate theory-obsessed politicians, propped up by a compliant mainstream media.
THE incessant propaganda and orchestrated alarmism has lead to the mad rush into costly UNreliables – wind and solar ‘energy’ – that are sending energy prices through the roof and jobs and industry to China or other countries who have not been driven to ‘green’ energy poverty by climate theory-obsessed politicians pushing draconian “Save The Planet” policies.
CAMPAIGNING on climate guarantees political death. Its latest victim, Bill Shorten, The Australian Labor Party and the Greens, who, last night, lost the “unlosable” election to incumbent conservative PM Scott Morrison.
CLIMATE CHANGE, CENTRAL TO THE ELECTION
THE mainstream media flagged “Climate change to be decisive issue in Australian election.” :
GLOBAL REJECTION OF DRACONIAN CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY & ‘GREEN’ ENERGY POVERTY
ALL around the globe, voters are increasingly showing their displeasure with costly unreliable-energy policies imposed by politicians in an inane effort to fight the purported “climate catastrophe”.
IN France in late 2018, protesters donning yellow vests took to the streets—and have stayed there ever since—in large part to protest scheduled increases in fuel taxes, electricity prices, and stricter vehicle emissions controls, which French President Emmanuel Macron claimed were necessary to meet the country’s greenhouse gas reduction commitments under the Paris climate agreement. After the first four weeks of protest, Macron’s government cancelled his climate action plan.
Ford Nation – Scrap The Carbon Tax Scam – Election Victory
IN 2018, in part as a backlash against Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s climate policies, global warming skeptic Doug Ford was elected as premier of Ontario, Canada’s most populous province. Ford announced he would end energy taxes imposed by Ontario’s previous premier and would join Saskatchewan’s premier in a legal fight against Trudeau’s federal carbon dioxide tax.
IN Alberta, Canada, where the economy declined after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s climate policies took hold, voters on April 16 replaced Premier Rachel Notley and her New Democratic Party (NDP), which supports the federal climate policies, with the United Conservative Party, headed by newly elected Premier Jason Kenney, who vowed to scrap the province’s carbon tax and every other policy in NDP’s climate action plan. Among the other climate policies Kenny said he will reverse in an effort to revive the economy are NDP’s plans to accelerate the closure of the province’s coal power plants, and its plan to cap greenhouse gas emissions from the region’s oil sands. In addition, Kenny says he will challenge the federal government’s climate impositions in court and streamline regulations hampering Alberta’s critical oil and gas industry, including restrictions preventing pipeline construction imposed by NDP.
*
NETHERLANDS – Forum for Democracy (FvD)
The naked populist: Thierry Baudet stuns the Netherlands | eNCA – said the government should stop funding programs to meet the country’s commitments to international climate change agreements, saying such efforts are driven by “climate-change hysteria.”
In mid-March, the Forum for Democracy (FvD), a fledgling political party just three years old, tied for the largest number of seats, 12, in the divided Dutch Senate in the 2019 elections. FvD takes a decidedly skeptical stance on climate change. On the campaign trail, Thierry Baudet, FvD’s leader, said the government should stop funding programs to meet the country’s commitments to international climate change agreements, saying such efforts are driven by “climate-change hysteria.”
*
FINLAND – Finns Party
FINLAND : Finns Party
On April 14 in Finland, where climate change policies became the dominant issue in the election, support for climate skepticism surged. Whereas all the other parties proposed plans to raise energy prices and limit people’s energy use, the Finns Party, which made the fight against expensive climate policies the central part of its platform, gained the second-highest number of seats in the Parliament, just one seat behind the Social Democratic Party’s 40. The second-place finish was a big win for the Finns Party and its skeptical stance: just two months before the election, polls showed its support was below 10 percent.After the Finns Party made battling alarmist climate policies its main goal, its popularity soared. The New York Times credited the Finns Party’s electoral surge, in large part, to its expressed climate skepticism.
EVEN as daily headlines in the fake news / lamestream media become ever shriller, hyping climate fears based on projections made by unverified climate models, the public, especially the voting public, is becoming increasingly weary of the Chicken Little claims of impending climate doom. Voters in developed countries are saying “enough is enough” to high energy prices which punish the most vulnerable people in society and do nothing to regulate climate change.
TAKE NOTE, politicians and business groups – climate change alarmism, political correctness, class warfare and identity politics are the politics of division and are electoral and commercial poison.
Greens dream of a zero-emissions world without coal, oil and natural gas. They need to think what they wish for.
First there would be no mass production of steel without coke from coking coal to remove oxygen from iron ore. People could cut trees in forests for charcoal to produce pig iron and crude steels, but forests would soon be exhausted. Coal saved the forests from this fate.
We could produce gold and silver without using mineral hydro-carbons and with ingenuity we could probably produce unrefined copper, lead and tin and alloys like brass and bronze. But making large quantities of nuclear fuels, cement, aluminium, refined metals, plastics, nylons, synthetics, petro-chemicals and poly pipes would be impossible.
Making wind turbines and solar panels would also be impossible without fossil fuels.A wind turbine needs lots of steel plus concrete, carbon fibre and glass polymers as well as many other refined metals – copper, aluminium, rare earths, zinc and molybdenum. Solar panels and batteries need high-purity ingredients – silicon, lead, lithium, nickel, cadmium, zinc, silver, manganese and graphite – all hard to make in backyard charcoal-fired furnaces. Transporting, erecting and maintaining wind and solar farms plus their roads and transmission lines needs many pieces of diesel-powered machinery.
Every machine on earth needs hydro-carbons for engine oil, gear oil, transmission oil, brake fluid, hydraulic oil and grease. We could of course use oils from, seals, beeswax and whales for lubrication – the discovery of petroleum saved the whales from this fate.
Roads would be a challenge without oil-based bitumen. The Romans made pretty good roads out of cobble-stones (this would ease unemployment). But hard labour would not sit well with aging baby-boomers or electronic-era Millenniums.
Cars, railways, motor launches, aeroplanes, I-Phones, TV and cat-scans would be out. Horses, oxen, sulkies, wooden rowing boats, sailing ships, herbal medicine and semaphore would have a huge revival. Some wood-burning steam tractors may still work and wood-gas generators may replace petrol in some old cars.
This is the return to the “zero-emissions” world that Green extremists have planned for us.
But modern life cannot not be supported by a pre-coal/oil economy. Without reliable electricity and diesel-powered farm machinery and transport trucks, cities are un-sustainable. In Green-topia 90% of us people will need to go.
“REMEMBER when we paved the world with electronic waste
that chopped eagles and condors and made bats extinct because we thought wind was natural and uranium evil? – man that was a dark age!” – Michael Shellenberger
***
ONE of the great falsehoods and dangerous myths pushed by reckless global warming climate change zealots and the mainstream media is that ‘renewable energy’ – wind and solar – is “clean, green and renewable”.
‘RENEWABLES’ are neither “clean, green, or renewable”. In fact, they are pure embodiments of fossil fuel technology, with oil and “dirty” coal derivatives required for :
Wind turbines in Penonome, Panama. (Credit: Associated Press)
Solar panels and wind turbines are making electricity significantly more expensive, a major new study by a team of economists from the University of Chicago finds.
Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) “significantly increase average retail electricity prices, with prices increasing by 11% (1.3 cents per kWh) seven years after the policy’s passage into law and 17% (2 cents per kWh) twelve years afterward,” the economists write.
The study, which has yet to go through peer-review, was done by Michael Greenstone, Richard McDowell, and Ishan Nath. It compared states with and without an RPS. It did so using what the economists say is “the most comprehensive state-level dataset ever compiled” which covered 1990 to 2015.
The cost to consumers has been staggeringly high: “All in all, seven years after passage, consumers in the 29 states had paid $125.2 billion more for electricity than they would have in the absence of the policy,” they write.
Solar and wind require that natural gas plants, hydro-electric dams, batteries or some other form of reliable power be ready at a moment’s notice to start churning out electricity when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining, I noted.
And unreliability requires solar- and/or wind-heavy places like Germany, California, and Denmark to pay neighboring nations or states to take their solar and wind energy when they are producing too much of it.
My reporting was criticized — sort of — by those who claimed I hadn’t separated correlation from causation, but the new study by a top-notch team of economists, including an advisor to Barack Obama, proves I was right.
Previous studies were misleading, the economists note, because they didn’t “incorporate three key costs,” which are the unreliability of renewables, the large amounts of land they require, and the displacement of cheaper “baseload” energy sources like nuclear plants.
The higher cost of electricity reflects “the costs that renewables impose on the generation system,” the economists note, “including those associated with their intermittency, higher transmission costs, and any stranded asset costs assigned to ratepayers.”
But are renewables cost-effective climate policy? They are not. The economists write that “the cost per metric ton of CO2 abated exceeds $130 in all specifications and ranges up to $460, making it at least several times larger than conventional estimates of the social cost of carbon.”
The economists note that the Obama Administration’s core estimate of the social cost of carbon was $50 per ton in 2019 dollars, while the price of carbon is just $5 in the US northeast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), and $15 in California’s cap-and-trade system.
I am a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,” Green Book Award Winner, and President of Environmental Progress, a research and policy organization. My writings have ap…
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” – Bertrand Russel
***
DON’T expect to see this ‘good’ environmental news on the mainstream media anytime soon.
WHEN you’re in the business of demonising carbon dioxide and frightening the Thunberg’s kiddies for political and ideological ends, such good news comes as a rather unwelcome message!
The world is literally a greener place than it was twenty years ago, and data from NASA satellites has revealed a counterintuitive source for much of this new foliage. A new study shows that China and India—the world’s most populous countries—are leading the increase in greening on land. The effect comes mostly from ambitious tree-planting programs in China and intensive agriculture in both countries.
Ranga Myneni of Boston University and colleagues first detected the greening phenomenon in satellite data from the mid-1990s, but they did not know whether human activity was a chief cause. They then set out to track the total amount of Earth’s land area covered by vegetation and how it changed over time.
The research team found that global green leaf area has increased by 5 percent since the early 2000s, an area equivalent to all of the Amazon rainforests. At least 25 percent of that gain came in China. Overall, one-third of Earth’s vegetated lands are greening, while 5 percent are growing browner. The study was published on February 11, 2019, in the journal Nature Sustainability.
The maps on this page show the increase or decrease in green vegetation—measured in average leaf area per year—in different regions of the world between 2000 and 2017. Note that the maps are not measuring the overall greenness, which explains why the Amazon and eastern North America do not stand out, among other forested areas.
“China and India account for one-third of the greening, but contain only 9 percent of the planet’s land area covered in vegetation,” said lead author Chi Chen of Boston University. “That is a surprising finding, considering the general notion of land degradation in populous countries from overexploitation.”
globalgreening_tamo_2017
This study was made possible thanks to a two-decade-long data record from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instruments on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites. An advantage of MODIS is the intensive coverage they provide in space and time: the sensors have captured up to four shots of nearly every place on Earth, every day, for the past 20 years.
“This long-term data lets us dig deeper,” said Rama Nemani, a research scientist at NASA’s Ames Research Center and a co-author of the study. “When the greening of the Earth was first observed, we thought it was due to a warmer, wetter climate and fertilization from the added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Now with the MODIS data, we see that humans are also contributing.”
China’s outsized contribution to the global greening trend comes in large part from its programs to conserve and expand forests (about 42 percent of the greening contribution). These programs were developed in an effort to reduce the effects of soil erosion, air pollution, and climate change.
Another 32 percent of the greening change in China, and 82 percent in India, comes from intensive cultivation of food crops. The land area used to grow crops in China and India has not changed much since the early 2000s. Yet both countries have greatly increased both their annual total green leaf area and their food production in order to feed their large populations. The agricultural greening was achieved through multiple cropping practices, whereby a field is replanted to produce another harvest several times a year. Production of grains, vegetables, fruits and more have increased by 35 to 40 percent since 2000.
countrieschart_tamo_2017
How the greening trend may change in the future depends on numerous factors. For example, increased food production in India is facilitated by groundwater irrigation. If the groundwater is depleted, this trend may change. The researchers also pointed out that the gain in greenness around the world does not necessarily offset the loss of natural vegetation in tropical regions such as Brazil and Indonesia. There are consequences for sustainability and biodiversity in those ecosystems beyond the simple greenness of the landscape.
Nemani sees a positive message in the new findings. “Once people realize there is a problem, they tend to fix it,” he said. “In the 1970s and 80s in India and China, the situation around vegetation loss was not good. In the 1990s, people realized it, and today things have improved. Humans are incredibly resilient. That’s what we see in the satellite data.”
NASA Earth Observatory images by Joshua Stevens, using data courtesy of Chen et al.,(2019). Story by Abby Tabor, NASA Ames Research Center, with Mike Carlowicz, Earth Observatory.
*
GLOBAL GREENING…
“A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.” – NASA
NASA previously reported on the ‘greening of the earth’ thanks to the CO2 ‘fertilisation’ effect.
HOWEVER, such good news was again carefully omitted by the mainstream media and environmental activists keen to preserve their ‘catastrophic’ global warming climate change narrative and continue their demonisation of life-giving gas carbon dioxide, deceptively referring to it as “carbon pollution” :
“A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.” – NASA
IN 2013, the CSIRO commissioned a study that found “Deserts ‘greening’ from rising carbon dioxide: Green foliage boosted across the world’s arid regions.”
THE ‘greening’ of deserts, thanks to rising CO2, happens to be a very unwelcome message for the environmental movement and apparently for the CSIRO, too! So, they simply removed the study from their website!
THE Global Warming Policy Foundation has since released an excellent short video showing why the polar bear no longer serves as the icon of the climate change movement :
“Time after time, forestry experts tell us that wildfires are not getting worse because of climate change, that from a historical perspective current wildfire activity is not unusual, and that we are now seeing the results of decades of fire suppression and poor forest management.”
ANOTHER ‘inconvenient’ study directly contradicting the apocalyptic narrative of the 2 TRILLION dollar per year, Climate Crisis Industry…
Another thorough assessment of wildfire trends wrecks alarmist claims:
ABSTRACT
Wildfire has been an important process affecting the Earth’s surface and atmosphere for over 350 million years and human societies have coexisted with fire since their emergence. Yet many consider wildfire as an accelerating problem, with widely held perceptions both in the media and scientific papers of increasing fire occurrence, severity and resulting losses. However, important exceptions aside, the quantitative evidence available does not support these perceived overall trends. Instead, global area burned appears to have overall declined over past decades, and there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago. Regarding fire severity, limited data are available. For the western USA, they indicate little change overall, and also that area burned at high severity has overall declined compared to pre-European settlement. Direct fatalities from fire and economic losses…
DIRE predictions of an “ice-free” Arctic have remained popular on the climate change fear-mongering circuit, owing to the psychological and political currency of all things melting and not least the emotional relevance applicable to the fate of the Arctic’s most famous resident and ‘global warming’ mascot – the polar bear.
SOME of the failed Arctic sea-ice predictions by alarmists ‘scientists’ and the fake news media over the years :
“Arctic summers ice-free by 2013” (BBC 2007)
“Could all Arctic ice be gone by 2012?” (AP 2007)
“Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?”(National Geographic 2007)
“Imagine yourself in a world five years from now, where there is no more ice over the Arctic” – Tim Flannery (2008)
“North Pole could be ice-free in 2008” – Mark Serreze (New Scientist 2008)
“Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014” (USA Today 2009)
“Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within 4 years” (Guardian 2012)
“Say Goodbye to Arctic Summer Ice” (Live Science 2013)
“Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist” (The Guardian 2013)
“Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013” (Sierra Club 2013)
“Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’” – Peter Wadhams (The Guardian 2016)
MINIMUM sea-ice extent has been trending up over the past twelve years. The EXACT opposite of what the mainstream media and ‘97% experts’ have been telling you :
ARCTIC temperatures and melt cycles correlate almost perfectly with ocean circulation cycles (AMO), and show no correlation with atmospheric CO2 levels :
Reykjavik, Iceland Temperatures Vs. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
NO other icon of ‘Global Warming’ epitomises its very own false narrative like the polar bear does for ‘Climate Change’.
WITH deadly irony, polar bear numbers have grown dramatically as carbon dioxide emissions have risen in lock-step. A CO2 correlation, at last!
INDIGENOUS Inuit’s of Northern Canada are now facing the very real task of having to cull the population as “the polar bear may have exceeded the co-existence threshold.”
“Inuit believe there are now so many bears that public safety has become a major concern,”
“Public safety concerns, combined with the effects of polar bears on other species, suggest that in many Nunavut communities, the polar bear may have exceeded the co-existence threshold.”
Susan Crockford is zoologist with more than 35 years experience, including published work on the Holocene history of Arctic animals. She is currently an adjunct professor at the University of Victoria, British Columbia.
It’s long past time for polar bear specialists to stop holding out for a scientifically accurate global estimate that will never be achieved and determine a reasonable and credible ‘best guess’. Since they have so far refused to do this, I have done it for them. My extrapolated estimate of 39,000 (range 26,000-58,000) at 2018 is not only plausible but scientifically defensible.
In 2014, the chairman of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) emailed me to say that their global population size number ‘has never been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.’
In my new book, The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened, I contend that this situation will probably never change, so it’s time to stop holding out for a scientifically accurate global estimate and generate a reasonable and credible ‘best guess’. Recent surveys from several critical polar bear subpopulations have given us the information necessary to do this.
These new numbers make it possible to extrapolate from ‘known’ to ‘unknown’ subpopulations within so-called ‘sea ice ecoregions’ (defined in 2007 by polar bear scientists at the US Geological Survey, see Amstrup et al. 2007), as shown below, to update old estimates and generate new ones for never-studied areas.
USGS – Polar Bear Ecoregions
Since the PBSG has so far refused to take this step, I took on the challenge. I contend that an estimate of about 39,000 (range 26,000-58,000) at 2018 is not only plausible but scientifically defensible. See the graph below from my new book:
Global polar bear population size estimates to 2018. From Chapter 10 of The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened (Crockford 2019).
This new estimate for 2018 is a modest 4-6 fold increase over the 10,000 or so bears that existed in the 1960s and after 25 years, a credible increase over the estimate of 25,000 that the PBSG offered in 1993 (Wiig et al. 1995).
However, my new estimate is much larger than the improbable figure of about 26,000 (range 22,000-31,000) offered by PGSG biologists in 2015 (Regehr et al. 2016; Wiig et al. 2015). The scary question is this: what do Arctic residents do if there are actually as many as 58,000?
See my new book (Crockford 2019) for the full rationale and references used to arrive at this figure.
The bottom line: it is scientifically unacceptable for the PBSG to continue to refuse to provide an extrapolated ‘best guess’ global estimate for polar bears, given that the scientifically accurate estimate they crave is essentially unattainable. An estimate of about 39,000 (range 26,000-58,000) at 2018 is not only plausible but scientifically defensible. Read the rest of this entry »
Never there when you need it, often there when you don’t, wind power is, at best, an infantile joke. Promised output figures are rarely realised.
What’s referred to as the “capacity factor” of any given wind farm is said to represent a proportional, and meaningful, contribution to electricity demand.
Except, instead of powering the putative hundreds of thousands of homes, the vast majority of the time, wind farms are powering absolutely nothing.
Instead, they’re consuming electricity from the grid to maintain their on-board systems, such as heating, cooling and braking – in order to prevent ‘component liberation’ – eg:
Not that you’ll read any of this in the mainstream press, nor are the wind industry’s spin doctors likely to eagerly reveal just how pathetic the actual (and completely chaotic) output from their beloved wind turbines, really is.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
– H.L. Mencken
“IT would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.” ― Joseph Goebbels
***
THE Left and the Deep State’s favourite conspiracy theory is dead!
THE 30 MILLION dollar, 675 day “Russia Collusion” probe has finally ended with the Mueller Report on “Trump Russia Collusion” handed in to the US Department Of Justice with, importantly, no further indictments recommended by the Special Counsel.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is not recommending any further indictments as part of his sweeping Russia investigation which effectively ended Friday, according to a senior Justice Department official.
NOT a single American citizen or anyone associated with the Trump campaign has been charged with anything related to Russian collusion or obstruction of justice.
SO many lives trashed, the Republic and the Presidency weakened.
CONGRESSMAN Mark Meadows sums it up :
*
HEADS MUST ROLL
THERE must be consequences for both the Leftist mainstream media and government bureaucracy so that the most powerful organs of State – the FBI and CIA – can never again be used as weapons against a political opponent or citizens.
LAURA Ingraham on holding the media accountable for frenzy over Mueller :
A MUST WATCH 7 mins …
TUCKER Carlson sums up the latest in this must watch hour of Tucker Carlson Tonight…
*
THE CLIMATE CONNECTION
AS Climatism is a climate-related blog, we don’t usually stray outside of issues relating to weather and climate. However, there are many parallels between the Trump Russia hoax and Climate Change alarmism in how the mainstream media, by completely giving up journalistic endeavour, has the power and ability to spread propaganda and misinformation in order to push their favourite pet theories.
IF the mainstream media can make you believe that @realDonaldTrump was a “Russian Agent”, imagine what they can do to make you ‘believe’ that mankind’s one extra CO2 molecule in 10,000, added since 1950, is destroying the planet?!
A February 2018 headline from the fake newspaper that has lead the charge against Trump, provides a glimpse of the constant visceral hatred directed at the person who beat Hillary…
NOTE The banner and new slogan of the Washington Post – “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”. You be the judge as to the veracity of their pompous claim after today’s release!
“WHEN the heart rules the head,
passion takes over reason.”
– Ortega y Gasset
“IT would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.” ― Joseph Goebbels
***
THE widely held belief that ‘Extreme Weather’ has become worse, as a result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions, is a tribute to the success of climate change propaganda pushed relentlessly by CO2-centric politicians and compliant mainstream media.
PROMOTING Extreme Weather is specifically designed to shift public opinion about the purported seriousness of human-induced global warming climate change, through the use of emotional imagery and dire prognostications in order for draconian and costly climate policy to be accepted and implemented with as little resistance as possible from the taxpaying public.
COGNITIVE BIAS fuelled by an era of mass hysteria, delusion, groupthink and panic has helped foster dark and far-fetched clichés of a current “climate crisis”, that is an “existential threat” which will “end civilisation by 2030”.
*
THANKS to the dramatic rise in personal weather recording devices – smart phones and CCTV – the sampling rate (what you see or hear directly) of Extreme Weather events, broadcast via social and mainstream media, has risen dramatically in recent years.
BUT, have actual Extreme Weather events increased in frequency or intensity? In particular, over long-term ‘climate’ scales?
THE short answer is a big fat NO! Extreme Weather events have not increased in frequency or intensity as carbon dioxide emissions have increased. In many cases the exact opposite is occurring.
THIS ‘inconvenient’ fact has been proven by empirical data and confirmed by the last two (warmist) U.N. IPCC reports on Extreme Weather: SREX (AR5) 2013 report and the latest SR15 report released August, 2018:
UN IPCC : “Low confidence in the sign of drought trends since 1950 at global scale…likely to be trends in some regions of the world, including increases in drought in the Mediterranean and W Africa & decreases in droughts in central N America & NW Australia” – UN IPCC SR15 (2018)
IN 1934, when CO₂ was at ‘safe’ levels, severe to extreme drought covered around 80% of the entire U.S. Such conditions endured for most of the decade known as the “Dust Bowl” era :
“There is low confidence due to limited evidence, however, that anthropogenic climate change has affected the frequency and the magnitude of floods.” – UN IPCC SR15 (2018)
4⃣Floods: "There is low confidence due to limited evidence, however, that anthropogenic climate change has affected the frequency and the magnitude of floods. "
“Numerous studies towards and beyond AR5 have reported a decreasing trend in the global number of tropical cyclones and/or the globally accumulated cyclonic energy”– UN IPCC SR15 (2018)
“There is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades.” – UN IPCC SR15 (2018)
2018 was one of the least active US tornado years on record, despite record and rising CO₂ emissions.
AS of October, a new record low tornado count was set. The cumulative total for 2018 is 759; the previous lowest number of tornadoes for this date was 761. The SPC has records extending back 65 years.
This lack of tornadic storms in recent years should also correlate with lesser severe thunderstorm activity in general in the U.S., since the conditions which produce large hail and damaging winds are generally the same as are required for tornadoes (strong instability, plentiful moisture, and wind shear). – Roy Spencer PhD
NB// LOSS data does not include the two big CAT4’s that struck the US in 2018 – Florence (Sep) and Michael (Oct).
***
CONCLUSION
BIAS BY OMISSION
IN my opinion, the worst form of propaganda is ‘bias by omission’ – information and facts that you are ‘not’ told about, in order to keep the truth from you.
THE mainstream media has not and will not report the facts on “Extreme Weather”, as clearly laid out in the science and data above, because such facts are obviously extremely ‘inconvenient’ to their “catastrophic” man-made global warming narrative.
*
VITAL information central to the potential seriousness of climate change – Extreme Weather – has been purposely omitted by the mainstream media and replaced by emotions, alarmism and exaggerations in order to fit the climate-calamity narrative designed to scare you into belief and obedience.
THIS is why the global warming climate change debate has become so dangerously deceptive and dishonest. Climate truths hidden from you and replaced with a narrative far more acceptable – Hollywood-style climate hysteria based on alarmism, increased sampling rates and overheated, CO2-centric climate models that do not accord with observed reality.
•••
UPDATE
DID not see either of these instructive graphs painted on a placards at any of the kiddie climate rallies last Friday. Guess they don’t fit their ‘catastrophic’ climate narrative…
Global Deaths from Climate and non-Climate Catastrophes, 1920-2018
Carbon Emissions and World Prosperity
*
PERHAPS the climate kids would have been wise to read and learn the words of H.L. Mencken, before being forced out by their parents and teachers to act as standard bearers of new radical eco-socialism, protected by ‘innocence’ and lack of age :
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it.” – H.L. Mencken
“FAR from this year being the record, the hottest summer was actually back in 1900. This summer only ranks 5th, behind 2017, 1902 and 2006.
THE summers of 1884 and 1901 are also close behind.
IN fact, the spate of hot summers recently look little different to those of the early 1900s.”
Walgett 1880 to 2019
EXCELLENT investigative work, again, by Mr. Paul Homewood.
THE precise job that the mainstream media should and must be doing in order to keep a check on government and its institutions.
BUT, just as our top ‘scientific’ organisations have been captured by environmental elites, so too have the majority-Leftist mainstream media.
AND, for the mainstream media – keeping “truth to power” in the area of the ‘environment’ would mean sanitising their man-made global warming narrative that they’ve invested so much political capital, ideology and personal ego into for decades. Not gonna happen!
ERGO, tough times indeed for “truth to power” to exist in the fashionable age of climate change virtue-signalling, driven by politics, propaganda, bureaucratic pseudoscience and trillions of dollars of taxpayers hard-earned.
“Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?”(National Geographic 2007)
“Imagine yourself in a world five years from now, where there is no more ice over the Arctic” – Tim Flannery (2008)
“North Pole could be ice-free in 2008” – Mark Serreze (New Scientist 2008)
“Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014” (USA Today 2009)
“Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within 4 years” (Guardian 2012)
“Say Goodbye to Arctic Summer Ice” (Live Science 2013)
“Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist” (The Guardian 2013)
“Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013” (Sierra Club 2013)
“Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’” – Peter Wadhams (The Guardian 2016)
DIRE predictions of an “ice-free” Arctic have remained popular on the climate change fear-mongering circuit, owing to the psychological and political currency of all things melting and not least the emotional relevance applicable to the fate of the Arctic’s most famous resident and ‘global warming’ mascot – the polar bear.
Abundant ice in Svalbard, East Greenland and the Labrador Sea is excellent news for the spring feeding season ahead because this is when bears truly need the presence of ice for hunting and mating. As far as I can tell, sea ice has not reached Bear Island, Norway at this time of year since 2010 but this year ice moved down to the island on 3 March and has been there ever since. This may mean we’ll be getting reports of polar bear sightings from the meteorological station there, so stay tuned.
Sea ice extent as of 11 March 2019, from NSIDC Masie:
Much of the ice that was blown out of the Bering Sea early in the month has returned and ice in the Gulf of St. Lawrence on the East Coast of Canada is the highest its been in years, threatening to impede ferry traffic between Nova…
“IN a brilliant strategic move, it was decided that the environmentalist movement was a new and promising vehicle for obtaining political influence and power.”
– Jennifer Marohasy PhD
Environment Minister Melissa Price has linked this week’s devastating bushfires in Victoria to climate change, saying there is “no doubt” of its impact on Australia
As Victorians in the state’s east survey the damage done to their properties by bushfires, the Environment Minister said Australians across the nation had suffered from the nation’s hottest summer on record.
“There’s no doubt that there’s many people who have suffered over this summer. We talk about the Victorian bushfires; (in) my home state of Western Australia we’ve also got fires there,” she told Sky News this morning.
“There’s no doubt that climate change is having an impact on us. There’s no denying that.”
Coalition figures, including former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, have been reluctant in the past to link climate change to recent natural disasters such as bushfires.
MEANWHILE, residents of Tonimbuk, a small rural community heaviest hit by Victoria’s weekend bushfires, believe dangerously high fuel loads on vacant crown land contributed to the ferocity of a blaze that left Country Fire Authority firefighters unable to defend some properties…
Residents of a small rural community heaviest hit by Victoria’s weekend bushfires believe dangerously high fuel loads on vacant crown land contributed to the ferocity of a blaze that left Country Fire Authority firefighters unable to defend some properties.
The quiet hamlet of Tonimbuk, about 90km east of Melbourne, felt the brunt of the fire crisis, with seven properties destroyed and 11,000ha burnt by a lightning-strike blaze that raced out of the Bunyip State Forest.
Andrew Clarke, the owner of the Jinks Creek Winery destroyed by the Bunyip fire, believes a bureaucratic blunder cost him his life’s work.
He said a planned burn-off in 60ha between his vineyard and the state park was not done because of concerns for local birdlife.
“If they’d been doing the burning off they should have been doing, our place might still be there,’’ he told The Australian.
“They told me birds were nesting. I told them: ‘If we don’t do a burn-off now, there’ll be no birds. There’ll be no goannas, no snakes, no wallabies. They’ll all be barbecued.’’
Another Tonimbuk resident, cartoonist Mark Knight, said some residents were left to defend their homes without assistance from the CFA. “We fought this fire for three days on our own,’’ he said. “Black Saturday they were all over us. They were fantastic. We didn’t see them this year.’’
Mark Knight with his sons Jack & Elliott, in Tonimbuk, managed to save their property after a bushfire engulfed the Bunyip state forest in Victoria. Picture: Stuart McEvoy.
THE Daily Telegraph’s climate ‘rationalist’ Miranda Devine with the brutal truth as to what is really fuelling 21st Century bushfires, overrun with ‘Green’ fodder…
On Tuesday, she linked the fires to climate change, claiming there is “no doubt” of its impact on Australia.
“There’s no doubt that there’s many people who have suffered over this summer. We talk about the Victorian bushfires … There’s no doubt that climate change is having an impact on us. There’s no denying that.”
Sorry, minister, it wasn’t climate change that caused the latest bushfires which have so far destroyed nine homes in Victoria, and it wasn’t climate change that killed almost 200 people in the Black Saturday fires ten years ago.
The real culprit is green ideology which opposes the necessary hazard reduction of fuel loads in national parks and which prevents landholders from clearing vegetation around their homes.
The ongoing poor management of national parks and state forests in Victoria and green obstruction of fire mitigation strategies has led to dangerously high fuel loads over the past decade.
That means that when fires do inevitably break out they are so intense that they are devilishly difficult for firefighters to contain. As a federal parliamentary inquiry heard in 2003, if you quadruple the ground fuel, you get a 13-fold increase in the heat generated by a fire.
Locals know the truth. Andrew Clarke, owner of Jinks Creek Winery, which has been destroyed by a fire which raged out of the Bunyip State Forest, “begged” for fuel reduction burns to protect his property.
“I’ve been begging them [Forest Fire Management Victoria] for 20 years to burn off the state forest at the back of our place and still to this day it hasn’t happened,” he told the ABC’s Country Hour.
Clarke said a planned burn-off was called off because of concerns about nesting birds.
So how did that work out for the birds?
Just three weeks ago, Victoria’s former chief fire officer Ewan Waller warned that state forest fuel loads were reaching deadly, Black Saturday levels. No one paid any attention.
But you can bet Premier Daniel Andrews will hide behind the climate change furphy.
Parroting green lies suits politicians because then they can avoid blame for their own culpability.
The Black Saturday Bushfire Royal Commission criticised the Victorian government for its failure to reduce fuel loads in state forests. It recommended more than doubling the amount of hazard reduction burns.
Instead, in the last three years, alone, the Andrews government has slashed the amount of public land being hazard reduced by almost two thirds.
It’s a crime.
The wonder is that the Morrison government is helping him with his alibi.
MELBOURNE, Jan 13. – Nearly 40 bushfires were reported throughout Victoria today when the temperature in Melbourne rose to 105deg [41°C].
*
So hot was the sand at West St. Kilda yesterday that life-savers, in a march past, broke formation for the first time in the history of Victorian life-saving clubs and had to resume the march along the water’s edge.
The secretary of the Royal Life Saving Society of Victoria (Mr. Pier dell) described yesterday as one of the worst he had known on Victorian beaches.
AUSTRALIAN politicians push a never-ending barrage of fact-free global warming climate change alarmism, fear and propaganda on the taxpayer in order to stoke fear and justify the spending of billions upon billions of their hard-earned money on fake fixes to a fake scam.
HOW many more billions of taxpayers hard-earned money will be spent on the greatest pseudoscientific scam ever perpetrated against mankind before our politicians learn how to google “TROVE“? Basic climate history, documenting events no different to today that completely trashes their costly, fake, political, man-made climate change scam costing the country and the planet an estimated $2,000,000,000,000 US (2 Trillion) per year, every year!
ENOUGH is enough. People’s livelihoods, their communities and economies are being ‘burned’ alive by gutless and superstitious politicians on a costly and dangerous crusade of “Save The Planet” hubris driven by politics, ideology and groupthink, pseudoscientific climate change dogma.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
– H.L. Mencken
***
HOBART’S VARIABLE WEATHER
HeatWaveAndSnow
HOBART. Saturday. — A fall of snow on Mt. Wellington closed a week of weather conditions in Hobart unprecedented in the memory of those who can go back 40 years.
Early in the week the weather was hot and sultry, and the humidity was us unusual for Hobart as it was uncomfortable.
On Thursday the humidity was more than 10 per cent, in excess of the average for this time of the year.
Rain storms threatened on Friday morning, and between 3 p.m. and 9 a.m. today, 218 points of rain was registered and another 11 points by 3 p.m.
Snow began to fall on the mountain last night, and continued during the early hours this morning. There was a white mantle about 2 inches thick on the mountain to-day.
The minimum temperature was 34 degrees F [1.1°C]
Visitors have found the conditions most trying.
*
THIS report was from Monday the 7th of February, 1930 during summer in Australia.
“VARIABLE WEATHER” aka “Extreme Weather” (in today’s language!) is not ‘unprecedented’ for Australia. Even with carbon pollutionCO₂ levels at 400 PPM :
“Snow is falling in Tasmania today, just four days after the state experienced it[s] hottest March weather on record.”
From record-heat to snow in Tasmania
Ben Domensino, Wednesday March 6, 2019 – 10:52 EDT
Snow is falling in Tasmania today, just four days after the state experienced it hottest March weather on record.
Autumn is a time of contrasting weather in southern Australia, as hot air lingering over the mainland after summer clashes with cold air surging out of the Southern Ocean.
Image: Cold air passing over Tasmania on Wednesday.
“REMEMBER when we paved the world with electronic waste
that chopped eagles and condors and made bats extinct because we thought wind was natural and uranium evil? – man that was a dark age!” – Michael Shellenberger
***
ONE of the great falsehoods and dangerous myths pushed by reckless global warming climate change zealots and the mainstream media is that ‘renewable energy’ – wind and solar – is “clean, green and renewable”.
‘RENEWABLES’ are neither “clean, green, or renewable”. In fact, they are pure embodiments of fossil fuel technology, with oil and coal derivatives required for :
WIND and solar power are incredibly land intensive owing to the inherent low-energy density of their electrons. And, the small fact that the sun only shines and the wind only blows 10-40% of the time.
HOW much land and how many wind turbines would be needed just to supply the planets ‘new’ demand for energy?
If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s.
At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area greater than the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs.
IF ‘Greens’ were serious about “Saving The Planet”, they would be embracing (CO2-free) nuclear energy.
THE fact that they are not, says a lot about today’s New Green Climate Warrior – concerned more about totalitarian power and control than tangible care of the physical environment.
IMHO, ‘Climate Change’ has absolutely nothing to do with the environment or “Saving The Planet”. If it did, every global warming climate change bedwetter would be castigating China for unlimited emissions until 2030.
CLIMATE CHANGE activism has everything to do with economic, political and cultural power and control.
*
NUCLEAR POWER
THIS brilliant piece from (old-school) environmentalist Michael Shellenberger has been touring social and mainstream media in a big way, and rightly so, but wanted to pin it here for Climatism followers to enjoy and hopefully share with friends, family and their local energy/environment representative!
When I was a boy, my parents would sometimes take my sister and me camping in the desert. A lot of people think deserts are empty, but my parents taught us to see the wildlife all around us, including hawks, eagles, and tortoises.
After college, I moved to California to work on environmental campaigns. I helped save the state’s last ancient redwood forest and blocked a proposed radioactive waste repository set for the desert.
In 2002, shortly after I turned 30, I decided I wanted to dedicate myself to addressing climate change. I was worried that global warming would end up destroying many of the natural environments that people had worked so hard to protect.
I thought the solutions were pretty straightforward: solar panels on every roof, electric cars in every driveway, etc. The main obstacles, I believed, were political. And soI helped organize a coalition of America’s largest labor unions and environmental groups. Our proposal was for a $300 billion dollar investment in renewables. We would not only prevent climate change but also create millions of new jobs in a fast-growing high-tech sector.
Our efforts paid off in 2007 when then-presidential candidate Barack Obama embraced our vision. Between 2009–15, the U.S. invested $150 billion dollars in renewables and other forms of clean tech. But right away we ran into trouble.
The first was around land use. Electricity from solar roofs costs about twice as much as electricity from solar farms, but solar and wind farms require huge amounts of land. That, along with the fact that solar and wind farms require long new transmissions lines, threatened local communities, and conservationists trying to preserve wildlife, particularly birds.
Another challenge was the intermittent nature of solar and wind energies. When the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing, you have to quickly be able to ramp up another source of energy.
Happily, there were a lot of people working on solutions. One solution was to convert California’s dams into big batteries. The idea was that, when the sun was shining and the wind was blowing, you could pump water uphill, store it for later, and then run it over the turbines to make electricity when you needed it.
Other problems didn’t seem like such a big deal, on closer examination. For example, after I learned that house catskill billions of birds every year it put into perspective thenearly one million birds killed by wind turbines.
It seemed to me that most, if not all, of the problems from scaling up solar and wind energies could be solved through more technological innovation.
But, as the years went by, the problems persisted and in some cases grew worse. For example, California is a world leader when it comes to renewables but we haven’t converted our dams into batteries, partly for geographic reasons. You need the right kind of dam and reservoirs, and even then it’s an expensive retrofit.
A bigger problem is that there are manyother uses for the water that accumulates behind dams, namely irrigation and cities. And because the water in our rivers and reservoirs is scarce and unreliable, the water from dams for those other purposes is becoming ever-more precious.
Without large-scale ways to back-up solar energy California has had toblock electricity coming from solar farms when it’s extremely sunny, orpay neighboring states to take it from us so we can avoid blowing-out our grid.
As for house cats, they don’t kill big, rare, threatened birds. What house cats kill are small, common birds, like sparrows, robins and jays. Whatkills big, threatened, and endangered birds—birds that could go extinct—like hawks, eagles, owls, and condors, are wind turbines.
In fact, wind turbines are the most serious new threat to important bird species to emerge in decades. The rapidly spinning turbines act like an apex predator which big birds never evolved to deal with.
Solar farms have similarly large ecological impacts. Building a solar farm is a lot like building any other kind of farm. You have to clear the whole area of wildlife.
In order to build one of the biggest solar farms in California the developers hired biologists to pull threatened desert tortoisesfrom their burrows, put them on the back of pickup trucks, transport them, and cage them in pens where many ended up dying.
As we were learning of these impacts, it gradually dawned on me that there was no amount of technological innovation that could solve the fundamental problem with renewables.
You can make solar panels cheaper and wind turbines bigger, but you can’t make the sun shine more regularly or the wind blow more reliably. I came to understand the environmental implications of the physics of energy. In order to produce significant amounts of electricity from weak energy flows, you just have spread them over enormous areas. In other words, the trouble with renewables isn’t fundamentally technical—it’s natural.
Dealing with energy sources that are inherently unreliable, and require large amounts of land, comes at a high economic cost.
There’s been a lot of publicity about how solar panels and wind turbines have come down in cost. But those one-time cost savings from making them in big Chinese factories have been outweighed by the high cost of dealing with their unreliability.
Consider California. Between 2011–17 the cost of solar panels declined about 75 percent, and yet our electricity pricesrose five times more than they did in the rest of the U.S. It’s the same story in Germany, the world leader in solar and wind energy. Its electricity prices increased 50 percent between 2006–17, as it scaled up renewables.
I used to think that dealing with climate change was going to be expensive. But I could no longer believe this after looking at Germany and France.
Germany’s carbon emissions have been flat since 2009, despite an investment of $580 billion by 2025 in a renewables-heavy electrical grid, a 50 percent rise in electricity cost.
Meanwhile, France produces one-tenth the carbon emissions per unit of electricity as Germany and pays little more than half for its electricity. How? Through nuclear power.
Then, under pressure from Germany, France spent $33 billion on renewables, over the last decade. What was the result? A rise in the carbon intensity of its electricity supply, and higher electricity prices, too.
What about all the headlines about expensive nuclear and cheap solar and wind? They are largely an illusion resulting from the fact that 70 to 80 percent of the costs of building nuclear plants are up-front, whereas the costs given for solar and wind don’t include the high cost of transmission lines, new dams, or other forms of battery.
It’s reasonable to ask whether nuclear power is safe, and what happens with its waste.
It turns out that scientists have studied the health and safety of different energy sources since the 1960s. Every major study, including a recent one by the British medical journalLancet, finds the same thing: nuclear is the safest way to make reliable electricity.
Strange as it sounds, nuclear power plants are so safe for the same reason nuclear weapons are so dangerous. The uranium used as fuel in power plants and as material for bombs can create one million times more heat per its mass than its fossil fuel and gunpowder equivalents.
It’s not so much about the fuel as the process. We release more energy breaking atoms than breaking chemical bonds. What’s special about uranium atoms is that they are easy to split.
Because nuclear plants produce heat without fire, they emit no air pollution in the form of smoke. By contrast, the smoke from burning fossil fuels and biomass results in the premature deaths of seven million people per year,according to the World Health Organization.
Even during the worst accidents, nuclear plants release small amounts of radioactive particulate matter from the tiny quantities of uranium atoms split apart to make heat.
Over an 80-year lifespan, fewer than200 people will die from the radiation from the worst nuclear accident, Chernobyl, and zero will die from the small amounts of radiant particulate matter that escaped from Fukushima.
As a result, the climate scientist James Hanson and a colleaguefound that nuclear plants have actually saved nearly two million lives to date that would have been lost to air pollution.
Thanks to its energy density, nuclear plants require far less land than renewables. Even in sunny California, a solar farm requires 450 times more land to produce the same amount of energy as a nuclear plant.
Energy-dense nuclear requires far less in the way of materials, and produces far less in the way of waste compared to energy-dilute solar and wind.
A single Coke cans worth of uranium provides all of the energy that the most gluttonous American or Australian lifestyle requires. At the end of the process, the high-level radioactive waste that nuclear plants produce is the very same Coke can of (used) uranium fuel. The reason nuclear is the best energy from an environmental perspective is because it produces so little waste and none enters the environment as pollution.
All of the waste fuel from 45 years of the Swiss nuclear programcan fit, in canisters, on a basketball court-like wearhouse, where like all spent nuclear fuel, it has never hurt a fly.
By contrast, solar panels require 17 times more materials in the form of cement, glass, concrete, and steel than do nuclear plants, andcreate over 200 times more waste.
We tend to think of solar panels as clean, but the truth is that there is no plan anywhere to deal with solar panels at the end of their 20 to 25 year lifespan.
Experts fear solar panels will be shipped, along with other forms of electronic waste, to be disassembled—or, more often, smashed with hammers—by poor communities in Africa and Asia, whose residents will be exposed the dust from toxic including lead, cadmium, and chromium.
Wherever I travel in the world I ask ordinary people what they think about nuclear and renewable energies. After saying they know next to nothing, they admit that nuclear is strong and renewables are weak. Their intuitions are correct. What most of us get wrong—understandably — is that weak energies are safer.
But aren’t renewables safer? The answer is no. Wind turbines, surprisingly,kill more people than nuclear plants.
In other words, the energy density of the fuel determines its environmental and health impacts. Spreading more mines and more equipment over larger areas of land is going to have larger environmental and human safety impacts.
It’s true that you can stand next to a solar panel without much harm while if you stand next to a nuclear reactor at full power you’ll die.
But when it comes to generating power for billions of people, it turns out that producing solar and wind collectors, and spreading them over large areas, has vastly worse impacts on humans and wildlife alike.
Our intuitive sense that sunlight is dilute sometimes shows up in films. That’s why nobody was shocked when the recent remake of the dystopian sci-fi flick, “Blade Runner,” opened with a dystopian scene of California’s deserts paved with solar farms identical to the one that decimated desert tortoises.
Over the last several hundred years, human beings have been moving away from what matter-dense fuels towards energy-dense ones. First we move from renewable fuels like wood, dung, and windmills, and towards the fossil fuels of coal, oil, and natural gas, and eventually to uranium.
Energy progress is overwhelmingly positive for people and nature. As we stop using wood for fuel we allow grasslands and forests to grow back, and the wildlife to return.
As we stop burning wood and dung in our homes, we no longer must breathe toxic indoor smoke. And as we move from fossil fuels to uranium we clear the outdoor air of pollution, and reduce how much we’ll heat up the planet.
Nuclear plants are thus a revolutionary technology—a grand historical break from fossil fuels as significant as the industrial transition from wood to fossil fuels before it.
The problem with nuclear is that it is unpopular, a victim of a 50 year-longconcerted effort by fossil fuel, renewable energy, anti-nuclear weapons campaigners, and misanthropic environmentalists to ban the technology.
In response, the nuclear industry suffers battered wife syndrome, and constantly apologizes for its best attributes, from its waste to its safety.
Lately, the nuclear industry has promoted the idea that, in order to deal with climate change, “we need a mix of clean energy sources,” including solar, wind and nuclear. It was something I used to believe, and say, in part because it’s what people want to hear. The problem is that it’s not true.
France shows that moving from mostly nuclear electricity to a mix of nuclear and renewables results in more carbon emissions, due to using more natural gas, and higher prices, to the unreliability of solar and wind.
Oil and gas investors know this, which is why they made apolitical alliance with renewables companies, and why oil and gas companies have beenspending millions of dollars on advertisements promoting solar, andfunneling millions of dollars to said environmental groups to provide public relations cover.
What is to be done? The most important thing is for scientists and conservationists to start telling the truth about renewables and nuclear, and the relationship between energy density and environmental impact.
Bat scientists recently warned that wind turbines are on the verge of making one species, the Hoary bat, a migratory bat species,go extinct.
Another scientist who worked to build that gigantic solar farm in the California deserttoldHigh Country News, “Everybody knows that translocation of desert tortoises doesn’t work. When you’re walking in front of a bulldozer, crying, and moving animals, and cacti out of the way, it’s hard to think that the project is a good idea.”
I think it’s natural that those of us who became active on climate change gravitated toward renewables. They seemed like a way to harmonize human society with the natural world. Collectively, we have been suffering from a naturalistic fallacy no different from the one that leads us to buy products at the supermarket labeled “all natural.” But it’s high time that those of us who appointed ourselves Earth’s guardians should take a second look at the science, and start questioning the impacts of our actions.
Now that we know that renewables can’t save the planet, are we really going to stand by and let them destroy it?
Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,” and president of Environmental Progress, an independent research and policy organization. Follow him on Twitter @ShellenbergerMD
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
•••
FASCINATING article by author Norman Rogers on how the siyanz science of global warming climate change has been fatally corrupted by a culture of groupthink and doomsday hysteria that has snowballed into a viciously protected $2,000,000,000,000 US per year (2 Trillion) global Climate Crisis Industry.
*
Climate Science, Red in Tooth and Claw: Yapping Hyenas Attack a Lion
William Happer is one of the most important scientists in the United States. He is an emeritus professor of physics at Princeton and a long-serving adviser to the federal government. His scientific discoveries and inventions are extensive. Currently, he serves in the White House as a senior adviser to the National Security Council.
The Trump administration is thinking of forming a “Presidential Committee on Climate Security.” The press has been told to direct questions to Dr. Happer. That is enough to bring out the climate hyenas. They can’t stand the thought that Trump might have some solid scientific advice concerning climate change. The hyenas are running an all-out attack against Dr. Happer.
Following Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, the camp followers of the global warming industry try to create polarization. In a Time magazine article, a former admiral says Happer is a fringe figure. A climate scientist at Georgia Tech says Happer has “false, unscientific notions.” We are reassured that the global warming scare is absolutely solid science, as everyone except climate deniers knows.
What everyone may not know is that climate science is an industry, and the product is the global warming scare. If the global warming scare is discredited, the huge industry will collapse. Climate scientists used to be unimportant academics in an unimportant academic field. The global warming scare made them into celebrities jetting around the world. They won’t give up the glory without a fight.
Climate computer models, the basis of the doomsday predictions, disagree with each other and disagree with the climate of the Earth. But according to the climate science mafia, anyone who brings up such embarrassing information is a tool of the fossil fuel industry. As far as the climate mafia is concerned, the business plan of the fossil fuel industry is to wreck the Earth and wreck the global warming industry. The reality is that the fossil fuel industry is wimpy and not inclined to take on the global warmers.
Climate science has gone off the rails. President Eisenhower nailed the problem in his 1961 farewell address. He expressed the fear that because science had become heavily dependent on federal financial support, scientists would color the science in order to increase the flow of federal money. Nothing works better for increasing the flow of federal scientific money than predicting a future disaster. If scientists predict a disaster, we have to give them more money to research methods of preventing the disaster.
Since Eisenhower’s address, we have been treated to a parade of scientific doomsday predictions, none of which measured up to the hype. There was global cooling that preceded global warming. There were acid rain, DDT, the ozone layer, overpopulation, and many others. It is not only scientists who use a parade of disaster predictions. Environmental organizations need doomsday predictions, too, in order to keep their members interested. The press has a bias for sensationalism, so it too promotes the latest doomsday predictions.
Many professions are supposed to adhere to high ethical standards. For example, lawyers are supposed to put the interests of their clients above their own interests. Doctors are supposed to put their patients’ welfare above their own pecuniary interests. Journalists are supposed to be objective and not color their work with their own political preferences. We know that not every professional adheres strictly to his ethical code. Scientists are not different. They are supposed to search for scientific truth and to exercise objectivity in their work. They are not supposed to hype weak theories in order to improve their professional standing. But these things happen.
Most scientists are not in a position to contradict global warming hype. Science is a profession characterized by ideological schools and groupthink. Groupthink is worst in sciences where the rules are not clear and the data are confusing — for example, climate science. Young scientists depend on older, more senior scientists for recognition and promotion. They are in no position to contradict groupthink. They have families to feed. The senior scientists may be running large scientific enterprises financed by federal money. To express doubts about the mission or the truth of the groupthink would be to threaten their money and the jobs of people in their organization.
The consequence of the groupthink atmosphere is that dissenters come from the ranks of scientists removed from the pressure to conform — for example, retired scientists, amateur scientists, and scientists so accomplished as to be immune to threats and group pressure. There are thousands of such scientists who are skeptical of the global warming hype. When they speak out, they are attacked, and the attacks are usually vicious. The members of the global warming establishment will almost never debate skeptics. When this was done years ago, the skeptics were too credible.
Science is great, and our modern world is a product of science. But scientists are humans, not gods. They play the same games that other beneficiaries of federal money play. We have been fooled over and over again by fake predictions of disasters or one sort or another. The fake predictions are never completely fake. There is usually some real science buried in all the hype. For example, it is reasonable to expect that some global warming might be caused by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. What is probably a modest effect has been twisted and exaggerated into a doomsday scenario that demands that we save the planet. The good effects of CO2 that are well known and that are solid science are ignored. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere makes plants grow better with less water. Greenhouse-operators use CO2-generators in their greenhouses. CO2 is greening deserts. How often to you hear about these benefits of CO2?
DDT was banned because it supposedly thinned birds’ eggs and perhaps because some people screamed cancer. But DDT is highly effective against mosquitos that cause malaria. The World Health Organization finally lifted the ban on DDT because thousands of children were dying in Africa. DDT will never be rehabilitated in the U.S. because the propaganda has been permanently imprinted in the minds of the populace.
Science has created institutions that serve to enhance the image of science. For example, peer review often degenerates into pal review. Scientific journals are often filled with papers of dubious value generated by a system that values quantity over quality. The National Academy of Science pretends to give objective advice to the government, but often the advice is to appropriate more money for science.
Typically, when science invents a new doomsday theory, the environmental organizations embellish it with unscientific flourishes. The scientist inventors of the theory don’t correct the environmental organizations because that would slow the momentum toward a new surge of federal money. That should be an ethical violation. Scientists should have a duty to set the record straight in such circumstances.
There is no simple solution to the parade of doomsday theories. It would help if the government understood better that throwing more money at an alleged problem may exaggerate rather than alleviate the problem. Massive spending may not solve difficult scientific problems, but massive spending always creates bureaucracies that exist to sustain the spending.
“CLIMATE alarmism is a gigantic fraud: it only survives by suppressing dissent and by spending tens of billions of dollars of public money every year on pseudo-scientific propaganda.”
– Leo Goldstein
***
SEA-LEVEL RISE alarmism is just one in a long line of propaganda tools used by the Climate Crisis Industry to promote the narrative that human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming climate change.
VERY little of the carefully orchestrated fear-mongering is based on observed reality and empirical evidence, rather, worst-case climate model scenarios pushed into the unaccountable future, designed to scare you and policy makers into (costly) “climate action now!”.
SEA level alarmism holds significant implications for the public who bear the burden of carbon-dioxide related taxes. Those living within coastal areas, constrained by further punitive imposts as insurance companies exploit the climate of fear for their own profit.
SEA levels vary by geographical region from positive to neutral to negative. Where positive sea-level ‘rise’ is concerned, the best science demonstrates that there is no immediate or long-term crisis in play. Importantly, no acceleration has been detected in the era of industrialisation.
*
VIV Forbes of the Carbon Sense Coalition is a member of the climate-realist think tank The Salt Bush Club – a group of famed ex-industry leaders and climate science experts fighting back against dangerous and costly climate alarmism with fact-based reports filled with reason and common sense. Not hyper-climate alarmism and climate-model based theory that underpins mainstream media climate reporting.
FROM their About page:
INTRODUCING THE SALTBUSH CLUB
Members, Skills and Concerns
“We have been listening to scare-mongers and panicky children for too long – it’s time to listen to sensible people and grown-ups.” November 2018
The Saltbush Club is an unplanned venture. Tapping a deep vein of public concern about the Paris climate agreement, it just grew. In about a month, with zero corporate or government support, a few lone individuals have attracted an imposing line-up of sensible people who are well informed on all aspects of the climate debate, and on the growing energy, water and infrastructure problems facing Australia. Many are only prepared to publicise their concern since they have been freed from corporate, academic or government restraints. They are now expressing long-held but often-suppressed opinions.
A much larger group of “Silent Members” have indicated support, but do not want their names made public because they fear that exposure would harm their prospects for employment, promotion or business. They will help, but silently.
All Saltbush members are concerned that climate-alarm policies promoted by most politicians are not based on sound science, and are already causing great damage to Australian industry, jobs and consumers.
Members include people with formal qualifications and experience in geology, physics, chemistry, meteorology, astronomy, climatology, spectroscopy, electromagnetic radiation, geophysics, geochemistry, land forms, sea levels, vulcanology, palynology, engineering, metallurgy, law, medicine, veterinary science, pharmacy, pathology, sociology, classics, economics, accounting, ecology, soil science, environmental science, carbon accounting, pollution control, mathematics, statistics, electronics, communications, computer science, modelling and forecasting. No longer can it be claimed that there is “no debate among scientists”.
***
They understand that the war on hydro-carbon fuels and grazing animals in Australia is not based on sound science, but is part of a broad international agenda designed to strengthen UN agencies, centralise decision making and weaken property rights with international rules and taxes.
They aim to change the climate of public opinion, thus changing the political agenda.
There is no consensus – it is time for a debate.
On behalf of the founders:
Jerry Ellis Chairman Hugh Morgan Jo Nova Media Director Ian Plimer Viv Forbes Executive Director
Dr G M Derrick reports the simple facts on the state of sea-level rise around Sydney Harbour over the past 132 years of records.
THE information is what we should be receiving from our politicians and media. Instead the information we receive about climate change and sea-levels is filled with exaggeration, alarmism, ‘homogenisation’, and plenty of politics in order to drive a political agenda of climate catastrophe in order to justify costly fixes, schemes, scams and taxes.
THE big losers – empirically-based science, the simple truth and the taxpayer who is forced to pay billions upon billions for fake fixes (windmills, solar panels and carbon taxes) to a fake scam.
There has been NO significant sea level rise in the harbour for the past 120 years, and what little there has been is about the height of a matchbox over a century.
Along the northern beaches of Sydney, at Collaroy there has been no suggestion of any sea level rise there for the past 140 years. Casual observations from Bondi Beach 1875 to the present also suggest the same benign situation.
A rush to judgement by local councils and State Governments by legislating harsh laws and building covenants along our coastlines now seems misplaced.
The falsehoods and mendacity of the IPCC and climate alarmists should be rejected out of hand, and efforts be made to ensure that science, not propaganda, defines our school curricula in matters of climate and sea levels
“Sea level has been rising for the last ten thousand years, since the last Ice Age…the question is whether sea level rise is accelerating owing to human caused emissions. It doesn’t look like there is any great acceleration, so far, of sea level rise associated with human warming. These predictions of alarming sea level rise depend on massive melting of the big continental glaciers — Greenland and Antarctica. The Antarctic ice sheet is actually growing. Greenland shows large multi-decadal variability. …. There is no evidence so far that humans are increasing sea level rise in any kind of a worrying way.” — Dr. Judith Curry, video interview published 9 August 2017
“Observed sea level rise over the last century has averaged about 8 inches, although local values may be substantially more or less based on local vertical land motion, land use, regional ocean circulations and tidal variations.“
THOUGH not as ‘scientific’, it is interesting to use the visual point of Fort Denison to note the high-tide line and the notable absence of SL rise since 1885 to present :
CLIMATE change hysteria and groupthink propaganda freely and uncritically spread by the compliant mainstream media has influenced local municipalities to wrongly and deceptively raise rates to cover “climate change” threats and damage as well insurance companies raising premiums. The result has been a devaluing of many coastal homes of up to 25% and the same increase in insurance premiums.
HERE’s an example of what the NSW Govt and Lake Macquarie Council are projecting for the 21st Century:
THE very same modelled exaggeration alarmism is evident in the ensemble of U.N. IPCC CMIP5 climate models that basically act as evidence that drives the entire $2,000,000,000,000 US per year (2 Trillion)Climate Crisis Industry and associated climate policy settings that are sending Australian and other Western nations’ electricity prices through the roof, forcing businesses to close and/or move offshore and causing rampant energy poverty, hurting our most vulnerable.
ENERGY poverty, rising insurance premiums, business closures, job losses and the highest electricity prices in the world is the grim reality of what life looks like under the totalitarian rule of the feel-good ‘Greens’. The zero-emissions zealots who want to force us backwards down the energy ladder to the days of human, animal and solar power.
JUST as socialist central planning failed miserably before it was replaced by free market economies, green central planning will have to be discarded before Australia and other Western nations, crippled by pseudoscientific climatology and the mad rush into costly and intermittent ‘green’ energy, will see a return to energy security, competitive pricing, business prosperity, job opportunities and a ‘liveable’ existence for our most vulnerable.
THE Japanese government has identified and acknowledged the current ~20 year-long global warming “pause” or “hiatus”. The (inconvenient) atmospheric phenomenon that has been the subject of much research and debate in peer-reviewed scientific journals for many years now.
We all know that the Japanese love their sushi. Japan is also famous for sake, a rice wine unique to the country. Lately, the Japanese have shown unrestrained love for a commodity that is increasingly demonized by climate groups: coal.
Global warming alarmists blame coal for causing dangerous global warming. But the Japanese beg to differ. They have revived their love affair with coal. Why? That’s an interesting story.
Soon after the Fukushima nuclear incident, public sentiment towards nuclear energy became hostile. Many organizations, including foreign non-profits, called for the closure of nuclear plants on fears of future mishaps.
The Fukushima plant was outdated and less safe than Japan’s other, modern nuclear plants. Yet, the impact of the Fukushima disaster (in which no one died from radiation exposure) remains fresh in people’s minds, and the nation was not ready to defend the operations of other nuclear plants.
The Japanese government caved in to the pressure and closed many nuclear plants. By 27 March 2012, Japan had only one out of 54 nuclear reactors operating. As a result, the country was forced to seek alternative sources of energy generation.
The most economical and safe solution was coal. Contrary to popular belief and the mainstream media, coal is not as polluting as you might think.
Moreover, coal is a tried and tested source of energy, guaranteeing superior-quality, stable output to meet the energy demands of modern cities and industries.
With the development of “clean coal technology,” coal combustion now results in fewer contaminants and more energy, making it far superior to the combustion plants of previous decades.
But Japan’s use of coal is not justified exclusively on the basis of the country’s nuclear debacle. The heart of the reason is Japan’s climate.
For the past three decades, there has been no significant warming in its major cities.
Data from the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) clearly indicates that there has been no significant deviation in the monthly average temperature between 1998 and 2018. The period between is of special importance to the Japanese government.
As per the climate doomsday theorists, temperatures should have displayed a strong warming trend as the manmade carbon dioxide emissions increased exponentially.
But the temperature levels failed to display any warming trend. That flies in the face of the notion that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration levels control temperature over the island nation—or, for that matter, the world.
So, the reason for Japanese embrace of coal is pretty clear: no significant warming, coupled with the post-Fukushima anti-nuclear hysteria.
No country would want to reduce its emissions when its monthly average temperatures are actually decreasing. It is for this reason that Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe refuses to stay true to the hasty anti-coal commitments he made at the UN’s international climate summits.
The Japanese response to the anti-coal establishment, besides being bold, accurately reflects climate reality. Japan understands the need to prioritize the domestic energy needs over faulty, pseudo-scientific forecasts of climate doom.
The lack of warming, however, is not limited to Japan. Satellite temperature measurements (between 1979 and January 2019) show no significant warming in the earth’s atmosphere during the past 19 years.
Other countries should emulate Japan’s example, especially in the developing world. Domestic energy needs are far too important to be slain on the altar of global warming hysteria.
REFRESHING to see government energy policy being driven by empirical evidence and real-world data, and NOT by fear, hysteria, mainstream media climate change advocacy and alarmism or politically-driven, CO2-centric, UN IPCC climate models.
BRAVO Japan for standing up to the climate groupthink bullies and misanthropic eco-activists. Instead, supporting their industry and citizens by providing them with cheap, abundant and clean (HELE) coal-fired power technology to advance and maintain their world-renowned pristine environment, civic cleanliness, health and wealth!
“The Japanese response to the anti-coal establishment, besides being bold, accurately reflects climate reality. Japan understands the need to prioritize the domestic energy needs over faulty, pseudo-scientific forecasts of climate doom.”
CONTRARY to popular thinking and clever marketing, there is no “consensus” on the theory of dangerous man-made climate change. Too many variables exist within the climate system to allow for certainty of future scenarios.
THIS doesn’t deter the $2,000,000,000,000 US per year (2 Trillion)Climate Crisis Industry who manufacture catastrophic climate scenarios (pushed far enough into the distant future as to not be held accountable) with a guarantee of climate calamity unless their utopian ‘green’ dreams are realised.
BUOYED by their recent House Congress win in the 2018 mid-term elections, the hard-Left of the American Democrat party, led by pinup-socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have doubled-down on their pet global warming theory, proposing the radically-dystopian climate agenda, a Green New Deal.
FOR all the economic pain and social upheaval that inevitably ensues when draconian climate policy is enacted, it is only fair and reasonable for the taxpayer to ask one simple question about a climate which demands so much of their hard-earned money – “what is broken?”.
THE best way to answer this is to look at the current state of a set of common environmental metrics and analyse their relationship with carbon dioxide – the colourless, odourless, tasteless trace gas at the centre of the supposed “climate crisis”.
IN the interests of “cherry-picking”, there are a myriad of environmental metrics that make up the climate system. The examples cited for the purpose of this report are the more common associations picked up by the press and interest groups to facilitate climate change discussion and ‘debate’.
*THE empirical evidence featured in this post is taken from the latest data supplied by government scientific agencies and peer-reviewed studies. Hyper and direct links supplied per sample.
***
ARCTIC
STATE OF ARCTIC SEA-ICE : 2018 SUMMER MINIMUM
ARCTIC SEA-ICE EXTENT (September 2018)
MINIMUM sea-ice extent has been trending up over the past decade. The EXACT opposite of what the press and ‘97% experts’ have been telling you :
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.“
– TimothyWirth,
President of the UN Foundation
***
CLIMATE DEPOT’S Marc Morano nails the true intentions of the UN’s globalist ‘Climate Change’ agenda…
• “This is major progress for people who care about energy security, sovereignty and who are against the UN agenda.”
• “Any impact man has on the climate is indistinguishable from natural variability”
• “This is a this political and economic movement. It has nothing to do with the actual climate. They’re talking about central transformation, that is what the UN Climate head, we seek central transformation to make the climate different. They’re using a climate scare on people.”
THE global warming climate change scare has absolutely nothing to do with the environment or “Saving The Planet”. Rather, its roots lie in a misanthropic agenda engineered by the environmental movement of the mid 1970’s, who realised that doing something about claimed man-made “global warming” would play to quite a number of the Left’s social agendas.
THE goal was advanced, most notably, by The Club Of Rome(Environmental consultants to the UN) – a group of mainly European scientists and academics, who used computer modelling to warn that the world would run out of finite resources if population growth were left unchecked.
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that .. the threat of global warming.. would fit the bill.. the real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” – Club Of Rome (Environmental consultants to the U.N.)
THOUGHTS on humanity:
“The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man.” – Club of Rome, (environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations)
THE Club Of Rome’s 1972 environmental best-seller “The Limits To Growth”, examined five variables in the original model: world population, industrialisation, pollution, food production and resource depletion.
NOT surprisingly, the study predicted a dire future for mankind unless we ‘act now’:
AROUND the same time, influential anthropologist and president of the American Medical Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Margaret Mead, gathered together like-minded anti-population hoaxsters at her 1975, North Carolina conference, “The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering”. Mead’s star recruits were climate scare artist Stephen Schneider, population-freak George Woodwell and former AAAS head, John Holdren (Barack Obama’s Science and Technology Czar). All three of them disciples of Malthusian catastrophist Paul Ehrlich, author of the “The Population Bomb”.
THE conference concluded that human-produced carbon dioxide would fry the planet, melt the ice caps, and destroy human life. The idea being to sow enough fear of man-made climate change to force global cutbacks in industrial activity and halt Third World development.
*
THE CREATOR, FABRICATOR AND PROPONENT OF GLOBAL WARMING – Maurice Strong (UNEP)
THE creator, fabricator and proponent of global warming alarmism Maurice Strong, founded UNEP and ‘science’ arm, the UN IPCC, under the premise of studying only human (CO2) driven causes of climate change.
STRONG and the UN’s ‘Climate Change’ agenda was clearly laid out before the ‘science’ of Climate Change was butchered and tortured to fit the Global Warming narrative…
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit
“It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.“ – Maurice Strong, first Secretary General of UNEP
*
WHY CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) aka “Carbon Pollution”?
ATMOSPHERIC Physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen, examines the politics and ideology behind the CO2-centricity that drives the man-made climate change agenda.
LINDZEN’S summary goes to the very heart of why Carbon Dioxide has become the centre-piece of the ‘global’ climate debate:
“For a lot of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonise it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…”
•••
“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.”
ENERGY rationing and the control of carbon dioxide, the direct byproduct of cheap, reliable hydrocarbon energy, has always been key to the Left’s Malthusian and misanthropic agenda of depopulation and deindustrialisation. A totalitarian ideology enforced through punitive emissions controls under the guise of “Saving The Planet”.
STANFORD University and The Royal Society’s resident global warming alarmist and population freak Paul R. Ehrlich spelled out in 1976 the Left’s anti-energy agenda that still underpins the current ‘climate change’ scare :
THE motives of the UN and its affiliates are no different from those of the radical eco-zealots of the 1970’s. They despise capitalism, development, growth and freedom, with the misguided fear of overpopulation, a principle driver.
THEIR solution is to use the emotive issue of ‘Climate Change’ to pursue a radical transformation in cultural, economic and political structures across the globe through their various unelected, taxpayer funded global(ist) bodies…
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.” – Christiana Figueres, fmr executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change (Feb 2015, Brussels)
CLIMATISM is a self-funded, one-man operation that has been running on fossil-fuel vapours and borrowed time since 2014.
LIKE most climate ‘sceptical’ outfits, success of message is reliant on a lot of passion and private support. After all, that cheque from “Big Oil” never arrived in the mail, much to the dismay of the climate cult who are convinced that the combined success of our individual efforts in fighting the “Climate Crisis Industry” must come down to funding from those “Koch Bros.” or “Exxon-Mobil”. Trust me, it doesn’t!
SCEPTICS are not funded or subsidised by BIG government, unlike BIG green whose associated NGO’s and multinational green mega-corporations are funded to the tune of BILLIONS annually via subsidies, tax incentives, green loans and grants. Read the rest of this entry »
Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models.
Recent Comments