Don’t Let Climate Change Hysteria Damage The Economy

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

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of
scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”U.S Government
Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.


via The Australian :

Don’t let climate change hysteria damage the economy

“In all the talk about climate change, one compelling fact is often overlooked,” Australian Conservation Foundation president Geoff Cousins writes. “Just a handful of companies are responsible for nearly one-third of our nation’s greenhouse pollution through their production and consumption of energy.”

Man-made “carbon pollution” has become the shorthand rallying cry that unites global warming believers. The notion is a figment. It is made up. It is rooted in anti-capitalist, anti-growth green ideology that, for too long, has been bullied into our consciousness as science. It is shielded by censorship and falsely cloaked in the authority and respectability of science. But the hypothesis that supports it is collapsing.

Six months into his role at the ACF, Cousins wants to make his mark as an advocate for the cause. His constituents expect it. After all, the December climate conference in Paris is approaching and global warming hysteria has to be ramped up to preserve the endless flow of dollars that sustains it. Nothing must be allowed to rain on that parade.

But no matter how many times Cousins recites his political mantra, carbon dioxide will remain colourless, odourless and a non-pollutant. To quote Massachusetts Institute of Technology emeritus professor of atmospheric sciences Richard Lindzen: “We are demonising a chemical, a molecule essential to life.” Indeed; a molecule that, throughout Earth’s history, has fluctuated in its concentration. Higher temperatures have coexisted with lower CO2 levels than today, and the world has been colder at higher concentrations. There is no reliable correlation between temperatures on Earth’s surface and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Cousins also repeats that other old chestnut: “Already pollution is leading to more frequent and more intense droughts, bushfires, heatwaves and other extreme weather. Hot days have doubled in Australia in the past 50 years.” But what does he mean by hot days? How do the past 50 years compare to the 50 years before 1910, the convenient start date the Bureau of Meteorology adopts to avoid the extreme heat of the Federation Drought years?

Is he taking his drought trends from the same BoM source that maintains drought increased in the seven areas researched, even though an independent expert review of the data showed a declining trend in five of the seven? Is it the same BoM source that asserted Queensland was suffering the worst drought in 80 years when its own website declared it was the worst in nine? And what about James Cook University’s Jon Nott, who found Queensland is experiencing fewer cyclones than at any time in the past 500 years?

Should Cousins wish to look further afield, no point looking to the US for support because, for the first time since 1969, there have been no tornadoes reported in March, usually a big month for severe weather. What’s more the US has experienced fewer tornadoes in the past three years than any similar span since accurate records began in the 1950s.

The absence of any solid scientific evidence to connect extreme weather events to human activity has required the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to reluctantly concede no correlation exists. This hasn’t stopped Cousins perpetuating that myth or naming, shaming and blaming respectable companies.

“We must consider,” writes Cousins, “how to start retiring the most polluting and outdated coal plants and replacing them with clean energy.” He must be aware of the job losses this would cause. The economics on that is settled. The renewable energy obsession has come at a cost to growth and employment, especially in South Australia, California, Ontario, Britain and Europe.

In partial capitulation, from 2017 the EU will become technology agnostic and feed-in-tariffs will be phased out. While Cousins is urging us to dump coal, Europe is providing payments to make sure coal-fired power stations stay online. In fact, the EU’s package being worked up for Paris will not specifically target coal. No wonder the Financial Times referred to renewables as a fad. But it is a fad with consequences.

Lindzen says: “World leaders are embarking on costly policies that have no capacity to replace fossil fuels but enrich crony capitalists at public expense, increasing costs for all and restricting access to energy to the world’s poorest populations that still lack access to electricity’s benefits.”

Cambridge University’s Prince Philip professor of technology Michael Kelly reckons: “The project to solve ‘the climate change problem’ is a modern version of the biblical Tower of Babel. We do not know how much it will cost, when it will be completed nor what success will look like.” Only someone who controls other people’s money could sign up for something so ethereal. Only those who have lost touch with reality, or have some ulterior motive, could embark on a project so reckless.

Whatever the ACF’s motives, advocating policies that will destroy jobs and growth cannot be condoned. That includes campaigning against reductions in the renewable energy target when it is causing energy-intensive industries to close.

For more than 17 years satellites have recorded an unexplained hiatus in global tem­peratures. We don’t know whether the future direction will be down or up. Yet Paris delegates will proceed as if they do. Sanctions may even be recommended against countries deemed non-compliant. Better for Australia to await that outcome than impose unnecessary burdens on an economy struggling for growth.

Maurice Newman is chairman of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council. The views expressed here are his own.


Newman Related :

See also :


CSIRO Censoring Their Own Climate Research

The only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

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.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation



Pic source :

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) is the federal government agency for scientific research in Australia. It was founded in 1926 originally as the Advisory Council of Science and Industry.

In the field of climate science, the CSIRO has historically leant towards the alarmist side of the climate debate. One example shows the CSIRO using sea level rise figures far in excess of even the IPCC.

The Australian reports:

In its 2012 report, State of the Climate, the CSIRO says that since 1993 sea levels have risen up to 10mm a year in the north and west. That means that somewhere has had a 19cm-rise in sea level since 1993. Where is this place? The European satellite says that sea levels have been constant for the past eight years.


In 2013, the CSIRO commissioned a study that found “Deserts ‘greening’ from rising carbon dioxide: Green foliage boosted across the world’s arid regions.”

Screen Shot 2015-03-26 at , March 26, 12.00.21 am

Google Search: Deserts Greening + CSIRO 

The ‘greening’ of deserts, thanks to rising CO2, happens to be a very unwelcome message for the environmental movement and apparently now too for the CSIRO. So this week, the CSIRO removed the study from its website.

Screen Shot 2015-03-25 at , March 25, 10.01.41 pm

Australia’s premier scientific agency, the CSIRO, not interested in sharing scientific discovery, rather adhering to a type of selective thinking with a tendency to notice and to look for what confirms to their beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts those beliefs. Also known as ‘Confirmation Bias’.

The CSIRO claim they “protect the integrity of science by upholding the highest standards of practice.”

Does deleting or censoring studies that are favourable to plant food, carbon dioxide, do anything to “protect the integrity of science” as laid out in their agenda?

Yet another example of why government funded scientific organisations like the CSIRO have – tragically – become almost the last places to hear the truth about climate change and the environment. Too much money and too many reputations are now at stake.


The CSIRO’s peer-reviewed study can be found at Science Daily:

Screen Shot 2015-03-25 at , March 25, 10.50.03 pm

Deserts ‘greening’ from rising carbon dioxide: Green foliage boosted across the world’s arid regions — ScienceDaily



The CSIRO contacted me via twitter with location of study:

Screen Shot 2015-03-27 at , March 27, 7.36.01 pm

Makes it a little tricky for the interested to track down when no link presents on any search engine. Conveniently archived perhaps.

See here: Deserts ‘greening’ from rising CO2 | CSIRO (Trove Archives – Nat. Library of Australia)



via Joanne Nova :

Australian government finally gets slightly serious with CSIRO board


UPDATE 15/8/2016 :

After conveniently “archiving” their 3 JULY 2013 study : “Deserts ‘greening’ from rising CO2” – CSIRO have now reinstated it on their website!

Deserts ‘greening’ from rising CO2



See also :

Latest From The Climate Crisis

Real Science

Satellites show that the troposphere hasn’t warmed for almost 20 years

ScreenHunter_8055 Mar. 21 16.40

Satellites show that the amount of Arctic ice hasn’t changed for 10 years

iphone.anomaly.arctic (3)

Satellites show that global sea ice has been hovering around normal for several years.

There is five times as much ice on the Great Lakes as there was during the Ice Age scare of 1973


The US is experiencing a record lull in hurricanes and tornadoes. The frequency of hot days in the US has plummeted over the past 80 years.

ScreenHunter_7410 Feb. 24 20.31

Sea level is rising at the same rate it was 100 years ago.

There is no climate crisis. It is propaganda being pushed by criminals, which is why they are so desperate to silence skeptics.

Some of these criminals pose as scientists. Others pose as members of religious organizations. Others pose as politicians or governmental organizations. Others pose as “green energy providers.” Others pose as environmental organizations.

View original post 42 more words

Fossil Fuels Will Save the World (Really)

Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

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)

The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations


haiti-v-dominican-republic (1)

Border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic: Guess which country contains eco-criminals that can afford to use fossil fuels, and which country contains nature-lovers who are dependent on natural renewable organic biomass for energy?


Minor disclosure before posting Matt Ridley’s must read op-ed in the Wall Street Journal:

‘Climatism’ nor myself receive any funding from any fossil fuel company. All I receive from them is abundant, cheap, reliable, on-demand energy that enables me to heat myself in winter, cool myself in summer, get to work on time, drink clean water, bathe myself and use my computer, even when the wind stops blowing or the sun goes to sleep. 


via The Wall Street Journal, 14 March 2015 :

Fossil Fuels Will Save the World (Really)

There are problems with oil, gas and coal, but their benefits for people—and the planet—are beyond dispute

By Matt Ridley

The environmental movement has advanced three arguments in recent years for giving up fossil fuels: (1) that we will soon run out of them anyway; (2) that alternative sources of energy will price them out of the marketplace; and (3) that we cannot afford the climate consequences of burning them.

These days, not one of the three arguments is looking very healthy. In fact, a more realistic assessment of our energy and environmental situation suggests that, for decades to come, we will continue to rely overwhelmingly on the fossil fuels that have contributed so dramatically to the world’s prosperity and progress.

In 2013, about 87% of the energy that the world consumed came from fossil fuels, a figure that—remarkably—was unchanged from 10 years before. This roughly divides into three categories of fuel and three categories of use: oil used mainly for transport, gas used mainly for heating, and coal used mainly for electricity.

Over this period, the overall volume of fossil-fuel consumption has increased dramatically, but with an encouraging environmental trend: a diminishing amount of carbon-dioxide emissions per unit of energy produced. The biggest contribution to decarbonizing the energy system has been the switch from high-carbon coal to lower-carbon gas in electricity generation.

On a global level, renewable energy sources such as wind and solar have contributed hardly at all to the drop in carbon emissions, and their modest growth has merely made up for a decline in the fortunes of zero-carbon nuclear energy. (The reader should know that I have an indirect interest in coal through the ownership of land in Northern England on which it is mined, but I nonetheless applaud the displacement of coal by gas in recent years.)

The argument that fossil fuels will soon run out is dead, at least for a while. The collapse of the price of oil over the past six months is the result of abundance: an inevitable consequence of the high oil prices of recent years, which stimulated innovation in hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling, seismology and information technology. The U.S.—the country with the oldest and most developed hydrocarbon fields—has found itself once again, surprisingly, at the top of the energy-producing league, rivaling Saudi Arabia in oil and Russia in gas.

The shale genie is now out of the bottle. Even if the current low price drives out some high-cost oil producers—in the North Sea, Canada, Russia, Iran and offshore, as well as in America—shale drillers can step back in whenever the price rebounds. As Mark Hill of Allegro Development Corporation argued last week, the frackers are currently experiencing their own version of Moore’s law: a rapid fall in the cost and time it takes to drill a well, along with a rapid rise in the volume of hydrocarbons they are able to extract.

And the shale revolution has yet to go global. When it does, oil and gas in tight rock formations will give the world ample supplies of hydrocarbons for decades, if not centuries. Lurking in the wings for later technological breakthroughs is methane hydrate, a seafloor source of gas that exceeds in quantity all the world’s coal, oil and gas put together.

So those who predict the imminent exhaustion of fossil fuels are merely repeating the mistakes of the U.S. presidential commission that opined in 1922 that “already the output of gas has begun to wane. Production of oil cannot long maintain its present rate.” Or President Jimmy Carter when he announced on television in 1977 that “we could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.”

That fossil fuels are finite is a red herring. The Atlantic Ocean is finite, but that does not mean that you risk bumping into France if you row out of a harbor in Maine. The buffalo of the American West were infinite, in the sense that they could breed, yet they came close to extinction. It is an ironic truth that no nonrenewable resource has ever run dry, while renewable resources—whales, cod, forests, passenger pigeons—have frequently done so.

The second argument for giving up fossil fuels is that new rivals will shortly price them out of the market. But it is not happening. The great hope has long been nuclear energy, but even if there is a rush to build new nuclear power stations over the next few years, most will simply replace old ones due to close. The world’s nuclear output is down from 6% of world energy consumption in 2003 to 4% today. It is forecast to inch back up to just 6.7% by 2035, according the Energy Information Administration.

Nuclear’s problem is cost. In meeting the safety concerns of environmentalists, politicians and regulators added requirements for extra concrete, steel and pipework, and even more for extra lawyers, paperwork and time. The effect was to make nuclear plants into huge and lengthy boondoggles with no competition or experimentation to drive down costs. Nuclear is now able to compete with fossil fuels only when it is subsidized.

As for renewable energy, hydroelectric is the biggest and cheapest supplier, but it has the least capacity for expansion. Technologies that tap the energy of waves and tides remain unaffordable and impractical, and most experts think that this won’t change in a hurry. Geothermal is a minor player for now. And bioenergy—that is, wood, ethanol made from corn or sugar cane, or diesel made from palm oil—is proving an ecological disaster: It encourages deforestation and food-price hikes that cause devastation among the world’s poor, and per unit of energy produced, it creates even more carbon dioxide than coal.

Wind power, for all the public money spent on its expansion, has inched up to—wait for it—1% of world energy consumption in 2013. Solar, for all the hype, has not even managed that: If we round to the nearest whole number, it accounts for 0% of world energy consumption.

Both wind and solar are entirely reliant on subsidies for such economic viability as they have. World-wide, the subsidies given to renewable energy currently amount to roughly $10 per gigajoule: These sums are paid by consumers to producers, so they tend to go from the poor to the rich, often to landowners (I am a landowner and can testify that I receive and refuse many offers of risk-free wind and solar subsidies).

It is true that some countries subsidize the use of fossil fuels, but they do so at a much lower rate—the world average is about $1.20 per gigajoule—and these are mostly subsidies for consumers (not producers), so they tend to help the poor, for whom energy costs are a disproportionate share of spending.

The costs of renewable energy are coming down, especially in the case of solar. But even if solar panels were free, the power they produce would still struggle to compete with fossil fuel—except in some very sunny locations—because of all the capital equipment required to concentrate and deliver the energy. This is to say nothing of the great expanses of land on which solar facilities must be built and the cost of retaining sufficient conventional generator capacity to guarantee supply on a dark, cold, windless evening.

The two fundamental problems that renewables face are that they take up too much space and produce too little energy. Consider Solar Impulse, the solar-powered airplane now flying around the world. Despite its huge wingspan (similar to a 747), slow speed and frequent stops, the only cargo that it can carry is the pilots themselves. That is a good metaphor for the limitations of renewables.

To run the U.S. economy entirely on wind would require a wind farm the size of Texas, California and New Mexico combined—backed up by gas on windless days. To power it on wood would require a forest covering two-thirds of the U.S., heavily and continually harvested.

John Constable, who will head a new Energy Institute at the University of Buckingham in Britain, points out that the trickle of energy that human beings managed to extract from wind, water and wood before the Industrial Revolution placed a great limit on development and progress. The incessant toil of farm laborers generated so little surplus energy in the form of food for men and draft animals that the accumulation of capital, such as machinery, was painfully slow. Even as late as the 18th century, this energy-deprived economy was sufficient to enrich daily life for only a fraction of the population.

Our old enemy, the second law of thermodynamics, is the problem here. As a teenager’s bedroom generally illustrates, left to its own devices, everything in the world becomes less ordered, more chaotic, tending toward “entropy,” or thermodynamic equilibrium. To reverse this tendency and make something complex, ordered and functional requires work. It requires energy.

The more energy you have, the more intricate, powerful and complex you can make a system. Just as human bodies need energy to be ordered and functional, so do societies. In that sense, fossil fuels were a unique advance because they allowed human beings to create extraordinary patterns of order and complexity—machines and buildings—with which to improve their lives.

The result of this great boost in energy is what the economic historian and philosopher Deirdre McCloskey calls the Great Enrichment. In the case of the U.S., there has been a roughly 9,000% increase in the value of goods and services available to the average American since 1800, almost all of which are made with, made of, powered by or propelled by fossil fuels.

Still, more than a billion people on the planet have yet to get access to electricity and to experience the leap in living standards that abundant energy brings. This is not just an inconvenience for them: Indoor air pollution from wood fires kills four million people a year. The next time that somebody at a rally against fossil fuels lectures you about her concern for the fate of her grandchildren, show her a picture of an African child dying today from inhaling the dense muck of a smoky fire.

Notice, too, the ways in which fossil fuels have contributed to preserving the planet. As the American author and fossil-fuels advocate Alex Epstein points out in a bravely unfashionable book, “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels,” the use of coal halted and then reversed the deforestation of Europe and North America. The turn to oil halted the slaughter of the world’s whales and seals for their blubber. Fertilizer manufactured with gas halved the amount of land needed to produce a given amount of food, thus feeding a growing population while sparing land for wild nature.

To throw away these immense economic, environmental and moral benefits, you would have to have a very good reason. The one most often invoked today is that we are wrecking the planet’s climate. But are we?

Although the world has certainly warmed since the 19th century, the rate of warming has been slow and erratic. There has been no increase in the frequency or severity of storms or droughts, no acceleration of sea-level rise. Arctic sea ice has decreased, but Antarctic sea ice has increased. At the same time, scientists are agreed that the extra carbon dioxide in the air has contributed to an improvement in crop yields and a roughly 14% increase in the amount of all types of green vegetation on the planet since 1980.

That carbon-dioxide emissions should cause warming is not a new idea. In 1938, the British scientist Guy Callender thought that he could already detect warming as a result of carbon-dioxide emissions. He reckoned, however, that this was “likely to prove beneficial to mankind” by shifting northward the climate where cultivation was possible.

Only in the 1970s and 1980s did scientists begin to say that the mild warming expected as a direct result of burning fossil fuels—roughly a degree Celsius per doubling of carbon-dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere—might be greatly amplified by water vapor and result in dangerous warming of two to four degrees a century or more. That “feedback” assumption of high “sensitivity” remains in virtually all of the mathematical models used to this day by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC.

And yet it is increasingly possible that it is wrong. As Patrick Michaels of the libertarian Cato Institute has written, since 2000, 14 peer-reviewed papers, published by 42 authors, many of whom are key contributors to the reports of the IPCC, have concluded that climate sensitivity is low because net feedbacks are modest. They arrive at this conclusion based on observed temperature changes, ocean-heat uptake and the balance between warming and cooling emissions (mainly sulfate aerosols). On average, they find sensitivity to be 40% lower than the models on which the IPCC relies.

If these conclusions are right, they would explain the failure of the Earth’s surface to warm nearly as fast as predicted over the past 35 years, a time when—despite carbon-dioxide levels rising faster than expected—the warming rate has never reached even two-tenths of a degree per decade and has slowed down to virtually nothing in the past 15 to 20 years. This is one reason the latest IPCC report did not give a “best estimate” of sensitivity and why it lowered its estimate of near-term warming.

Most climate scientists remain reluctant to abandon the models and take the view that the current “hiatus” has merely delayed rapid warming. A turning point to dangerously rapid warming could be around the corner, even though it should have shown up by now. So it would be wise to do something to cut our emissions, so long as that something does not hurt the poor and those struggling to reach a modern standard of living.

We should encourage the switch from coal to gas in the generation of electricity, provide incentives for energy efficiency, get nuclear power back on track and keep developing solar power and electricity storage. We should also invest in research on ways to absorb carbon dioxide from the air, by fertilizing the ocean or fixing it through carbon capture and storage. Those measures all make sense. And there is every reason to promote open-ended research to find some unexpected new energy technology.

The one thing that will not work is the one thing that the environmental movement insists upon: subsidizing wealthy crony capitalists to build low-density, low-output, capital-intensive, land-hungry renewable energy schemes, while telling the poor to give up the dream of getting richer through fossil fuels.

Mr. Ridley is the author of “The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves” and a member of the British House of Lords.


Must read Alex Epstein :

See also :

Energy related :

Wind / Solar (Unreliables) related :

Reality Is An “Industry Talking Point”

Real Science

During cold nights homeless shelters fill up with people who can’t afford fuels to keep warm. They flock to locations powered by fossil fuels, in order to stay alive. Progressives want to put everyone in that same boat, dependent on government shelter to stay alive.

Thank God for fossil fuels which keep us warm, happy, independent and healthy. Progressives can’t stand people being warm, happy, independent  and healthy, so they think up a million mindless excuses to hurt other people – like “global warming”

Progressives call this an “industry talking point.”  They say that climate skeptics are keeping them from developing imaginary green energy via some magical witchcraft.

The reality is that progressives can’t do anything constructive , and won’t do anything constructive – because they are just another hate group. And global warming provides them another excuse to hate the productive people of the world, while pretending to be concerned…

View original post 38 more words

The World Is Not Warming – Stop Lying About It

Real Science

There has been no warming from the 1996 La Nina (cold) to the 2015 El Nino (warm.) That is almost 19 years of no warming, during rapid CO2 growth. The scam is dead – stop lying about it.

ScreenHunter_8055 Mar. 21 16.40

View original post

Obama Buys Home Doomed By Sea Level Rise

Obama joins Australian Sea Level Rise catastrophists, Julia Gillard and Tim Flannery, in the million dollar ocean front land grab.

A different set of rules for the climate change elite.

Real Science

Obama wants sea level skeptics silenced, as he buys a multi-million dollar house ten feet from the sea.

ScreenHunter_1301 Mar. 20 15.26


Obviously he is not worried about sea level rise. He is indeed the most transparent(ly dishonest) person in history.

View original post