Crying Wolf : Great Barrier Reef Alarmism | CLIMATISM
“THE journalists come up and they’re not interested in what the truth is. They’re only interested in finding out where the ‘dead’ reef is. And when people who work right up and down the reef can’t actually take them to a single place that is going to suit their dooms-day story, then we sort of need a bit of balance…”
– Paul Talbott : GBR Tourist operator
STRAIGHT-TALKING former James Cook University marine geophysicist Professor Peter Ridd has been an outspoken critic of the relentless tide of fear-mongering, misinformation and anti-science hysteria advanced by climate change activists concerning the health of the Great Barrier Reef.
IN June of 2016, Ridd made the headlines after suspecting something was wrong with photographs being used to highlight the apparent rapid decline of the Great Barrier Reef:
AFTER attempting to blow the whistle on the bogus pictures, Ridd was censured and subsequently sacked by James Cook University. (Ridd is currently suing JCU)
After a formal investigation, Professor Ridd was found guilty of “failing to act in a collegial way and in the academic spirit of the institution”!
His crime was to encourage questioning of two of the nation’s leading reef institutions, the Centre of Excellence for Coral Studies and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, on whether they knew that photographs they had published and claimed to show long-term collapse of reef health could be misleading and wrong.” Graham Lloyd – The Australian – 11 June 2016
SIMILARtotalitarian treatment was dished out by free-thinking James Cook University to the late and great Bob Carter, a former JCU adjunct Professor. Carter was a world renowned climate change expert and sceptic. His crime – speaking outside the permitted doctrine of global warming climate change.
PROFESSOR RIDD writes an ever insightful and eye-opening piece on the reef in today’s Australian.
Scientists from James Cook University have just published a paper on the bleaching and death of corals on the Great Barrier Reef and were surprised that the death rate was less than they expected, because of the adaptability of corals to changing temperatures.
It appears as though they exaggerated their original claims and are quietly backtracking.
To misquote Oscar Wilde, to exaggerate once is a misfortune, to do it twice looks careless, but to do it repeatedly looks like unforgivable systemic unreliability by some of our major science organisations.
The very rapid adaptation of corals to high temperatures is a well-known phenomenon; besides, if you heat corals in a given year, they tend to be less susceptible in the future to overheating. This is why corals are one of the least likely species to be affected by climate change, irrespective of whether you believe the climate is changing by natural fluctuations or because of human influence.
Corals have a unique way of dealing with changing temperature, by changing the microscopic plants that live inside them. These microscopic plants, called zooxanthellae, give the coral energy from the sun through photosynthesis in exchange for a comfortable home inside the coral. When the water gets hot, these little plants effectively become poisonous to the coral and the coral throws them out, which turns the coral white — that is, it bleaches.
But most of the time, the coral will recover from the bleaching. And here’s the trick: the corals take in new zooxanthellae, that floats around in the water quite naturally, and can selectselecting different species that are better suited to hot weather.
Most other organisms have to change their genetic make-up to deal with temperature changes — something that can take many generations. But corals can do it in a few weeks by just changing the plants that live in them.
They have learned a thing or two in a couple of hundred million years of evolution.
The problem here is that the world has been completely misled about the effects of bleaching by scientists who rarely mention the spectacular regrowth that occurs. For example, the 2016 bleaching event supposedly killed 93 per cent, or half, or 30 per cent of the reef, depending on which headline and scientist you want to believe.
However, the scientists looked only at coral in very shallow water — less than 2m below the surface — which is only a small fraction of all the coral, but by far the most susceptible to getting hot in the tropical sun.
A recent study found that deep-water coral (down to more than 40m) underwent far less bleaching, as one would expect. I estimate that less than 8 per cent of the Barrier Reef coral died. That might still sound like a lot, but considering that there was a 250 per cent increase in coral between 2011 and 2016 for the entire southern zone, an 8 per cent decrease is nothing to worry about. Coral recovers fast.
But this is just the tip of the exaggeration iceberg. Some very eminent scientists claim that bleaching never happened before the 1980s and is entirely a man-made phenomenon. This was always a ridiculous proposition.
A recent study of 400-year-old corals has found that bleaching has always occurred and is no more common now than in the past. Scientists have also claimed that there has been a 15 per cent reduction in the growth rate of corals. However, some colleagues and I demonstrated that there were serious errors in their work and that, if anything, there has been a slight increase in the coral growth rate over the past 100 years.
This is what one would expect in a gently warming climate. Corals grow up to twice as fast in the hotter water of Papua New Guinea and the northern Barrier Reef than in the southern reef. I could quote many more examples.
This unreliability of the science is now a widely accepted scandal in many other areas of study and it has a name: the replication crisis. When checks are made to replicate or confirm scientific results, it is regularly found that about half have flaws. This is an incredible and scandalous situation, a view shared by the editors of eminent journals and many science institutions. A great deal of effort is going into fixing this problem, especially in the biomedical sciences, where it was first recognised.
But not for Barrier Reef science. The science institutions deny there is a problem and fail to correct erroneous work. When Piers Larcombe and I submitted an article to a scientific journal suggesting we needed a little additional checking of Great Barrier Reef science, the response from many very eminent scientists was that there was no need. Everything was fine. I am not sure if this is blind optimism or wilful negligence, but why would anybody object to a little more checking? It would cost only a few million dollars — just a tiny fraction of what governments will be spending on the reef.
But the truth will out eventually. The scare stories about the Barrier Reef started in the 1960s, when scientists first started work on it. They have been crying wolf ever since. But the data keeps coming in and, yes, sometimes a great deal of coral dies in a spectacular manner, with accompanying media fanfare. It is like a bushfire on land — it looks terrible at first, but it quietly and rapidly grows back, ready for the scientists to peddle their story all over again.
Peter Ridd was, until fired this year, a physicist at James Cook University’s marine geophysical laboratory.
“We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.” – Warren Buffett
“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.” – James Hansen (The Godfather of global warming alarmism and former NASA climate chief)
WESTERN climate-theory-obsessed politicians continue their ruinous and costly obsession with wind and solar ‘energy’. ‘UNreliables‘ that repeatedly fail the environment, communities and economies wherever installed.
ALICE Friedemann of ‘Energy Skeptic‘ meticulously lays out 41 reasons that expose the colossal flaws of the mad rush into wind ‘power’ as a genuine replacement for fossil fuels and/or nuclear power. Economy and job-destroying, anti-energy policy initiatives undertaken by all-too-many in our current ruling class that defy all logic, reason and common sense based on easily verifiable data and on-the-ground evidence.
Preface. Electricity simply doesn’t substitute for all the uses of fossil fuels, so windmills will never be able to reproduce themselves from the energy they generate — they are simply not sustainable. Consider the life cycle of a wind turbine – giant diesel powered mining trucks and machines dig deep into the earth for iron ore, fossil-fueled ships take the ore to a facility that will crush it and permeate it with toxic chemicals to extract the metal from the ore, the metal will be taken in a diesel truck or locomotive to a smelter which runs exclusively on fossil fuels 24 x 7 x 365 for up to 22 years (any stoppage causes the lining to shatter so intermittent electricity won’t do). There are over 8,000 parts to a wind turbine which are delivered over global supply chains via petroleum-fueled ships, rail, air, and trucks to the assembly factory. Finally diesel cement trucks arrive at the wind turbine site to pour many tons of concrete and other diesel trucks carry segments of the wind turbine to the site and workers who drove gas or diesel vehicles to the site assemble it.
Here are the topics covered below in this long post:
Windmills require petroleum every single step of their life cycle. If they can’t replicate themselves using wind turbine generated electricity, they are not sustainable
SCALE. Too many windmills needed to replace fossil fuels
SCALE. Wind turbines can’t be scaled up fast enough to replace fossils
Not enough rare earth metals and enormous amounts of cement, steel, and other materials required
Not enough dispatchable power to balance wind intermittency and unreliability
Wind blows seasonally, so for much of there year there wouldn’t be enough wind
When too much wind is blowing for the grid to handle, it has to be curtailed and/or drives electricity prices to zero, driving natural gas, coal, and nuclear power plants out of business
The best wind areas will never be developed
The Grid Can’t Handle Wind Power without natural gas, which is finite
The role of the grid is to keep the supply of power steady and predictable. Wind does the opposite, at some point of penetration it may become impossible to keep the grid from crashing.
The grid blacks out when the supply of power varies too much. Eventually too much wind penetration will crash the grid.
Windmills wouldn’t be built without huge subsidies and tax breaks
Tremendous environmental damage from mining material for windmills
Not enough time to scale wind up
The best wind is too high or remote to capture
Too many turbines could affect Earth’s climate negatively
Wide-scale US wind power could cause significant global warming. A Harvard study raises questions about just how much wind should be part of a climate solution
Less wind can be captured than thought (see Max Planck Society)
Wind is only strong enough to justify windmills in a few regions
The electric grid needs to be much larger than it is now
Wind blows the strongest when customer demand is the weakest
No utility scale energy storage in sight
Wind Power surges harm industrial customers
Energy returned on Energy Invested is negative
Windmills take up too much space
Wind Turbines break down too often
Large-scale wind energy slows down winds and reduces turbine efficiencies
Offshore Wind Farms likely to be destroyed by Hurricanes
The costs of lightning damage are too high
Wind doesn’t reduce CO2
Turbines increase the cost of farming
Offshore Windmills battered by waves, wind, ice, corrosion, a hazard to ships and ecosystems
Wind turbines are far more expensive than they appear to be
Wind turbines are already going out of business and fewer built in Europe
TRANSPORTATION LIMITATIONS: Windmills are so huge they’ve reached the limits of land transportation by truck or rail
Windmills may only last 12 to 15 years, or at best 20 years
Not In My Back Yard – NIMBYism
Lack of a skilled and technical workforce
Wind only produces electricity, what we face is a liquid fuels crisis
Wind has a low capacity Factor
Dead bugs and salt reduce wind power generation by 20 to 30%
Small windmills too expensive, too noisy, unreliable, and height restricted
“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 Russell
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of UNEP
WITH far greater frequency than a hurricane strike in the Floridas, the biggest names in the political and climate world gather at exotic locations around the globe to pretend that they are intent on “saving the planet”, again. Quite simply the Oscars of virtue signalling.
YET it’s (almost) set in stone that these confabs will fail their primary objective. That is, to force rich countries to quietly destroy their economies and for the poor economies, with the highest death rates, to reject energy and prosperity.
THE only resolution guaranteed by all ‘parties’ (excuse the pun) is where to hold the next, taxpayer-funded climate change junket.
MEANWHILE, all those taxpayer funded frequent flyer miles hurt your hip pocket and apparently the planet too. Or, maybe only when it’s you doing the flying…?
SCIENCE writer Viv Forbes wraps up the latest UNFCCC climate party…
Poland climatefest dumps several million tonnes of CO2 into atmosphere aiding plant growth
$500M Climate Carnival Concludes.
COP 24 just concluded in Poland. Nearly 23,000 climate saviours attended this 24th annual climate carnival.
Every year, plane-loads of concerned busybodies fly to some interesting new location to spend tax dollars on a well-fed 12 day holiday. They concoct plans to ration and tax the energy used by real workers, farmers and families back home.
Few delegates arrived by bicycle or solar-powered plane – a fleet of at least 100 commercial, private and charter aircraft brought them at a cost estimated at US$57M. When the costs of hotels, ground transport, food, entertainment, air conditioning and office services are added, the bill is likely to top $500 M.
Australian taxpayers supported 46 junketeers. Now these Chicken Littles are back home spreading climate scare stories and lecturing locals to not overspend on Christmas presents.
There is a bright side – all that carbon dioxide emitted by planes, cars, buses, heaters, stoves, beer, champagne and Poland’s coal-fired power stations will help global plant growth.
One of the largest conferences of the year just wrapped up this past weekend in Katowice, Poland. And it was on everyone’s favorite subject, climate change.
Yes, this is the annual conference where tens of thousands of delegates fly into a foreign town. On your tax dollars. To iron out a plan for the future of the planet.
It’s called the United Nations Climate Change Conference. And this years’ went under the short name of COP24 (Conference of the Parties – 24th edition).
And it was the second biggest one since the monster Paris Climate Change conference back in December 2015 (COP21 for those keeping count).
According to this official attendance list, there were 22,700 delegates from 197 countries there.
This conference was not a weekend or even a week long.
It was hosted for 12 whole days.
But first, all these people had to get to the COP24 Climate Change conference. And unfortunately, zero-emission transit was not available to get them all to Katowice.
There are no bike lanes crossing the Atlantic Ocean or the Mediterranean Sea.
If you think trillions of dollars over dozens and dozens of years is impossible for parties to fight climate change with their vision…
Here’s how Cultural Communists Spent Nearly Half of Billion Dollars in 12 days:
These attendees took commercial, charter and private planes to get to Katowice International Airport just north of the city.
For all their green agendas, they flew the big, bulky, carbon-spewing and nature polluting airplanes.
Without every receipt, it’s not easy to pinpoint how much various flight types cost. But you can bet even those travelling on commercial aircraft were not flying with the common folk.
Let’s assume $2,500 per person to fly to and from Katowice, Poland.
Cost of Flights = 22,700 x $2,500 = $57 million dollars.
Thinking that the delegates like to travel together, let’s be conservative and say they all flew commercial on a Boeing 747 in groups of 227. Unlikely, but it makes our napkin calculation simple.
This would require 100 planes flying in and flying out…
According to Blue Sky Model, 1 mile of flight produces about 53 pounds of carbon dioxide for the average plane.
Now sticking with simplicity, let’s assume the average flight was just about the distance between New York City and Katowice – 4,283 miles. In reality, people flew from as far away as Auckland, New Zealand.
The total amount of carbon emitted = 100 planes x 4,283 miles x 53 pounds per mile x 2 trips = at least 45 million pounds of evil, harmful polluting carbon dioxide into the air.
Do as the cultural communists say, I guess. Not as they do.
And I’m being optimistic.
For reference, WIRED Magazine estimates that all the planes that flew to the Paris climate talks released about 575 million pounds of CO2.
Now let’s correctly assume that politicians, dignitaries and their entourages didn’t stay in Holiday Inn’s or Best Westerns like the working class.
Nor would they opt for AirBnB type services for their fellow taxpayers…
And since this conference would be among the top destinations in the world at this climate change time of year, hoteliers would have increased their nightly room prices. It’s Opportunism 101.
So let’s allow $500 per night for hotels or private flats. Katowice and the surrounding areas aren’t exactly Paris. So things are a bit more affordable.
Cost of hotels = 27,700 people x 12 nights x US $500 = $166 million dollars
Delegates then had to drive the roughly 34 kilometers (21 miles) to the city core.
Heaven forbid if these people all took the transit system. How could they possible hold a dignified image taking the subway or public buses?
So they likely hired private cars and limousines.
The rates for these vehicles goes anywhere from $500 – $1,000 per day. Let’s assume some attendees followed their agendas and carpooled, thus requiring only 20,000 cars.
Cost of Transportation = 20,000 cars x $750 per day x 12 days = $180 million dollars
Let’s not forget that people need to eat.
And when in Poland, you can’t be eating Subway or McDonalds. How can you possibly pair a fine Bordeaux with a Big Mac?
So we have to factor in meals and entertainment.
Most attendees will have gotten a per diem for their travels. We can safely assume these costs to be anywhere from $100 – $500 per day depending on their stature.
Cost of food = 27,700 x $250 per diem x 12 days = $83 million dollars
And what about the workers who put it all together?
The average wage in Poland is just shy of $1,170 per month.
Data on workers hasn’t been released yet. But at the Paris conference 3 years ago, there were 3,000 workers hired directly for the conference and about 11,000 police and military to keep the place secure.
Let’s assume the same amount of security and workers were used in Poland.
And considering security forces are not cheap, let’s just assume they all made double the average wage…
Cost of personnel = 14,000 x $1,170 x 2 x ½ month’s work = $16.3 million dollars
Let’s sum it all up…
There is a good chance I have been too conservative and underestimated some of the costs.
The cost of saving the future world for just a couple weeks was half a billion dollars. But you’ll be happy to know that the official meal plan for attendees had some options for a low emission footprint, as you can see below.
COP24 Menu GHG Emissions
Until next year’s Climate Change conference in Chile…
Wait, did I not mention the pre-conference in Costa Rica?
WIND lobbyists say bird deaths are small compared with millions that collide with windows etc. This is a fallacy. The argument ignores affected species. If 50 pigeons fly into windows, it has no effect on population. But, when a breeding Raptor is chopped, it represents a significant loss for the species.
THIS latest study of wind-related predatory bird slaughter will be conveniently buried by ‘environmental’ groups and sycophant mainstream media.
BIAS by omission – the mainstream media’s favourite form of propaganda. Disgraceful.
How green is this? Golden eagle ‘transitions’ to wind power.
One issue that annoys RE zealots, like a burr under a frisky pony’s saddle blanket, is the wind industry’s rampant bird and bat slaughter. It’s an inconvenient truth to be sure. But, as with everything that the wind industry does, if you can’t keep a straight face while lying about it any more, then pull out all stops and cover it up.
The wholesale slaughter of millions of birds and bats – includes rare, endangered and majestic species, like America’s iconic bald and golden eagles. The default response from the wind industry is to lie like fury and – when the corpses can no longer be hidden and the lying fails – to issue court proceedings to literally bury those facts (see our post here).
The hackneyed retort from the wind cult is that cars, cats and tall buildings…
• “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.)
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”.
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)
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)
“That snow outside is what
global warming looks like.” George Monbiot – The Guardian
IN 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) predicted that global warming climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. These people, it was said, would flee a range of disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and disruption to food production.
SINCE then, not a single “climate refugee” has been found. In fact, the UN has since ‘disappeared’ the official climate refugee map from their UNEP website:
SHE could prove them right, be the UN’s new climate pin-up garl! Even if her considered move is as a result of cold extremes, rather than from a ‘hot’ one. After all, it’s called “climate change” right? So, it needn’t matter which way the temp swings to qualify as a U.N. “climate refugee” …
East Coast woman considers ‘moving away’ after icy fall
VETERAN meteorologist Barry Burbank explains the fake news furphy behind Moonbat and other warming alarmists claims that recent record snowfall is caused by ‘Global Warming’ :
“Interestingly, some scientists have stated that increasing snow is consistent with climate change because warmer air holds more moisture, more water vapor and this can result in more storms with heavy precipitation. The trick, of course, is having sufficient cold air to produce that snow. But note that 93% of the years with more than 60″ of snow in Boston were colder than average years. The reality is cooling, not warming, increases snowfall.”
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
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.