Climate Alarmism Is Threatening To Destroy Australia | CLIMATISM
PETA CREDLIN is an Australian political commentator and former public servant who served as chief of staff to Prime Minister Tony Abbott from September 2013 to September 2015. She was previously chief of staff to Abbott as Leader of the Opposition. Since 2016, she has been the host of Credlin and co-host of Jones & Co on Sky News Live. (wiki)
*
CREDLIN remains a rare voice of sense and reason within the mainstream media on the issue of costly climate change alarmism. She brings an insiders understanding into the attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality that the control of “carbon dioxide” ergo, the control of energy precipitates.
Climate alarmism is threatening to destroy Australia
04/12/2018|7min
Sky News host Peta Credlin says Environment Minister Melissa Price should have her chequebook taken away before she represents Australia at the climate change conference in Poland.
Ms Credlin says the Environment Minister is unlikely to push back against the ‘climate alarmism that’s taken our energy prices from some of the world’s cheapest’ to the most expensive.
“GLOBAL COOLING gained considerable traction with the general public. But then, instead of cooling as long predicted by manmade climate change advocates, the planet started warming again. Something had to be done to rescue the climate change agenda from utter disaster. Enter Al Gore.”
Although his science is often seriously wrong, no one can deny that Al Gore has a flare for the dramatic. Speaking about climate change in an October 12 PBS interview, the former vice-president proclaimed, “We have a global emergency.” Referring to the most recent UN climate report, Gore claimed it showed that current global warming “could actually extend to an existential threat to human civilization on this planet as we know it.”
Al Gore’s overblown rhetoric makes no sense, of course. Yet his hyperbolic claims beg the question: How did this all start?
Back in the 1970s, media articles warning of imminent climate change problems began to appear regularly. TIME and Newsweek ran multiple cover stories asserting that oil companies and America’s capitalist life style were causing catastrophic damage to Earth’s climate. They claimed scientists were almost unanimous in their opinion that manmade climate change would…
“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
FROM the “department of the absurd” comes this out of the global warming theory-obsessed NBC…
Climate change could affect human evolution. Here’s how.
Global warming will likely alter the internal workings of our bodies — and cause a noticeable shift in our appearance.
by Scott Solomon /
Climate change could reduce racial differences, in part, by triggering massive migrations.Emilio Morenatti / AP file
As climate change brings rising temperatures, droughts, shifting patterns of precipitation and longer growing seasons, plants and animals are evolving to keep pace.
As the planet continues to warm, evolutionary changes are expected in other species as well — including Homo sapiens. Climate change will alter the internal workings of our bodies in subtle but significant ways and will likely cause a noticeable shift in our appearance.
INSIDE THE BODY
A warmer climate means malaria, West Nile virus and other diseases long confined primarily to the tropics will spread into temperate zones. As a result, people living in the U.S. and other developed nations will be exposed to these illnesses, and our immune systems will be forced to evolve new defenses. That, in turn, could cause other, noninfectious diseases.
GOTTA love how 1 extra CO2 molecule per every 10,000 atmospheric molecules can change the way we look!
TWITTER’S excellent “Sooky Blessington” with the most viable explanation of what’s going on here…
Without the Alinsky method propaganda campaign, no-one would have any sense that anything unusual is occurring re the weather. It would be a non-conversation. That might be because we live in one of the most stable periods of weather in modern history.
Roger Federer, one of the world’s greatest tennis players, may have become an unwitting spokesman for the effects of climate change on Monday at the U.S. Open.
Federer, who is ranked No. 2, seemed to struggle all night in the heat and humidity at Arthur Ashe Stadium, losing in a fourth-round upset to John Millman, an Australian ranked 55th.
“It was hot,” Federer said. It “was just one of those nights where I guess I felt I couldn’t get air; there was no circulation at all.”
This was the first time Federer, who won the U.S. Open five consecutive times from 2004 to 2008, lost to a player outside the top 50 at the tournament.
To some, the comments by Federer, 37, may sound like sour grapes. But they also underscore a growing problem: increasing nighttime temperatures.
Under climate change, overall temperatures are rising — 2018 is on track to be the fourth-warmest year on record — but the warming is not happening evenly. Summer nights have warmed at nearly twice the rate of summer days. Average overnight low temperatures in the United States have increased 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit per century since 1895, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
WATCH the blatant fraud uncovered by Heller in this MUST SEE vid:
*
WHILE Heller’s work on the NY area at Ithaca doesn’t explore humidity, his analysis, using USHCN offical Govt data, shows that the number of hot days over 90F are declining as CO2 increases – the opposite of what global warming CO2-theory demands. And, shock news, Heller’s data shows the exact opposite of what the failing NYTimes impugns…
A large percentage of New York Times reporting is fraudulent, and sometimes it is trivial to prove. They are hiding readily available historical data, reporting incorrectly on historical and present data, and claiming trends which are the exact opposite of reality. Scientific and journalistic fraud at its worst.
AS an Aussie, bravo to John Millman for downing the Fed! And, obviously he had to play under the same conditions as the champ. Just maybe, Millman was the better player on the ‘humid’ night in NYC and in better condition than ye olde Rog, God bless him!
AS for the failing NY Times – “Scientific and journalistic fraud at its worst.” – we and the empirical evidence concur!
AUGUST is peak melt season for Arctic sea-ice. It’s also peak season for Arctic alarmists to scream and yell for an “ICE-FREE” Arctic.
HOWEVER, for the entire 21st Century, their cries, smears and slimes at “deniers” and Mother Nature have added up to nothing more than loud voices of a minority, with the usual and telling absence of empirical evidence or scientific reality.
THE attached fifteen second animation of all August months available via DMI, from 2003 – 2018, confirms the lies and falsehoods about the state of the Arctic that “Death Spiral” alarmists bleat about.
JUDGE for yourself if Arctic sea-ice is in a “Death Spiral” as a result of ‘evil’ human carbon dioxide emissions…
TWO years ago today, The Guardian proclaimed, under the ‘expert’ tutelage of professional Arctic alarmist ‘Professor’ Peter Wadhams, that ‘Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’…
Peter Wadhams has spent his career in the Arctic, making more than 50 trips there, some in submarines under the polar ice. He is credited with being one of the first scientists to show that the thick icecap that once covered the Arctic ocean was beginning to thin and shrink. He was director of the Scott Polar Institute in Cambridge from 1987 to 1992 and professor of ocean physics at Cambridge since 2001. His book, A Farewell to Ice, tells the story of his unravelling of this alarming trend and describes what the consequences for our planet will be if Arctic ice continues to disappear at its current rate.
You have said on several occasions that summer Arctic sea ice would disappear by the middle of this decade. It hasn’t. Are you being alarmist? No. There is a clear trend down to zero for summer cover. However, each year chance events can give a boost to ice cover or take some away. The overall trend is a very strong downward one, however. Most people expect this year will see a record low in the Arctic’s summer sea-ice cover. Next year or the year after that, I think it will be free of ice in summer and by that I mean the central Arctic will be ice-free. You will be able to cross over the north pole by ship. There will still be about a million square kilometres of ice in the Arctic in summer but it will be packed into various nooks and crannies along the Northwest Passage and along bits of the Canadian coastline. Ice-free means the central basin of the Arctic will be ice-free and I think that that is going to happen in summer 2017 or 2018.
WADHAMS has about as much credibility as climate charlatan and fellow Arctic alarmist Tim Flannery who also assured us that we will “see an ice-free North Pole in 2018” :
MOST of the fake-news-mainstream-media, grant-driven alarmist climate ‘scientists’ and “97%” of those esteemed ‘scientific’ institutions ALL promised you an “ice-free” Arctic by now, in order to push their fraudulent global warming climate change agenda:
SINCE the beginning of time, water vapour has been the main greenhouse gas and carbon dioxide has had a minuscule effect on global climate.
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 physicalchemist.
“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 NOAA.
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
Climate policy is underpinned by two fallacies. The first is that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. The second is that future climate can be predicted from computer models.
It has yet to be shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive climate change. More than 100 climate models over the past 30 years did not predict what actually happened because it was assumed carbon dioxide had the pivotal role in driving climate change and that the effects of clouds, back-radiation and the sun were trivial.
Climate projections also assume that planet Earth is not dynamic and that a temporary terrestrial vertebrate on an evolving planet can change major planetary and extraterrestrial systems.
Unless the past is understood, climate projections can be only highly speculative. Even in our own lifetimes, there is no relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide emissions by humans, yet there is a very close relationship between solar activity and temperature.
Since the beginning of time, water vapour has been the main greenhouse gas and carbon dioxide has had a minuscule effect on global climate.
Carbon dioxide is a trace gas in the atmosphere. We are expected to believe that emission of traces of a trace gas into the atmosphere is a major planetary driving force. If the atmosphere comprised 85,000 molecules, the total carbon dioxide emissions added annually would be 33 molecules, of which only one molecule would be from human emissions and the other 32 from natural emissions. Do we really believe that one bellowing fan in a crowd of 85,000 at the MCG can completely change the course of a game?
For the past 4567 million years, the sun and the Earth’s orbit have driven climate change cycles. In the past, the atmospheric carbon dioxide content has been orders of magnitude higher than now, yet there were ice ages.
We currently live in an interglacial during an ice age with alternating cycles of glaciations and interglacials. The current interglacial reached a peak about 5000 years ago. Since then, the planet has been cooling on a millennial scale and no amount of hot air, agreements, taxes, environmental wailing or legislation can change the fact that the Earth’s orbit is slowly taking us farther from the sun.
Just 1.25 per cent of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere-ocean system has been released by humans in the past 250 years. The atmospheric residency time of carbon dioxide is five years and it is quickly sequestered into plants, marine life, oceans and sediments. If human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming, why have there been slight warmings and coolings since the Industrial Revolution? Why is it that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming yet natural emissions do not?
Carbon dioxide is plant food. Horticulturalists pump warm carbon dioxide into glasshouses to stimulate growth. Over the past 30 years, planet Earth has greened due to a slight increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Without carbon dioxide, there would be no complex life on earth. It is neither pollution nor a poison, and in the past the atmospheric carbon dioxide content has varied enormously.
When the atmospheric carbon dioxide content was low, plants struggled. When it was high, there was an expansion and increasing diversity of vegetation.
In addition, when it was warm, life expanded, whereas when it was cold, life contracted. Over historical times, when it was cold there was human depopulation. When it was warm, economies thrived.
Biological, geological and planetary systems are extremely robust. Our evolving dynamic planet has survived sea level changes of hundreds of metres, super volcanoes filling the atmosphere with dust, asteroid impacts, mass extinctions, ice ages and global warming. For most of time, Earth has been a warm, wet volcanic planet with no polar ice.
Australia has uranium, coal and gas for generations. Fracking for tight gas and oil could further extend energy resources. We are the envy of the world. Australia once had cheap, reliable electricity and the states competed to provide cheap, long-term, reliable energy to attract industry.
Illustration: Sturt Krygsman.
Now the states rely on the weather and compete to reach the bottom. South Australia is winning: it has the most unreliable grid in the world outside Africa and the most expensive electricity. When South Australians buy electricity at $14,200/MWh, they are paying the equivalent of $400 a litre for petrol.
As soon as the word emissions entered the language and became part of a religious ideology, electricity prices skyrocketed, electricity supply became more unreliable, subsidies for wind and solar energy went through the roof and employers and consumers had massive cost increases. Never mind that the emissions of carbon dioxide to make and maintain a wind or solar industrial complex are far greater than they will ever save.
The Paris accord is non-binding. This is recognised by the major carbon dioxide emitters such as China, India and the US, which don’t comply. No EU state has met its target. Why should Australia be the only country out of step and aim for an impossible, bankrupting reduction of 26 per cent or more of our 2005 carbon dioxide emissions?
Pragmatism and principled inaction is the correct policy to address the non-problem of human-induced climate change promoted by the Paris accord. But do our politicians have the courage to thoughtfully do nothing?
We are in an electricity crisis because we are trying to decrease human emissions of carbon dioxide and have tied climate policy and electricity generation costs to emissions. A reality check is needed. Even if human-induced global warming could be shown, a reduction in Australian emissions, comprising 1.3 per cent of global annual emissions, is dwarfed by annual increases of 2 per cent globally and 4 per cent by China.
Australia’s symbolic suicidal climate policy just makes everybody poorer.
We face further turnover of prime ministers and governments until the costs and reliability of electricity are addressed and until the fundamentalist religious mantra that emissions drive global warming is rejected.
Politicians need to realise that the electorate wants cheap electricity and a reduction of emissions concurrent with subsidies for unreliable weather-dependent electricity can neither reduce costs nor increase reliability.
Meanwhile, employment-generating businesses will close, household costs will become impossibly high, international competitiveness will fall and governments will change.
Emissions must be banned. From the language. Not from coal-fired power stations that have provided cheap, reliable electricity for generations. It is only then that we will have stable government and cheap reliable electricity again.
Emeritus professor Ian Plimer’s latest book, Climate Delusion and the Great Electricity Rip-Off, is published by Connor Court.
(Climate sceptics/rationalists still waitin’ for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)
Help us to hit back against the bombardment of climate lies costing our communities, economies and livelihoods far, far too much.
Thanks to all those who have donated and continue on a monthly cycle! Your support and faith in Climatism is highly motivating and greatly appreciated!
Citizen journalists don’t rely on mastheads, rather private donations. Please give generously!
By Paul Driessen ~
Al Gore’s overblown rhetoric makes no sense, of course. Yet his hyperbolic claims beg the question: How did this all start?
Recent Comments