“Articles, tweets and interviews that deliberately lob personal tears into the public domain sound the alarm bells of sanctimony..”
― Chris Kenny
FIRSTLY, apologies for the use of “suicide” in the heading to all those who have been directly or indirectly affected by such a horrible and tragic event. I can personally sympathise.
THAT said, the use of the threat of “suicide” by those pushing the
global warming climate change agenda is indicative of the desperate, dishonest and disrespectful lengths that climate activists will go to in order to drive their latest fashionable eco-scare.
AUSTRALIAN columnist Chris Kenny with some much needed perspective, clarity and reason to parlay the constant rhetoric of climate change doom and gloom that the Climate Crisis Industry relies on in an attempt to remain relevant…
(Links, Graphs and Bolds added by Climatism)
WHEN people go public with private tears I am immediately suspicious. Not that I am against tears; as a physical reaction to emotion they are a fact of life best controlled in some circumstances but uncontrollable in others.
But articles, tweets and interviews that deliberately lob personal tears into the public domain sound the alarm bells of sanctimony. Telling the world about your saltwater reaction to this or that is perhaps the epitome of virtue-signalling.
“I cried two times when my daughter was born,” was the opening line in a New York Times piece this week. Those sanctimony warning bells rang loud. It was by Iraq veteran, English professor and climate alarmist Roy Scranton, promoting a new book of essays on war and climate change titled We’re Doomed. Now What? And yes, he claims to have shed tears for the planet.
“First for joy, when after 27 hours of labour the little feral being we’d made came yowling into the world, and the second for sorrow, holding the earth’s newest human and looking out the window with her at the rows of cars in the hospital parking lot, the strip mall across the street, the box stores and drive-throughs and drainage ditches and asphalt and waste fields that had once been oak groves. A world of extinction and catastrophe, a world in which harmony with nature had long been foreclosed. My partner and I had, in our selfishness, doomed our daughter to life on a dystopian planet, and I could see no way to shield her from the future.”
Where to start with such inanity? Perhaps with the good news. Max Roser’s work for Oxford University’s Our World in Data project shows that two centuries ago, 90 per cent of the global population lived in extreme poverty and now, even though the population has grown from less than one billion people to about 7.5 billion, those proportions have completely reversed so that only 10 per cent of the world’s population lives in extreme poverty.
GLOBAL WARMING Might Not Hurt, But Warming Policies Do : Former Australian PM Spells Out The Inconvenient TruthPosted: July 4, 2018
“WE were the cheapest electricity market in the world, and now we’re one of the dearest. It’s insanity that this has occurred in a market that is so well-blessed in resources.”
― Alan John Moran (Australian columnist and Economist)
THE climate change scare has little to do with the “environment” or “saving the planet”. Rather, its roots lie in a misanthropic agenda engineered by the environmental movement in the mid 1970’s, who realised that doing something about “global warming” would play to quite a number of the Lefts social agendas.
CO2 – the byproduct of cheap, reliable and affordable energy – was fingered as the patsy and subsequently demonised, with “the science” tortured to fit the warming theory. Not the other way around as the “scientific method” would require.
THE UN IPCC was created as the all-holy authority on climate change “science” by Maurice Strong’s UNEP and the UN’s WMO, with its charter carefully crafted to only study human (Anthropogenic) effects on climate – “Don’t worry about natural causes – your gasses and lifestyles are far more dangerous than anything Mother Nature can deal out…trust us”.
THUS, the science was “settled” and “consensus” demanded before the data was even in. It has been the same ever since. The hypothesis has not changed a jot even as the evidence proving CAGW has failed dismally across most metrics. Instead, the theory has become more “settled”, according to the UN IPCC, with the scare driven relentlessly by the mainstream media and throng of well funded global green lobby groups and unreliable-energy rent-seekers who all profit from climate doom.
“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
THE fix was in from the start, and now we’re paying for it, big time, in the form of skyrocketing power bills, energy poverty and even an uptick in cold-related deaths as the elderly and poor are forced to switch off their heating in the face of costly ‘green’ energy
schemes scams imposed on them by draconian government ‘climate’ regulations…
FORMER Australian PM, Tony Abbott, has had enough. His essay featured in today’s Australian is a plea from the people and its economy, paralysed by skyrocketing power bills, to pull out of the job and life-destroying UN Paris climate accord…
(ABBOT’s essay is paywalled, so I’ll pull out the juicy bits, with Climatism supports added.) Read the rest of this entry »
SEE now what their panic-making has inspired – symbolic global warming schemes that have hurt us infinitely more than any slight, and most probably beneficial, global warming ever could…
Relying on subsidised, intermittent and unreliable wind and solar results in rocketing power prices. Rocketing power prices results in a cycle of grinding, daily misery for the poorest and most vulnerable.
More than 100,000 Australian families had their power cut off last year, and a further 100,000 are on payment plans with their power retailers – all thanks to Australia’s diabolical obsession with wind and solar power.
South Australia tops the list above, for one reason, and one reason only: its ludicrous attempt to run on sunshine and breezes.
Craig Kelly heads up the Monash Forum, a group of 30 Liberal and National MPs determined to arrest the disaster. Here’s Craig.
Energy policy as shameful as the Soviet’s
The Spectator Australia
21 May 2018
“I told myself it was beneath my dignity to arrest a man for pilfering firewood. But nothing ordered by the party is beneath the…
View original post 472 more words
IF the “science is settled”, what’s the point of continuing further climate research? Research that always begins with the pre-conceived notion that human emissions are causing X so we need to spend Y and you need to do Z in order to avert disaster 100 years from now, “based on our high-tech model simulations”.
RESEARCH to study natural variation, important for climate predictions for agricultural industry and emergency services etc is scoffed at and simply NOT granted.
SO, the $1.6 BILLION will again be spent purely on activist CO2-centric ‘science’ fermenting the ‘warming’ scare in order to maintain and even increase funding if the new problem discovered is bigger than the last one. The scare self-perpetuates.
WHAT a joke.
AUSTRALIA should cut all climate ‘science’ funding or at least dedicate 50% to natural variation studies that look at variables like maybe…the Sun! The real driver of climate change.
News Brief by Kip Hansen
Australian climate scientists are whinging about the newly announced Federal budget for 2019. Who can blame them?
The total to be spent on climate-related research has been reduced to the abysmally low sum of AU$1.6 billion for the next fiscal year which begins 1 July 2018. [Yes, that is billion with a B].
While 1.6 billion Australian dollars (just over 1.2 billion US dollars @ today’s exchange rates) may seem like a lot of research money for a country that doesn’t have the necessity of maintaining fleets of satellites or ocean-going research buoys, but it is a very sharp reduction from the AU$3 billion they were allotted for the current year.
“Once again, [the budget]…
View original post 85 more words
UNRELIABLES Rip-Off: Despite $4 Billion in Annual Subsidies, Wind & Solar Delivers a Trivial 2% of Australia’s Power DemandPosted: April 30, 2018
“Ex-Nationals senator Ron Boswell wrote in “The Australian” today, (19 April 2018), making the point that the RET is failing us and forcing electricity prices through the roof, putting ordinary folk in energy poverty and destroying businesses.
Total renewable MWh for the period and the associated subsidies are:
• Wind: 74,100,000 at $80/MWh = $5.93 billion.
• Hydro: 245,800,000 at $80/MWh = $19.7 billion
• Large PV: 614,000 at $40/MWh = $24.5 million.
• Small PV: 25,300,000 at $40/MWh = $1 billion.
The total extra cost to consumers is about $27 billion for 9% of the total consumption.”
BASED solely on output and reliability, without massive subsidies and government intervention, there would be no unreliable-energy ‘revolution’ to pad the egos of the climate-theory-obsessed, virtue-signalling politicians.
PRIVATE investors will not go near large-scale wind and solar. The German’s are learning this, hard and fast, right now >> http://joannenova.com.au/2018/04/bloodbath-in-the-german-solar-industry-without-subsidies-80000-solar-jobs-are-gone/
EXPECT more ‘green’ energy meltdowns as the subsidy crutch dries up.
In any bargain, those stumping up their own cash, tend to ask what they’re getting in return. When it comes to the billions in subsidies thrown at windmills and solar panels, the answer is: not much.
Including domestic, rooftop solar annual subsidies to wind and solar add up to a staggering $4 billion. The cost of which is added directly to retail power bills. The greatest government mandated rort in the history of the Commonwealth, started in 2001 and runs until 2031.
Now, the value minded might forgive the scale and duration of that forced ‘largesse’, if there were a commensurate increase in the output said to be drawn from nature’s wonder fuels, sunshine and breezes. Except, as David Bidstrip points out, the combined contribution of wind and solar generation to Australia’s energy demand remains risible, and little more than a rounding error.
Money for nothing
View original post 834 more words
AMUSES me every time: fossil fuels needed to reduce fossil fuel emissions to meet anti-fossil fuel Paris commitments. 🤦♂️
By Paul Homewood
Bit by bit, some reality appears to be intruding into the make believe world of the Climate Change Act:
No credible scenario’ exists for hitting the UK’s 2050 decarbonisation targets without continued reliance on gas, the National Grid has warned.
In a new report, entitled The Future of Gas: How gas can support a low carbon future’, the grid says that it is not feasible to switch over to electric heating on the scale required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 per cent of 1990 levels by the middle of this century.
To fill the gap required to meet peak heating demand during the winter with electricity would require a seven-fold increase in generation capacity.
It says that while electricity demand currently peaks at around 60 GW, up to 350 GW of electricity would be required during winter cold snaps.
“Electrifying heating would therefore require enormous…
View original post 451 more words