Advertisements

PROFESSIONAL Climate Alarmists Threatening Australia’s Billion Dollar Tourism Industry

“So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems…” Tim Flannery 2007

“There is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis.”
– Tim Flannery Climate Council

This planet is on course for a catastrophe.
The existence of Life itself is at stake
.”
– Tim Flannery Climate Council

*

WHEN the Abbott Government axed the Climate Commission in 2013, in what was its very first act of government, professional alarmist Tim Flannery and his mates immediately created a Climate Council to keep up their propagandising.

IT wasn’t a hard decision for then PM Abbott to make considering the string of outlandish claims made by Flannery and the Commission…

IN what was to be their final report and parting gift to the Australian taxpayer, the Climate Commission’s 2013 “Critical Decade” report, claimed that there is a one-in-two chance that there will be no humans left on the planet by 2100

“There’s a one in two chance that by 2100 there’ll be no human beings left on this planet. The planet will exist, but it’s just that my granddaughter won’t be part of it. And I think that’s a pretty alarming statistic, probability, one in two chance if we don’t correct our behaviours.” – Former Defence Force chief Admiral Chris Barrie releasing the Climate Commission’s 2013 doomist report

SINCE then, the Climate Council has maintained its position as Australia’s premier alarmism generating machine. Every year the level of hysteria increasing faster than global temperatures.

THEIR latest report couched in pseudo-science and alarmism claims that Australia’s $40 billion tourism industry is at risk thanks to your sinful existence…

Roger Franklin in Quadrant:

This morning Tim Flannery & Co [at the Climate Council] must be tickled pink to see how much adverse publicity they have generated [with their report last week], and not merely in the domestic press. From Pakistan to the Caribbean there are stories today about the slow death of the Great Barrier Reef, the intolerable heat allegedly set to afflict the Red Centre and how big chunks of Hobart will be swallowed by the heat-swollen waters of the Great Southern Ocean.

That there are casualties and collateral damage as a consequence of one organisation’s blinkered determination to promote itself and its allies’ climate cause should not need to be stated…

[T]here were no reassuring words from Queensland Tourism Minister Kate Jones… So how did the tourism minister react to the Climate Council’s codswallop and bleak appraisal of tourism’s future? Why, God help us, she endorsed it!….

That impression that North Queensland (and the Centre and Hobart, too) are not worth a visit would be hard to avoid in light of the Reef-is-dying coverage the Climate Council orchestrated. Below, a collection of international headlines and snippets re-broadcasting word of the Reef’s impending demise:

From Pakistan:

Australian Tourism Industry Under Climate Change Threat

From Singapore:

Climate change threatens Aussie tourism

From the far-off Caribbean:

Australia tourism industry under climate change threat – study

From the Middle East and broadcast to the entire world:

Why are coral reefs important and why are they dying?

From Britain’s home-counties edition of the Guardian:

Tourism is the Australian industry least prepared for climate change, report says

From China:

Climate change to cripple Australian tourism industry: report

From Malaysia:

Australia tourism industry under climate change threat, study warns

From the US, for seniors who travel:

Aussie tourism hotspots threatened by climate change

For international investors:

Australia’s popular tourist destinations are in the climate firing line: report

All in all, not a bad day’s damage for the Climate Council to inflict on an innocent industry.

The Climate Council’s Global Damage — Quadrant Online

THIS latest episode of climate alarmism churned out of Flannery’s panic-factory, based solely on the ‘evidence’ of broken and overheated UN IPCC computer models further trashes Australia’s international reputation, directly affecting the crucial tourist industry and the livelihoods of the good people who are employed within it.

MORE evidence that climate alarmism has cost far more than any slight global warming ever could!

ONLY recently, three surveys conducted showed an estimated 175,000 fewer tourists could visit Australia based on the coral bleaching threat. A threat since proven alarmist and overblown.

AT risk, an estimated 10,000 jobs. How many more are at risk now?

WHO will be made accountable or held responsible for the exaggeration of data and wreckless alarmism? No one, of course. Because again, the worst any climate change alarmist can ever be accused of is an excess of “Save the planet” virtue.

Mad times.

•••

PLEASE Donate To Climatism To Help Keep The Good Fight Alive!

•••

See more Flannery :

Related :

Advertisements

DRACONIAN Climate Change Policies Making World Hunger Worse

World Hunger UN Climate policy

Climate policies are diverting resources from measures that directly reduce hunger, which according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation is on the rise. | The Australian

ANTHROPOGENIC “climate change” and the control of carbon dioxide, via the supply of energy, has deep roots in a radical yet gravely misguided campaign to reduce the world’s population.

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 its social agendas.

THE goal was advanced, most notably, by The Club Of Rome (Environmental think-tank and 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.

The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself
.
– Club of Rome 1993,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

SO, it comes as no surprise that today’s UN is successfully upholding its misanthropic agenda by attempting to starve control the world’s population through a blatant misallocation of resources, in favour of wanting to control the weather, rather than feed the most needy, for a fraction of the cost.

MEMO to the UN – If you want to reduce the world’s population, provide the third-world with cheap, reliable fossil-fuelled or nuclear power generation to lift them out of abject poverty. Wealthy (fossil-fuel/nuclear powered) nations have predominant negative birth rates. Poverty is the enemy of the environment.

Bjorn Lomborg with more via his column in The Australian

*

Climate-change policies may be making world hunger worse

BJORN LOMBORG // @BjornLomborg via The Australian :

For more than a decade, annual data showed global hunger to be on the decline. But that has changed. According to the latest data from the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, hunger affected 815 million people in 2016, 38 million more than the year before, and malnutrition is now threatening millions.

Research from my think tank, Copenhagen Consensus, has long helped to focus attention and resources on the most effective responses to malnutrition, both globally and in countries such as Haiti and Bangladesh. Unfortunately, there are worrying signs that the global response may be headed in the wrong direction.

The FAO blames the rise in hunger on a proliferation of violent conflicts and “climate-related shocks”. which means specific, extreme events such as floods and droughts.

But in the FAO’s press release, “climate-related shocks” becomes “climate change”. The report itself links the two without citing evidence, but the FAO’s communique goes further, declaring starkly: “World hunger again on the rise, driven by conflict and climate change.”

It may seem like a tiny step to go from blaming climate-related shocks to blaming climate change. Both terms relate to the weather. But that little difference means a lot, especially when it comes to the most important question: how do we help to better feed the world? Jumping the gun and blaming climate change for today’s crises attracts attention, but it makes us focus on the costliest and least effective responses.

The best evidence comes from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has clearly shown that there has been no overall increase in droughts. While some parts of the world are experiencing more and worse droughts, others are experiencing fewer and lighter droughts.

A comprehensive study in the journal Naturedemonstrates that, since 1982, incidents of all categories of drought, from “abnormally dry” to “exceptional drought”, have decreased slightly. On flooding, the IPCC is even blunter: it has “low confidence” at a global level about whether climate change has caused more or less flooding.

What the IPCC tells us is that by the end of the century, it is likely that worse droughts will affect some parts of the world. And it predicts — albeit with low confidence — that there could be more floods in some places.

Relying on climate policies to fight hunger is doomed. Any realistic carbon cuts will be expensive and have virtually no impact on climate by the end of the century. The Paris climate agreement, even if fully implemented up to 2030, would achieve just 1 per cent of the cuts needed to keep temperature from rising more than 2C, according to the UN.

And it would cost $US 1 trillion a year or more — an incredibly expensive way to make no meaningful difference to a potential increase in flooding and droughts at the end of the century.

In fact, well-intentioned policies to combat global warming could very well be exacerbating hunger. Rich countries have embraced biofuels — energy derived from plants — to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels. But the climate benefit is negligible: according to the International Institute for Sustainable Development, deforestation, fertiliser, and fossil fuels used in producing biofuels offset about 90 per cent of the “saved” carbon dioxide.

In 2013, European biofuels used enough land to feed 100 million people, and the US program even more. Biofuel subsidies contributed to rising food prices, and their swift growth was reined in only when models showed that up to another 135 million people could starve by 2020. But that means that the hunger of around 30 million people today can likely be attributed to these bad policies.

Moreover, climate policies divert resources from measures that directly reduce hunger. Our priorities seem skewed when climate policies promising a minuscule temperature impact will cost $US1 trillion a year, while the World Food Program’s budget is 169 times lower, at $5.9 billion.

There are effective ways to produce more food. One of the best, as Copenhagen Consensus research has shown, is to get serious about investing in research and development to boost agricultural productivity. Through irrigation, fertiliser, pesticides, and plant breeding, the Green Revolution increased world grain production by an astonishing 250 per cent between 1950 and 1984, raising the calorie intake of the world’s poorest people and averting severe famines. We need to build on this progress.

Investing an additional $US88bn in agricultural research and development over the next 32 years would increase yields by an additional 0.4 percentage points every year, which could save 79 million people from hunger and prevent five million cases of child malnourishment. This would be worth almost $US3 trillion in social good, implying an enormous return of $US34 for every dollar spent. By the end of the century, the additional increase in agricultural productivity would be far greater than the damage to agricultural productivity suggested by even the worst-case scenarios of the effects of global warming.

And there would be additional benefits: the World Bank has found that productivity growth in agriculture can be up to four times more effective in reducing poverty than productivity growth in other sectors.

We are at a turning point. After achieving dramatic gains against hunger and famine, we run the risk of backsliding, owing to poorly considered choices. The stakes are far too high for us to pick the wrong policies.

Bjorn Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre and a visiting professor at the Copenhagen Business School.

(Climatism bolds added)

Climate-change policies may be making world hunger worse | The Australian

•••

Related :

UN Related :

 


WHAT I Learned About Climate Change: The Science Is Not Settled

ramclr-050814-settled-ibd-color-final-cms.gif

EXCELLENT article written by a ‘Vegan Democrat’ and former CAGW believer, highlighting the reasons why many remain sceptical of the “settled science” of climate change…

*

By David Siegel Entrepreneur, investor, blockchain expert, start-up coach, CEO of the Pillar project and 20|30.io

What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind?

If the answer is It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled, and we need to get going on this important issue, that’s what I thought, too. This is my story.

More than thirty years ago, I became vegan because I believed it was healthier (it’s not), and I’ve stayed vegan because I believe it’s better for the environment (it is). I haven’t owned a car in ten years. I love animals; I’ll gladly fly halfway around the world to take photos of them in their natural habitats. I’m a Democrat: I think governments play a key role in helping preserve our environment for the future in the most cost-effective way possible. Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In 1993, I even wrote a book about it.

Recently, a friend challenged those assumptions. At first, I was annoyed, because I thought the science really was settled. As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems. I’ll start by making ten short statements that should challenge your assumptions and then back them up with an essay.

1*fo9wFKN5dhW6645fMr5VlQ.jpg

  1. Weather is not climate. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves. The increase in storms is simply a result of improved measurement methods. There has been no real increase.
  2. Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call “global warming” is natural, not man-made. The earth iswarming, but not quickly, not much, and not lately.
  3. There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works. Climate models are not yet skillful; predictions are unresolved.
  4. New research shows fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, better than CO2 levels.
  5. CO2 has very little to do with it. All the decarbonization we can do isn’t going to change the climate much.
  6. There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.
  7. Sea level will probably continue to rise — not quickly, and not much. Researchers have found no link between CO2 and sea level.
  8. The Arctic experiences natural variation as well, with some years warmer earlier than others. Polar bear numbers are up, not down. They have more to do with hunting permits than CO2*.
  9. No one has demonstrated any unnatural damage to reef or marine systems. Additional man-made CO2 will not likely harm oceans, reef systems, or marine life. Fish are mostly threatened by people, who eat them. Reefs are more threatened by sunscreen than by CO2.
  10. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are pursuing a political agenda and a PR campaign, not scientific inquiry. There’s a tremendous amount of trickery going on under the surface*.

Could this possibly be right? Is it heresy, or critical thinking — or both? If I’ve upset or confused you, let me guide you through my journey…

Read all of it here: What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled | Medium

Highly recommended ~ 38 minute read with an abundance of supporting data, evidence and peer-reviewed “science”….

This nine-thousand-word essay represents over 400 hours of research boiled down into a half-hour reading experience, with links to 250+ carefully chosen documents and videos. I’m building the argument from the bottom up, so take your time and see if it makes sense. Along the way, I’ll list five “smoking guns” that I think make the argument for decarbonization unsupportable. Before we dive in, I want to talk about …

David Siegel | Medium

What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled | Medium

H/T  🇦🇺 Canberroo  🇦🇺

•••

Related :

 


THE Climate Scam Flow Chart

The CLimate Scam

Pic source : “Canberroo

THIS “climate loop” graphic delineates precisely the scandalous gravy train and self-perpetuating madness of “Climate Crisis Inc.” Where screaming “SAVE THE PLANET” promises a bounty of backslapping, group approval, and if deceitful enough, free access to trillions of dollars of taxpayers money; unchallenged, unlimited, guaranteed by the bank of virtue-signalling, environmentalism and political correctness.

H/T  🇦🇺 Canberroo  🇦🇺

•••

Climate Scam Related :


Record Breaking Winter Cold? Don’t Worry, the Climate Explainers Have it Covered

“Even this week’s cold weather is probably being caused at least in part by global warming, said Jonathan Overpeck, a climate scientist at the University of Michigan.”

BUT wait, there’s more! …

“So what happens if global temperatures take a real plunge for a sustained period? Don’t worry, the explainers have that one covered as well – James Hansen, former NASA GISS Director, published a paper which suggests global warming will trigger a short ice age in the near future…”

ERGO, no! There is no “weather or climate shift [that could] cast doubt on the dominance of that wicked little trace molecule.”

HOT, cold, wet, dry, snow, drought, flood, heatwave, blizzard – it’s ALL “global warming” aka “climate change” aka “climate disruption” and it’s ALL your fault!

🤦‍♂️

Watts Up With That?

Graph from p3768 of J. Hansen et al.: Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms. Graph from p3768 of J. Hansen et al.: Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms.

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Does record breaking winter cold cast doubt on climate predictions of milder winters? Could ANY weather or climate shift cast doubt on the dominance of that wicked little trace molecule? Apparently not, according to leading climate explainers.

It’s cold outside, but that doesn’t mean climate change isn’t real

Sammy Roth, USA TODAY Published 5:13 p.m. ET Dec. 28, 2017

This week’s cold snap has brought record-low temperatures, freezing rain and heavy snow to much of the United States. But 2017 is still on track to be the second- or third-hottest year ever recorded globally — and scientists say climate change is to blame.

Even this week’s cold weather is probably being caused at least in part by global warming, said Jonathan Overpeck, a climate scientist at the University of Michigan.

View original post 817 more words


KIRIBATI Climate Plan: More Resorts, More Tourists

LOL!

PRESIDENT Tong knows perfectly well that without the U.S. involved in the UN wealth redistribution scam, the fast and furious ‘climate cash’ ain’t gonna come!

HE’S now backtracking from the Kiribati “drowning” scenario, big time, so as not to deter potential investors to his new “5-star” resort plans! After all, who would want to invest in a ‘sinking’ island?!

I jousted with Tong/Kiribati via twitter back in 2013 during the lucrative Obama climate-cash years…

https://twitter.com/climatekiribati/status/325121386874023936

Watts Up With That?

Anote Tong, President of Kiribati Anote Tong, President of Kiribati. By Sam Beebe – http://www.flickr.com/photos/sbeebe/6852258588/, CC BY 2.0, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The President of Kiribati doesn’t want his people to be seen as climate charity cases – instead he wants investment, new tourist resorts to give his people jobs and economic opportunities, to help pay for reclaiming land from the sea like Singapore.

As climate change threatens islands, Kiribati’s president plans development

The low-lying Pacific island nation of Kiribati is one of the parts of the world most threatened by climate change and rising sea levels. Scientists say the islands could be uninhabitable within decades, and in recent years, some leaders there have begun planning for a worst-case scenario that could involve relocating the population to other countries.

However, in a video presentation to the international climate conference in Bonn, Germany, last week, the president of Kiribati appeared…

View original post 379 more words


New York Times Article Conclusively Proves That Climate Change “Crisis” is 100% Politics!

“Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

-– Ottmar Edenhofer (IPCC), November 2010

Watts Up With That?

Guest satire by David Middleton

Protesters Jeer as Trump Team Promotes Coal at U.N. Climate Talks

By Lisa Friedman and Brad Plumer
Nov. 13, 2017

BONN, Germany — The Trump administration made its debut at a United Nations conference on climate change on Monday by giving a full-throated defense of fossil fuels and nuclear energy as answers to driving down global greenhouse gas emissions.

The forum — the only official appearance by the United States delegation during the annual two-week climate gathering of nearly 200 nations — illustrated how sharply the administration’s views are at odds with those of many key participants in the climate negotiations.

George D. Banks, special adviser to President Trump on international energy issues, led a panel with top American energy executives. “Without question, fossil fuels will continue to be used, and we would argue that it’s in the global interest to make sure when…

View original post 1,272 more words