DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO : Cultural Communists Know How To Spend Your Money To Fight Climate Change

 

Cultural Communists - COP24 - Katowice - CLIMATISM

Cultural Communists – COP24 – Katowice


“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

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

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.

Poland climatefest dumps several million tonnes of CO2 into atmosphere aiding plant growth | cairnsnews.org

*

DOING THE NUMBERS :

Cultural Communists Know How to Spend Your Money to Fight Climate Change

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…

climate-change-COP24-costs

COP24 Costs

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.

graph-2

COP24 Menu GHG Emissions

Until next year’s Climate Change conference in Chile…

Wait, did I not mention the pre-conference in Costa Rica?

Regards,

Marin

Cultural Communists Know How to Spend Your Money to Fight Climate Change – Katusa Research

*

ONE wonders if any of the 22,771 taxpayer funded climate crusaders actually know what their favourite buzz-word “sustainability” actually entails?

HERE’s a crash course in case they have forgotten:

•••

SEE also :

Read the rest of this entry »


COP24 : Climate Alarmism Is Threatening To Destroy Australia

COP24 Climate Alarmism - CLIMATISM

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.

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.

She says poorer countries are looking for handouts from Australia, and it is threatening to push up the cost of cars, cull the national herd and hurt cost of living for everyone but the very wealthy.

MUST SEE Credlin…

Click to Sky News video Link 6m:23s >>>

Climate alarmism is threatening to destroy Australia | Sky News Australia

•••

SEE also :

Read the rest of this entry »


CLIMATE PARTY! African Delegates Swamp UN Conference

F-O-L-L-O-W-T-H-E-M-O-N-E-Y …

PA Pundits - International

By Andrew Bolt ~

It’s a feeding frenzy at the UN climate conference. There’s the excuse for taxpayer-paid travel, of course, and the excuse to extort huge donations from the guilty rich: 

An analysis of delegates by Carbon Brief found Guinea topped the list with 406 delegates, down 86 from last time. The Democratic Republic of Congo is second, with 237. Host nation Polan­d is third, with 211 delegates, followed by Ivory Coast, whose delegation this year has more than halved to 208 people…

Those huge delegations from these poor nations are actually down on last time? Wow.

Graham Lloyd puts it extremely diplomatically:

While some African countries give delegate tickets to non-governm­ental organisations, the make-up gives an indication of how important they consider the talks for securing development and mitigation funds.

Or as our Environment Minister Melissa Price memorably said to a former Kiribati Prime Minister who’d come…

View original post 240 more words


HOW @AlGore Built The Global Warming Fraud

“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.”

ANOTHER Paul Driessen, must read, masterpiece…

PA Pundits - International

By Paul Driessen ~

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…

View original post 990 more words


SIMON HOLMES À COURT @simonahac Is A Fraud : #HepburnWind Ripping Off The Taxpayer And Destroying Livelihoods, One Virtue-Signalling Wind Turbine At A Time

Simon Holmes a Court_s Hepburn operation is yet to return a cent to its eco-gullible investors.

SIMON Holmes à Court’s Hepburn operation is yet to return a cent to its eco-gullible investors.


HEPBURN WIND – Balance Sheet 2017

Sales : $571,630

Taxpayer Subsidies (Large-scale Generation Certificates) : $ 625,015

NUFF said.

Hepburn Wind BALANCE SHEET - CLIMATISM

H/t

SOME Of Simon’s Innocent Victims :

ALL they wanted was a peaceful life in the beautiful Hepburn region. Then Simon Holmes à Court came to town with his virtue-signalling, symbolic ‘energy’, industrial wind turbine monstrosities.

NOW, their once innocent and idyllic lives are forever ruined.

WACTH the (genuine) tears and distress…

 

SEE also : Simon Holmes à Court – Wind Weasel | Climatism

•••

Related :

TEMPERATURE Related :

ORIGINS Of The Global Warming Scam :


Global Warming Causes Volcanic Eruption: 2010

THANKS for clearing that one up for us all Chaam!

THE great irony is that the CO2-centric warming loons can ludicrously blame man-made CO2 for causing volcanoes, but are conveniently silent about what volcanoes spew out – CO2! And loads of it, all day everyday, above and below the oceans.

CO2 = Volcanoes – simply another crazed theory spewed out by pseudoscientific climate hacks in an attempt to bolster the crumbling climate scam and cling onto government grants no matter how stupid the theory.

🌋

Thongchai Thailand

Reference: Ice cap thaw may awaken Icelandic volcanoes, April 17, 2010

1. Global warming scientists have come up with the idea that carbon dioxide causes volcanic eruptions in Iceland. The argument goes that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming, global warming in turn causes glaciers in Iceland to melt, and melting glaciers lighten the weight of the ice cap on volcanoes and thereby trigger eruptions (Ice cap thaw may awaken Icelandic volcanoes, Bangkok Post, April 17, 2010).
2. It is clearly a sinister attempt to ride the media wave created by the volcanic eruption under the Eyjafjallajoekull glacier and to use that fear factor to sell the war against carbon dioxide. The reality is of course very different. Melting glaciers do not cause volcanic eruptions. Volcanic eruptions cause melting glaciers.
3. We now know that much of the glacier melt that the global warming people tried to pin on carbon…

View original post 141 more words


AUSSIE CliSci Budget Woes

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.

Watts Up With That?

News Brief by Kip Hansen

aus_dollarAustralian 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.

All this according to a report from Science News , which quotes Martin Rice, an environmental scientist and head of research for the Sydney-based Climate Council of Australia as saying;

“Once again, [the budget]…

View original post 85 more words


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 :


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 :