“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
ANOTHER great example of how climate ‘scientists’, supported by the compliant mainstream media, use scary things to frighten you into submission and belief that the world is in peril, care or ‘evil’ mankind and his/her ‘evil’ trace gasses.
BUT, have you ever noticed how global warming climate change threatens imminent decline in cute, cuddly animals like Polar Bears? Yet, on the other hand, climate change threatens an *increase* in our most feared critters, like “aggressive” spiders?
Global warming may result in more aggressive spiders around the world, a new study suggests.
Researchers at McMaster University in Canada found that aggressive spiders have a greater chance of surviving and reproducing following hurricanes than more docile breeds.
The study suggests the evolutionary impact of spider populations will be affected by extreme weather events, which scientists predict will increase because of rising sea levels caused by global warming.
Experts studied the communal spider or tangle web spider which lives in North and South America, reports the Independent.
They found aggressive colonies had a higher rate of reproduction after a tropical storm, while in storm-free regions more docile spiders thrived.
Researchers studied 240 colonies throughout North and South America and compared them with control sites.
Features of aggressive behaviour included the speed and number of attackers that respond to prey, the tendency to eat other spiders and how easily foreign spiders get into a nest.
Results suggest aggressive spiders are better at gaining resources but are more prone to infighting if they are short of food or the colony gets too hot.
The study – published in Nature, Ecology and Evolution – found that after hurricanes, more aggressive colonies produced more eggs and had more spiderlings survive into early winters.
Lead author Jonathan Pruitt said more extreme weather will impact wildlife development.
“As sea levels rise, the incidence of tropical storms will only increase. Now more than ever we need to contend with what the ecological and evolutionary impacts of these storms will be for non-human animals,” he said.
IN order to validate the ‘science’ that spiders ‘could’ become more aggressive due to global warming, we should check the data.
ACCORDING to the latest government data and the last two U.N. IPCC reports on “Extreme Weather”, there has been “NO” increase in extreme weather events, even as CO2 has risen to 400PPM – a rise of one CO2 molecule in every 10,000 parts of atmosphere since 1950.
“Sea level has been rising for the last ten thousand years, since the last Ice Age…the question is whether sea level rise is accelerating owing to human caused emissions. It doesn’t look like there is any great acceleration, so far, of sea level rise associated with human warming. These predictions of alarming sea level rise depend on massive melting of the big continental glaciers — Greenland and Antarctica. The Antarctic ice sheet is actually growing. Greenland shows large multi-decadal variability. …. There is no evidence so far that humans are increasing sea level rise in any kind of a worrying way.” — Dr. Judith Curry, video interview published 9 August 2017
“Observed sea level rise over the last century has averaged about 8 inches, although local values may be substantially more or less based on local vertical land motion, land use, regional ocean circulations and tidal variations.“
UNTIL the official ‘scientific’ data suggests that extreme weather events, like hurricanes and tropical cyclones are, in fact, increasing in frequency and intensity and not the other way around, as is occurring now, we should take such scary ‘spider’ studies with a pinch of salt and a whole lot of suspicion as to the real motives of the global warming climate change, misanthropic movement.
• “Arctic summers ice-free by 2013” (BBC 2007) • “Could all Arctic ice be gone by 2012?” (AP 2007) • “Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?” (National Geographic 2007) • “Imagine yourself in a world five years from now, where there is no more ice over the Arctic” – Tim Flannery (2008) • “North Pole could be ice-free in 2008” – Mark Serreze (New Scientist 2008) • “Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014” (USA Today 2009) • “Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within 4 years” (Guardian 2012) • “Say Goodbye to Arctic Summer Ice” (Live Science 2013) • “Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist” (The Guardian 2013) • “Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013” (Sierra Club 2013) • “Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’” – Peter Wadhams (The Guardian 2016)
DIRE predictions of an “ice-free” Arctic have remained popular on the climate change, fear-mongering circuit for many years now.
BUT, how ‘bad’ really are Arctic sea-ice conditions, in mid-summer, circa 2019?
ACCORDING to this latest piece of anecdotal (real-world) evidence, Arctic “Death Spiral” enthusiasts would be understandably disappointed!
“…what we saw was indeed really impressive sea ice. In fact, the sea ice we encountered was thick enough that reaching our destination—the geographic North Pole—took roughly 1.5 days longer than we’d expected.”
In late June, one of the most powerful icebreakers in the world encountered such extraordinarily thick ice on-route to the North Pole (with a polar bear specialist and deep-pocketed, Attenborough-class tourists onboard) that it took a day and a half longer than expected to get there. A few weeks later, in mid-July, a Norwegian icebreaker also bound for the North Pole (with scientific researchers on board) was forced to turn back north of Svalbard when it unexpectedly encountered impenetrable pack ice.
A polar bear on hummocked sea ice in Franz Josef Land. Photo by Michael Hambrey, date not specified but estimated based on tour dates to be 22 or 23 June 2019.
IN the latest example of ‘Green’ eco-hypocrisy, 200 year-old rainforest trees have been cleared to make way for wind ‘farm’ transmission lines in Tasmania’s Tarkine.
THE obvious question is a simple one: Where are the @Greens or @Greenpeace or @GretaThunberg when pristine landscapes and old-growth rainforests are being destroyed to satisfy the whims and superstitions of Global Warming Climate Change catastrophists and EU elites?
MATTHEW DENHOLM exposes the latest eco-hypocrisy that seems to haunt consistently the globalist climate change do-gooders…
Old-growth trees cut down for windfarm transmission corridor
Rainforest trees 200 years old have been cleared to make way for a wind farm transmission line in Tasmania’s Tarkine, prompting claims of green “hypocrisy”.
Myrtle and sassafras trees were among those felled along a 10.5km corridor widened for transmission lines associated with the $280 million, 112 megawatt wind farm at Granville Harbour, in Tasmania’s remote northwest.
Special species timber advocate Andrew Denman, who discovered the felled trees, said it raised concerns about environmental impacts, wastage of high-value timber and wind power’s “green” credentials.
He estimated that some of the felled trees, highly valued in specialty timber production, were 200 years old, given they typically grow at 0.3cm a year and were 60cm in diameter.
With more wind farms planned for Tasmania, including another in the northwest requiring a 170km transmission line, he believed any further clearing, if it must occur, should be co-ordinated to ensure timber was not wasted. “With much of the special timbers in short supply … there could have been a more co-ordinated effort in utilising it to make sure that timber was going to a sawmiller in a timely manner so it could be processed and not wasted,” said Mr Denman, a boatbuilder.
While not critical of the wind farm proponent, whom he did not doubt had complied with regulatory requirements, he understood clearing for electricity infrastructure was exempt from the Forest Practices Code, which seeks to mitigate impacts on keys species.
He believed it was hypocritical of the Greens to oppose “sustainable” harvesting of rainforest timbers while backing the Granville Harbour wind farm and, by implication, associated logging of such trees. “An old-growth tree is an old-growth tree,” Mr Denman said. “Why is it acceptable to cut it down for a transmission line but not acceptable to cut it down sustainably and regenerate that area and put it to good use?”
A Greens spokeswoman said while the party was a “strong supporter of renewable energy”, it “consistently opposed logging or clearing within reserves”.
The wind farm’s website says the transmission line, providing power to the grid at the Reece Dam, was being handled by state-owned TasNetworks.
A spokeswoman for project developer Granville Harbour Operations said it required all works to comply with approvals. “These impose clear procedures and requirements on us and our contractors to mitigate and manage environmental impacts, including impacts to native vegetation,” she said.
TasNetworks said its widening of an existing transmission corridor was “considered optimal”. “It reduced the extent of clearing required to connect the wind farm to the electricity distribution network,” a spokesman said.
Matthew Denholm is a multi-award winning journalist with 25 years’ experience. For the past decade, he has been Tasmania correspondent for The Australian, and has previously worked for a variety of newspaper an… Read more
“They don’t have to worry about CO2 because it is not a pollutant and is not causing climate change. No significant environmental problems are threatening the world. All the stories about impending environmental doom are fictions deliberately created to make people surrender control to the government. It is time to break the emotional stranglehold of those who used the environment to create global socialism.”
Dr. Tim Ball, in a must read piece, unveils the cloak behind the ‘man-made’ Global Warming Climate Change hoax that has absolutely nothing to do with the “environment” or “Saving The Planet”, rather, everything to do with power, control and “World government”…
We now know 50 years later that every single prediction concerning the environmental demise of the Earth and the people made in the original Earth Day Report was wrong. We also know that every additional claim, such as overpopulation, global warming, sea level rise, desertification, deforestation, and sea ice collapse, among many others, were wrong. I challenge anyone to produce empirical evidence that proves anything happening today is outside any long-term record of natural activity.
Like the majority of people, Elaine Dewar assumed environmentalists were commendable even heroic people. She began research for a book singing their praises. It didn’t take long to learn the basic premise was wrong. Following the traditional and proper methodology, rarely seen these days, Dewar identified the duplicitous characters involved in the Canadian environmental movement and laid them out in her book Cloak of Green. She spent five days at the UN with Canadian Maurice Strong arguably the world architect of official environmentalism. He was praised excessively, as in this article, “The World Mourns One of its Greats: Maurice Strong Dies, His Legacy Lives On.” Another article recognized the evil he personified, “Who is Global Warming Propagandist Maurice Strong?” After the five days, Dewar concluded,
“Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.”
The environmental movement as the basis for a socialist world government was in the minds of people like Strong and fellow members of the Club of Rome in the late 1960s. However, it was launched on the world on April 22, 1970, by a small group centered at Stanford University. The date is critical because it was the first Earth Day. It is also very important to know the choice was deliberate because it is the birthday of Vladimir Lenin. The environmental movement was a deliberate program to impose communism on the world.
The underlying theme of the environmental movement makes the following false assumptions.
That almost all change is a result of human activity. The UN claim, using computer models, that 95%+ of temperature increase since 1950 is due to human-produced CO2. This works because they don’t consider most natural causes.
That humans are unnatural. The 1990 “Greenpeace Report on Global Warming” says CO2 is added to the atmosphere “naturally and unnaturally.”Yes, that unnatural production is from humans.
That we are not part of nature. Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) comment explains.
“Mankind is a cancer; we’re the biggest blight on the face of the earth.” “If you haven’t given voluntary human extinction much thought before, the idea of a world with no people in it may seem strange. But, if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”
That we should be eliminated or dramatically reduced in number. In May 2015, the Pope produced Laudate Si an Encyclical about his view of the state of the Earth. It is a socialist diatribe, but that is not surprising since the main contributor was Hans Schellnhuber, a pantheist. This group believes the world population should be below 1 billion people.
That if the western world reduces levels of CO2 production, the rest of the world will follow. China has 2,363 coal plants and is constructing 1,171 more. The US has 15 and is not constructing any.
The US can build as many clean-burning coal plants as they want and burn coal pollution free. They don’t have to worry about CO2 because it is not a pollutant and is not causing climate change. No significant environmental problems are threatening the world. All the stories about impending environmental doom are fictions deliberately created to make people surrender control to the government. It is time to break the emotional stranglehold of those who used the environment to create global socialism.
“REMEMBER when we paved the world with electronic waste
that chopped eagles and condors and made bats extinct because we thought wind was natural and uranium evil? – man that was a dark age!” – Michael Shellenberger
ONE of the great falsehoods and dangerous myths pushed by reckless global warming climate change zealots and the mainstream media is that ‘renewable energy’ – wind and solar – is “clean, green and renewable”.
‘RENEWABLES’ are neither “clean, green, or renewable”. In fact, they are pure embodiments of fossil fuel technology, with oil and “dirty” coal derivatives required for :
Wind turbines in Penonome, Panama. (Credit: Associated Press)
Solar panels and wind turbines are making electricity significantly more expensive, a major new study by a team of economists from the University of Chicago finds.
Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) “significantly increase average retail electricity prices, with prices increasing by 11% (1.3 cents per kWh) seven years after the policy’s passage into law and 17% (2 cents per kWh) twelve years afterward,” the economists write.
The study, which has yet to go through peer-review, was done by Michael Greenstone, Richard McDowell, and Ishan Nath. It compared states with and without an RPS. It did so using what the economists say is “the most comprehensive state-level dataset ever compiled” which covered 1990 to 2015.
The cost to consumers has been staggeringly high: “All in all, seven years after passage, consumers in the 29 states had paid $125.2 billion more for electricity than they would have in the absence of the policy,” they write.
Solar and wind require that natural gas plants, hydro-electric dams, batteries or some other form of reliable power be ready at a moment’s notice to start churning out electricity when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining, I noted.
And unreliability requires solar- and/or wind-heavy places like Germany, California, and Denmark to pay neighboring nations or states to take their solar and wind energy when they are producing too much of it.
My reporting was criticized — sort of — by those who claimed I hadn’t separated correlation from causation, but the new study by a top-notch team of economists, including an advisor to Barack Obama, proves I was right.
Previous studies were misleading, the economists note, because they didn’t “incorporate three key costs,” which are the unreliability of renewables, the large amounts of land they require, and the displacement of cheaper “baseload” energy sources like nuclear plants.
The higher cost of electricity reflects “the costs that renewables impose on the generation system,” the economists note, “including those associated with their intermittency, higher transmission costs, and any stranded asset costs assigned to ratepayers.”
But are renewables cost-effective climate policy? They are not. The economists write that “the cost per metric ton of CO2 abated exceeds $130 in all specifications and ranges up to $460, making it at least several times larger than conventional estimates of the social cost of carbon.”
The economists note that the Obama Administration’s core estimate of the social cost of carbon was $50 per ton in 2019 dollars, while the price of carbon is just $5 in the US northeast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), and $15 in California’s cap-and-trade system.
“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 Russel
DON’T expect to see this ‘good’ environmental news on the mainstream media anytime soon.
WHEN you’re in the business of demonising carbon dioxide and frightening the Thunberg’s kiddies for political and ideological ends, such good news comes as a rather unwelcome message!
The world is literally a greener place than it was twenty years ago, and data from NASA satellites has revealed a counterintuitive source for much of this new foliage. A new study shows that China and India—the world’s most populous countries—are leading the increase in greening on land. The effect comes mostly from ambitious tree-planting programs in China and intensive agriculture in both countries.
Ranga Myneni of Boston University and colleagues first detected the greening phenomenon in satellite data from the mid-1990s, but they did not know whether human activity was a chief cause. They then set out to track the total amount of Earth’s land area covered by vegetation and how it changed over time.
The research team found that global green leaf area has increased by 5 percent since the early 2000s, an area equivalent to all of the Amazon rainforests. At least 25 percent of that gain came in China. Overall, one-third of Earth’s vegetated lands are greening, while 5 percent are growing browner. The study was published on February 11, 2019, in the journal Nature Sustainability.
The maps on this page show the increase or decrease in green vegetation—measured in average leaf area per year—in different regions of the world between 2000 and 2017. Note that the maps are not measuring the overall greenness, which explains why the Amazon and eastern North America do not stand out, among other forested areas.
“China and India account for one-third of the greening, but contain only 9 percent of the planet’s land area covered in vegetation,” said lead author Chi Chen of Boston University. “That is a surprising finding, considering the general notion of land degradation in populous countries from overexploitation.”
This study was made possible thanks to a two-decade-long data record from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instruments on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites. An advantage of MODIS is the intensive coverage they provide in space and time: the sensors have captured up to four shots of nearly every place on Earth, every day, for the past 20 years.
“This long-term data lets us dig deeper,” said Rama Nemani, a research scientist at NASA’s Ames Research Center and a co-author of the study. “When the greening of the Earth was first observed, we thought it was due to a warmer, wetter climate and fertilization from the added carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Now with the MODIS data, we see that humans are also contributing.”
China’s outsized contribution to the global greening trend comes in large part from its programs to conserve and expand forests (about 42 percent of the greening contribution). These programs were developed in an effort to reduce the effects of soil erosion, air pollution, and climate change.
Another 32 percent of the greening change in China, and 82 percent in India, comes from intensive cultivation of food crops. The land area used to grow crops in China and India has not changed much since the early 2000s. Yet both countries have greatly increased both their annual total green leaf area and their food production in order to feed their large populations. The agricultural greening was achieved through multiple cropping practices, whereby a field is replanted to produce another harvest several times a year. Production of grains, vegetables, fruits and more have increased by 35 to 40 percent since 2000.
How the greening trend may change in the future depends on numerous factors. For example, increased food production in India is facilitated by groundwater irrigation. If the groundwater is depleted, this trend may change. The researchers also pointed out that the gain in greenness around the world does not necessarily offset the loss of natural vegetation in tropical regions such as Brazil and Indonesia. There are consequences for sustainability and biodiversity in those ecosystems beyond the simple greenness of the landscape.
Nemani sees a positive message in the new findings. “Once people realize there is a problem, they tend to fix it,” he said. “In the 1970s and 80s in India and China, the situation around vegetation loss was not good. In the 1990s, people realized it, and today things have improved. Humans are incredibly resilient. That’s what we see in the satellite data.”
NASA Earth Observatory images by Joshua Stevens, using data courtesy of Chen et al.,(2019). Story by Abby Tabor, NASA Ames Research Center, with Mike Carlowicz, Earth Observatory.
“A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.” – NASA
NASA previously reported on the ‘greening of the earth’ thanks to the CO2 ‘fertilisation’ effect.
HOWEVER, such good news was again carefully omitted by the mainstream media and environmental activists keen to preserve their ‘catastrophic’ global warming climate change narrative and continue their demonisation of life-giving gas carbon dioxide, deceptively referring to it as “carbon pollution” :
“A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.” – NASA
IN 2013, the CSIRO commissioned a study that found “Deserts ‘greening’ from rising carbon dioxide: Green foliage boosted across the world’s arid regions.”
THE ‘greening’ of deserts, thanks to rising CO2, happens to be a very unwelcome message for the environmental movement and apparently for the CSIRO, too! So, they simply removed the study from their website!
DIRE predictions of an “ice-free” Arctic have remained popular on the climate change fear-mongering circuit, owing to the psychological and political currency of all things melting and not least the emotional relevance applicable to the fate of the Arctic’s most famous resident and ‘global warming’ mascot – the polar bear.
SOME of the failed Arctic sea-ice predictions by alarmists ‘scientists’ and the fake news media over the years :
“Arctic summers ice-free by 2013” (BBC 2007)
“Could all Arctic ice be gone by 2012?” (AP 2007)
“Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?”(National Geographic 2007)
“Imagine yourself in a world five years from now, where there is no more ice over the Arctic” – Tim Flannery (2008)
“North Pole could be ice-free in 2008” – Mark Serreze (New Scientist 2008)
“Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014” (USA Today 2009)
“Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within 4 years” (Guardian 2012)
“Say Goodbye to Arctic Summer Ice” (Live Science 2013)
“Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist” (The Guardian 2013)
“Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013” (Sierra Club 2013)
“Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’” – Peter Wadhams (The Guardian 2016)
Susan Crockford is zoologist with more than 35 years experience, including published work on the Holocene history of Arctic animals. She is currently an adjunct professor at the University of Victoria, British Columbia.
It’s long past time for polar bear specialists to stop holding out for a scientifically accurate global estimate that will never be achieved and determine a reasonable and credible ‘best guess’. Since they have so far refused to do this, I have done it for them. My extrapolated estimate of 39,000 (range 26,000-58,000) at 2018 is not only plausible but scientifically defensible.
In 2014, the chairman of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) emailed me to say that their global population size number ‘has never been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.’
In my new book, The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened, I contend that this situation will probably never change, so it’s time to stop holding out for a scientifically accurate global estimate and generate a reasonable and credible ‘best guess’. Recent surveys from several critical polar bear subpopulations have given us the information necessary to do this.
These new numbers make it possible to extrapolate from ‘known’ to ‘unknown’ subpopulations within so-called ‘sea ice ecoregions’ (defined in 2007 by polar bear scientists at the US Geological Survey, see Amstrup et al. 2007), as shown below, to update old estimates and generate new ones for never-studied areas.
USGS – Polar Bear Ecoregions
Since the PBSG has so far refused to take this step, I took on the challenge. I contend that an estimate of about 39,000 (range 26,000-58,000) at 2018 is not only plausible but scientifically defensible. See the graph below from my new book:
Global polar bear population size estimates to 2018. From Chapter 10 of The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened (Crockford 2019).
This new estimate for 2018 is a modest 4-6 fold increase over the 10,000 or so bears that existed in the 1960s and after 25 years, a credible increase over the estimate of 25,000 that the PBSG offered in 1993 (Wiig et al. 1995).
However, my new estimate is much larger than the improbable figure of about 26,000 (range 22,000-31,000) offered by PGSG biologists in 2015 (Regehr et al. 2016; Wiig et al. 2015). The scary question is this: what do Arctic residents do if there are actually as many as 58,000?
See my new book (Crockford 2019) for the full rationale and references used to arrive at this figure.
The bottom line: it is scientifically unacceptable for the PBSG to continue to refuse to provide an extrapolated ‘best guess’ global estimate for polar bears, given that the scientifically accurate estimate they crave is essentially unattainable. An estimate of about 39,000 (range 26,000-58,000) at 2018 is not only plausible but scientifically defensible. Read the rest of this entry »