CREATING A Worldwide Depression


The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
 (and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
 by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins,
all of them imaginary.”
H.L. Mencken

***

WHEN the COVID-19 panic eventually clears, many important questions will be asked. One of them ought to be, “was the cure worse than the disease?”

THE ever-hysterical mainstream media will require tough scrutiny as well. Is there no upper limit anymore to their money-making mantra “if it bleeds, it leads” ?

COMPARE the coverage of Swine Flu (H1N1) (150,000–575,000 fatalities) to COVID-19.

IN April of 2009, H1N1 became a pandemic. It wasn’t until six months later, October, that then-President Obama declared a public health emergency on what was already a pandemic. By that time, the disease had infected millions of Americans and more than 1,000 people had died in the U.S.

 

WILL leave you to judge the reaction of the globalist mainstream media toward Obama’s global pandemic versus Trump’s one, resulting in the literal shut down of the entire global economy.

Ahem, cough, splutter.

*

TONY Heller of Real Climate Science pulls no punches when it comes to lifting the lid on the ClimateChange™️ farce. Here are his grim thoughts on the prognosis and prescription for the Wuhan flu …

Creating A Worldwide Depression

Millions of Americans are already out of work due to COVID panic shutdowns, and COVID alarmists want that number to increase that number sharply.

There have been 68 COVID-19 deaths in the US, and almost half of them were at one nursing home in Washington.

Compare this to the 12,000 to 30,000 flu deaths which had already occurred in the US by February 1.

Flu season is hitting its stride right now in the US. So far, the CDC has estimated (based on weekly influenza surveillance data) that at least 12,000 people have died from influenza between Oct. 1, 2019 through Feb. 1, 2020, and the number of deaths may be as high as 30,000.

This Is How Many People Die From the Flu Each Year, According to the CDC | Health.com

There have been 7,000 COVID-19 deaths globally, compared to far more flu deaths.

 Globally, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that the flu kills 290,000 to 650,000 people per year.

This Is How Many People Die From the Flu Each Year, According to the CDC | Health.com

COVID alarmists make these claims :

  1. COVID-19 is much more transmissible than flu
  2. Death rates are much higher than flu
  3. COVID-19 will overwhelm medical services
  4. Most COVID carriers are asymptomatic

The total number of deaths should be proportional to the transmissibility and death rates, yet the total number of global deaths from flu is 40-100X higher. You can’t have higher transmissibility and death rates, and come up with a much lower total number of deaths. The mathematics don’t work.

Every single one of the 12,000-30,000 flu deaths in the US this year has involved a person becoming critically ill before they died. Why didn’t that large number of critically ill flu patients, or the comparable number of automobile accident deaths overwhelm the system?

Crashing the economy would put millions of people on the street with no shelter and no health care. How many people would die from that? How many tens of millions of people would be killed by a worldwide depression?

Something very seriously wrong is going on here.

Real Climate Science | “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.” — Richard Feynman

(Climatism bolds)

*

UPDATE

MUST WATCH accompanying video (6’02”) version by Tony Heller.

COVID panic has already put millions of people out of work, and threatens to cause a global depression. Panic is a strategy for disaster.

***

CURE WOSRE THAN THE DISEASE?

EXCELLENT piece via Czech theoretical physicist and former assistant professor at Harvard University from 2004 to 2007, Dr Luboš Motl

The globalist media have brainwashed billions of people into believing that this kind of instinctive yet hysterical behavior is needed, natural, useful, rational, and probably ethical, too. It’s neither.

The economic and otherwise societal losses will be exponentially larger than the damages to the public health.

The enthusiasm with which the West commits suicide is staggering

monday, march 16, 2020 …

About 94,000 people are currently infected with Covid-19, a bit over 7,000 have died plus 78,000 have been cured. The number of deaths per month approximately doubled from the previous one-month period as the disease moved from China to Europe or elsewhere. Asia seems to have tamed the disease completely. China has largely reopened for business despite a dozen of new deaths per day.

Those 7,000 deaths should be compared with approximately 650,000 deaths due to flu in the world in the recent year. Covid-19 clearly continues to be a negligible killer relatively to flu – and the latter hasn’t ever led to any significant hysteria. Covid-19 may be seen to have the potential to surpass flu as a killer (and probably has done so in Italy) but nobody knows whether this potential may be realized in the whole world. Even if Covid-19 becomes the most important killer among respiratory diseases, it will be just a quantitative change in the industry of flu-like diseases.

We’re seeing amazing restrictions on the human movement, contacts, events, economy. I am writing it from the first day (out of 8) of the Italy-style softcore martial law in Czechia. Similar restrictions are imposed almost everywhere. Every hour, a country joins the lockdown; Canada did it minutes ago. Half a billion schoolkids are skipping classes now – Greta Thunberg is no longer too special. Bars and restaurants are closed in about one-half of the world. Carmakers are stopping the production in all of Europe. You can read comments on social networks written by people who were just laid off every second. Also, I think that the real estate prices are likely to drop once the closed hotels and other things are being sold.

The globalist media have brainwashed billions of people into believing that this kind of instinctive yet hysterical behavior is needed, natural, useful, rational, and probably ethical, too. It’s neither.

The economic and otherwise societal losses will be exponentially larger than the damages to the public health. I would even argue that that the economic damages that have already taken place are larger than even the worst case scenario damages to health and lives that could materialize in a hypothetical future. These economic damages are already crippling lots of lives and they will destroy many of them in the future.

A rarely non-hysterical alert just informed me that the first volunteer is being injected with an experimental Moderna vaccine.

In recent years, if you forgot, we were bombarded with the insane culture and feminist, transsexual, multicultural and pro-Islamist, climate alarmist, and several other insanities by the extreme left. These things seem almost completely forgotten now. It is clear that the global CO2 emissions in 2020 will be significantly lower than those in 2019. And so will be the GDP. The drop may continue for years.

Lots of people don’t seem to care about the deepening shutdown of the global economy. People like pensioners, employees, and entomologists who seem certain that they will be safe. Really? When the society stops producing cars and probably many other products, and when it stops an even greater percentage of services, do you really believe it will be capable of giving you a pension that is comparable to the present one, in real terms? When businesses such as restaurants – but even much more industrial ones – are being brutally punished and robbed during this shutdown, do you really believe that they will continue to be able to pay employees? Will the society be willing to pay entomologists? Teachers who don’t really teach because it’s obvious that the home or online schooling will be a farce for a great majority of children?

I am amazed by the huge number of people who seem to enthusiastically welcome this new “regime”. Some totally unhinged leftists – like Democrats in a New Hampshire survey who preferred the extinction of humans by ETs over a Trump reelection – have been known to wish this kind of economical destruction. The green leftists are naturally known to have wet dreams about a global economic misery combined with the “martial law” economy, as correctly pointed out by Marc Morano who was interviewed by Ezra Levant.

But I see a vastly greater number of people who not only don’t seem to be worried about this a new, almost totally man-made Great Depression; but who seem absolutely enthusiastic about it. I am just flabbergasted. Were millions of people similarly enthusiastic about the decline of the Roman Empire? Are these people powered by jealousy? Where does the sentiment come from? Is there a majority that actively wants our civilization to be flushed down the toilet?

An even more shocking finding is the tiny number of people who stand firmly on the opposite side, like myself: people who really think that we must stop the acts that will make a huge Great Depression unavoidable. Yes, even the desire “not to have a new Great Depression” has turned into a “fringe” political opinion, according to the number of prominent advocates (although most Americans probably agree with me – but they have no power today). Freedom Fighter has composed a nice list of conservative pundits who are clearly against the viral hysteria:

READ it all, here…

•••

RELATED :

•••

THE Climatism Tip Jar – Support The Fight Against Dangerous, Costly and Unscientific Climate Alarm

(Climate sceptics/rationalists still waitin’ for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Help us to hit back against the bombardment of climate lies costing our communities, economies and livelihoods far, far too much.

Thanks to all those who have donated. Your support and faith in Climatism is highly motivating and greatly appreciated!

Citizen journalists can’t rely on mastheads, rather private donations and honest content. Every pledge helps, heaps!

Click link for more info…

Many thanks, Jamie.

(PLEASE Note: The PayPal account linked to “Climatism” is “Five-O-Vintage”)Donate with PayPal

Screen Shot 2020-02-12 at 5.35.38 am

•••


COVID-19 : A Prelude To Life Under The ‘Net Zero 2050’ Policy


“Action must be powerful and wide-ranging.
After all, the climate crisis is not just about the environment.
It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will.
Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it.

We need to dismantle them all.”
–– GretaThunberg™️

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we
are setting ourselves the task of intentionally,
within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model
that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.”

–– Christiana Figueres (Fmr UNFCCC chief)
UN Climate Chief Says Communism Is Best To Fight Global Warming

***

WHAT an Orwellian world we inhabit, in this the 21st Century. The age of social media and the twenty four hour news cycle where the race to the top is defined by who is the most outraged, the most aggrieved. Where personal gain is measured by entitlement. Where online ‘likes’ outweigh offline friendships, and where Western politicians take their scientific advice from a 17-year-old child-activist diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, obsessive–compulsive disorder, and selective mutism.

THIS is the age of morality, where it’s more important to signal virtue than sense and reason.

PERHAPS the greatest and most dangerous example of virtue-signalling in recent years has been the frenzied push by eco-activists and their mainstream media acolytes for “Net Zero CO₂ Emissions By 2050” in direct response to GretaThunberg™️‘s “Climate Crisis” palaver.

BUT, what’s the cost? The most vocal will not tell you, perhaps because they don’t even know or simply haven’t weighed up the social and economic consequences of the other side of their zero-emissions utopia.

CFACT contributor Ronald Stein expertly lays out the not-so-pretty side of a #NetZero2050 future with the Coronavirus parallel giving pause for zero emissions zealots to take stock of a Net-Zero future and evaluate what their lives may look like outside of virtue-signalling and panic.

*

Social Changes With COVID-19 Are A Prelude To Life With Less Fossil Fuels

Posted on Thu 03/12/2020 by

By Ronald Stein ~

While the world is feverishly trying to reduce emissions from fossil fuel usage, we get hit with the horrific contagious Coronavirus COVID-19. We’ve seen extensive self-imposed social adjustments to transportation that are very similar to what will be required to live with less fossil fuels in the future.

We’ve seen a serious reduction in the usage of the transportation infrastructures of airlines, cruise ships, as well as automobiles, trucks and their impact on the leisure and entertainment industries, all to avoid crowds.

FOSSIL FUEL PRODUCTS

Fossil Fuel Derivatives (Climatism insert)

Before fossil fuels and the thousands of products made from petroleum derivatives, and electricity that followed, the world was a zero-sum snake pit. One that was at war against one another scrounging for food, water, and shelter. In the 1800’s most people never traveled 100-200 miles from where they were born. Life expectancy throughout Europe hovered between 20 and 30 years of age.

The social lifestyles before 1900 had no such transportation choices, as they had no autos, planes, or cruise ships for transportation. The inventions of the automobile, airplane, and the use of petroleum in the early 1900’s led us into the Industrial Revolution. Crude oil, natural gas, and coal changed – for the better – the lifestyles of every person living in developed countries such as, the U.S., Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Australia.

We would not be able to “make products and move things” if not for the thousands of products from petroleum derivatives that get manufactured from crude oil that wind turbines and solar panels cannot manufacture.

Economies around the world, and all the infrastructures are increasing their demand and usage each year of those energy sources from deep earth minerals/fuels to make thousands of products, inclusive of but not limited to:

  • Medications and medical equipment for cures for most diseases

  • Electronics for worldwide communications

  • Fertilizers to help agriculture feed the world

  • Asphalt for all the roads

  • Tires for all vehicles

  • Steel for every building in the world

  • Wire for the worldwide electrical grid

Today, the airlines that did not exist before 1900, transported more than 4.1 billion passengers in 2017 around the world and projections are 7.8 billion airline passengers by 2036. Cruise ships which also did not exist before 1900 move 25 million passengers around the world every year.

Along with those transportation options available for society, we also have billions of vehicle trips to and from airports, hotels, ports, and amusement parks that are increasing each year. COVID-19 has shown us that society changes can reduce the demand of those growing numbers.

Yes, we may be using fossil fuels too extensively for leisure and entertainment but the developed world is where it is today, healthier and wealthier, because of all those products we get from those oil derivatives.

To meet those low emission targets, we’ll need to continue to reduce the transportation demands of society and COVID-19 may be showing us how we’ll need to retract from our extravagant usage of the various transportation systems that did not exist before fossil fuels.

Our future existence may be less vacations and less business conferences. Reductions in the usage of the entertainment and hospitality industries, neither of which existed before fossil fuels, may also be necessitated.

As we wean ourselves from oil, we’ll need to lower our demands for transportation infrastructures that COVID-19 has shown us the way.

As we wean ourselves away from fossil fuels, we’ll need to accept that developing countries like many in China, India, and Africa are still stuck in the pre-1900’s era. They have yet to join the industrial revolution and the opportunity to enjoy the thousands of products in our daily lifestyles. Of which may never do so as the fuels that support the demands of the various transportation infrastructures will be diminishing.

The same politicians that are thrashing on the oil and gas industry, and seeking its demise, are the same ones reaping the benefits of the medications, medical equipment, communication networks, and the thousands of other products. This from industries that have contributed to their lifestyles and their ability to live beyond 80 years of age. Those vocal about emissions need to join the conservation movement.

Yes the world has changed from the societies that existed in primeval times, without airlines, trains, vehicles, merchant ships, medications, fertilizers, cosmetics, and military equipment like aircraft carriers, battleships, planes, tanks and armor, trucks, troop carriers, and weaponry, and electricity that did not exist before 1900, but now may be the time to start showing our conservation cards.

At a rapid pace more and more countries and governments are moving their energy policies toward ridding the world of fossil fuels to electrify societies using only intermittent electricity from wind turbines and solar panels. Electricity alone may support a simplified lifestyle but cannot support the huge energy needs of the transportation infrastructures, nor provide the thousands of products that societies demand from those petroleum derivatives.

Ron Stein contributes Posts at the CFACT site. He is an engineer who, drawing upon 25 years of project management and business development experience, launched Principal Technical Services (PTS) in 1995. He writes frequently on issues of energy and economics.

Read more excellent articles at CFACT  http://www.cfact.org/

Social Changes With COVID-19 Are A Prelude To Life With Less Fossil Fuels | PA Pundits – International

***

SEE also :

U.N. Agenda 21 / 2030 related :

•••

THE Climatism Tip Jar – Support The Fight Against Dangerous, Costly and Unscientific Climate Alarm

(Climate sceptics/rationalists still waitin’ for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Help us to hit back against the bombardment of climate lies costing our communities, economies and livelihoods far, far too much.

Thanks to all those who have donated. Your support and faith in Climatism is highly motivating and greatly appreciated!

Citizen journalists can’t rely on mastheads, rather private donations and honest content. Every pledge helps, heaps!

Click link for more info…

Many thanks, Jamie.

(NB// The PayPal account linked to “Climatism” is “Five-O-Vintage”)Donate with PayPal

Screen Shot 2020-02-12 at 5.35.38 am

•••


ARCTIC Meltdown Latest

Apt quote on the Arctic “meltdown” via Tony Heller’s twitter feed :

“Climate alarmists say they love Arctic sea ice, but for some reason get very angry when they are shown that it is not disappearing.”

https://twitter.com/Tony__Heller/status/1234999734873444352?s=20

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

Arctic sea ice extent continues to run well ahead of the last few years, as it has done for most of this year so far, and continues to grow at a time of year when it normally begins to stabilise and recede.

Average extent in February was the highest since 2013, and stands greater than 2005 and 2006:

image

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover_30y.uk.php

Temperatures in the Arctic have been close to average, apart from a brief blip at the end of last month:

meanT_2020

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Meanwhile, down under sea ice extent has recovered strongly at the summer minimum in the last year or two, and is back to 1980s levels.

https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

View original post


CADMIUM : The Toxic Problem Of Not-So-Clean Energy


CADMIUM and its compounds are highly toxic and exposure
to this metal is known to cause cancer and
targets the body’s cardiovascular, renal, gastrointestinal,
neurological, reproductive, and respiratory systems.
–– United State Department of Labor

“IF Greens love nature,
why aren’t they more concerned about
carpeting pristine landscapes with industrial wind turbines and
toxic, non-renewable solar panels?
–– ‘GREEN’ Energy Future | Climatism

***

SKY News Australia’s digital editor Jack Houghton blows the myth of benign, ‘renewable’ energy.

The toxic problem of not-so-clean energy

Digital Editor Jack Houghton

As the world shuns energy sources of old in pursuit of clean alternatives a very toxic problem has been slowly building in the background.

During the construction of solar panels the soft, silver, and highly ductile metal cadmium is compressed between sheets of glass – a vital part of how sunlight is converted into electricity so that environmental leaders like Zali Steggall can charge their hypothetical electric cars.

It is a process that many – who view technology through a tribal lens – consider to be worthy of replacing coal.

The only issue is cadmium is carcinogenic and considered roughly ten times more hazardous than the lead which sits next to it in a typical photovoltaic panel.

Panels which are shattered in storms break into tiny fragments and after several months of rainfall the silver metal which once created energy is transformed into a dangerous health hazard.

Just like the 16,000 wiped out by hurricane Irma in the Virgin Islands in 2017.

The wreckage is pictured above.

If not destroyed by wild weather these panels last about two decades.

After that point much of their construct becomes useless hunks of toxic waste which will collectively weigh 1500 kilotonnes by 2050 in Australia alone.

That figure is roughly 300 times what a nuclear power plant would have created to produce the same energy.

But surely those seeking to radically reform Australia’s energy grid through a Green New Deal must have considered this looming ecological crisis?

Well, no, according to authors of a study released last year titled “Drivers, barriers and enablers to end-of-life management of solar photovoltaic and battery energy storage systems: A systematic literature review”.

As the title suggests the study provided a meta-analysis of 191 research papers into solar panel waste management.

Its findings were damning to say the least.

“Little attention has been paid to the potential environmental and human health related impacts associated with PV systems, if not managed properly at the end-of-life,” the authors wrote.

“PV panel and BESS contain hazardous materials such as lead, lithium, tin and cadmium which can harm the environment and human health if they are not properly managed at the end of life-cycle.

“Exposure of heavy metals embedded in both of these technologies will cause various negative health effects.

“For example, cadmium is associated with its impact on lung, kidney and bone damages once absorbed into the body whilst exposure to lead will cause damages to nervous system.”

The authors even went as far to suggest that the technology should not really be classified as renewable because the issues with waste and the fact many rare minerals cannot be salvaged.

They must be mined again and again.

“The current linear take-make-consume-dispose economic system practised within PV systems will inevitably undermine renewable status of this technology without an effective end of life strategy,” they said.

Questions were also raised about the true CO2 impact of solar panels considering the role mining plays in their formation.

These issues don’t mean solar won’t form a crucial part of Australia’s energy grid.

What they do mean – however – is we must be far more reasoned and cautious before rapidly seeking to switch 81 per cent of our energy grid from fossil fuel sources to emerging technologies.

What is dramatically unhelpful is failed politicians such as Malcolm Turnbull using the tragedy of bushfires to attempt to speed up this process before adequate solutions are found.

“Have we now reached the point where at last our response to global warming will be driven by engineering and economics rather than ideology and idiocy,” he wrote in the Guardian last week.

“Our priority this decade should be our own green new deal in which we generate, as soon as possible, all of our electricity from zero emission sources. 

“If we do, Australia will become a leader in the fight against global warming. And we can do it.”

This process should not be rushed and leaders in the Coalition must resist calls to do so – especially by those who wish to re-write history as environmental saviours.

There are quite incredible solutions to climate change being discussed in academic circles and according to all the science this writer has read – the climate catastrophe is still a long way away.

And there are far bigger fish to fry over in China before we should be despairing about our tiny geo-centric emissions tally.

Let’s pause and reflect before we poison the next generation with the very technology we hope will save it.

The toxic problem of not-so-clean energy | Sky News Australia

*

CONCLUSION

THE obvious question that needs to be answered by UNreliable-energy-obsessed policy makers is this …

Hey @TimWilsonMP why is the RE industry immune from EPA and work place safety regs?

If my business produced this amount of hazardous material I would be fined millions and also do time in the slammer – and rightly so.

via No longer quiet on Twitter (@matthew25496877)

***

TOXIC UNreliables related :

UNreliables related :

ENERGY POVERTY related :

•••

THE Climatism Tip Jar – Support The Fight Against Dangerous, Costly and Unscientific Climate Alarm

(Climate sceptics/rationalists still waitin’ for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Help us to hit back against the bombardment of climate lies costing our communities, economies and livelihoods far, far too much.

Thanks to all those who have donated. Your support and faith in Climatism is highly motivating and greatly appreciated!

Citizen journalists can’t rely on mastheads, rather private donations and honest content. Every pledge helps, heaps!

Click link for more info…

Many thanks, Jamie.

(NB// The PayPal account linked to “Climatism” is “Five-O-Vintage”)Donate with PayPal

Screen Shot 2020-02-12 at 5.35.38 am

•••


ELECTRICITY FUTURE : Coal, Nuclear or Chaos

A nuclear power plant under construction in China's Shandong province. Picture AAP

A nuclear power plant under construction in China’s Shandong province. Picture AAP


“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

Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun
.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University / Royal Society fellow

***

IN the collective age of ClimateChange™️ eco-insanity that we currently inhabit, common sense, reason and logic have become an increasingly rare commodity, perhaps even a thing of the past, as those who dare speak truth-to-the-virtuous are heckled and jeered as “deniers”, in a calculated effort to muzzle.

THANKFULLY, a few cool and sane heads still prevail within the majority-Leftist mainstream media establishment.

WE ought listen to and evaluate their arguments, no matter how far they divert from the preferred ‘wisdom’ of the day. A preferred wisdom that emanates from a cancer of groupthink collectivism, nourished by an individuals fear of being isolated, intimidated and persecuted by the mob of feel-good intentions. But, as Henry G. Bohn first published in 1855, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

A legend of Australian media, and someone who is not willing to take us down the “road to hell”, is columnist Terry McCrann.

READ his excellent summary on critical energy-security solutions hopelessly mired in politics and weak leadership.

*

via The Australian :

Go nuclear, and we must start building now

TERRY McCRANN

Australia has three electricity futures — coal, nuclear or chaos. It’s time to bring Australia into the 21st century by aggressively embracing the nuclear one.

The prime minister’s thought bubble — fathered by political ineptitude out of policy stupidity — that a future could be crafted out of some hybrid mix of gas generation and so-called renewables is an embarrassingly inefficient and unworkable dead-end.

The idea that we could go all renewables — with assorted batteries from the Tesla version in South Australia to the Turnbull one in the Snowy included — is a fantasy; it would be the embracing of the third future: chaos.

In very simple terms, unless and until the laws of physics are repealed, if we want a power grid to deliver the cheap, reliable and plentiful electricity that has been the basis of our economy, our society and indeed our very civilisation, the base-load has to be carried by coal or nuclear.

I would have no problem continuing to have it based on coal, with the next generation of coal-fired generation far more efficient and much cleaner, in the real sense, of not pumping out particulates, than our existing ageing and indeed dying pre-1980s fleet.

But you have to recognise reality. Before the bushfires that was an unlikely prospect. After the bushfires — however irrational the demonisation of our carbon dioxide emissions and our coal-fired stations — even a single coal-fired station has become impossible.

Indeed the PM who carried a lump of coal into parliament symbolically returned it to the ground in his speech midweek. Yes, to digging coal up to power the thousands of coal-fired stations in China and all the other countries; no, to powering another one in Australia.

What’s wrong with the gas-renewables mix? Isn’t it — actually, more a gas-gas mix — working in the US, to both cut CO2 emissions and deliver cheap electricity?

Well, yes, but that’s also the answer to why it wouldn’t work in Australia. That’s the US, this is Australia. Another way of putting it, they have President Trump, we have PM Morrison.

We also have a near-uniform consensus across the truncated spectrum of state political leaders against the finding — far less the development — of gas. Did anyone mention fracking?

A mainstream spectrum that runs, not exactly unimportantly, borrowing from Dorothy Parker, all the way from A to B; or borrowing from Mark Steyn, from our Labor parties which are left-of left-of centre to Liberal parties which are right-of left-of centre.

Simply, there are three things wrong with the idea that gas could replace coal in the energy mix.

Inefficient gas

We don’t have enough, absent redirecting all exports to domestic use. We are not going to find enough anytime soon, if indeed we are even allowed to look for it.

Using gas to generate electricity is a hugely inefficient use of what should be a premium fuel; only slightly less inefficient than using petrol.

And that points to the third, in the context of the (hysterical) reason we want to kill coal: it’s still a CO2 emitting, if less than coal, fossil fuel.

Now, there are three arguments presented against nuclear, which is the only means of delivering non CO2-emitting reliable base-load power.

The first is the safety aspect — both the operation and disposal of waste. The first simply does not stand up, if you look through the hysteria at each of the three major accidents over the past half-century: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukashima.

It is the hysteria which has also created the other two objections: it takes too long to build a nuclear station and the capital cost — both over-engineering and time-value of money — makes the power too expensive.

According to the Asia Times last year, the average build-time for a nuclear reactor in China was five years. OK, this is Australia; if everything went right we could probably do it in 10. I doubt we could build a hospital in even two months, far less two weeks.

That is why we need to start now — we need at least three major stations to anchor the grid across the three eastern states, for starters, by 2030, as the coal stations continue to close with accelerating rapidity.

This can only happen with absolute bipartisan commitment from the two major parties. We also need it from the lunatic Green left.

The best, if faint, hope of “winning that”, is via bipartisan Labor-Coalition commitment not simply to nuclear, but that it is either three nuclear stations or three new coal stations.

If the left is serious about reducing our power-generated CO2 emissions, it can only happen by embracing nuclear.

And embracing it in a China-like way that allows the stations to be built in 10 years (I’d hang out for seven in my dreams), and not red-taped and green-taped or Nimby-ied away past 20 years and so into our third future of chaos.

A mix of base-load nuclear and peak-demand gas would be both efficiently viable and able to accommodate — in a fairly rational way — the vanity virtue-signalling generation by wind and solar.

Breaking the hoodoo against nuclear power might also help terminate what stands as the single most stupid decision ever by an Australian government — the purchase of the French nuclear submarines on the basis they are re-engineered back to an old (fossil fuel) technology.

Why didn’t we buy the US F-35 fighters on the same basis? That they be re-engineered to go back to propjets? And for delivery in 2050?

Yes, prime minister, go for it. You could find it liberating. Dare to be free of your predecessor and his utter, numbing across-the-board ineptitude. Try uttering the word nuclear.

And when you have uttered it a few times in connection with power generation; why, you will find it effortless to have it followed by the word submarines.

Go nuclear, and we must start building now | The Australian

***

NUCLEAR SAFETY : Reactors that Can’t Melt Down – Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR)

Nuclear Safety- Reactors that Can’t Melt Down | PA Pundits - International
Nuclear Safety: Reactors that Can’t Melt Down | PA Pundits – International

NUCLEAR power is the world’s future. Nuclear has a few inherent disadvantages. It is without doubt the cleanest, greenest and safest form of power production. Contrary to what you may have heard about the Fukushima nuclear plant that was hit by the 2011 tsunami, not one single person was killed or injured by nuclear radiation. Not one. Also, no private property was harmed by radiation.

via PA Pundits – International :

By Kelvin Kemm Ph.D.

OVER recent years, engineers have developed an innovative alternative nuclear reactor design, known as High Temperature Gas Reactors. Instead of water, they employ helium gas as a coolant. In South Africa, a similar reactor design was developed: the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR). Its fuel is small tennis-ball-sized graphite balls containing granules of uranium, rather than large metal fuel elements. The balls cannot melt.

Another major advantage of nuclear power is that it uses so little fuel. The total annual fuel usage of even a large nuclear plant can be carried in a couple of trucks. It can be airlifted-in, if need be. There is no need for long supply lines, which can be prone to weather or political disruptions. Nuclear reactors are refuelled only every 18 months.

Critics say nuclear is expensive. It’s not if you look at the total life cycle. A modern reactor is designed to last for 60 years and will probably last for 80 – versus 15-20 for wind turbines and solar panels. While money must be spent upfront in construction, benefits are reaped over many decades. What is required is an innovative approach to the project-cycle funding. Right now in South Africa, nuclear-generated electricity is the cheapest by far. The current nuclear plant, Koeberg, is over 30 years old and is now running very profitably, since the construction costs have been paid off.

Another plus is that the price of uranium is almost irrelevant. Such a little amount of uranium is used in a nuclear plant that even if the international uranium price were to double, it would make extremely little difference to the annual fuel bill. It is nothing like a variation in coal or oil prices.

Large-scale nuclear needs water cooling, which means plants must be built on a coastline or on a large inland water source. But big nuclear is probably too large for many nations to start with. There is a second solution: SMR-class Small Modular Reactors that are currently being developed. South Africa’s SMR is the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor – and a small PBMR can be only 10% the size of a large traditional reactor. A PBMR does not need large water cooling, so you can place it anywhere.

In fact, close to the point of consumption is no problem. “Modular” means that you can add extra reactors to the initial system, as you wish or need, when you wish or need. It’s something like adding extra locomotives to a large train, all controlled by one driver.

PBMRs are also considerably cheaper than large reactors. So, a very viable answer for any African country is to plan for PBMR nuclear systems. One PBMR reactor will produce 100 to 200 Megawatts, depending on its design. As the country requires more power, it simply installs more PMBRs.

An important consideration with nuclear power in Africa is for countries to work together. Africa needs a nuclear network for operations, training and general nuclear development. In the spirit of Fourth Industrial Revolution thinking, now is the time to plan an African nuclear network. Thankfully a number of African countries have already launched that process.

Dr Kelvin Kemm is a nuclear physicist and CEO of Nuclear Africa (Pty) Ltd, a project management company based in Pretoria, South Africa. He is the recipient of the prestigious Lifetime Achievers Award of the National Science and Technology Forum of South Africa. He does international consultancy work in strategic development.

Electricity In The Realm Of The Lion King | PA Pundits – International

***

MORE:

  • The PBMR design was developed to be “walk away safe,” which means that the nuclear reactor and its cooling system can be stopped dead in their tracks. The reactor cannot overheat, but will just cool down by itself.
  • Nuclear power will one day power Africa, and the world – helping to lift billions out of poverty and ensuring that billions more continue to enjoy living standards that poor nations also deserve to have.

Nuclear Safety: Reactors that Can’t Melt Down | PA Pundits – International

•••

SEE also :

EXTREME WEATHER Related :

STATE Of The Climate Report :

ORIGINS Of The ClimateChange™️ Scam :

•••

THE Climatism Tip Jar – Support The Fight Against Dangerous, Costly and Unscientific Climate Alarm

(Climate sceptics/rationalists still waitin’ for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Help us to hit back against the bombardment of climate lies costing our communities, economies and livelihoods far, far too much.

Thanks to all those who have donated. Your support and faith in Climatism is highly motivating and greatly appreciated!

Citizen journalists can’t rely on mastheads, rather private donations and honest content. Every pledge helps, heaps!

Click link for more info…

Many thanks, Jamie.

(NB// The PayPal account linked to “Climatism” is “Five-O-Vintage”)Donate with PayPal

Screen Shot 2020-02-12 at 5.35.38 am

•••


POLAR BEARS : The New Symbol Of Climate Change Realism And A Stable Arctic

POLAR BEARS - The New Symbol Of Climate Change Realism and A Stable Arctic | CLIMATISM

POLAR BEARS – The New Symbol Of Climate Scepticism and A Stable Arctic | CLIMATISM


“THE polar bear as an icon for climate change is dead
because the distorted predictions made by
polar bear specialists were wrong.”

“THIS is a lesson for researchers in other areas
who have failed to stop the invasion of
politics into their science.”

Dr Susan Crockford

***

Hat tip @EcologySenseUK

FOR years, the Polar Bear has been abused by climate change activists as the poster child of ClimateChange™️. They didn’t use rats or spiders to promote their misanthropic agenda. Instead, they chose the cute, cuddly, fluffy polar bear to illicit a desired emotional response.

2c30839678c3fa88005df14590e997f2

“Climate Action” Poster Child | CLIMATISM

YOU would have noticed that the polar bear is a much less common feature in science, while the fake news mainstream media has stopped using the polar bear as a propaganda tool to drive their climate agenda.

THE Arctic bear has been superseded by child soldiers and penguins …

*

*

REAL SCIENCE …

POLAR BEARS

“PUBLIC safety concerns, combined with the effects of
polar bears on other species, suggest that
in many Nunavut communities, the polar bear
may have exceeded the co-existence threshold.”
Nunavut’s polar bear population is unsafe,
government document says – The Globe and Mail

*

WITH deadly irony, polar bear numbers have grown dramatically and to “dangerous” levels as carbon dioxide emissions have risen. A CO2 correlation, at last!

INDIGENOUS Inuit’s of Northern Canada are now facing the very real task of having to cull the population as “the polar bear may have exceeded the co-existence threshold.”

“Inuit believe there are now so many bears that public safety has become a major concern,”

“Public safety concerns, combined with the effects of polar bears on other species, suggest that in many Nunavut communities, the polar bear may have exceeded the co-existence threshold.”

Nunavut’s polar bear population is unsafe, government document says – The Globe and Mail

*

POLAR BEAR POPULATION (1981 – 2015)

screen-shot-2019-01-19-at-4.26.11-am.png

Polar Bear Population (1981 – 2015)

*

POLAR BEAR POPULATION – THE LATEST COUNT

via Susan Crockford PhD :

Susan Crockford is zoologist with more than 35 years experience, including published work on the Holocene history of Arctic animals.

UNTIL last year, Dr. Crockford ‘was’ adjunct professor at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, until UVic bowed to outside pressure and rescinded her adjunct professor status.

TELLING the truth on climate change and polar bears is considered heresy in the post-normal society of climate change hysteria that we currently inhabit. Just ask Peter Ridd.

About | polarbearscience

Latest global polar bear abundance ‘best guess’ estimate is 39,000 (26,000-58,000)

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.

polarbear1_wikimedia_andreas-weith-photo-svalbard-sm.jpg
Latest global polar bear abundance ‘best guess’ estimate is 39,000 (26,000-58,000) | polarbearscience

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.

UPDATE: I have made this a sticky post for a while: new posts will appear below.

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_icedrift.jpg

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:

population-size-estimate-graph-chapter-10-e1553617271572

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.

REFERENCES

Amstrup, S.C., Marcot, B.G. & Douglas, D.C. 2007. Forecasting the rangewide status of polar bears at selected times in the 21st century.US Geological Survey. Reston, VA. Pdf here

Crockford, S.J. 2019. The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened. Global Warming Policy Foundation, London. Available in paperback and ebook formats.

Regehr, E.V., Laidre, K.L, Akçakaya, H.R., Amstrup, S.C., Atwood, T.C., Lunn, N.J., Obbard, M., Stern, H., Thiemann, G.W., & Wiig, Ø. 2016. Conservation status of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in relation to projected sea-ice declines. Biology Letters 12: 20160556. http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/12/12/20160556

Wiig, Ø., Born, E.W., and Garner, G.W. (eds.) 1995. Polar Bears: Proceedings of the 11th working meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialists Group, 25-27 January, 1993, Copenhagen, Denmark. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK, IUCN. http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/meetings/

Wiig, Ø., Amstrup, S., Atwood, T., Laidre, K., Lunn, N., Obbard, M., et al. 2015. Ursus maritimus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T22823A14871490. Available fromhttp://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22823/0 [accessed Nov. 28, 2015]. See the supplement for population figures.

Latest global polar bear abundance ‘best guess’ estimate is 39,000 (26,000-58,000) | polarbearscience

*

WATCH …

TUCKER CARLSON interviews Zoologist and Polar Bear specialist Dr. Susan Crockford on the prime time ratings-killer show Tucker Carlson Tonight, in a must watch segment that demonstrates how “overpopulation”, not extinction, is now the problem :

*

PROPAGANDA RULES

THIS is what your children are being taught and ordered to say about Polar Bears and global warming climate change. Blatant lies and falsehoods …

***

THE ARCTIC

DIRE predictions of an “ice-free” Arctic remain a popular and effective fear-mongering tool in the bag of ClimateChange™️.

SOME of the Arctic sea-ice predictions made by alarmists ‘scientists’ and the mainstream media over the years. ALL of which have failed to materialise :

  • “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)

CLIMATE DUD-PREDICTIONS : ‘Ice-Free’ Arctic Prophesies By The ‘97% Consensus’ And Compliant Mainstream Media | Climatism

*

ARCTIC SEA-ICE EXTENT

CLAIMS that Arctic sea ice is disappearing are patently false.

THERE has been no trend in Arctic sea ice extent since the start of MASIE records in 2006.

via Real Climate Science :

*

ARCTIC SEA-ICE EXTENT TO DATE

ARCTIC sea-ice extent is within the 1981-2010 median :

*

ARCTIC SEA-ICE VOLUME

ARCTIC sea ice volume has been trending upwards for the past twelve years.

*

ARCTIC TEMPS and MELT CYCLES

ARCTIC temperatures and melt cycles correlate almost perfectly with ocean circulation cycles (AMO) driven by the sun, and show zero correlation with atmospheric CO2 levels :

Reykjavik, Iceland Temperatures Vs. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation

Reykjavik, Iceland Temperatures Vs. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation

***

CONCLUSION

AN old Slovak proverb states, “The truth rises to the surface like oil on water.” So too, over time, has the truth been revealed as to the actual state of polar bears and the supposed “shrinking” Arctic.

THE mainstream media and climate scientists are aware of the underlying data on polar bears and the Arctic. They simply choose not to share the truth with you or any positive ‘Climate Change’ news, for that matter.

GOOD news climate stories would only spoil their “Climate Emergency” agenda that they have worked so hard to manufacture and maintain. Not to mention, would put in jeopardy a load of reputations, egos and money now at stake. The scam, it seems, is almost too big to fail.

AS for the polar bear, it is ours now! We own it as the symbol of a stable Arctic and a ClimateChange™️ agenda on life-support, becoming more hysterical by the day, under constant siege by ‘inconvenient’ scientific data and a litany of failed predictions.

•••

SEE also :

ORIGINS Of The ClimateChange™️ Scam :

•••

THE Climatism Tip Jar – Help Keep The Good Fight Alive!

(Climate sceptics/rationalists still waitin’ for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Help us to hit back against the bombardment of climate lies costing our communities, economies and livelihoods far, far too much.

Thanks to all those who have donated. Your support and faith in Climatism is highly motivating and greatly appreciated!

Citizen journalists can’t rely on mastheads, rather private donations and honest content. Every pledge helps, heaps!

Click link for more info…

Many thanks, Jamie.

(NB// The PayPal account linked to “Climatism” is “Five-O-Vintage”)Donate with PayPal

•••


CLIMATE SCIENTIST 2000 : Snowfall Will Become A Very Rare And Exciting Event…Children Just Aren’t Going To Know What Snow Is


SNOWFALL will become “A very rare and exciting event…
Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
Dr David Viner – Senior scientist, climatic research unit CRU (2000)

“Winters with strong frosts and lots of snow
like we had 20 years ago will no longer exist at our latitudes.”
– Professor Mojib Latif (2000)

“Good bye winter. Never again snow?” – Spiegel (2000)

“Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” – IPCC (2001)

“End of Snow?” – NYTimes (2014)

***

Hat Tip @twawki2

ONE of the more memorable instances of global warming climate change fear-mongering, gone awry, is that of the bold prediction made by Dr David Viner, of the UK’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), in an interview with The Independent’s Charles Onians.

THE now infamous dud-prediction became The Independent’s most cited (now deleted) article in its history – Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past …

the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

*

VINER HAD BACKUP

IN 2001, the UN IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (TAR) predicted: “warmer winters and fewer cold spells, because of climate change” and “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms”.

warmer-winters-ipcc.png

warmer-winters-ipcc

*

AUSTRALIA’s premier scientific body, the CSIRO, concluded in a 2003 report that Australian alpine resorts could lose up to 40% of their snow by 2020 …

By 2020, the average annual duration of snow-cover decreases by between five and 48 days; maximum snow depths are reduced and tend to occur earlier in the year; and the total area covered in snow shrinks by 10-40%

CSIRO Research Publications Repository – Climate change impacts on snow in Victoria

*

THE THING OF THE PAST

SINCE Viner and the IPCC, the Northern Hemisphere has experienced some of the coldest winters on record, with “rare and exciting” snow, an inconvenient feature …

***

SEE also :

CLIMATISM Snow Series :

THE Sun Drives Climate/Weather And Determines The Polar Vortex :

SEE also :

EXTREME WEATHER Related :

STATE Of The Climate Report :

TEMPERATURE Related :

ORIGINS Of The Global Warming Scam :

•••

THE Climatism Tip Jar – Pls Help Keep The Good Fight Alive!

(Climate sceptics/rationalists still waitin’ for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Help us to hit back against the bombardment of climate lies costing our communities, economies and livelihoods far, far too much.

Thanks to all those who have donated. Your support and faith in Climatism is highly motivating and greatly appreciated!

Citizen journalists can’t rely on mastheads, rather private donations and honest content. Every pledge helps!

Click link for more info…

Thank You! Jamie.

Donate with PayPal

•••