Advertisements

COGNITIVE BIAS : Climate Change Alarmists Refuse To Accept ‘The Science’ That Proves Extreme Weather Events Are NOT Increasing

EXTREME WEATHER - Cognitive Bias - CLIMATISM

EXTREME WEATHER : Cognitive Bias | Climatism


“WHEN the heart rules the head,
passion takes over reason.”

Ortega y Gasset

“IT would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.”
Joseph Goebbels

***

THE widely held belief that ‘Extreme Weather’ has become worse, as a result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions, is a tribute to the success of climate change propaganda pushed relentlessly by CO2-centric politicians and compliant mainstream media.

PROMOTING Extreme Weather is specifically designed to shift public opinion about the purported seriousness of human-induced global warming climate change, through the use of emotional imagery and dire prognostications in order for draconian and costly climate policy to be accepted and implemented with as little resistance as possible from the taxpaying public.

COGNITIVE BIAS fuelled by an era of mass hysteria, delusion, groupthink and panic has helped foster dark and far-fetched clichés of a current “climate crisis”, that is an “existential threat” which will “end civilisation by 2030”.

*

THANKS to the dramatic rise in personal weather recording devices – smart phones and CCTV – the sampling rate (what you see or hear directly) of Extreme Weather events, broadcast via social and mainstream media, has risen dramatically in recent years.

BUT, have actual Extreme Weather events increased in frequency or intensity? In particular, over long-term ‘climate’ scales?

THE short answer is a big fat NO! Extreme Weather events have not increased in frequency or intensity as carbon dioxide emissions have increased. In many cases the exact opposite is occurring.

THIS ‘inconvenient’ fact has been proven by empirical data and confirmed by the last two (warmist) U.N. IPCC reports on Extreme Weather: SREX (AR5) 2013 report and the latest SR15 report released August, 2018:

***

EXTREME WEATHER METRICS


DROUGHT

UN IPCC : “Low confidence in the sign of drought trends since 1950 at global scale…likely to be trends in some regions of the world, including increases in drought in the Mediterranean and W Africa & decreases in droughts in central N America & NW Australia” UN IPCC SR15 (2018)

GLOBAL TREND

*

NO historical trend in U.S. drought as CO₂ rises :

*

1934 : WHEN CO₂ WAS AT ‘SAFE’ LEVELS

IN 1934, when CO₂ was at ‘safe’ levels, severe to extreme drought covered around 80% of the entire U.S. Such conditions endured for most of the decade known as the “Dust Bowl” era :

*

400 PPM ‘DANGEROUS’ CO₂

CURRENT U.S. drought conditions with CO₂ at ‘dangerous’ levels (400PPM) :

*

CALIFORNIA’s “PERMANENT DROUGHT” UPDATE

THANKS to superstitious climate kiddies wagging school, in just 3 years, California went from 97% in drought to just 1% :

*

WHEN CO₂ was at ‘safe’ levels, droughts in California lasted for 200 years :

***

FLOODS

“There is low confidence due to limited evidence, however, that anthropogenic climate change has affected the frequency and the magnitude of floods.” – UN IPCC SR15 (2018)

***

HEATWAVES

ACCORDING to the EPA, the low-CO2 1930s had (by far) the worst heatwaves in US history :

*

WHEN CO₂ was at ‘safe levels’, Adelaide’s temperature climbed above 100°F, six days in a row.

ADELAIDE – March, 1940 :

  1. Friday  –  24°C (74.4F)
  2. Saturday  –  24°C (75.7F)
  3. Sunday  –  28°C (81.7F)
  4. Monday  –  34°C (93.5F)
  5. Tuesday  –  31°C (88.4F)
  6. Wednesday  –  35°C (94.9F)
  7. Thursday  –  40°C (103.9F)
  8. Friday  –  42°C (107.7F)
  9. Saturday  –  43°C (110.1F)
  10. Sunday  –  42°C (108.3F)
  11. Monday  –  42°C (107.9F)
  12. Tuesday  –  40°C (103.6F)

RECORD MARCH HEAT WAVE : Six Consecutive Days Above 100°F | Climatism

***

GLOBAL TROPICAL CYCLONES

“Numerous studies towards and beyond AR5 have reported a decreasing trend
in the global number of tropical cyclones and/or the globally accumulated cyclonic energy”UN IPCC SR15 (2018)

“There is only low confidence regarding changes in global tropical cyclone numbers under global warming over the last four decades.”UN IPCC SR15 (2018)

*

AUSTRALIAN TROPICAL CYCLONES

AUSTRALIAN tropical cyclones are declining in both intensity and frequency as CO₂ rises :

***

HURRICANES

GLOBAL Hurricanes are declining in both frequency and intensity as CO₂ increases :

*

*

CAT 3+ U.S. Landfalling Hurricanes (per decade) declining rapidly as CO₂ emissions rise :

*

FLORIDA Major Hurricane Strikes – Still No Trend :

***

TORNADOES

2018 was one of the least active US tornado years on record, despite record and rising CO₂ emissions.

AS of October, a new record low tornado count was set. The cumulative total for 2018 is 759; the previous lowest number of tornadoes for this date was 761. The SPC has records extending back 65 years.

This lack of tornadic storms in recent years should also correlate with lesser severe thunderstorm activity in general in the U.S., since the conditions which produce large hail and damaging winds are generally the same as are required for tornadoes (strong instability, plentiful moisture, and wind shear). – Roy Spencer PhD

NB// The US represents about 75 percent of the world’s recorded tornadoes.

*

*

THE frequency of strong to violent tornadoes is also decreasing :

*

*

THE trend is clearly down across the board. Yet why are no mainstream journalists curious about this?

NB// IPCC SR15 “Extreme Weather” report made no mention of Tornadoes. Nor, the mainstream media!

***

GLOBAL WEATHER DISASTERS / LOSSES

GLOBAL weather disasters/losses as a percentage of global GDP are declining as CO₂  emissions rise.

THROUGH 7 months of 2018 weather disasters as % GDP were on record (low) pace…

NB// LOSS data does not include the two big CAT4’s that struck the US in 2018 – Florence (Sep) and Michael (Oct).

***

CONCLUSION

BIAS BY OMISSION

IN my opinion, the worst form of propaganda is ‘bias by omission’ – information and facts that you are ‘not’ told about, in order to keep the truth from you.

THE mainstream media has not and will not report the facts on “Extreme Weather”, as clearly laid out in the science and data above, because such facts are obviously extremely ‘inconvenient’ to their “catastrophic” man-made global warming narrative.

*

VITAL information central to the potential seriousness of climate change – Extreme Weather – has been purposely omitted by the mainstream media and replaced by emotions, alarmism and exaggerations in order to fit the climate-calamity narrative designed to scare you into belief and obedience.

THIS is why the global warming climate change debate has become so dangerously deceptive and dishonest. Climate truths hidden from you and replaced with a narrative far more acceptable – Hollywood-style climate hysteria based on alarmism, increased sampling rates and overheated, CO2-centric climate models that do not accord with observed reality.

•••

UPDATE

DID not see either of these instructive graphs painted on a placards at any of the kiddie climate rallies last Friday. Guess they don’t fit their ‘catastrophic’ climate narrative…

Climate related deaths Vs non related

Global Deaths from Climate and non-Climate Catastrophes, 1920-2018

CO2 emissoins Vs Poverty

Carbon Emissions and World Prosperity

*

PERHAPS the climate kids would have been wise to read and learn the words of H.L. Mencken, before being forced out by their parents and teachers to act as standard bearers of new radical eco-socialism, protected by ‘innocence’ and lack of age :

“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. The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it.” – H.L. Mencken

•••

Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

AUSTRALIA’s Hottest Summer? Maybe Not.

“FAR from this year being the record, the hottest summer was actually back in 1900. This summer only ranks 5th, behind 2017, 1902 and 2006.

THE summers of 1884 and 1901 are also close behind.

IN fact, the spate of hot summers recently look little different to those of the early 1900s.”

74E1DDC3-5B94-49FD-8EFC-C9EAD7A8609E

Walgett 1880 to 2019

EXCELLENT investigative work, again, by Mr. Paul Homewood.

THE precise job that the mainstream media should and must be doing in order to keep a check on government and its institutions.

BUT, just as our top ‘scientific’ organisations have been captured by environmental elites, so too have the majority-Leftist mainstream media.

AND, for the mainstream media – keeping “truth to power” in the area of the ‘environment’ would mean sanitising their man-made global warming narrative that they’ve invested so much political capital, ideology and personal ego into for decades. Not gonna happen!

ERGO, tough times indeed for “truth to power” to exist in the fashionable age of climate change virtue-signalling, driven by politics, propaganda, bureaucratic pseudoscience and trillions of dollars of taxpayers hard-earned.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

This made news a couple of weeks ago, but I have been waiting for full details from the BOM:

image

Australia has experienced its hottest summer on record, according to the nation’s Bureau of Meteorology.

Hundreds of individual heat records were shattered across the country over the past three months.

The warm weather, 2.14C above the long-term average, caused bushfires, blackouts and a rise in hospital admissions.

Wildlife also suffered, with reports of mass deaths of wild horses, native bats and fish.

“The real standout was just how widespread and prolonged each heatwave was – almost everywhere was affected,” climatologist Blair Trewin told the BBC.

Temperatures had exceeded the previous hottest summer in 2012-13 by nearly 1C, he added – “a very large margin for a national record”.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-47410366

Naturally the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has blamed it on climate change. But is it quite as simple as…

View original post 460 more words


POLAR BEAR Habitat Update: Abundant Sea Ice Across The Arctic, Even In The Barents Sea

  • “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, 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.

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

polarbearscience

Abundant ice in Svalbard, East Greenland and the Labrador Sea is excellent news for the spring feeding season ahead because this is when bears truly need the presence of ice for hunting and mating. As far as I can tell, sea ice has not reached Bear Island, Norway at this time of year since 2010 but this year ice moved down to the island on 3 March and has been there ever since. This may mean we’ll be getting reports of polar bear sightings from the meteorological station there, so stay tuned.

Walking bear shutterstock_329214941_web size

Sea ice extent as of 11 March 2019, from NSIDC Masie:

masie_all_zoom_4km 2019 March 11

Much of the ice that was blown out of the Bering Sea early in the month has returned and ice in the Gulf of St. Lawrence on the East Coast of Canada is the highest its been in years, threatening to impede ferry traffic between Nova…

View original post 456 more words


VICTORIAN BUSHFIRES : A History Lesson For Climate Change Ambulance Chasers @Melissa4Durack


“IN a brilliant strategic move, it was decided that
the environmentalist movement was a new and
promising vehicle for obtaining political influence and power.”

Jennifer Marohasy PhD

***

AUSTRALIAN ‘conservative’ environment Minister Melissa Price is in “No Doubt” that Victoria’s recent bush fires were caused by mankind’s 1 extra carbon dioxide molecule in every 10,000, or an increase of one thousandth of one percent of CO2 over a 150 year period.

AUSTRALIA’S contribution to global plant food and fire-retardant CO2 = 1.3% of all that!

*

Environment Minister Melissa Price has linked this week’s devastating bushfires in Victoria to climate change, saying there is “no doubt” of its impact on Australia

As Victorians in the state’s east survey the damage done to their properties by bushfires, the Environment Minister said Australians across the nation had suffered from the nation’s hottest summer on record.

“There’s no doubt that there’s many people who have suffered over this summer. We talk about the Victorian bushfires; (in) my home state of Western Australia we’ve also got fires there,” she told Sky News this morning.

“There’s no doubt that climate change is having an impact on us. There’s no denying that.”

Coalition figures, including former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, have been reluctant in the past to link climate change to recent natural disasters such as bushfires.

Melissa Price links Victoria bushfires to climate change | The Australian

(paywalled)

*

MEANWHILE, residents of Tonimbuk, a small rural community heaviest hit by Victoria’s weekend bushfires, believe dan­g­er­ously high fuel loads on vacant­ crown land contributed to the feroci­ty of a blaze that left Country Fire Authority firefighters unable to defend some properties…

Residents of a small rural community heaviest hit by Victoria’s weekend bushfires believe dan­g­er­ously high fuel loads on vacant­ crown land contributed to the feroci­ty of a blaze that left Country Fire Authority firefighters unable to defend some properties.

The quiet hamlet of Tonimbuk, about 90km east of Melbourne, felt the brunt of the fire crisis, with seven properties destroyed and 11,000ha burnt by a lightning-strike blaze that raced out of the Bunyip State Forest.

Andrew Clarke, the owner of the Jinks Creek Winery destroyed by the Bunyip fire, believes a bureaucrati­c blunder cost him his life’s work.

He said a planned burn-off in 60ha between his vineyard and the state park was not done because of concerns for local birdlife.

“If they’d been doing the burning off they should have been doing, our place might still be there,’’ he told The Australian.

“They told me birds were nesting. I told them: ‘If we don’t do a burn-off now, there’ll be no birds. There’ll be no goannas, no snakes, no wallabies. They’ll all be bar­becued.’’

Another Tonimbuk resident, cartoonist Mark Knight, said some residents were left to defend their homes without assistance from the CFA. “We fought this fire for three days on our own,’’ he said. “Black Saturday they were all over us. They were fantastic. We didn’t see them this year.’’

53d786b3bff5f1772e586b4a56220414

Mark Knight with his sons Jack & Elliott, in Tonimbuk, managed to save their property after a bushfire engulfed the Bunyip state forest in Victoria. Picture: Stuart McEvoy.

Victoria fires: Crown land growth ‘fuelled’ blazes | The Australian

*

THE Daily Telegraph’s climate ‘rationalist’ Miranda Devine with the brutal truth as to what is really fuelling 21st Century bushfires, overrun with ‘Green’ fodder…

Melissa Price, the new federal Environment Minister, has done untold political damage to a government already divided over climate action by spouting idiotic green propaganda about Victoria’s bushfires.

On Tuesday, she linked the fires to climate change, claiming there is “no doubt” of its impact on Australia.

“There’s no doubt that there’s many people who have suffered over this summer. We talk about the Victorian bushfires … There’s no doubt that climate change is having an impact on us. There’s no denying that.”

MORE FROM MIRANDA DEVINE: Climate change isn’t about science — it’s a hot mess of politics and big money

Sorry, minister, it wasn’t climate change that caused the latest bushfires which have so far destroyed nine homes in Victoria, and it wasn’t climate change that killed almost 200 people in the Black Saturday fires ten years ago.

The real culprit is green ideology which opposes the necessary hazard reduction of fuel loads in national parks and which prevents landholders from clearing vegetation around their homes.

The ongoing poor management of national parks and state forests in Victoria and green obstruction of fire mitigation strategies has led to dangerously high fuel loads over the past decade.

That means that when fires do inevitably break out they are so intense that they are devilishly difficult for firefighters to contain. As a federal parliamentary inquiry heard in 2003, if you quadruple the ground fuel, you get a 13-fold increase in the heat generated by a fire.

RELATED: Schools close as bushfires rage in Victoria’s east

Locals know the truth. Andrew Clarke, owner of Jinks Creek Winery, which has been destroyed by a fire which raged out of the Bunyip State Forest, “begged” for fuel reduction burns to protect his property.

“I’ve been begging them [Forest Fire Management Victoria] for 20 years to burn off the state forest at the back of our place and still to this day it hasn’t happened,” he told the ABC’s Country Hour.

Clarke said a planned burn-off was called off because of concerns about nesting birds.

So how did that work out for the birds?

Just three weeks ago, Victoria’s former chief fire officer Ewan Waller warned that state forest fuel loads were reaching deadly, Black Saturday levels. No one paid any attention.

But you can bet Premier Daniel Andrews will hide behind the climate change furphy.

Parroting green lies suits politicians because then they can avoid blame for their own culpability.

MORE FROM MIRANDA DEVINE: Who’s afraid of the big bad climate monster?

The Black Saturday Bushfire Royal Commission criticised the Victorian government for its failure to reduce fuel loads in state forests. It recommended more than doubling the amount of hazard reduction burns.

Instead, in the last three years, alone, the Andrews government has slashed the amount of public land being hazard reduced by almost two thirds.

It’s a crime.

The wonder is that the Morrison government is helping him with his alibi.

@mirandadevine

***

VICTORIAN BUSHFIRES : A HISTORY LESSON FOR CLIMATE CHANGE CO2-CENTRICS

BUSHFIRES and “extreme” heat-waves have been part and parcel of Victoria and Australia’s DNA for millennia, even when CO2 was at ‘safe’ levels …

*

DECEMBER 1954  (CO2 @ 313 PPM) :

ELEVEN MORE PERISH IN FIRES. FOUR CHILDREN IN SAME FAMILY DEAD. TOWNSHIPS WIPED OUT

***

JANUARY 1946  (CO2 @ 310 PPM) :

*

FORTY BUSHFIRES IN VICTORIA – Melbourne’s 105 Deg. [41°C]

*

“EXTREME HEAT buckled rail-lines” …

The extreme heat buckled one of the rail-lines between Box Hill and Surrey Hills, delaying Melbourne trains for 30 minutes.

*

*

“ST. KILDA sands baked” …

VICTORIAN BUSHFIRES.
St. Kilda Sands Baked.
MELBOURNE, Jan 13. – Nearly 40 bushfires were reported throughout Victoria today when the temperature in Melbourne rose to 105deg [41°C].
*
So hot was the sand at West St. Kilda yesterday that life-savers, in a march past, broke formation for the first time in the history of Victorian life-saving clubs and had to resume the march along the water’s edge.
The secretary of the Royal Life Saving Society of Victoria (Mr. Pier dell) described yesterday as one of the worst he had known on Victorian beaches.

***

FEBRUARY 1944  (CO2 @ 310 PPM) :

12 DEATHS IN GIPPSLAND BUSHFIRES

 

***

MARCH 1940  (CO2 @ 311 PPM) :

103 DEGS. [39.4°C] IN MELBOURNE – 30 BUSHFIRES

***

APRIL 1940  (CO2 @ 311 PPM) :

VICTORIA – BUSHFIRES AGAIN

***

APRIL 1936  (CO2 @ 310 PPM) :

Night Of Terror Caused By Bushfires

*

*

***

MARCH 1933  (CO2 @ 308.9 PPM) :

***

FEBRUARY 1932  (CO2 @ 308.3 PPM) :

HISTORIC BUSHFIRES – How A Change Of Wind Saved Melbourne

***

FEBRUARY 1931  (CO2 @ 308.3 PPM) :

BUSHFIRES IN VICTORIA – Country Townships Menaced

***

FEBRUARY 1926  (CO2 @ 305.8 PPM) :

HEALESVILLE SURROUNDED – WORST FIRES SINCE 1919

***

FEBRUARY 1898  (CO2 @ 295 PPM) :

***

CONCLUSION

AUSTRALIAN politicians push a never-ending barrage of fact-free global warming climate change alarmism, fear and propaganda on the taxpayer in order to stoke fear and justify the spending of billions upon billions of their hard-earned money on fake fixes to a fake scam.

HOW many more billions of taxpayers hard-earned money will be spent on the greatest pseudoscientific scam ever perpetrated against mankind before our politicians learn how to google “TROVE“? Basic climate history, documenting events no different to today that completely trashes their costly, fake, political, man-made climate change scam costing the country and the planet an estimated $2,000,000,000,000 US (2 Trillion) per year, every year!

POLITICIAN’S punishing industry and jobs with punitive and draconian climate policy, including billions spent on useless windmills and solar panels with ZERO criticism or investigation of years of reckless ‘Green’ environmental policy mandated by UN-infected local councils who, under the draconian program of Agenda 21 aka ICLEI, prevent the clearing of any foliage, trees or grasses above 8 inches on residents own private properties!

ENOUGH is enough. People’s livelihoods, their communities and economies are being ‘burned’ alive by gutless and superstitious politicians on a costly and dangerous crusade of “Save The Planet” hubris driven by politics, ideology and groupthink, pseudoscientific climate change dogma.

•••

RELATED :

Read the rest of this entry »


NOW That We Know Renewables Can’t ‘Save The Planet’, Are We Really Going To Stand By And Let Them Destroy It?


“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 coal derivatives required for :

SEE : WHAT I See When I See a Wind Turbine | Climatism

*

LAND INTENSITY

WIND and solar power are incredibly land intensive owing to the inherent low-energy density of their electrons. And, the small fact that the sun only shines and the wind only blows 10-40% of the time.

HOW much land and how many wind turbines would be needed just to supply the planets ‘new’ demand for energy?

If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s.

At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area greater than the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs.

WIND TURBINES Are Neither Clean Nor Green And They Provide Zero Global Energy | Climatism

*

NATURE LOVERS?

IF Greens love nature, why aren’t they more concerned about carpeting pristine landscapes with industrial wind turbines?

*

“SAVING THE PLANET”

IF ‘Greens’ were serious about “Saving The Planet”, they would be embracing (CO2-free) nuclear energy.

THE fact that they are not, says a lot about today’s New Green Climate Warrior – concerned more about totalitarian power and control than tangible care of the physical environment.

IMHO, ‘Climate Change’ has absolutely nothing to do with the environment or “Saving The Planet”. If it did, every global warming climate change bedwetter would be castigating China for unlimited emissions until 2030.

CLIMATE CHANGE activism has everything to do with economic, political and cultural power and control.

*

NUCLEAR POWER

THIS brilliant piece from (old-school) environmentalist Michael Shellenberger has been touring social and mainstream media in a big way, and rightly so, but wanted to pin it here for Climatism followers to enjoy and hopefully share with friends, family and their local energy/environment representative!

From Quillette :

Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet

When I was a boy, my parents would sometimes take my sister and me camping in the desert. A lot of people think deserts are empty, but my parents taught us to see the wildlife all around us, including hawks, eagles, and tortoises.

After college, I moved to California to work on environmental campaigns. I helped save the state’s last ancient redwood forest and blocked a proposed radioactive waste repository set for the desert.

In 2002, shortly after I turned 30, I decided I wanted to dedicate myself to addressing climate change. I was worried that global warming would end up destroying many of the natural environments that people had worked so hard to protect.

I thought the solutions were pretty straightforward: solar panels on every roof, electric cars in every driveway, etc. The main obstacles, I believed, were political. And so I helped organize a coalition of America’s largest labor unions and environmental groups. Our proposal was for a $300 billion dollar investment in renewables. We would not only prevent climate change but also create millions of new jobs in a fast-growing high-tech sector.

Our efforts paid off in 2007 when then-presidential candidate Barack Obama embraced our vision. Between 2009–15, the U.S. invested $150 billion dollars in renewables and other forms of clean tech. But right away we ran into trouble.

The first was around land use. Electricity from solar roofs costs about twice as much as electricity from solar farms, but solar and wind farms require huge amounts of land. That, along with the fact that solar and wind farms require long new transmissions lines, threatened local communities, and conservationists trying to preserve wildlife, particularly birds.

Another challenge was the intermittent nature of solar and wind energies. When the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing, you have to quickly be able to ramp up another source of energy.

Happily, there were a lot of people working on solutions. One solution was to convert California’s dams into big batteries. The idea was that, when the sun was shining and the wind was blowing, you could pump water uphill, store it for later, and then run it over the turbines to make electricity when you needed it.

Other problems didn’t seem like such a big deal, on closer examination. For example, after I learned that house cats kill billions of birds every year it put into perspective the nearly one million birds killed by wind turbines.

It seemed to me that most, if not all, of the problems from scaling up solar and wind energies could be solved through more technological innovation.

But, as the years went by, the problems persisted and in some cases grew worse. For example, California is a world leader when it comes to renewables but we haven’t converted our dams into batteries, partly for geographic reasons. You need the right kind of dam and reservoirs, and even then it’s an expensive retrofit.

A bigger problem is that there are many other uses for the water that accumulates behind dams, namely irrigation and cities. And because the water in our rivers and reservoirs is scarce and unreliable, the water from dams for those other purposes is becoming ever-more precious.

Without large-scale ways to back-up solar energy California has had to block electricity coming from solar farms when it’s extremely sunny, or pay neighboring states to take it from us so we can avoid blowing-out our grid.

Despite what you’ve heard, there is no “battery revolution” on the way, for well-understood technical and economic reasons.

As for house cats, they don’t kill big, rare, threatened birds. What house cats kill are small, common birds, like sparrows, robins and jays. What kills big, threatened, and endangered birds—birds that could go extinct—like hawks, eagles, owls, and condors, are wind turbines.

In fact, wind turbines are the most serious new threat to important bird species to emerge in decades. The rapidly spinning turbines act like an apex predator which big birds never evolved to deal with.

Solar farms have similarly large ecological impacts. Building a solar farm is a lot like building any other kind of farm. You have to clear the whole area of wildlife.

In order to build one of the biggest solar farms in California the developers hired biologists to pull threatened desert tortoises from their burrows, put them on the back of pickup trucks, transport them, and cage them in pens where many ended up dying.

As we were learning of these impacts, it gradually dawned on me that there was no amount of technological innovation that could solve the fundamental problem with renewables.

You can make solar panels cheaper and wind turbines bigger, but you can’t make the sun shine more regularly or the wind blow more reliably. I came to understand the environmental implications of the physics of energy. In order to produce significant amounts of electricity from weak energy flows, you just have spread them over enormous areas. In other words, the trouble with renewables isn’t fundamentally technical—it’s natural.

Dealing with energy sources that are inherently unreliable, and require large amounts of land, comes at a high economic cost.

There’s been a lot of publicity about how solar panels and wind turbines have come down in cost. But those one-time cost savings from making them in big Chinese factories have been outweighed by the high cost of dealing with their unreliability.

Consider California. Between 2011–17 the cost of solar panels declined about 75 percent, and yet our electricity prices rose five times more than they did in the rest of the U.S. It’s the same story in Germany, the world leader in solar and wind energy. Its electricity prices increased 50 percent between 2006–17, as it scaled up renewables.

I used to think that dealing with climate change was going to be expensive. But I could no longer believe this after looking at Germany and France.

Germany’s carbon emissions have been flat since 2009, despite an investment of $580 billion by 2025 in a renewables-heavy electrical grid, a 50 percent rise in electricity cost.

Climatism support :

SEE also : IF CO2’s Your Poison, Renewable Energy Is No Antidote | Climatism

*

Meanwhile, France produces one-tenth the carbon emissions per unit of electricity as Germany and pays little more than half for its electricity. How? Through nuclear power.

Then, under pressure from Germany, France spent $33 billion on renewables, over the last decade. What was the result? A rise in the carbon intensity of its electricity supply, and higher electricity prices, too.

What about all the headlines about expensive nuclear and cheap solar and wind? They are largely an illusion resulting from the fact that 70 to 80 percent of the costs of building nuclear plants are up-front, whereas the costs given for solar and wind don’t include the high cost of transmission lines, new dams, or other forms of battery.

It’s reasonable to ask whether nuclear power is safe, and what happens with its waste.

It turns out that scientists have studied the health and safety of different energy sources since the 1960s. Every major study, including a recent one by the British medical journal Lancet, finds the same thing: nuclear is the safest way to make reliable electricity.

Strange as it sounds, nuclear power plants are so safe for the same reason nuclear weapons are so dangerous. The uranium used as fuel in power plants and as material for bombs can create one million times more heat per its mass than its fossil fuel and gunpowder equivalents.

It’s not so much about the fuel as the process. We release more energy breaking atoms than breaking chemical bonds. What’s special about uranium atoms is that they are easy to split.

Because nuclear plants produce heat without fire, they emit no air pollution in the form of smoke. By contrast, the smoke from burning fossil fuels and biomass results in the premature deaths of seven million people per year, according to the World Health Organization.

Even during the worst accidents, nuclear plants release small amounts of radioactive particulate matter from the tiny quantities of uranium atoms split apart to make heat.

Over an 80-year lifespan, fewer than 200 people will die from the radiation from the worst nuclear accident, Chernobyl, and zero will die from the small amounts of radiant particulate matter that escaped from Fukushima.

As a result, the climate scientist James Hanson and a colleague found that nuclear plants have actually saved nearly two million lives to date that would have been lost to air pollution.

Thanks to its energy density, nuclear plants require far less land than renewables. Even in sunny California, a solar farm requires 450 times more land to produce the same amount of energy as a nuclear plant.

Energy-dense nuclear requires far less in the way of materials, and produces far less in the way of waste compared to energy-dilute solar and wind.

A single Coke cans worth of uranium provides all of the energy that the most gluttonous American or Australian lifestyle requires. At the end of the process, the high-level radioactive waste that nuclear plants produce is the very same Coke can of (used) uranium fuel. The reason nuclear is the best energy from an environmental perspective is because it produces so little waste and none enters the environment as pollution.

All of the waste fuel from 45 years of the Swiss nuclear program can fit, in canisters, on a basketball court-like wearhouse, where like all spent nuclear fuel, it has never hurt a fly.

By contrast, solar panels require 17 times more materials in the form of cement, glass, concrete, and steel than do nuclear plants, and create over 200 times more waste.

We tend to think of solar panels as clean, but the truth is that there is no plan anywhere to deal with solar panels at the end of their 20 to 25 year lifespan.

Experts fear solar panels will be shipped, along with other forms of electronic waste, to be disassembled—or, more often, smashed with hammers—by poor communities in Africa and Asia, whose residents will be exposed the dust from toxic including lead, cadmium, and chromium.

Wherever I travel in the world I ask ordinary people what they think about nuclear and renewable energies. After saying they know next to nothing, they admit that nuclear is strong and renewables are weak. Their intuitions are correct. What most of us get wrong—understandably — is that weak energies are safer.

But aren’t renewables safer? The answer is no. Wind turbines, surprisingly, kill more people than nuclear plants.

In other words, the energy density of the fuel determines its environmental and health impacts. Spreading more mines and more equipment over larger areas of land is going to have larger environmental and human safety impacts.

It’s true that you can stand next to a solar panel without much harm while if you stand next to a nuclear reactor at full power you’ll die.

But when it comes to generating power for billions of people, it turns out that producing solar and wind collectors, and spreading them over large areas, has vastly worse impacts on humans and wildlife alike.

Our intuitive sense that sunlight is dilute sometimes shows up in films. That’s why nobody was shocked when the recent remake of the dystopian sci-fi flick, “Blade Runner,” opened with a dystopian scene of California’s deserts paved with solar farms identical to the one that decimated desert tortoises.

Over the last several hundred years, human beings have been moving away from what matter-dense fuels towards energy-dense ones. First we move from renewable fuels like wood, dung, and windmills, and towards the fossil fuels of coal, oil, and natural gas, and eventually to uranium.

Energy progress is overwhelmingly positive for people and nature. As we stop using wood for fuel we allow grasslands and forests to grow back, and the wildlife to return.

As we stop burning wood and dung in our homes, we no longer must breathe toxic indoor smoke. And as we move from fossil fuels to uranium we clear the outdoor air of pollution, and reduce how much we’ll heat up the planet.

Nuclear plants are thus a revolutionary technology—a grand historical break from fossil fuels as significant as the industrial transition from wood to fossil fuels before it.

The problem with nuclear is that it is unpopular, a victim of a 50 year-longconcerted effort by fossil fuel, renewable energy, anti-nuclear weapons campaigners, and misanthropic environmentalists to ban the technology.

In response, the nuclear industry suffers battered wife syndrome, and constantly apologizes for its best attributes, from its waste to its safety.

Lately, the nuclear industry has promoted the idea that, in order to deal with climate change, “we need a mix of clean energy sources,” including solar, wind and nuclear. It was something I used to believe, and say, in part because it’s what people want to hear. The problem is that it’s not true.

France shows that moving from mostly nuclear electricity to a mix of nuclear and renewables results in more carbon emissions, due to using more natural gas, and higher prices, to the unreliability of solar and wind.

Oil and gas investors know this, which is why they made a political alliance with renewables companies, and why oil and gas companies have been spending millions of dollars on advertisements promoting solar, and funneling millions of dollars to said environmental groups to provide public relations cover.

What is to be done? The most important thing is for scientists and conservationists to start telling the truth about renewables and nuclear, and the relationship between energy density and environmental impact.

Bat scientists recently warned that wind turbines are on the verge of making one species, the Hoary bat, a migratory bat species, go extinct.

Another scientist who worked to build that gigantic solar farm in the California desert told High Country News, “Everybody knows that translocation of desert tortoises doesn’t work. When you’re walking in front of a bulldozer, crying, and moving animals, and cacti out of the way, it’s hard to think that the project is a good idea.”

I think it’s natural that those of us who became active on climate change gravitated toward renewables. They seemed like a way to harmonize human society with the natural world. Collectively, we have been suffering from a naturalistic fallacy no different from the one that leads us to buy products at the supermarket labeled “all natural.” But it’s high time that those of us who appointed ourselves Earth’s guardians should take a second look at the science, and start questioning the impacts of our actions.

Now that we know that renewables can’t save the planet, are we really going to stand by and let them destroy it?

Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,” and president of Environmental Progress, an independent research and policy organization. Follow him on Twitter @ShellenbergerMD

Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet – Quillette

•••

SHELLENBERGER Related :

SEE also :

Read the rest of this entry »


STATE OF THE POLAR BEAR REPORT 2018: Polar Bears Continue To Thrive

“Polar Bears thriving”!

RATHER inconvenient message for climate change hysterians to handle. Trigger time.

DON’T expect to see this ‘good news’ report anywhere on the mainstream media. They are only interested in adverse environmental stories, death and catastrophe, in order to push their CO2-centric, man-made global warming agenda.

polarbearscience

Press Release 27 February 2019, International Polar Bear Day

New Report: Polar Bears Continue To Thrive

State PB 2018 cover 27 Feb 2019

Inuit paying the price of rising bear populations

The State of the Polar Bear Report for 2018, published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, confirms that polar bears are continuing to thrive, despite recent reductions in sea ice levels. This finding contradicts claims by environmentalists and some scientists that falls in sea ice would wipe out bear populations.

The report’s author, zoologist Dr Susan Crockford, says that there is now very little evidence to support the idea that the polar bear is threatened with extinction by climate change.

We now know that polar bears are very resourceful creatures. They have made it through warm periods in the past and they seem to be taking the current warming in their stride too”.

In fact, it is the human residents of the…

View original post 341 more words


PANIC DENIED : Sea Levels In And Around Sydney Harbour 1886 to 2018

Sydney Harbour Sea Levels 1886-2018 - CLIMATISM

Sydney Harbour Sea Levels 1886-2018 | CLIMATISM


“CLIMATE alarmism is a gigantic fraud:
it only survives by suppressing dissent and by spending
tens of billions of dollars of public money
every year on pseudo-scientific propaganda.”
Leo Goldstein

***

SEA-LEVEL RISE alarmism is just one in a long line of propaganda tools used by the Climate Crisis Industry to promote the narrative that human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming climate change.

VERY little of the carefully orchestrated fear-mongering is based on observed reality and empirical evidence, rather, worst-case climate model scenarios pushed into the unaccountable future, designed to scare you and policy makers into (costly) “climate action now!”.

SEA level alarmism holds significant implications for the public who bear the burden of carbon-dioxide related taxes. Those living within coastal areas, constrained by further punitive imposts as insurance companies exploit the climate of fear for their own profit.

SEA levels vary by geographical region from positive to neutral to negative. Where positive sea-level ‘rise’ is concerned, the best science demonstrates that there is no immediate or long-term crisis in play. Importantly, no acceleration has been detected in the era of industrialisation.

*

VIV Forbes of the Carbon Sense Coalition is a member of the climate-realist think tank The Salt Bush Club  – a group of famed ex-industry leaders and climate science experts fighting back against dangerous and costly climate alarmism with fact-based reports filled with reason and common sense. Not hyper-climate alarmism and climate-model based theory that underpins mainstream media climate reporting.

FROM their About page:

INTRODUCING THE SALTBUSH CLUB

banner-5

Members, Skills and Concerns

“We have been listening to scare-mongers and panicky children for too long – it’s time to listen to sensible people and grown-ups.”
November 2018

The Saltbush Club is an unplanned venture. Tapping a deep vein of public concern about the Paris climate agreement, it just grew. In about a month, with zero corporate or government support, a few lone individuals have attracted an imposing line-up of sensible people who are well informed on all aspects of the climate debate, and on the growing energy, water and infrastructure problems facing Australia. Many are only prepared to publicise their concern since they have been freed from corporate, academic or government restraints. They are now expressing long-held but often-suppressed opinions.

A much larger group of “Silent Members” have indicated support, but do not want their names made public because they fear that exposure would harm their prospects for employment, promotion or business. They will help, but silently.

All Saltbush members are concerned that climate-alarm policies promoted by most politicians are not based on sound science, and are already causing great damage to Australian industry, jobs and consumers.

Members include people with formal qualifications and experience in geology, physics, chemistry, meteorology, astronomy, climatology, spectroscopy, electromagnetic radiation, geophysics, geochemistry, land forms, sea levels, vulcanology, palynology, engineering, metallurgy, law, medicine, veterinary science, pharmacy, pathology, sociology, classics, economics, accounting, ecology, soil science, environmental science, carbon accounting, pollution control, mathematics, statistics, electronics, communications, computer science, modelling and forecasting. No longer can it be claimed that there is “no debate among scientists”.

***

They understand that the war on hydro-carbon fuels and grazing animals in Australia is not based on sound science, but is part of a broad international agenda designed to strengthen UN agencies, centralise decision making and weaken property rights with international rules and taxes.

They aim to change the climate of public opinion, thus changing the political agenda.

There is no consensus – it is time for a debate.

On behalf of the founders:

Jerry Ellis Chairman
Hugh Morgan
Jo Nova Media Director
Ian Plimer
Viv Forbes Executive Director

See a list of founding members here: https://saltbushclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/saltbush-founding-members.pdf

About – The Saltbush Club

*

Dr G M Derrick reports the simple facts on the state of sea-level rise around Sydney Harbour over the past 132 years of records.

THE information is what we should be receiving from our politicians and media. Instead the information we receive about climate change and sea-levels is filled with exaggeration, alarmism, ‘homogenisation’, and plenty of politics in order to drive a political agenda of climate catastrophe in order to justify costly fixes, schemes, scams and taxes.

THE big losers – empirically-based science, the simple truth and the taxpayer who is forced to pay billions upon billions for fake fixes (windmills, solar panels and carbon taxes) to a fake scam.

***

By Dr G M Derrick

Executive Summary

  1. There has been NO significant sea level rise in the harbour for the past 120 years, and what little there has been is about the height of a matchbox over a century.
  2. Along the northern beaches of Sydney, at Collaroy there has been no suggestion of any sea level rise there for the past 140 years. Casual observations from Bondi Beach 1875 to the present also suggest the same benign situation.
  3. A rush to judgement by local councils and State Governments by legislating harsh laws and building covenants along our coastlines now seems misplaced.
  4. The falsehoods and mendacity of the IPCC and climate alarmists should be rejected out of hand, and efforts be made to ensure that science, not propaganda, defines our school curricula in matters of climate and sea levels

Full article: https://saltbushclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/sea-levels-sydney.pdf [PDF, 3 MB]

***

CLIMATISM SL SUPPORTS

SEA LEVELS

SEAS have risen 400 feet or 120,000 mm since the end of the last Ice Age, around 15,000-20,000 years ago :

*

SEA-LEVEL RISE ACCELERATION?

WHAT is pertinent to the sea-level rise debate is whether SLR is accelerating due to human CO2 emissions.

Dr Judith Curry …

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.

(Climatism bolds)

Sea level rise acceleration (or not): Projections for the 21st century | Climate Etc.

*

ACCORDING to “the science” there has been no stat-sig or relevant acceleration of sea-level rise since industrialisation :

*

SOMETHING other than carbon dioxide caused seas to rise, at the current steady rate, around 1790 :

(NB// 85% of man-made CO2 was emitted after 1945.)

*

NO ‘acceleration’ in sea-level rise exists in any NOAA or PSMSL tidal gauge records :

Relative Sea Level Trend
680-140 Sydney, Fort Denison 1 & 2, Australia

*

ONE third of all human (CO2) influence has occurred over the past 20-30 years which has not caused acceleration of sea-levels, a jot :

*

THOUGH not as ‘scientific’, it is interesting to use the visual point of Fort Denison to note the high-tide line and the notable absence of SL rise since 1885 to present :

***

COASTAL INSURANCE IMPLICATIONS

CLIMATE change hysteria and groupthink propaganda freely and uncritically spread by the compliant mainstream media has influenced local municipalities to wrongly and deceptively raise rates to cover “climate change” threats and damage as well insurance companies raising premiums. The result has been a devaluing of many coastal homes of up to 25% and the same increase in insurance premiums.

HERE’s an example of what the NSW Govt and Lake Macquarie Council are projecting for the 21st Century:

*

OVERHEATED, CO2-CENTRIC U.N. IPCC CLIMATE MODELS

THE very same modelled exaggeration alarmism is evident in the ensemble of U.N. IPCC CMIP5 climate models that basically act as evidence that drives the entire $2,000,000,000,000 US per year (2 Trillion) Climate Crisis Industry and associated climate policy settings that are sending Australian and other Western nations’ electricity prices through the roof, forcing businesses to close and/or move offshore and causing rampant energy poverty, hurting our most vulnerable.

*

IT’S OFFICIAL : South Australia Has The World’s Highest Power Prices!

(With the closure of the 1,550 MW Hazlewood power plant in Victoria, since this chart was produced, Victoria’s power prices are now nearing SA’s)

***

CONCLUSION

ENERGY poverty, rising insurance premiums, business closures, job losses and the highest electricity prices in the world is the grim reality of what life looks like under the totalitarian rule of the feel-good ‘Greens’. The zero-emissions zealots who want to force us backwards down the energy ladder to the days of human, animal and solar power.

JUST as socialist central planning failed miserably before it was replaced by free market economies, green central planning will have to be discarded before Australia and other Western nations, crippled by pseudoscientific climatology and the mad rush into costly and intermittent ‘green’ energy, will see a return to energy security, competitive pricing, business prosperity, job opportunities and a ‘liveable’ existence for our most vulnerable.

••• Read the rest of this entry »