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In very simple terms, unless and until the laws of physics are repealed, if we want a power grid to deliver the cheap, reliable and plentiful electricity that has been the basis of our economy, our society and indeed our very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

•••


DEATH OF A CLIMATE ICON : A Lesson For Researchers In Other Areas Who Have Failed To Stop The Invasion Of Politics Into Their Science

POLAR BEARS - Death Of A Climate Icon

POLAR BEARS – Death Of A Climate Icon | Climatism


“Those who can make you believe absurdities,
can make you commit atrocities.”
– Voltaire

“Blind trust in authority
is the greatest enemy of the truth.”
Albert Einstein

***

THE polar bear as an icon for Global Warming 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.

*

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 :

*

THE Global Warming Policy Foundation has since released an excellent short video showing why the polar bear no longer serves as the icon of the climate change movement :

*

H/t Green Jihad

•••

POLAR BEAR related :

SEE also :

Read the rest of this entry »


BREAKING : Trump Russia ‘Collusion’ Officially The Greatest Hoax And Conspiracy Theory In United States Political History


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

“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 Left and the Deep State’s favourite conspiracy theory is dead!

THE 30 MILLION dollar, 675 day “Russia Collusion” probe has finally ended with the Mueller Report on “Trump Russia Collusion” handed in to the US Department Of Justice with, importantly, no further indictments recommended by the Special Counsel.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is not recommending any further indictments as part of his sweeping Russia investigation which effectively ended Friday, according to a senior Justice Department official.

Mueller not recommending ‘any further indictments’ after report turnover | Fox News

*

NOT a single American citizen or anyone associated with the Trump campaign has been charged with anything related to Russian collusion or obstruction of justice.

SO many lives trashed, the Republic and the Presidency weakened.

CONGRESSMAN Mark Meadows sums it up :

Screen Shot 2019-03-23 at 12.51.40 pm.png

*

HEADS MUST ROLL

THERE must be consequences for both the Leftist mainstream media and government bureaucracy so that the most powerful organs of State – the FBI and CIA – can never again be used as weapons against a political opponent or citizens.

LAURA Ingraham on holding the media accountable for frenzy over Mueller :

A MUST WATCH 7 mins …

TUCKER Carlson sums up the latest in this must watch hour of Tucker Carlson Tonight

*

THE CLIMATE CONNECTION

AS Climatism is a climate-related blog, we don’t usually stray outside of issues relating to weather and climate. However, there are many parallels between the Trump Russia hoax and Climate Change alarmism in how the mainstream media, by completely giving up journalistic endeavour, has the power and ability to spread propaganda and misinformation in order to push their favourite pet theories.

IF the mainstream media can make you believe that @realDonaldTrump was a “Russian Agent”, imagine what they can do to make you ‘believe’ that mankind’s one extra CO2 molecule in 10,000, added since 1950, is destroying the planet?!

HUMAN contribution to greenhouse effect :

*

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA’S DERELICTION OF DUTY

A February 2018 headline from the fake newspaper that has lead the charge against Trump, provides a glimpse of the constant visceral hatred directed at the person who beat Hillary…

NOTE The banner and new slogan of the Washington Post – “Democracy Dies in Darkness.”. You be the judge as to the veracity of their pompous claim after today’s release!

*

SEE also Sean Hannity’s must see 20 minute wrap of the Russia Collusion Hoax:

***

UPDATES to come as further information arrives…

•••

SEE also :

CLIMATE Related :

Read the rest of this entry »


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

 

Cultural Communists - COP24 - Katowice - CLIMATISM

Cultural Communists – COP24 – Katowice


“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” – Bertrand Russell

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that
the industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, founder of UNEP

***

WITH far greater frequency than a hurricane strike in the Floridas, the biggest names in the political and climate world gather at exotic locations around the globe to pretend that they are intent on “saving the planet”, again. Quite simply the Oscars of virtue signalling.

YET it’s (almost) set in stone that these confabs will fail their primary objective. That is, to force rich countries to quietly destroy their economies and for the poor economies, with the highest death rates, to reject energy and prosperity.

THE only resolution guaranteed by all ‘parties’ (excuse the pun) is where to hold the next, taxpayer-funded climate change junket.

MEANWHILE, all those taxpayer funded frequent flyer miles hurt your hip pocket and apparently the planet too. Or, maybe only when it’s you doing the flying…?

*

SCIENCE writer Viv Forbes wraps up the latest UNFCCC climate party…

Poland climatefest dumps several million tonnes of CO2 into atmosphere aiding plant growth

$500M Climate Carnival Concludes.

COP 24 just concluded in Poland. Nearly 23,000 climate saviours attended this 24th annual climate carnival.

Every year, plane-loads of concerned busybodies fly to some interesting new location to spend tax dollars on a well-fed 12 day holiday. They concoct plans to ration and tax the energy used by real workers, farmers and families back home.

Few delegates arrived by bicycle or solar-powered plane – a fleet of at least 100 commercial, private and charter aircraft brought them at a cost estimated at US$57M. When the costs of hotels, ground transport, food, entertainment, air conditioning and office services are added, the bill is likely to top $500 M.

Australian taxpayers supported 46 junketeers. Now these Chicken Littles are back home spreading climate scare stories and lecturing locals to not overspend on Christmas presents.

There is a bright side – all that carbon dioxide emitted by planes, cars, buses, heaters, stoves, beer, champagne and Poland’s coal-fired power stations will help global plant growth.

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

*

DOING THE NUMBERS :

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

One of the largest conferences of the year just wrapped up this past weekend in Katowice, Poland. And it was on everyone’s favorite subject, climate change.

Yes, this is the annual conference where tens of thousands of delegates fly into a foreign town. On your tax dollars. To iron out a plan for the future of the planet.

It’s called the United Nations Climate Change Conference. And this years’ went under the short name of COP24 (Conference of the Parties – 24th edition).

And it was the second biggest one since the monster Paris Climate Change conference back in December 2015 (COP21 for those keeping count).

According to this official attendance list, there were 22,700 delegates from 197 countries there.

This conference was not a weekend or even a week long.

It was hosted for 12 whole days.

But first, all these people had to get to the COP24 Climate Change conference. And unfortunately, zero-emission transit was not available to get them all to Katowice.

There are no bike lanes crossing the Atlantic Ocean or the Mediterranean Sea.

If you think trillions of dollars over dozens and dozens of years is impossible for parties to fight climate change with their vision

Here’s how Cultural Communists Spent Nearly Half of Billion Dollars in 12 days:

These attendees took commercial, charter and private planes to get to Katowice International Airport just north of the city.

For all their green agendas, they flew the big, bulky, carbon-spewing and nature polluting airplanes.

Without every receipt, it’s not easy to pinpoint how much various flight types cost. But you can bet even those travelling on commercial aircraft were not flying with the common folk.

Let’s assume $2,500 per person to fly to and from Katowice, Poland.

Cost of Flights = 22,700 x $2,500 = $57 million dollars.

Thinking that the delegates like to travel together, let’s be conservative and say they all flew commercial on a Boeing 747 in groups of 227. Unlikely, but it makes our napkin calculation simple.

This would require 100 planes flying in and flying out…

According to Blue Sky Model, 1 mile of flight produces about 53 pounds of carbon dioxide for the average plane.

Now sticking with simplicity, let’s assume the average flight was just about the distance between New York City and Katowice – 4,283 miles. In reality, people flew from as far away as Auckland, New Zealand.

The total amount of carbon emitted = 100 planes x 4,283 miles x 53 pounds per mile x 2 trips = at least 45 million pounds of evil, harmful polluting carbon dioxide into the air.

Do as the cultural communists say, I guess. Not as they do.

And I’m being optimistic.

For reference, WIRED Magazine estimates that all the planes that flew to the Paris climate talks released about 575 million pounds of CO2.

Now let’s correctly assume that politicians, dignitaries and their entourages didn’t stay in Holiday Inn’s or Best Westerns like the working class.

Nor would they opt for AirBnB type services for their fellow taxpayers…

And since this conference would be among the top destinations in the world at this climate change time of year, hoteliers would have increased their nightly room prices. It’s Opportunism 101.

So let’s allow $500 per night for hotels or private flats. Katowice and the surrounding areas aren’t exactly Paris. So things are a bit more affordable.

Cost of hotels = 27,700 people x 12 nights x US $500 = $166 million dollars

Delegates then had to drive the roughly 34 kilometers (21 miles) to the city core.

Heaven forbid if these people all took the transit system. How could they possible hold a dignified image taking the subway or public buses?

So they likely hired private cars and limousines.

The rates for these vehicles goes anywhere from $500 – $1,000 per day. Let’s assume some attendees followed their agendas and carpooled, thus requiring only 20,000 cars.

Cost of Transportation = 20,000 cars x $750 per day x 12 days = $180 million dollars

Let’s not forget that people need to eat.

And when in Poland, you can’t be eating Subway or McDonalds. How can you possibly pair a fine Bordeaux with a Big Mac?

So we have to factor in meals and entertainment.

Most attendees will have gotten a per diem for their travels. We can safely assume these costs to be anywhere from $100 – $500 per day depending on their stature.

Cost of food = 27,700 x $250 per diem x 12 days = $83 million dollars

And what about the workers who put it all together?

The average wage in Poland is just shy of $1,170 per month.

Data on workers hasn’t been released yet. But at the Paris conference 3 years ago, there were 3,000 workers hired directly for the conference and about 11,000 police and military to keep the place secure.

Let’s assume the same amount of security and workers were used in Poland.

And considering security forces are not cheap, let’s just assume they all made double the average wage…

Cost of personnel = 14,000 x $1,170 x 2 x ½ month’s work = $16.3 million dollars

Let’s sum it all up…

climate-change-COP24-costs

COP24 Costs

There is a good chance I have been too conservative and underestimated some of the costs.

The cost of saving the future world for just a couple weeks was half a billion dollars. But you’ll be happy to know that the official meal plan for attendees had some options for a low emission footprint, as you can see below.

graph-2

COP24 Menu GHG Emissions

Until next year’s Climate Change conference in Chile…

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

Regards,

Marin

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

*

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

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

•••

SEE also :

Read the rest of this entry »


DRACONIAN UN CLIMATE AGENDA EXPOSED : ‘Global Warming Fears Are A Tool For Political and Economic Change…It Has Nothing To Do With The Actual Climate’

UN DRACONIAN CLIMATE AGENDA.png

UN AGENDA 2030


“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 (UN Climate Chief Says Communism Is Best To Fight Global Warming)

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

***

CLIMATE DEPOT’S Marc Morano nails the true intentions of the UN’s globalist ‘Climate Change’ agenda…

CLICK to watch >>

TAKEOUTS

• “This is major progress for people who care about energy security, sovereignty and who are against the UN agenda.”

• “Any impact man has on the climate is indistinguishable from natural variability”

• “This is a this political and economic movement. It has nothing to do with the actual climate. They’re talking about central transformation, that is what the UN Climate head, we seek central transformation to make the climate different. They’re using a climate scare on people.”

CLICK for transcript >>

***

HOW DID WE GET HERE?

THE global warming climate change scare has absolutely nothing to do with the environment or “Saving The Planet”. Rather, its roots lie in a misanthropic agenda engineered by the environmental movement of the mid 1970’s, who realised that doing something about claimed man-made “global warming” would play to quite a number of the Left’s social agendas.

THE goal was advanced, most notably, by The Club Of Rome (Environmental consultants to the UN) – a group of mainly European scientists and academics, who used computer modelling to warn that the world would run out of finite resources if population growth were left unchecked.

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that .. the threat of global warming.. would fit the bill.. the real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” – Club Of Rome (Environmental consultants to the U.N.)

THOUGHTS on humanity:

The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man
.”
– Club of Rome,
(environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations)

THE Club Of Rome’s 1972 environmental best-seller “The Limits To Growth”, examined five variables in the original model: world population, industrialisation, pollution, food production and resource depletion.

NOT surprisingly, the study predicted a dire future for mankind unless we ‘act now’:

aaaaaa

AROUND the same time, influential anthropologist and president of the American Medical Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Margaret Mead, gathered together like-minded anti-population hoaxsters at her 1975, North Carolina conference, “The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering”. Mead’s star recruits were climate scare artist Stephen Schneider, population-freak George Woodwell and former AAAS head, John Holdren (Barack Obama’s Science and Technology Czar). All three of them disciples of Malthusian catastrophist Paul Ehrlich, author of the “The Population Bomb”.

THE conference concluded that human-produced carbon dioxide would fry the planet, melt the ice caps, and destroy human life. The idea being to sow enough fear of man-made climate change to force global cutbacks in industrial activity and halt Third World development.

*

THE CREATOR, FABRICATOR AND PROPONENT OF GLOBAL WARMING – Maurice Strong (UNEP)

THE creator, fabricator and proponent of global warming alarmism Maurice Strong, founded UNEP and ‘science’ arm, the UN IPCC, under the premise of studying only human (CO2) driven causes of climate change.

STRONG and the UN’s ‘Climate Change’ agenda was clearly laid out before the ‘science’ of Climate Change was butchered and tortured to fit the Global Warming narrative…

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.“ – Maurice Strong, first Secretary General of UNEP

*

WHY CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) aka “Carbon Pollution”?

ATMOSPHERIC Physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen, examines the politics and ideology behind the CO2-centricity that drives the man-made climate change agenda.

LINDZEN’S summary goes to the very heart of why Carbon Dioxide has become the centre-piece of the ‘global’ climate debate:

“For a lot of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonise it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…”

•••

“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.”

MORE : CLIMATE CHANGE : It’s Easier To Fool People Than To Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled | Climatism

*

CONTROL CO2 (Energy), CONTROL YOU!

ENERGY rationing and the control of carbon dioxide, the direct byproduct of cheap, reliable hydrocarbon energy, has always been key to the Left’s Malthusian and misanthropic agenda of depopulation and deindustrialisation. A totalitarian ideology enforced through punitive emissions controls under the guise of “Saving The Planet”.

STANFORD University and The Royal Society’s resident global warming alarmist and population freak Paul R. Ehrlich spelled out in 1976 the Left’s anti-energy agenda that still underpins the current ‘climate change’ scare :

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

*

THE motives of the UN and its affiliates are no different from those of the radical eco-zealots of the 1970’s. They despise capitalism, development, growth and freedom, with the misguided fear of overpopulation, a principle driver.

THEIR solution is to use the emotive issue of ‘Climate Change’ to pursue a radical transformation in cultural, economic and political structures across the globe through their various unelected, taxpayer funded global(ist) bodies…

UNFCCC

“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 executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change (Feb 2015, Brussels)

SEE : The UN’s Real Agenda Is A New World Order Under Its Control | Climatism

* Read the rest of this entry »


CALIFORNIA Climate Ambulance Chasers

CALI Climate Ambulance Chasers - CLIMATISM

CALI Climate Ambulance Chasers | Climatism


No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world
.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

***

IN the era of Global Warming Climate Change hysteria, every and any “extreme weather” or climatic event is instantly blamed on humans and their wicked ways.

RUSHING to ideological and schizophrenic judgement is at best lazy. At worst, such deliberate grandstanding prevents salient solutions to real environmental problems and climate mitigation challenges we face everyday as a society.

THIS fashionable and dangerous eco-paradigm no more obvious than in the tragic California fires, still smouldering.

MENTION “land management” as a solution to prevent future wildfire catastrophes, and the climate mafia will viciously deride one a “denier”, “flat-earther”, “right wing nut job”, “shill of the oil industry” or maybe a “racist” if you’re still hanging around.

ANY name will do, as long as the pejorative is sufficient enough to prevent the conversation shifting away from “CLIMATE CHANGE!”.

*

MEDIA HYSTERIA Inc …

*

SO, while California burned and the Climate Ambulance Chasers blamed, more measured minds were assessing causes of the fires with data and reasoning instead of defaulting to emotions, politics and groupthink ideology.

Paul Homewood is one who thinks rather than blames. His research helping to quell the superstition and paranoia endlessly levelled by global warming zealots whenever catastrophe strikes.

*

HOMEWOOD’s latest post begins with a typical Paul Driessen fact-packed and, as usual, beautifully written masterpiece “Blaming climate – ignoring incompetence – CFACT“.

(Highly recommend Driessen’s work wherever you come across it!)

SEE: Paul Driessen | Search Climatism

*

HOMEWOOD then nuts out the data surrounding the Cali fires, dispelling alarmist claims of CO2-induced “extreme weather” as the root cause …

CFACT are of course dead right. There is really very little point in blaming weather/climate when you can do nothing about it anyway. It is government’s job to tackle the problems they can do something about.

But as for claims about climate change, is there actually anything to them?

Let’s take a look at temperatures for a start.

Orland, CA is near to the Paradise fire and has good, long term meteorological data. Using data from the Western Regional Climate Center, we can plot summertime daily maximums back to 1903:

 

As we can see, the hottest summers were in 1908 and 1917. Summers now are much cooler than the period prior to 1940.

We find the same pattern with the highest daily temperatures measured each year:

 

Record temperatures of 120F were set in 1905 and 1908 at Orland. The highest this year was just 107F:

 

Indeed there has been very little out of the ordinary at all with temperatures this summer:

 

Of course it has also been dry this year, but again nothing unusual as far as that part of California is concerned. ( Div 2 is the Sacramento Drainage Division):

 

And as we know, the 20thC was an unusually wet interlude, as far as California’s longer history is concerned:

 

Anybody who uses tries to blame California’s wildfires on “extreme weather” is not only flying in the face of the facts, but also failing to deal with the real causes.

Blaming Climate–Ignoring Incompetence | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

*

BONUS CHART 

IN terms of area burned, US wildfires were a lot worse earlier in the 20th Century when CO2 was at “safe levels”:

US Forest Area Burned 1926 - 2017

US Forest Area Burned 1926 – 2017

Via

*

PARADISE California Hasn’t Been Experiencing A Drought

NEWS FLASH! Climate change and drought would thin out forests. Jerry Brown admits that the forests are overly dense. How do you get overly dense forests in a drought? Climate change didn’t cause all the tightly packed homes to be built in the forests.

*

“THE DUST BOWL ERA”

US drought was far worse in the 1930’s, during the “dust bowl” era, when CO2 was at “safe levels”:

***

LET’s study the data and the facts before we yell “GLOBAL WARMING” at every pass. We will achieve a lot more for a fraction of the political, social and environmental cost!

••• Read the rest of this entry »


PARADISE California Hasn’t Been Experiencing A Drought

“News Flash, climate change and drought would THIN OUT FORESTS. Jerry Brown admits that the forests are overly dense. How do you get overly dense forests in a drought? Climate change didn’t cause all the tightly packed homes to be built in the forests.”

WAY too much common sense and logic for the climate ambulance chaser brigade!

CO2 is Life

Paradise California gets plenty of rain, and has moderate temperatures.

Paradise weather averages
Annual high temperature: 70.9°F
Annual low temperature: 51.2°F
Average temperature: 61.05°F
Average annual precipitation – rainfall: 58.11 inch
Av. annual snowfall: 1 inch

(Source)

Jerry Brown: ‘In Less Than 5 Years’ Even the Worst Climate Change Skeptics ‘Are Going to Be Believers’ (Source)

News Flash, climate change and drought would THIN OUT FORESTS. Jerry Brown admits that the forests are overly dense. How do you get overly dense forests in a drought? Climate change didn’t cause all the tightly packed homes to be built in the forests.

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

View original post