Posted: February 21, 2018 | Author: Jamie Spry | Filed under: Australia, BIG Government, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Tax, Climate Alarmism, Climatism, Energy Poverty, Environmentalism, Failed Green Schemes, Government Grants/Funding, Govt Climate Agenda, Green Agenda, Green Energy, Population Control, Renewables, RET, Socialism, Solar, UN, UNEP, UNFCCC, Unreliables, Wind Farms | Tags: auspol, Barack Obama, Carbon Dioxide, carbon dioxide emissions, Carbon Tax, Climate Change, Climate Change Alarmism, Climate Change Scam, Climatism, CO2, Energy Poverty, Environmentalism, Fuel Poverty, Global Warming, Global Warming Scam, Green Agenda, Green Energy, John Holdren, Malthus, malthusianism, Paul Ehrlich, Population Control, Renewable energy, Stephen Schneider, The Club Of Rome, UNEP, unreliables, wind energy scam |
ANTHROPOGENIC “climate change”, and the control of carbon dioxide (energy) has deep roots in a radical, yet gravely misguided campaign to reduce the world’s population.
GLOBAL warming aka climate change has little to do with the “environment” or “saving the planet”. Rather, its roots lie in a misanthropic agenda engineered by the environmental movement in the mid 1970’s, who realised that doing something about “global warming” would play to quite a number of the Lefts 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
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’:
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.
WE are given clues as to the motives of this extreme agenda from various statements by prominent environmental ‘icons’…
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
“The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations
“If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of
saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have
an ecologically sound society under socialism.
I don’t think it is possible under capitalism”
– Judi Bari,
principal organiser of Earth First
“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
“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
“In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming” – Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations
“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 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, Secretary General of the UN’s Earth Summit, 1992.
*
VIV Forbes on how the control of population growth and people’s lifestyles manifests today through the control of energy supply…
The “zero-emissions” zealots want to force us backwards down the energy ladder to the days of human, animal and solar power. They oppose the main thing that sets us apart from all other species – the use of fire from explosives, coal, oil, gas or nuclear power.
They have yet to explain how our massive fleet of planes, trains, tractors, harvesters, trucks, road trains, container-ships and submarines will be powered and lubricated by windmills, treadmills, windlasses, solar energy, distilled whiskey and water wheels.
Western nations, driven by a global agenda of climate alarmism, are destroying their profitable industries with carbon taxes; and their promotion of expensive, intermittent green energy is pushing us back down the energy ladder; and our competitors in Asia are climbing the energy ladder as quickly as they can. At the same time, the enormous waste of public money on government promotion of the climate industry has created a global fiscal mess.
Unless reversed, this wasteful de-energising policy will drive much of the world’s population back to the poverty and famines which often prevailed in the past. Some see the inevitable de-population this would cause as a desirable goal.
READ the whole post here: Falling Down the Energy Ladder | US Issues
JO Nova on how the radical environmental movement has succeeded in the implementation of draconian climate change policy that has created an era of energy poverty that is destroying western economies and hurting the poor…
Electricity prices declined for forty years. Obviously that had to stop.
Here’s is the last 65 years of Australian electricity prices — indexed and adjusted for inflation. During the coal boom, Australian electricity prices declined decade after decade. As renewables and national energy bureaucracies grew, so did the price of electricity. Must be a coincidence…
Today all the hard-won masterful efficiency gains of the fifties, sixties and seventies have effectively been reversed in full.
For most of the 20th Century the Australian grid was hotch potch of separate state grids and mini grids. (South Australia was only connected in 1990). In 1998 the NEM (National Energy Market) began, a feat that finally made bad management possible on a large scale. Though after decades of efficiency gains, Australians would have to wait years to see new higher “world leading” prices. For the first years of the NEM prices stayed around $30/MWh.
But sooner or later a national system is a sitting duck for one small mind to come along and truly muck things up.
Please spread this graph far and wide.
Thanks to a Dr Michael Crawford who did the original, excellent graph.
Electricity prices fell for forty years in Australia, then renewables came… « JoNova
•••
•••
Energy Poverty and Skyrocketing Power Prices related :
Climate Scam related and the Malthusian Motive :
Like this:
Like Loading...
Posted: February 6, 2018 | Author: Jamie Spry | Filed under: Australia, Carbon Dioxide, Climate History, Climate History News, Climatism, Extreme Weather, Wildfires | Tags: auspol, Australia, Black Thursday, Bushfires, CARBON DIOXIDE, carbon dioxide emissions, Climate Change, Climate history, CO2, Extreme weather, Global Warming, Victoria, Wildfires |
Black Thursday, February 6th. 1851, as depicted by William Strutt in 1864
The Black Thursday bushfires were a devastating series of fires that swept through Victoria on February 6, 1851. They are considered the largest Australian bushfires in a populous region in recorded history, with approximately 5 million hectares, or a quarter of Victoria, being burnt. Twelve lives were lost, along with one million sheep and thousands of cattle.
The year preceding the fires was exceptionally hot and dry and this trend continued into the summer of 1851. On Black Thursday, a northerly wind set in early and the temperature in Melbourne was reported to have peaked at 47.2 degrees C (117 degrees F) at 11:00am.
“The temperature became torrid, and on the morning of the 6th of February 1851, the air which blew down from the north resembled the breath of a furnace. A fierce wind arose, gathering strength and velocity from hour to hour, until about noon it blew with the violence of a tornado. By some inexplicable means it wrapped the whole country in a sheet of flame — fierce, awful, and irresistible.” (Wikipedia / Climatism bolds).
In 1851, carbon dioxide levels were around 285 ppm. Today, carbon dioxide “pollution” levels are around 400 ppm.
CLIMATE change alarmists, like Tim Flannery and the ABC, claim Australian bush fires are unprecedented and becoming more extreme, thanks to human carbon dioxide “pollution” emissions.
THEY tell you this because the ultimate prize of the eco-activist is the control of carbon dioxide (energy). Virtually every human activity, including breathing, releases carbon dioxide. Consequently, greenhouse gases have become weaponised through the fear of “catastrophic climate change” in the “sustainability” (sic) effort to control all aspects of your life.
•••
See also:
Bushfire / Heatwave / UN related:
Colourless, odourless, tasteless, non-reactive, trace gas and plant fertiliser – CO2 – related:
CO2 – “The Stuff of Life” – Greening The Planet:
Like this:
Like Loading...
Posted: January 23, 2018 | Author: Jamie Spry | Filed under: Alarmism Debunked, Carbon Dioxide, Climate models, Climate science, Climatism, Consensus, Dud predictions, Failed Climate Models, Global Temperature, IPCC, Settled Science | Tags: CARBON DIOXIDE, carbon dioxide emissions, Climate Change, Climate science, Climate sensitivity, CO2, CO2 Sensitivity, ECS, failed climate models, global cooling, Global Temperature, Global Warming, IPCC, PARIS Agreement, science, Settled Science |
THE back-pedalling by climate ‘scientists’ continues as it becomes ever more obvious that their alarming projections have been deliberately exaggerated to push an agenda far removed from reality.
THE refined estimate of ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity – the amount of warming that would occur if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled) is even more significant considering that recent emissions of CO2 have been much greater than originally assumed, according to scientists.
LATEST findings are yet another blow to the “settled science” meme…
***
Worst climate warnings ‘will not come true’
Ben Webster, Environment Editor
January 18 2018
Earth’s climate may be less sensitive to man-made emissions than previously feared, a study has found. It raises hopes that the worst predictions about global warming can be avoided.
It suggests that the target set in the Paris Agreement on climate change of limiting the average temperature increase to well below 2C is more achievable than some scientists have claimed.
Apocalyptic predictions that the world could warm by up to 6C by 2100 with devastating consequences for humanity and nature are effectively ruled out by the findings.
However, the study makes clear that steep reductions in emissions will still be needed to avoid dangerous climate change. It also concludes that the aspirational target in the 2015 Paris Agreement of limiting warming to 1.5C is less likely to be achieved.
The study, published in the journal Nature, refines previous estimates of how sensitive the climate is to carbon dioxide by considering the historical variability in global temperature.
It focuses on the key measure, known as equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which is used by climate scientists to make predictions. ECS is the amount of warming that would occur if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled.
The concentration has already increased by about 50 per cent since pre-industrial times, from 270 parts per million (ppm) to 403ppm.
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a scientific body which advises governments, gives a range for ECS of 1.5–4.5 degrees C. The new study narrows this range to 2.2–3.4C.
Peter Cox, professor of climate system dynamics at the University of Exeter and lead author of the paper, said his team had “squeezed both ends” of the range presented by the IPCC.
“We can rule out very low climate sensitivities that might imply you don’t need to do very much at all but also very high climate sensitivities that would be very difficult to adapt to.
“That’s useful because it gives policymakers and people an idea of what they have got to deal with and they can make decisions on that basis.”
Mr Cox said his study showed there was less need to worry about apocalyptic visions of the future, such as those presented in the 2007 award-winning science book Six Degrees – Our Future on a Hotter Planet, which had an image on the cover of a tidal wave breaking over Big Ben.
“The very high warming rates are looking less likely so that’s good news,” he said.
“Unless we do something bizarrely stupid, we are not looking at catastrophic climate change.
“But I wouldn’t want people to think we don’t need to act. It means that action is worthwhile. We can still stabilise the system if we choose to do so.
“We are definitely up against it but we aren’t in a position where we are talking about such large climate changes that we are just messing around on the decks of the Titanic. We know better now, I hope, from our work what we have got to do.”
He said his study showed the 2C target set in Paris was “still just about achievable” but limiting warming to 1.5C in the long term could only be achieved by “overshooting” and then somehow reducing the temperature using futuristic technology, such as artificial trees which suck CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Piers Forster, director of the Priestley International Centre for Climate at the University of Leeds, said the study “confirms that we will see significantly more warming and impacts this century if we don’t increase our ambition to reduce CO2 emissions; but the possibility of 6 degrees or more warming with associated devastating impacts can perhaps begin to be ruled out”.
Worst climate warnings ‘will not come true’ | News | The Times & The Sunday Times
•••
Climatism Related :
ECS Related :
Like this:
Like Loading...
Global area-averaged lower tropospheric temperature anomalies (departures from 30-year calendar monthly means, 1981-2010). The 13-month centered average is meant to give an indication of the lower frequency variations in the data; the choice of 13 months is somewhat arbitrary… an odd number of months allows centered plotting on months with no time lag between the two plotted time series. The inclusion of two of the same calendar months on the ends of the 13 month averaging period causes no issues with interpretation because the seasonal temperature cycle has been removed as has the distinction between calendar months. 
Recent Comments