ALL Quiet On The ‘Climate Emergency’ Front : Healthy Sea-Ice Levels At Both Poles

ALL Quiet On The Climate Emergency Front | Climatism

ALL Quiet On The Climate ‘Emergency’ Front | Climatism


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

***

H/t EcologySenseUK @uk_ecology

IN case you hadn’t noticed, the COVID19 crisis has been highly successful in drowning out the mainstream media’s go-to-weapon of mass fear and panic – ClimateChange™️.

PERHAPS the timing is fortunate as recent and prominent climate data hasn’t really held up as ammunition-worthy material in support of their “climate emergency” nightly narrative, or whatever the latest GretaThunberg™️ meme of the day requires.

TWO of the favoured metrics used by CC activists and sycophant mainstream media, in order to push their memes, are conditions applicable to the Arctic and Antarctica. Namely, sea-ice levels.

UNFORTUNATELY for climate ambulance chasers, sea-ice levels for the Arctic and Antarctica are tapping and well within the long-term average respectively. Completely at odds with ‘expert’ and mainstream media predictions and U.N. climate model forecasts.

*

ANTARCTIC SEA-ICE

ACCORDING to NOAA, Antarctic sea-ice coverage in March came in “near the 1981–2010 avg & ended a 41-month period of below-avg monthly values.”

THIS rebound time (41 months) matches nicely the time from the date when a significant portion of Antarctic sea-ice was blasted away by a “perfect storm of tropical, polar conditions not due to climate change” – Malte F. Stuecker et al

*

CURRENT STATE OF ANTARCTIC SEA-ICE

NOTE the healthy rebound from 2016 to present…

Via NSIDC :

BLUE MARBLE VIEW

***

ARCTIC SEA-ICE

ACCORDING to NOAA, March 2020 #Arctic #SeaIce coverage was 11th smallest for March in the 42-year record”

Via NSIDC :

NOTE the complete lack of Arctic sea-ice decline over the past 14 years. In fact, sea-ice growth has been trending slightly up since 2006.

WHERE is the acknowledgment from NOAA that there has been *no* trend in Arctic sea-ice melt, at all, since 2006?

PERHAPS I prefer a “glass half full” approach to climate data analysis, whereas NOAA prefers a “glass half empty”, when assessing theirs…

NO doubt you, as a critical thinker, can work out why this is the case.

BLUE MARBLE VIEW

 

***

CONCLUSION

ANTARCTICA has always been a thorn in the side of ClimateChange™️. It is very much the ‘inconvenient’ pole, the naughty child, that has been gaining ice mass and cooling for decades, despite a 20 per cent increase in atmospheric CO2, and model predictions to the contrary.

THE Arctic, however, has been the veritable whipping-boy for the climate activist movement, as it has seen clear declines in sea-ice levels since the century-maximum of 1979.

BUT, hardly the declines that the mainstream media and ‘experts’ made us believe to be true, according to their dire and hyper-alarmist predictions.

HERE is a taste of what the fake news media and ‘expert’s’ told you about Arctic sea-ice having “disappeared” years ago …

  • “Arctic summers ice-free by 2013” (BBC 2007)
  • “Could all Arctic ice be gone by 2012?” (AP 2007)
  • “Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?”(National Geographic 2007)
  • “Imagine yourself in a world five years from now, where there is no more ice over the Arctic” – Tim Flannery (2008)
  • “North Pole could be ice-free in 2008” – Mark Serreze (New Scientist 2008)
  • “Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014” (USA Today 2009)
  • “Arctic expert predicts final collapse of sea ice within 4 years” (Guardian 2012)
  • “Say Goodbye to Arctic Summer Ice” (Live Science 2013)
  • “Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist” (The Guardian 2013)
  • “Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013” (Sierra Club 2013)
  • “Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’” – Peter Wadhams (The Guardian 2016)

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

HAVE they no shame? Or is their ClimateChange™️ ‘jihad’ too firmly entrenched for honest science and honest analysis of empirical data to exist, ever?

•••

SEE also :

•••

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

•••


DISGUSTING : Shame On The @UN For Their Latest #GretaThunberg™️ Stunt


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

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

***

CLIMATE scientist and friend Vijay Jayaraj sent me a link to a tweet that resonates to a level beyond disturbing.

WITHOUT asking the United Nations to ‘zip-it’ while billions are going through COVID19 hell, let alone tens of millions of Indian children who cannot even touch or feel an iPad, I’ll leave this with you…

SHAME on you, United Nations. Grow up. Stop using a female child with multiple disorders as a political shield. So wrong. Disgusting.

***


CORONA-PANIC : A Fiasco In The Making?


“It’s like an elephant being
attacked by a house cat.
Frustrated and trying to avoid the cat,
the elephant accidentally jumps off a cliff and dies.”
John P.A. Ioannidis
Professor of medicine, epidemiology – Stanford University

***

*Immediate disclaimer: saying something is a panic is not denying, minimising, or ignoring it. (Jamie)

MARCH 21, 2020

AS Australia enforces a further increase to its “social distancing” rules from one metre yesterday to 4 square metres today, and as the Australian Football League (AFL) kicks off its second game of the ‘go-ahead’ season, to an empty stadium, the stark reality of our new draconian way of Corona-life sets in.

MEANWHILE, as the Australian Prime Minister holds daily pressers, pulling every fiscal lever available to stimulate the economy in an effort to avoid the R word, it seems impossible that there will not be devastating and permanent damage done to the economy and society as tens of thousands of businesses become insolvent, raising welfare queues exponentially.

A grim reality that seems inevitable as large employers, including the hospitality sector and the 45 billion-dollar tourism industry literally grind to a halt.

ON Thursday, Australia’s national carrier Qantas laid off two-thirds of its entire workforce, totalling some 20,000 employees, as the airline grounded its entire international fleet and 60 per cent of its domestic fleet as a result of the unprecedented lack of demand for travel, tied with government-imposed travel restrictions.

EUROPEAN and American carriers’ share prices have declined faster even than the globe’s corona-struck stock markets.

*

WORLDWIDE DEPRESSION?

UNEMPLOYMENT levels peaked at 25 per cent during the 1930’s Great Depression. It took 3 years from 1929 to reach that level.

IN the era of COVID19, the hospitality and tourism sectors, alone, makeup approximately 15 per cent (1,500,000 positions) of Australia’s total workforce. A great percentage of those jobs have quite possibly been eviscerated not within years, but within days.

IT seems untenable that even the most potent suite of economic stimulus measures can possibly prevent the current and future carnage of a solvency crisis unleashed by the enforced six-month, four square metre “social distancing” policy.

THE ultimate lever of a COVID vaccine would matter little, following months of trials and regulatory approvals.

*

HEAVILY WEIGHTED, HEALTH-BASED POLICY PRESCRIPTIONS

WHILE we are bombarded hourly by the predictable mainstream media on how many new cases of COVID there are, how many deaths, and who is to blame, we are rarely exposed to the math or reality of the long-term economic damage that draconian policies will do to society, business and indeed the health system.

WHY is that? Does it detract from the COVID19 narrative of fear and panic, as real as it may be? Or, is it too risky or distressing to explore and be honest to the public about the consequences of such heavily weighted, health-based policy prescriptions? Are politicians afraid that doing too little will invite mainstream media contempt, or god forbid, social-media scorn?

*

A FEW BRAVE SCIENTISTS

A few brave scientists are publicly warning of the dangers of such draconian measures in relation to how little we know about COVID19, based on a total lack of reliable data.

THEY argue:

  • “How have we found out that the virus is dangerous?”
  • “Only 10 to 20 percent of infections are detected, a study says. It means the case fatality rate is 5 to 10 times lower than what it seems to be and close to flu.”
  • “How was it before?”
  • “Didn’t we have the same thing last year?”
  • “Is it even something new?”
  • “Where is the data?”

ARE false positives corrupting known data?

50/50 testing = 0% accuracy.

nearly half or even more of the ‘asymptomatic [COVID-19-]infected individuals’ reported in the active nucleic acid test screening might be false positives.” Source: [Potential False-Positive Rate Among the ‘Asymptomatic Infected Individuals’ in Close Contacts of COVID-19 Patients

*

STANFORD PROFESSOR

“In some people who die from viral respiratory pathogens, more than one virus is found upon autopsy and bacteria are often superimposed. A positive test for coronavirus does not mean necessarily that this virus is always primarily responsible for a patient’s demise.” – John P.A. Ioannidis Professor of medicine, epidemiology (Stanford University)

text_image_39.img.620.high

JOHN P.A. IOANNIDIS is professor of medicine, of epidemiology and population health, of biomedical data science, and of statistics at Stanford University and co-director of Stanford’s Meta-Research Innovation Center.

HE warns in this impassioned and must read op-ed that current COVID data indicates that we are severely overreacting to Coronavirus.

FIRST OPINION

A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data

The current coronavirus disease, Covid-19, has been called a once-in-a-century pandemic. But it may also be a once-in-a-century evidence fiasco.

At a time when everyone needs better information, from disease modelers and governments to people quarantined or just social distancing, we lack reliable evidence on how many people have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 or who continue to become infected. Better information is needed to guide decisions and actions of monumental significance and to monitor their impact.

Draconian countermeasures have been adopted in many countries. If the pandemic dissipates — either on its own or because of these measures — short-term extreme social distancing and lockdowns may be bearable. How long, though, should measures like these be continued if the pandemic churns across the globe unabated? How can policymakers tell if they are doing more good than harm?

Vaccines or affordable treatments take many months (or even years) to develop and test properly. Given such timelines, the consequences of long-term lockdowns are entirely unknown.

The data collected so far on how many people are infected and how the epidemic is evolving are utterly unreliable. Given the limited testing to date, some deaths and probably the vast majority of infections due to SARS-CoV-2 are being missed. We don’t know if we are failing to capture infections by a factor of three or 300. Three months after the outbreak emerged, most countries, including the U.S., lack the ability to test a large number of people and no countries have reliable data on the prevalence of the virus in a representative random sample of the general population.

This evidence fiasco creates tremendous uncertainty about the risk of dying from Covid-19. Reported case fatality rates, like the official 3.4% rate from the World Health Organization, cause horror — and are meaningless. Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 are disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes. As most health systems have limited testing capacity, selection bias may even worsen in the near future.

The one situation where an entire, closed population was tested was the Diamond Princess cruise ship and its quarantine passengers. The case fatality rate there was 1.0%, but this was a largely elderly population, in which the death rate from Covid-19 is much higher.

Projecting the Diamond Princess mortality rate onto the age structure of the U.S. population, the death rate among people infected with Covid-19 would be 0.125%. But since this estimate is based on extremely thin data — there were just seven deaths among the 700 infected passengers and crew — the real death rate could stretch from five times lower (0.025%) to five times higher (0.625%). It is also possible that some of the passengers who were infected might die later, and that tourists may have different frequencies of chronic diseases — a risk factor for worse outcomes with SARS-CoV-2 infection — than the general population. Adding these extra sources of uncertainty, reasonable estimates for the case fatality ratio in the general U.S. population vary from 0.05% to 1%.

That huge range markedly affects how severe the pandemic is and what should be done. A population-wide case fatality rate of 0.05% is lower than seasonal influenza. If that is the true rate, locking down the world with potentially tremendous social and financial consequences may be totally irrational. It’s like an elephant being attacked by a house cat. Frustrated and trying to avoid the cat, the elephant accidentally jumps off a cliff and dies.

Could the Covid-19 case fatality rate be that low? No, some say, pointing to the high rate in elderly people. However, even some so-called mild or common-cold-type coronaviruses that have been known for decades can have case fatality rates as high as 8% when they infect elderly people in nursing homes. In fact, such “mild” coronaviruses infect tens of millions of people every year, and account for 3% to 11% of those hospitalized in the U.S. with lower respiratory infections each winter.

These “mild” coronaviruses may be implicated in several thousands of deaths every year worldwide, though the vast majority of them are not documented with precise testing. Instead, they are lost as noise among 60 million deaths from various causes every year.

Although successful surveillance systems have long existed for influenza, the disease is confirmed by a laboratory in a tiny minority of cases. In the U.S., for example, so far this season 1,073,976 specimens have been tested and 222,552 (20.7%) have tested positive for influenza. In the same period, the estimated number of influenza-like illnesses is between 36,000,000 and 51,000,000, with an estimated 22,000 to 55,000 flu deaths.

Note the uncertainty about influenza-like illness deaths: a 2.5-fold range, corresponding to tens of thousands of deaths. Every year, some of these deaths are due to influenza and some to other viruses, like common-cold coronaviruses.

In an autopsy series that tested for respiratory viruses in specimens from 57 elderly persons who died during the 2016 to 2017 influenza season, influenza viruses were detected in 18% of the specimens, while any kind of respiratory virus was found in 47%. In some people who die from viral respiratory pathogens, more than one virus is found upon autopsy and bacteria are often superimposed. A positive test for coronavirus does not mean necessarily that this virus is always primarily responsible for a patient’s demise.

In the coronavirus pandemic, we’re making decisions without reliable data | STAT

*

THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES

BY now, many of you may just have ten minutes to spare in this the ‘new normal’ of COVID isolation!

URGE you to take a moment to watch this highly informative (10’51”) insight into the Coronavirus panic by lung expert Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg.

Must-watch insights into the Corona-panic by lung expert Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg // H/t @AndersEngstrm4

WODARG’s thesis contends that SARS-CoV-2 is only one of many similar viruses which usually go undetected as part of an ordinary seasonal period of respiratory infections (casually called flu or cold), and that the worldwide activities to stop the pandemic are only a “hype” caused basically by selective perception of researchers.

DÉJÀ VU?

A segment of the video, which I transcribed, explains how Corona-panic has escalated by an unholy interaction between government and virologists.

THE formula is eerily similar to how ClimateChange™️ panic has successfully metastasised into its own global pandemic, care of the exact same vectors — politicians, science ‘experts’ and the mainstream media — working in unison.

DR Wodarg:

And all this was so significant that it lead to international consequences, politicians had to deal with it, had to take a stand.

Then the virologists came into play again.

The governments asked their own virologists and they confirmed that this virus is a thing to worry about and proposed to develop tests to help measure the virus – like China.

Something was woven around this. A network of information and opinions has been developed in certain expert groups. And politicians turned to these expert groups, who initially started all this. And they really absorbed this network, moved within it.

This lead to politicians who now are just resting on these arguments, while using these arguments to evaluate who has to be helped, to determine safety measures or what has to be permitted.

All these decisions have just been derived from these arguments. Which means that it’s now going to be very hard for critics to say “Stop. There is nothing going on.”

And this reminds me of this fairytale about the king without clothes on. And just a small child was able to say “Hey, he is naked!”. All the others in the courtyard – surrounding the government and asking the government advice, because they can’t know themselves – they all played along and joined the hype.

And like this, politicians are being courted by many scientists. Scientists who want to be important in politics because they need money for their institutions….

And what is missing at the moment is a rational way of looking at things. We should ask questions like

  • “How have you found out that the virus is dangerous?”
  • “How was it before?”
  • “Didn’t we have the same thing last year?”
  • “Is it even something new?”

That’s missing. And the king is naked.

*

CONCLUSION

“What gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know,
it’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so.”
– Mark Twain

IS COVID19 merely another Coronavirus, one of many that mutates every year in order that we get sick, like every other virus including the flu does?

IF viruses didn’t mutate we would become immune and never have hundreds of thousands of people dying each year of existing Corona and Flu strains.

COVID19, the latest Corona variant is unfortunately with us now and here to stay. The genie is out of the bottle. We will all come into contact with it eventually and become immune by vaccine or by exposure.

VIRUSES are clever and will always be with us. They adapt and so should we, only smartly, not foolishly.

•••

UPDATE

FOR the many, including the mainstream media, who continue to cite Italy as the bell-weather of the Coronavirus “Crisis”, please note the following scientific study regarding flu-death incidents studied in a 3-season 4-season period from 2013/14 to 2016/17.

Highlights

  • In the winter seasons from 2013/14 to 2016/17, an estimated average of 5,290,000 ILI cases occurred in Italy, corresponding to an incidence of 9%.
  • More than 68,000 deaths attributable to flu epidemics were estimated in the study period.
  • Italy showed a higher influenza attributable excess mortality compared to other European countries. especially in the elderly.

Investigating the impact of influenza on excess mortality in all ages in Italy during recent seasons (2013/14–2016/17 seasons) – ScienceDirect

CURRENT deaths in Italy, attributed to COVID19, stand at 4,032.

HOPEFULLY this death rate does not rise to the yearly average, based on the above ScienceDirect study, of 23,000 deaths. 17,000 Italian flu deaths per year.

***

UPDATE

CORRECTION:

STUDY is over a four-year period. Not over a 3-year period as I noted. My mistake. Apologies (Jamie)

FROM the study…

We estimated excess deaths of 7,027, 20,259, 15,801 and 24,981 attributable to influenza epidemics in the 2013/14, 2014/15, 2015/16 and 2016/17, respectively, using the Goldstein index. The average annual mortality excess rate per 100,000 ranged from 11.6 to 41.2 with most of the influenza-associated deaths per year registered among the elderly. However children less than 5 years old also reported a relevant influenza attributable excess death rate in the 2014/15 and 2016/17 seasons (1.05/100,000 and 1.54/100,000 respectively). Investigating the impact of influenza on excess mortality in all ages in Italy during recent seasons (2013/14–2016/17 seasons) – ScienceDirect

***

UPDATE – Mainstream media not helping

***

UPDATE – Sun 22/3/20 (14:22 AU)

H/t @Byoz01

INTERESTING analysis and explanation by Prof Walter Ricciardi, scientific adviser to #Italy’s minister of health, as to the above average Case Fatality Rate (CFR) in Italy:

But Prof Ricciardi added that Italy’s death rate may also appear high because of how doctors record fatalities.

“The way in which we code deaths in our country is very generous in the sense that all the people who die in hospitals with the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus.

“On re-evaluation by the National Institute of Health, only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88 per cent of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity – many had two or three,” he says.

Why have so many coronavirus patients died in Italy? | The Telegraph

***

UPDATE – Sun 22/3/20 (17:00 AU)

THE situation is certainly ‘fluid’. Two month suspension of AFL. Guttered.

***

UPDATE – Mon 23/3/20 (09:00 AU)

AUSTRALIA SHUTS DOWN

  • Hospitality sector — pubs, clubs, gyms, cafes, restaurants — completely shut down, Australia wide.
  • State borders closed.
  • Stockmarket in free-fall.
  • Massive Centrelink (Welfare) queues stretching for blocks, with no “4 square metre” “social distancing” zone.
  • Chaos.
A NATION IN SHUTDOWN

A NATION IN SHUTDOWN

***

UPDATE – Mon 23/3/20 (11:46 AU)

Hundreds THOUSANDS queue outside Centrelink offices as coronavirus unemployment surges

The MyGov website has crashed as Australians try to access government services like Centrelink online. Photos showed queues outside some Centrelink offices stretching around the block this morning.

***

UPDATE – Mon 23/3/20 (21:06 AU)

CURE WORSE THAN THE DISEASE?

ACTUAL scientific data bolsters this thinking …

“The problem of SARS-CoV-2 is probably overestimated, as 2.6 million people die of respiratory infections each year compared with less than 4000 deaths for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of writing.”

H/t Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. @NikolovScience

***

UPDATE – Tue 24/3/20 (10:08 AU)

MUST WATCH

Prof. Dr. med. Sucharit Bhakdi. Infectious disease specialist. One of the most highly cited medical research scientists in Germany.

THE good Dr is not the best orator, but what he has to say about existing Corona viruses within the population, that lead to the normal death rate of respiratory victims, is highly informative.

“The life expectancy of millions is being shortened. The horrifying impact on world economy threatens the existence of countless people.”

Source : Czech theoretical physicist and former assistant professor at Harvard University from 2004 to 2007, Dr Luboš Motl

***

UPDATE – Tue 24/3/20 (23:36 AU)

PEER-REVIEWED article by John P.A. Ioannidis Professor of medicine, epidemiology (Stanford University)

“Influenza” attracted 30- to 60-fold less attention although this season it has caused so far about 100-fold more deaths globally than coronavirus.

TAKE-OUT…

This year’s coronavirus outbreak is clearly unprecedented in amount of attention received. Media have capitalized on curiosity, uncertainty and horror. A Google search with “coronavirus” yielded 3,550,000,000 results on March 3 and 9,440,000,000 results on March 14. Conversely, “influenza” attracted 30- to 60-fold less attention although this season it has caused so far about 100-fold more deaths globally than coronavirus.

Different coronaviruses actually infect millions of people every year, and they are common especially in the elderly and in hospitalized patients with respiratory illness in the winter.


*This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1111/eci.13222

Coronavirus disease 2019: the harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures – Ioannidis – – European Journal of Clinical Investigation | Wiley Online Library

***

UPDATE – Thu 26/3/20 (06:10 AU)

IN striking resemblance to ClimateChange™️, it seems that experts who question the official narratives of the Mainstream media are not to be heard, by the herd …

“Below is our list of twelve medical experts whose opinions on the Coronavirus outbreak contradict the official narratives of the MSM, and the memes so prevalent on social media.” – Off-Guardian

IMPORTANT read : 12 Experts Questioning the Coronavirus Panic – OffGuardian

***

UPDATE – Thu 26/3/20 (08:36 AU)

”I want you to remember these people died WITH the #coronavirus and not FROM the coronavirus”

– (President Italian Civil Protection Service)

THIS would make the news in a functioning mainstream media, whose job is to report the ‘news’ in an unbiased way. Not, at all, to minimise or to ‘deny’ the seriousness of COVID19, rather to maintain cool heads when so much rides on clear and precise information that is essential to quell hysteria which inevitably leads policy makers to prescribe possibly even more deadly cures than the disease itself.

“The president of the Italian Civil Protection Service actually went out of his way to remind people of the nature of Italy’s fatality figures in a morning briefing on 20/03

REPORT shows up to 88% of Italy’s alleged Covid19 deaths could be misattributed.

***

UPDATE – Fri 27/3/20 (14:50 AU)

IMPERIAL COLLEGE DOOMSDAY DEATH-MODEL IS WRONG!

THE man who panicked the world is now running from his doomsday projections.

MARCH 17, 2020

Screen Shot 2020-03-27 at 2.32.17 pm

That messy back-and-forth has been on vivid display this week with the publication of a startling new report on the virus from a team at Imperial College in London. The report, which warned that an uncontrolled spread of the disease could cause as many as 510,000 deaths in Britain, triggered a sudden shift in the government’s comparatively relaxed response to the virus.

American officials said the report, which projected up to 2.2 million deaths in the United States from such a spread, also influenced the White House to strengthen its measures to isolate members of the public.

Behind the Virus Report That Jarred the U.S. and the U.K. to Action – The New York Times

FAST-FORWARD to MARCH 25, 2020

A remarkable turn from @neil_ferguson who led the @imperialcollege authors who warned of 500,000 UK deaths – and who has now himself tested positive for COVID19.

AND this..

*

HOW listening to one ‘expert’ from @imperialcollege coupled with mainstream media fear-mongering and fact-free hysteria, has paralysed the entire global economy, destroying billions of people’s lives and their livelihoods!

MUST READ Twitter thread from @JordanSchachtel :

*

UPDATE

IT turns out that Imperial College advises the U.K bureaucracy on ClimateChange™️ models and ‘science’ as well as advice for UK’s ClimateChange™️ and energy strategies and policies.

NO guessing which way their ‘advice’ leans!

***

UPDATE – Fri 27/3/20 (21:42 AU)

AUSTRALIA’S MOST ICONIC & BIGGEST DEPARTMENT STORE CLOSES – 10,000 MORE JOBLESS 

In one of the biggest shocks to the retail sector in a week where tens of thousands of jobs have been lost, the nation’s biggest department store has decided to close its stores.

***

UPDATE – Fri 27/3/20 (22:35 AU)

Boris Johnson tests positive for coronavirus

ANOTHER timely indicator which reinforces the fact that we are all going to ‘get’ COVID19 at some point, either from direct exposure or by vaccine.

FROM my earlier “CONCLUSION”:

COVID19, the latest Corona variant is unfortunately with us now and here to stay. The genie is out of the bottle. We will all come into contact with it eventually and become immune by vaccine or by exposure.

***

TBC…

•••

FOR the latest AU government information on COVID19 :

COVID19 Science :

COVID19 Related – useful reading :

CLIMATISM Related :

•••

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

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

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

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

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

Click link for more info…

Many thanks, Jamie.

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

Screen Shot 2020-02-12 at 5.35.38 am

•••


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


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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Posted on Thu 03/12/2020 by

By Ronald Stein ~

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

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

FOSSIL FUEL PRODUCTS

Fossil Fuel Derivatives (Climatism insert)

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

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

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

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

  • Medications and medical equipment for cures for most diseases

  • Electronics for worldwide communications

  • Fertilizers to help agriculture feed the world

  • Asphalt for all the roads

  • Tires for all vehicles

  • Steel for every building in the world

  • Wire for the worldwide electrical grid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

SEE also :

U.N. Agenda 21 / 2030 related :

•••

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

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

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

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

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

Click link for more info…

Many thanks, Jamie.

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

Screen Shot 2020-02-12 at 5.35.38 am

•••


46 STATEMENTS By IPCC Experts Against The IPCC

800px-Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change_Logo

U.N. IPCC (logo)


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
Fmr President of the UN Foundation

***

THANKFULLY we usually always get to hear the inconvenient and raw truth about taxpayer funded, unelected, bloated government bureaucracies when members eventually leave and are not subject to bullying and financial repercussions. Definitely no exception here…

46 enlightening statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC:

  1. Dr Robert Balling: The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
  2. Dr Lucka Bogataj: “Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide don’t cause global temperatures to rise…. temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”
  3. Dr John Christy: “Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report.”
  4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci: “Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate.”
  5. Dr Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”
  6. Dr Judith Curry: “I’m not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don’t have confidence in the process.”
  7. Dr Robert Davis: “Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.”
  8. Dr Willem de Lange: “In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn’t. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities.”
  9. Dr Chris de Freitas: “Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the long-standing claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’ and predictions of computer models.”
  10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld: “Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”
  11. Dr Peter Dietze: “Using a flawed eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake.”
  12. Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”
  13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: “The IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.”
  14. Dr Lee Gerhard: “I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furore started after NASA’s James Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false.”
  15. Dr Indur Goklany: “Climate change is unlikely to be the world’s most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”
  16. Dr Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.”
  17. Dr Mike Hulme: “Claims such as ‘2500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous … The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen.”
  18. Dr Kiminori Itoh: “There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful.”
  19. Dr Yuri Izrael: “There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate.”
  20. Dr Steven Japar: “Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them.”
  21. Dr Georg Kaser: “This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude … It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”
  22. Dr Aynsley Kellow: “I’m not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”
  23. Dr Madhav Khandekar: “I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence.”
  24. Dr Hans Labohm: “The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring.”
  25. Dr Andrew Lacis: “There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department.”
  26. Dr Chris Landsea: “I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”
  27. Dr Richard Lindzen: “The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance.”
  28. Dr Harry Lins: “Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated.”
  29. Dr Philip Lloyd: “I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said.”
  30. Dr Martin Manning: “Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors.”
  31. Steven McIntyre: “The many references in the popular media to a ‘consensus of thousands of scientists’ are both a great exaggeration and also misleading.”
  32. Dr Patrick Michaels: “The rates of warming, on multiple time scales, have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled.”
  33. Dr Nils-Axel Morner: “If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere.”
  34. Dr Johannes Oerlemans: “The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine.”
  35. Dr Roger Pielke: “All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system.”
  36. Dr Paul Reiter: “As far as the science being ‘settled,’ I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists.”
  37. Dr Murry Salby: “I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia.”
  38. Dr Tom Segalstad: “The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data.”
  39. Dr Fred Singer: “Isn’t it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites — probably because the data show a slight cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction of the calculations from climate models?”
  40. Dr Hajo Smit: “There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change.”
  41. Dr Richard Tol: “The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices.”
  42. Dr Tom Tripp: “There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made.”
  43. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis.”
  44. Dr David Wojick: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
  45. Dr Miklos Zagoni: “I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong.”
  46. Dr Eduardo Zorita: “Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed.”

Via : 46 statements by IPCC experts against the IPCC | grumpydenier

*

BIOGRAPHIES of IPCC SCIENTISTS 


  1. Dr Robert C Balling, Jr.  Dr Robert Ballingis a professor of geography at Arizona State University, and the former director of its Office of Climatology. His research interests include climatology, global climate change, and geographic information systems. Balling has declared himself one of the scientists who oppose the consensus on global warming, arguing in a 2009 book that anthropogenic global warming “is indeed real, but relatively modest”, and maintaining that there is a publication bias in the scientific literature.

  2. Dr Lucka Bogataj (Kajfež Bogataj Lučka) The joint recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, Lučka Kajfež Bogatajshe is one of Slovenia’s pioneers in researching the impact of climate change, and she regularly informs the general public of her findings.She is a full professor and teaches at the Biotechnical Faculty, while also lecturing at the Faculty of Mathematics and Physics and at the Faculty of Architecture. More…

  3. Dr John Christy John Raymond Christy is a climate scientist John Christyat the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) whose chief interests are satelliteremote sensing of global climate and global climate change. He is best known, jointly with Roy Spencer, for the first successful development of a satellite temperature record.He is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He was appointed Alabama‘s state climatologist in 2000. For his development of a global temperature data set from satellites he was awarded NASA‘s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the American Meteorological Society‘s “Special Award.” In 2002, Christy was elected Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.

  4. Dr Rosa Compagnucci : Retired but she continue advancing in herRosa_Compagnucci past line of research. Four years ago he worked at the Department of Atmospheric and Ocean Sciences, Universidad de Buenos Aires and was Principal Research in the Argentina Research Council CONICET. Rosa does research in Climatology, Meteorology and Paleoclimatology. Their most recent publication is ‘RELATIONSHIP AMONG A SUPERNOVA, A TRANSITION OF POLARITY OF THE GEOMAGNETIC FIELD AND THE PLIO-PLEISTOCENE BOUNDARY’.

  5. Dr Richard Courtney is a Technical Editorrichard-courtney for CoalTrans International (journal of the international coal trading industry) who lives in Epsom, Surrey (UK). In the early 1990s Courtney was a Senior Material Scientist of the National Coal Board (also known as British Coal) and a Science and Technology spokesman of the British Association of Colliery Management. Member of the European Science and Environment Forum. Acting as a technical advisor to several U.K. MPs and mostly-U.K. MEPs

  6. Dr Judith Curry is an American climatologist 140px-Curry_2006_200dpiand former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, climate models, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council’s Climate Research Committee. After publishing over a hundred scientific papers and co-editing several major works, Curry retired from academia in 2017.

     

  7. Dr Robert Davis is a Professor of Climatology Unknownat the University of Virginia‘s Department of Environmental Sciences.
    Davis received his Ph.D. in 1988 from the University of Delaware. His research contributions include the development of a system for measuring the power of Nor’easters. In his studies of global warming, he has suggested that it may manifest more by milder winters than by hotter summers, and predicted that its effects on human population will not be severe.


  8. Dr Willem de Lange Position: Senior LecturerEcho-sounding20150807-30580-jnufa4, Earth Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Waikato.
    Field: Earth and ocean sciences, focus on coastal oceanography. An earth scientist and lecturer at the University of Waikato, was born in the Netherlands and moved with his family to New Zealand when he was 18 months old. Since then, he has stayed put in Hamilton. He did his Bachelor of Science, master’s and PhD at the University of Waikato and is now a Senior Lecturer in the Earth and Ocean Sciences Department there.


  9. Dr Chris de Freitas New Zealand Dr Chris de Freitasclimate scientist. He was an associate professor in the School of Environment at the University of Auckland. De Freitas, born in Trinidad, received both his Bachelor’s and his Master’s at the University of Toronto, Canada, after which he earned his PhD as a Commonwealth Scholar from the University of Queensland, Australia. During his time at the University of Auckland, he served as deputy dean of science, head of science and technology, and for four years as pro vice-chancellor. He also served as vice-president of the Meteorological Society of New Zealand and was a founding member of the Australia–New Zealand Climate Forum.

  10. Dr Oliver Frauenfeld My research mugshotactivities include a broad range of topics in climate variability and climate change. I focus primarily on surface-atmosphere interactions, over both the land and the oceans. One of these research areas investigates changes in Arctic and high-altitude environments; specifically, the interactions between frozen ground (permafrost and seasonally frozen areas) and other cryospheric variables in the high latitudes of Eurasia, with the overlying atmosphere.

  11. Dr Peter Dietze Independent energypeter_dietze advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller; official reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Bavaria, Germany.Independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller; official reviewer, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Bavaria, Germany.

  12. Dr John Everett is a marineDr John Everett biologist who has worked with NOAA and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and manages the UN Atlas of the Oceans; he is currently president of the consulting firm Ocean Associates, Inc.”I was a Member of the Board of Directors of the NOAA Climate Change Program from its inception until I left NOAA. I led several impact analyses for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1988 to 2000, while a NOAA employee. The reports were reviewed by hundreds of government and academic scientists as part of the IPCC process.”

  13. Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen Friis-ChristensenDr Eigil Friis-Christensen received a Magisterkonferens (Ph.D. equivalent) in Geophysics from University of Copenhagen in 1971. In 1972, he was a geophysicist at the Danish Meteorological Institute. His interest in solar activity began in August, in his tent, when he experienced an extreme solar storm:

     

  14. Dr Lee Gerhard is a retired geologist fromlee-gerhard_1 the University of Kansas. His profile at Thomasson Partner Associates, Inc. describes him as as an Honorary Member of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, past president and Honorary Member of that society’s Division of Environmental Geosciences, an Honorary Member of the Association of American State Geologists, and an Honorary Member of the Kansas Geological Society.

  15. Dr Indur Goklany is a science andDr Indur Goklany technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior, where he holds the position of Assistant Director of Programs, Science and Technology Policy.He has represented the United States at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and during the negotiations that led to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. He was a rapporteur for the Resource Use and Management Subgroup of Working Group III of the IPCC First Assessment Report in 1990, and is the author of Clearing the Air (1999), The Precautionary Principle (2001), and The Improving State of the World (2007).

  16. Dr Vincent Gray (24 March 1922 – 14 June 2018)Dr Vincent Gray was a New Zealand chemist, and a founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. Gray was awarded a PhD in physical chemistry by the University of Cambridge. He commented on every publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, with 1,898 comments on the 2007 Report.

  17. Dr Mike Hulme Professor of Human GeographyDr Mike Hulme  in the Department of Geography at the University of Cambridge. He was formerly professor of Climate and Culture at King’s College London (2013-2017) and of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA). Hulme served on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) from 1995 to 2001.[5] He also contributed to the reports of the IPCC.

  18. Dr Kiminori Itoh Japanese award Dr Kiminori Itohwinning environmental physical chemist who contributed to the U.N. IPCC AR4 climate report. Itoh on the man-made global warming theory: Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”   Received his Ph.D. in industrial chemistry from University of Tokyo in 1978. “I have written (or participated in) four books (in Japanese, unfortunately) on this issue including the present one. I also took a patent on sunspot number anticipation, and did some contribution to the IPCC AR4 as an expert reviewer.”

  19. Dr Yuri Izrael was a vice-chairmanDr Yuri Izrael of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until September 2008, when the new bureau was elected. zrael was former chairman of the Committee for Hydrometeorology. He also served as director of the Institute of Global Climate and Ecology, which is a part of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He was a first vice-president of the World Meteorological Organization and helped develop the World Weather Watch.

  20. Dr Steven Japar a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.

  21. Dr Georg Kaser is a South Tyrolean glaciologist Dr Georg Kaserand is considered one of the most influential climate researchers worldwide. He worked twice as lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations‘ World Council of Nations.

  22. Dr Aynsley Kellow is aDr Aynsley Kellow climate skeptic at the School of Governement University of Tasmania. Aynsley Kellow was an IPCC reviewer to Working Group II of AR4.

  23. Dr Madhav Khandekar is a MadhavJun09200hformer research scientist from Environment Canada and is presently on the editorial board of the Journal of Natural Hazards (Kluwer). He is an environmental consultant on extreme weather events and a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project. He has worked in the fields of weather and climate for nearly 50 years and has published more than 120 papers, reports, and book reviews and a monograph on ocean surface wave analysis and modeling (Springer-Verlag 1989). Khandekar is one of the external reviewers for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 1997 Fourth Assessment Report.

  24. Dr Hans Labohm Hans HJ Labohm Hanswas born in 1941. He studied economics and economic history at the Municipal University of Amsterdam. After his military service, from 1967 he worked for the Ministry of Defense at the Dutch Permanent Representation to NATO in Brussels. In 1971 he joined the Foreign Service and was sent to Sweden. After returning to the Netherlands in 1974, he worked in various positions at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: from 1978 as Deputy Policy Planning Advisor. From 1987 to 1992 he was Deputy Permanent Representative of the Netherlands to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris. Since September 1992, he has been affiliated with the Clingendael Institute as a guest researcher and advisor to the Board of Directors. He has regularly published in Het Financieele Dagblad, NRC Handelsblad, de Volkskrant, the Internationale Spectator and Liberaal Reveil, among others. From 2002 he worked as a columnist on the American website of ‘Tech Central Station’. After years of blogging for The Daily Standard (DDS), he has been writing for Climategate.nl and Yalta since June 2015.

  25. Dr Andrew Lacis  NASAGISS Lacis_AGU_2011National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA AST, CLIMATE & RADIATION STUDIES).  Andrew A. Lacis received his B.A. in Physics in 1963, M.S. in Astronomy in 1964, and Ph.D. in Physics in 1970, all from the University of Iowa. He was selected for the NASA traineeship program, a program established by NASA to encourage graduate students in the pursuit of scientific research and study. While a graduate student, he also did research in astrophysics and astronomy in Japan at the University of Kyoto, and at the University of Tokyo. Following his Ph.D., he was Instructor in Astronomy at the University of Iowa. In 1972, he teamed up with James E. Hansen for post-doctoral research in planetary atmospheres at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) more

  26. Dr Chris Landsea Dr Chris Landseais an American meteorologist, formerly a research meteorologist with the Hurricane Research Division of the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory at NOAA, and now the Science and Operations Officer at the National Hurricane Center. He is a member of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society.

  27. Dr Richard Lindzen Dr Richard Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. From 1983 until his retirement in 2013, he was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was a lead author of Chapter 7, “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change‘s Third Assessment Report on climate change. He has criticized the scientific consensus about climate change and what he has called “climate alarmism.”

  28. Dr Harry Lins Dr Harry Linsis a Scientist Emeritus (Hydrology) with the U.S. Geological Survey. During his years at USGS, his work spanned several Earth science disciplines, including coastal processes, surface water hydrology, and hydroclimatology. Although most of his career was spent conducting research, he managed the USGS Global Change Hydrology Program from 1989 to 1997, and served as Co-Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Hydrology and Water Resources Working Group for the IPCC First Assessment Report. In 1999, he and USGS colleague David Wolock developed “WaterWatch”, the Nation’s first website depicting maps and graphs of water resources conditions in near real-time. Lins currently serves as President of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Commission for Hydrology.

  29. Dr Philip Lloyd Dr Philip LloydUN IPCC co-coordinating lead author, [Nuclear Physicist] and Chemical Engineer, and author of more than 150 [189] refereed publications. “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil. I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” Google natural CO2 vs man-made CO2 for the real facts.Philip Lloyd’s Professional details- Honorary Research Fellow: Energy Research Centre: University of Cape Town, Cape Town; Fellow: SA Acad of Engineering ; Chair: VAF: Chemical & Allied Industries Association; Fellow: SA Chemical Institute (SACI)

  30. Dr Martin Manning oManningProfessor Martin Manning was the Founding Director of the New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute at Victoria University of Wellington, established to build better interactions between science, policy, and society on climate change issues. From 2002 to 2007, Martin was Director of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group I Technical Support Unit that produced the Fourth Assessment Report on climate change for governments. He has produced over 50 papers in peer-reviewed science literature and been an author and review editor for several of the major IPCC reports. Martin has worked in several countries but spent most of his life in New Zealand where he led research on greenhouse gases, atmospheric chemistry, and other aspects of climate change science over the last thirty years. In 2008, Martin became an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit for his services to climate change science.

  31. Steven McIntyre Steven McIntyreis a Canadian mining exploration company director, a former minerals prospector and semi-retired mining consultant whose work has included statistical analysis. He is best known as the founder and editor of Climate Audit, a blog devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data. He is most prominent as a critic of the temperature record of the past 1000 years and the data quality of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He is known in particular for his statistical critique, with economist Ross McKitrick, of the hockey stick graph which shows that the increase in late 20th century global temperatures is unprecedented in the past 1,000 years.

  32. Dr Patrick Michaels pmichaelsis a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. He was a research professor of Environmental Sciences at University of Virginia for 30 years. Michaels was a contributing author and is a reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

  33. Dr Nils-Axel Morner Dr Nils-Axel Morneris the former head of the paleogeophysics and geodynamics department at Stockholm University. He retired in 2005. He was president of the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) Commission on Neotectonics (1981–1989). He headed the INTAS (International Association for the promotion of cooperation with scientists from the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union) Project on Geomagnetism and Climate (1997–2003). He is a critic of the IPCC and the notion that the global sea level is rising.

  34. Dr Johannes Oerlemans Dr Johannes Oerlemans is a Dutch climatologist specialized in glaciology and sea level.[1] He is a professor of meteorology in the Faculty of Physics and Astronomy at Utrecht University.

  35. Dr Roger Pielke Dr Roger Pielkeis an American political scientist and professor, and was the director of the Sports Governance Center within the Department of Athletics at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder. He previously served in the Environmental Studies Program and was a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) where he served as Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder from 2001 to 2007. Pielke was a visiting scholar at Oxford University’s Saïd Business School in the 2007-2008 academic year.

  36. Dr Paul Reiter Dr Paul Reiteris a professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, FranceHe is a member of the World Health Organization Expert Advisory Committee on Vector Biology and Control. He was an employee of the Center for Disease Control (Dengue Branch) for 22 years. He is a specialist in the natural history, epidemiology and control of mosquito-borne diseases such as dengue fever, West Nile fever, and malariaHe is a Fellow of the Royal Entomological Society. Reiter says he was a contributor to the third IPCC Working Group II (Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability) report, but resigned because he “found [himself] at loggerheads with persons who insisted on making authoritative pronouncements, although they had little or no knowledge of [his] speciality”. After ceasing to contribute he says he struggled to get his name removed from the Third report.

  37. Dr Murry Salby Dr Murray Salbyis an American atmospheric scientist who focused on upper atmospheric wave propagation for most of his early career, and who more recently argued against aspects of the scientific consensus that human activity contributes to climate change.[1] He has written two textbooks, Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics (1996),[2] and Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate (2011). The latter textbook, building on his first book, offers an overview of the processes controlling the atmosphere of Earth, weather, energetics, and climate physics.

  38. Dr Tom Segalstad Dr Tom Segalstadhas conducted research, publishing, and teaching in geochemistry, mineralogy, petrology, volcanology, structural geology, ore geology, and geophysics at the University of Oslo and at Pennsylvania State University. His current research interests include general geochemistry (the chemistry of the Earth), metallogenesis (how mineral deposits and ore deposits form), igneous petrogenesis (how magmatic rocks form), and carbon dioxide and the “greenhouse effect” (how carbon dioxide cannot cause “global warming”).He is past head of the Natural History Museums and Botanical Garden of the University of Oslo and currently a member of several international and national professional working groups and committees, including an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change.

  39. Dr Fred Singer Dr Fred Singeran atmospheric and space physicist, founded the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). He served as professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA (1971–94); distinguished research professor at the Institute for Space Science and Technology, Gainesville, FL (1989–94); chief scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987– 89); vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) (1981–86); deputy assistant administrator for policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970–71); deputy assistant secretary for water quality and research, U.S. Department of the Interior (1967– 70); founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964–67); first director of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962–64); and director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953–62).

  40. Dr Hajo Smit a former member of the UN IPCC committee who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a sceptic. (Climatism: very limited online footprint.)

  41. Dr Richard Tol Dr Richard Tolis a professor of economics at the University of Sussex. He is also professor of the economics of climate change at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. He is a member of the Academia Europaea. Tol was a coordinating lead author for the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Tol said in March 2014 that he had withdrawn from the writing team for the Summary for Policy Makers of the report in September 2013, citing disagreement with the profile of the report which he considered too alarmist and putting too little emphasis on opportunities to adapt to climate changes.

  42. Dr Tom Tripp Dr Tom Trippis Professor of Management, Rom Markin Endowed Leadership Chair in Business, and Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the Carson College of Business at Washington State University. He previously taught at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University and at the Sauder School of Business at University of British Columbia.

  43. Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber Ger-Rainerundertook undergraduate and graduate studies in atmospheric sciences at the Free University of Berlin, during which time he was a Fulbright and Indiana University Scholar. Further study in America gained him an M.Sc. degree in atmospheric sciences from the University of Michigan. He returned to the Free University of Berlin to study for his Meteorology Ph.D. in conjunction with the Max-Planck Institute of Aeronomy.

  44. Dr David Wojick Dr David Wojick has a Ph.D. in the philosophy of science and mathematical logic from the University of Pittsburgh and a B.S. in civil engineering from Carnegie Tech. He has been on the faculty of Carnegie Mellon University and the staffs of the U.S. Office of Naval Research and the Naval Research Lab.

  45. Dr Miklos Zagoni KONICA MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERAis a physicist and science historian at Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, now governmental adviser. He is a well-known science writer in Hungary. He participated in the Hungarian Academy of Science’s climate change project and was the expert-reporter of three documentary films on that project. His list of publications, interviews, papers, and book chapters on the issue is more than 200 items (most of it in Hungarian).

  46. Dr Eduardo Zorita Dr Eduardo Zoritais a Spanish paleoclimatologist. As of 2010, he is a Senior Scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research, GKSS Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, where he has worked since 1996. Zorita was a contributing author to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, and is review editor of the journal Climate Research.

***

UPDATE

“The climate blog article of 2020, so far, is up …”

MANY thanks to the team at Suspicious0bservers for their generous review of this post.

Climate Science Criticized by Climate Experts & More – YouTube

•••

U.N. IPCC Related :


ARCTIC Meltdown Latest

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

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

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

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

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

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

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

image

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

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

meanT_2020

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

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

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

View original post


MALDIVES To Open Four New ‘Underwater’ Airports In 2020


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

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

***

Hat tip @yota_berlin

IN 1988, environmental ‘authorities’ and the United Nations predicted that the Maldives’ 1,196 islands would be underwater by 2018.

‘Sea level is threatening to completely cover’ Maldives’ 1,196 islands within 30 years…

*

TWO years on from the drowning of the Maldives, the situation is dire…

Screen Shot 2020-03-02 at 11.08.24 am

Maldives to open four new airports in 2020 – Maldives Insider

***

ALARMISM PAYS

THE Maldivian government, along with other “disappearing” (cash-strapped) coral island nations have a well documented history of using climate guilt and the fake threat of sea-level rise inundation as a vehicle to pursue compensation, paid for by Western nations, under the United Nations’ wealth redistribution agenda.

*

KIRIBATI fears by Pulitzer experts …

*

TUVALU : You can always rely on the Guardian to scare you into accepting more windmills and mirrors to stop the seas rising …

*

TUVAU PM : Global Warming is “a slow and insidious form of terrorism” …

***

WHAT THE ‘SCIENCE’ SAYS

UNFORTUNATELY for cash-strapped island nation governments and ClimateChange™️ catastrophists, Mother Nature is aware that the seas have been steadily rising for the past 15,000 years, and she knows precisely how to compensate for that incremental rise.

“SHAPE-SHIFTING” Islands

NZ peer-reviewed research proves that coral island atolls are growing or “shape-shifting”, not shrinking or “sinking” as weaponised by climate alarmists.

This finding is consistent with our case studies in the Great Barrier Reef and the Maldives, which show that islands can form under a range of sea-level conditions including rising, falling, and stable.

Together, these studies show that sea level alone is not the main factor that controls the formation and subsequent change of reef islands. These processes also depend on the surrounding coral reef generating sufficient sand and shingle to build islands.

Dynamic atolls give hope that Pacific Islands can defy sea rise | The Conversation

WEBB et al : The dynamic response of reef islands to sea-level rise: Evidence from multi-decadal analysis of island change in the Central Pacific – ScienceDirect

NATURE Communications :

*

EVEN the climate-hysterical ABC’s ‘fact’ check unit agrees!

*

MALDIVES : SEA-LEVEL RISE TREND

THE Maldives have remained at just one meter above sea level for centuries with no noticeable change.

NOAA tidal gauge reading shows Maldives SLR running around the global average at 3.69 millimeters/year, with no acceleration this century at the same time as CO2 emissions have risen significantly.

***

HOW inconvenient for climate alarmists that tourists and families can still enjoy time-out from work at delightful island retreats.

***

CONCLUSION

A few questions for the ClimateChange™️ industry :

  1. WHAT date will GretaThunberg™️ and her yacht be arriving in Malé to protest the opening of the 4 new airports? And, will she be demanding the immediate resignation of President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih? “How Dare He!”?
  2. IF sea-level-rise is “catastrophic” and “settled science”, what available scientific evidence did the Maldivian government and airport engineers view to tell them that purported ‘human driven sea-level-rise’ was utterly insignificant?
  3. IS it reasonable that the Maldives can build 4 new airports while the U.K., being approximately 800 times larger than the Maldives, has been banned by Law (Extinction Rebellion) from building a simple extension of Heathrow Airport?

***

UPDATE

AHH the hypocritical irony!

Hat tip @WTeach2

•••

SEE also :

U.N. Agenda 21 quick-history :

CORAL Island Atoll related :

RELATED :

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

•••


SCOTLAND’S Net-Zero Forest Management Program


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

“THE road to hell
is paved with good intentions.”

–– Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1090 – 1153)

***

Hat tip @JohnPisulaMBA

IN the good old days of real ‘environmentalism’, genuine ‘Greenies’ rallied feverishly against the wanton destruction of pristine flora and fauna.

WITHIN the twisted age of ClimateChange™️ hysteria, real environmentalists are failing us in the face of a globalist eco-religion that has allowed the development of supposed ‘planet-saving’ ‘renewables‘ that wilfully destroy forests, animals and pristine environments. 

THE latest example of ‘Green’ eco-hypocrisy has seen more than 13.9 million trees felled in Scotland for wind development from 2000 to 2019.

NATIONAL WINDWATCH with more on the ongoing effort by nature-loving ‘environmentalists’ to reach their delusional “NetZero2050” targets …

More than 13.9 million trees felled in Scotland for wind development, 2000–2019

National Wind Watch
Scottish Forestry
16 January 2020

A Scottish citizen made a freedom-of-information request, to which Scottish Forestry replied as follows:

Thank you for your request dated 26 November and received on the 5 December and the clarification dated 19 December 2019 under the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIRs).

You asked for:

a) the number of trees felled for all onshore wind farm development in Scotland to date.

b) the area of felled trees, in hectares, for all onshore wind farm development in Scotland to date.

I enclose some of the information you requested.

Specifically data covering renewable developments on Scotland’s national forests and lands, which is managed on behalf of Scottish Ministers by Forestry and Land Scotland. The area of felled trees in hectares, from 2000 (the date when the first scheme was developed, is 6,994 hectares [70 km², 17,283 acres]. Based on the average number of trees per hectare, of 2000, this gives an estimated total of 13.9M.

While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance the Scottish Government does not have some of the information you have requested. Namely data on renewable developments on privately owned woodlands.

Download original document: “Scottish Forestry information request 19-02646

 

*

THIS is how the BBC and the U.N. view Scotland’s “climate change progress” …

*

SCARRED LANDSCAPES OF SCOTLAND

The shocking picture that shows how a wind farm has disfigured one of Britain’s loveliest landscapes

Before…

023stirlingDM_468x326

The site when it to be surrounded only by dramatic – and empty – hills

After…

023stirling1DM_468x312

A price worth paying? The Braes O’Doune windfarm towers over Stirling Castle

VISUAL impact map of Scottish eco-Crucifixes…

***

CONCLUSION

FOUR obvious questions to ask in this latest example of flagrant eco-hypocrisy :

  1. WHERE are the @Greens, @Greenpeace, @Peta, @ExtinctionR or @GretaThunberg™️ when pristine landscapes and old-growth forests are being destroyed to satisfy the whims and superstitions of ClimateChange™️ catastrophists and EU elites?
  2. IF Greens love nature, why aren’t they more concerned about carpeting pristine landscapes with industrial wind turbines and toxic, non-renewable solar panels?
  3. TREES are Mother Nature’s ultimate “carbon-sink”. How on earth does chainsawing millions of hectares of forest help “Save the Planet” from ‘evil’ plant food CO2?
  4. WHERE in the “Save the Planet” manual does it say to build 260 tonne, 250m high industrial windmills built from, steel, cement and rare earth minerals. Erect them by the thousands in pristine landscapes. Only to have them backed up 24/7/365 by fossil fuels or nukes anyway?

•••

SEE also :

POLAR BEARS and THE ARCTIC :

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

•••

 


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


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

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

***

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

The toxic problem of not-so-clean energy

Digital Editor Jack Houghton

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

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

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

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

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

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

The wreckage is pictured above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its findings were damning to say the least.

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

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

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

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

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

They must be mined again and again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

via No longer quiet on Twitter (@matthew25496877)

***

TOXIC UNreliables related :

UNreliables related :

ENERGY POVERTY related :

•••

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

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

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

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

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

Click link for more info…

Many thanks, Jamie.

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

Screen Shot 2020-02-12 at 5.35.38 am

•••


ELECTRICITY FUTURE : Coal, Nuclear or Chaos

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

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


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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

*

via The Australian :

Go nuclear, and we must start building now

TERRY McCRANN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inefficient gas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

via PA Pundits – International :

By Kelvin Kemm Ph.D.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

MORE:

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

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

•••

SEE also :

EXTREME WEATHER Related :

STATE Of The Climate Report :

ORIGINS Of The ClimateChange™️ Scam :

•••

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

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

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

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

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

Click link for more info…

Many thanks, Jamie.

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

Screen Shot 2020-02-12 at 5.35.38 am

•••