Advertisements

GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERIA : Suicide A Climate Change Solution

Cheer up. If we keep our heads we are likely to deal with climate challenges the same way we got to where we are; innovation, markets, democracy and optimism. | The Australian

Cheer up. If we keep our heads we are likely to deal with climate challenges the same way we got to where we are; innovation, markets, democracy and optimism. | The Australian


“Articles, tweets and interviews that deliberately lob personal tears into the public domain sound the alarm bells of sanctimony..”
Chris Kenny

*

FIRSTLY, apologies for the use of “suicide” in the heading to all those who have been directly or indirectly affected by such a horrible and tragic event. I can personally sympathise.

THAT said, the use of the threat of “suicide” by those pushing the global warming climate change agenda is indicative of the desperate, dishonest and disrespectful lengths that climate activists will go to in order to drive their latest fashionable eco-scare.

AUSTRALIAN columnist Chris Kenny with some much needed perspective, clarity and reason to parlay the constant rhetoric of climate change doom and gloom that the Climate Crisis Industry relies on in an attempt to remain relevant…

(Links, Graphs and Bolds added by Climatism)

*

Stop the hand-wringing, humankind will adapt and prosper

Associate Editor // The Australian
Sydney

WHEN people go public with private tears I am immediately suspicious. Not that I am against tears; as a physical reaction to emotion they are a fact of life best controlled in some circumstances but uncontrollable in others.

But articles, tweets and interviews that deliberately lob personal tears into the public domain sound the alarm bells of sanctimony. Telling the world about your saltwater reaction to this or that is perhaps the epitome of virtue-signalling.

“I cried two times when my daughter was born,” was the opening line in a New York Times piece this week. Those sanctimony warning bells rang loud. It was by Iraq veteran, English professor and climate alarmist Roy Scranton, promoting a new book of essays on war and climate change titled We’re Doomed. Now What? And yes, he claims to have shed tears for the planet.

“First for joy, when after 27 hours of labour the little feral being we’d made came yowling into the world, and the second for sorrow, holding the earth’s newest human and looking out the window with her at the rows of cars in the hospital parking lot, the strip mall across the street, the box stores and drive-throughs and drainage ditches and asphalt and waste fields that had once been oak groves. A world of extinction and catastrophe, a world in which harmony with nature had long been foreclosed. My partner and I had, in our selfishness, doomed our daughter to life on a dystopian planet, and I could see no way to shield her from the future.”

Where to start with such inanity? Perhaps with the good news. Max Roser’s work for Oxford University’s Our World in Data project shows that two centuries ago, 90 per cent of the global population lived in extreme poverty and now, even though the population has grown from less than one billion people to about 7.5 billion, those proportions have completely reversed so that only 10 per cent of the world’s population lives in extreme poverty.

*

* Read the rest of this entry »

Advertisements

THE Inconvenient Truth Is That Catastrophists Are Wrong

Eco-catastrophists - THE AUSTRALIAN

Institutionalised data bias is a handy default for radical-left eco-catastrophists who have a tendency to extract worst-case scenarios from every weather event. | THE AUSTRALIAN

GLOBAL warming alarmists want to change us, they want to change our behaviour, our way of life, our values and preferences. They want to restrict our freedom because they themselves believe they know what is good for us. They are not interested in climate or the environment. They misuse the climate in their goal to restrict our freedom. Therefore, what is in danger is freedom, not the climate.

FORMER head of Deutsche Bank, the ABC and ASX, Maurice Newman, writes another insightful piece in todays Australian maintaining that “it’s not carbon dioxide that threatens us with extinction but blind ideology dressed up as science.”

*

The inconvenient truth is that catastrophists are wrong

Maurice Newman | The Australian :

It should come as a great relief to know the freezing temperatures recently experienced in the northern hemisphere do not signal an end to global warming.

Imagine if mankind’s increasingly costly attempts to arrest CO2 emissions were unnecessary. That the misallocation of productive resources, prolonging the misery of the world’s most vulnerable people, was nothing more than a cynical ideological exercise?

Hopefully, those global warming doubters in Florida watching frozen iguanas falling stiff from the trees now know that while they were freezing, according to Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, little old Penrith in Sydney, Australia, was the warmest spot on the planet, recording its highest temperature ever, having “broken the all-time maximum temperature record for … the Sydney metropolitan area”.

Well, perhaps in all that excitement the bureau can be forgiven for overlooking the fact Penrith Lakes started recording temperatures only in 1995 and for missing a much higher temperature recorded in nearby Richmond in 1939. But they were right. It was hot.

In a hurried piece in Fairfax publications, the Climate Council of Australia’s Will Steffen throws hot water on any misconceptions that may have been drawn from abnormal snowfalls in Britain, Switzerland and Japan, the record-breaking cold snap in Canada and the US, and the expansion of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.

He says: “Terms like ‘global warming’ and the mental images they trigger can be misleading when people attempt to understand what is happening to the climate. A far better term is ‘climate disruption’, which captures the real nature of the vast array of changes, many of them abrupt and unexpected, that are occurring.” So fire and ice, it’s to be expected.

Of course you won’t be surprised to learn Steffen claims “the climate disruption we are increasingly experiencing is not natural. It is caused by the heat-trapping gases we humans are pouring into the atmosphere primarily by the burning of coal, oil and gas.”

On the day Steffen’s opinion piece appeared, this newspaper republished Matt Ridley’s article in The Times claiming “the Earth is very slowly slipping back into a proper ice age”. This confirms research by Henrik Svensmark, Australia’s David Evans and others, who correlated low solar activity (fewer sunspots) and increased cloud cover (as modulated by cosmic rays), with a cooling climate.

Indeed, last year scientists submitted 120 papers linking historical and modern climate change to variations in solar activity.

Steffen wasn’t among them. He says: “Whole ecosystems are succumbing to (human-induced) climate disruption. In 2016 unusually dry and hot conditions triggered massive fires in Tasmania’s World Heritage forests, while ocean circulation patterns have moved ­unprecedented underwater heatwaves around the world, driving the tragic coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef.’’

Yet the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Russell Reichelt, dismisses many of the claims that he says “misrepresent the extent and impact of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef.”

Peter Ridd from James Cook University goes further, saying: “We can no longer trust the scientific organisations like the ARC (Australian Research Council) Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. The science is coming out not properly checked, tested or replicated, and this is a great shame.”

Steffen’s work could fit this description. He spends much time pushing eco-catastrophism. “Climate disruption” he says “brings growing risks of large-scale migration and conflict as people, particularly the most vulnerable, are forced to deal with increasingly difficult conditions where they live. Some security analysts warn that climate disruption will dwarf terrorism and other conventional threats if present trends continue or worsen.

“Had enough of climate disruption? Then let’s leave our 20th-century thinking behind and get on with the job of rapidly building innovative, clever, carbon-neutral 21st-century societies.”

But Ridley questions the influence of carbon dioxide. He reminds us that: “In 1895 the Swede, Svante Arrhenius, one of the scientists who first championed the greenhouse theory, suggested that the ice retreated because carbon dioxide levels rose, and advanced because they fell. If this was true, then industrial emissions could head off the next ice age. There is indeed a correlation in the ice cores between temperature and carbon dioxide, but inconveniently it is the wrong way round: carbon dioxide follows rather than leads temperature downward when the ice returns.”

But where would manmade global warming “science” be if it relied on just facts? For decades, climate science has been plagued by scandals, deceit and the confessions of whistleblowers.

Penrith’s hyped recording is not new. Scientist and long-time BOM critic Jennifer Marohasy has been calling for an audit and urging Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg “to inform the World Meteorological Organisation that the temperatures recorded by our bureau are not consistent with calibration, nor any international standard”, and, to “direct the bureau to desist from announcing new record hot days”.

Still, institutionalised data bias is a handy default for radical-left eco-catastrophists who have a tendency to extract worst-case scenarios from every weather event.

But despite their best efforts, in the public’s eyes their story is wearing thin. There have been too many false predictions and unwarranted alarmism. People are wising up to the reality that climate science has become an unfalsifiable ideology and resent having their moral conscience questioned should they disagree.

If Ridley is right and the earth is slowly slipping back into a proper ice age, it will be literally cold comfort, not to mention lethal, to keep passing it off as climate disruption.

To survive such an event, our successors will need a plentiful supply of cheap, reliable energy, impossible given today’s intelligentsia’s religious objection to low-cost fossil and nuclear fuels.

It’s not carbon dioxide that threatens us with extinction but blind ideology dressed up as science.

(Climatism bolds and pic link added)

The inconvenient truth is that catastrophists are wrong | The Australian

•••

Related :


The New American: “New Film Exposes Communist Roots of “Sustainability” Agenda”

green-agenda

Sustainability is Malthusianism for the 21st Century | Climatism

ATMOSPHERIC Physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen, knows the politics and ideology behind the CO2-centricity that beleaguers the man-made climate change agenda. His summary goes to the very heart of why Carbon Dioxide has become the centre-piece of the ‘global’ climate debate:

“FOR A LOT of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonise it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…”
•••
“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.

And, BEWARE those sweet-sounding words designed by the UN’s deep-green, Agenda 21 program :

– “Sustainability” and
– “Smart Growth”

Related :

HyperLink News Site

View original post


WHY Greenpeace Despises Its Co-Founder – Patrick Moore PhD

It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true
.”
– Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace

Climate Change will result in a catastrophic global sea level
rise of seven meters. That’s bye-bye most of Bangladesh,
Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis
.”
– Greenpeace International

Rainbow warrior fossil fueling up.jpg

What … No Biofuel?

•••

Patrick Moore (born 1947) is a Canadian activist, and former president of Greenpeace Canada. Since leaving Greenpeace, Moore has criticized the environmental movement for what he sees as scare tactics and disinformation, saying that the environmental movement “abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism.” (Wikipedia)

A MUST SEE 5 mins by Patrick Moore PhD, on the “man-made climate change” scam…

•••

Dr Moore Related :


Australia’s Wind Power Calamity: Canberra’s Government Tells Households to Rug-Up with Blankets

“I received a pamphlet from the ACT government on energy-­saving tips. For winter it featured a picture of a family all in overcoats and beanies, huddled under an electric blanket.”

ELITE green, climate eco-loons; taking you back to the stone-age, one windmill at a time. Literally!

Btw, what’s with the “electric” blanket?! A bit much?

STOP THESE THINGS

Yes, they’re 100% renewable: how many would you like?

The ACT government did something that every bunch of green-left ideologically driven lunatics are programmed to do: it set a 90% Renewable Energy Target.

The ACT government is in a joint venture power retailing business with Australia’s ‘Enron’ aka AGL, ActewAGL; and, in an effort to satisfy its costly vanity project, went far and wide to sign up new wind power projects in NSW, South Australia and Victoria.

Back in April 2014, Liberal Member for Hume, Angus Taylor called the plan, ‘corporate welfare on steroids’ and predicted rocketing power prices for the ACT (see our post here).

Residents of the nation’s capital, Canberra have just been hit by ActewAGL with a 20%, year-on-year increase in their retail power bills (so much for AGL’s guff about its push to carpet Australia in subsidised wind turbines having “no compromises to you

View original post 1,060 more words


Doomed to the Dark Ages: No Solution for South Australia’s Wind Power Blackouts

“Household electricity prices in Australia have risen by more than 40 percent between 2007 and 2012, the same period when the government offered lucrative wind subsidies. Power prices in Australian states with a lot of wind power are almost double the rates in other states.”

North Korea would be proud of Australia’s ‘green central planning’ model, leading to energy poverty and statewide blackouts.

We are living in the “dark” age of collective eco-insanity.

STOP THESE THINGS

australia-vs-north-korea

When a mass blackout thrusts your State onto the international stage, as an outrageous possibility, there just could be a little something wrong with your energy policy. Here’s the view from the USA.

Australia Has Serious Problems With Green Energy Triggering Blackouts
The Daily Caller
Andrew Follett
23 November 2016

South Australia is still struggling to figure out how to keep green energy from triggering blackouts and crashing the electric grid, according to an article published by Inverse Tuesday.

The Australian state invested heavily in solar and wind power, but those power sources’ inherent reliability issues place a massive strain on the state’s power grid, according to the article.

Australia’s Energy Council noted in early September that increasing use of solar and wind power in the state “has not only led to a series of technical challenges” but “also increased wholesale price volatility as the state rebalances its supply from dispatchable plant to…

View original post 1,457 more words


I am James Lovelock

The Industrial-Wind-Turbine Environmental Disaster and Scandal…

“I am an environmentalist and founder member of the Greens but I bow my head in shame at the thought that our original good intentions should have been so misunderstood and misapplied.

We never intended a fundamentalist Green movement that rejected all energy sources other than renewable, nor did we expect the Greens to cast aside our priceless ecological heritage because of their failure to understand that the needs of the Earth are not separable from human needs.

We need take care that the spinning windmills do not become like the statues on Easter Island, monuments of a failed civilisation.

…we should look to the French who have wisely chosen nuclear energy as their principal source; a single nuclear power station provides as much as 3200 large wind turbines…”

James Lovelock

STOP THESE THINGS

james-lovelock

I am an environmentalist and founder member of the Greens but I bow my head in shame at the thought that our original good intentions should have been so misunderstood and misapplied.

We need take care that the spinning windmills do not become like the statues on Easter Island, monuments of a failed civilisation.

December 11, 2012

I am James Lovelock, scientist and author, known as the originator of Gaia theory, a view of the Earth that sees it as a self-regulating entity that keeps the surface environment always fit for life.

When I was a schoolboy in the 1930s I cycled from my home in Kent to Land’s End and back. England then enjoyed a countryside that was seemly and probably the most beautiful anywhere; every mile of my journey was along quiet lanes in fresh air unperturbed by traffic.

EvonI passed through an ever changing landscape that reflected…

View original post 771 more words