Advertisements

18 EXAMPLES of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around the first “Earth Day” in 1970

“EARTH DAY” 22nd of April. Also the Birthday of Russian communist revolutionary Vladimir Lenin. Obviously rather fitting with the motives and parallels between the “climate change” ideology and the totalitarian intent of dictator Lenin, far too intertwined to be a coincidence!

Watts Up With That?

Tomorrow, Sunday, April 22, is Earth Day 2018

In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled “Earth Day, Then and Now” to provide some historical perspective on the 30th anniversary of Earth Day. In that article, Bailey noted that around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, and in the years following, there was a “torrent of apocalyptic predictions” and many of those predictions were featured in his Reason article. Well, it’s now the 48th anniversary of Earth Day, and a good time to ask the question again that Bailey asked 18 years ago: How accurate were the predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970? The answer: “The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong,” according to Bailey.

Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around…

View original post 874 more words

Advertisements

Here is Why the Left is Officially Insane

“The election of Donald Trump may have brought the violent nature of the Left that was always known underneath the surface and was successfully *hidden for many years to the surface…”

Spot-on Gjihad. The Left, the not so “tolerant, peaceful, diverse, inclusive or kumbaya” champions that they claim to be.

Green Jihad

It finally built up from the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States to now to demonstrate how insane the Left truly is. All of the riots, lootings, shootings and multiple political demonstrations all lead to two news stories that finally prove the Left has not been radicalized, they are radicals.

This past Saturday, a well-known proponent of gay rights and environmentalist named David Buckel set himself on fire in Prospect Park in New York City as a means to warn people that the Earth is in big trouble due to human activity. Ironically, Buckel used a fossil fuel in order for his tragic act to be successful.

Pollution ravages our planet, oozing inhabitability via air, soil, water and weather, Buckel said in his suicide note. Our present grows more desperate, our future needs more than what we’ve been doing.

In Los Angeles, California, at a cost…

View original post 211 more words


Activists Aren’t Always the Good Guys

HOW radical environmentalism self-perpetuates, causing actual harm to people’s livelihoods, their economies and indeed the ‘environment’…

Big Picture News, Informed Analysis

SPOTLIGHT: Late last year, the European Union voted down a ban on glyphosate – a safe, effective weed killer used by farmers around the world. Afterward, Mark Lynas, an environmental journalist, denounced the activists who’d pushed hard for that ban.

BIG PICTURE: We think of environmentalists as selfless, virtuous, avenging angels. But green groups have morphed into multinationalcorporations with enormous budgets. Paying the salaries of all those lawyers and lobbyists requires an ongoing tsunami of financial donations.

Many green groups have morphed into perpetual outrage machines whose campaigns now have little connection to what’s reasonable or sensible. As Lynas declares in his article, “Europe Still Burns Witches,” the activists “were clearly not interested in whether glyphosate was actually harming anyone in the real world.”

Despite “the obvious perversion of both science and natural justice,” he says, they “very nearly got away with it.” In a few years…

View original post 148 more words


THE Greatest Threat To The Environment Is Not Affluence, It’s Poverty

haiti-v-dominican-republic

Border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic: Guess which country contains eco-criminals that can afford to use fossil fuels, and which country contains nature-lovers who are dependent on natural renewable organic biomass for energy? (99% of Haiti’s forests have been decimated, not for building materials, but for cooking fuel.)

WHEN the New York Times hired climate ‘Lukewarmer’ Bret Stephens as a contributing columnist in late April 2017, a collective cry of treasonous rage was heard throughout the deep-green environmental community. How dare anyone question whether we should accept absolutely every pronouncement of imminent eco-doom at face value?!

A snippet of the enraged reporting at the time from the usual suspects…

Climate Scientists Cancelling Their New York Times Subscription Over Hiring of Climate Denialist Bret Stephens

By Graham Readfearn • Thursday, April 27, 2017 – 16:59

A New York Times defence of its hiring of a climate science denialist as a leading columnist is pushing high-profile climate scientists to cancel their subscriptions.

Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research in Germany, is the latest scientist to write publicly to the New York Times detailing his reasons for cancelling their subscriptions.

The NYT has hired former Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens as a writer and deputy editorial page editor.

Stephens wrote several columns while at the WSJ disparaging climate science and climate scientists, which he has collectively described as a “religion” while claiming rising temeperatures may be natural.

The NYT has been defending its decision publicly, saying that “millions of people” agree with Stephens on climate science and just because their readers don’t like his opinions, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be heard.

But the NYT defence has angered scientists.

Climate Scientists Canceling Their New York Times Subscription Over Hiring of Climate Denialist Bret Stephens | DeSmogBlog

*

Huffington Post also joined the fun…

13 Better Things To Read Than Bret Stephens’ First New York Times Column

The Gray Lady’s newest hire used his debut column to defend his record of climate science denial.

29/04/2017 9:09 AM AEST
Alexander C. Kaufman Business & Environment Reporter, HuffPost

The New York Times took a lot of heat for hiring Bret Stephens, a former opinion writer at The Wall Street Journal, as its newest columnist. There was a lot to criticize. In his storied tenure on some of the most radically conservative pages in print journalism, Stephens accused Arabs of suffering a “disease of the mind,” railed against the Black Lives Matter movement and dismissed the rise of campus rape as an “imaginary enemy.”

But Stephens’ views on climate change ― namely that the jury is still out on whether burning fossil fuels is the chief cause ― drew the widest condemnation. ThinkProgress admonished the Gray Lady for hiring an “extreme climate denier,” and famed climatologist Michael Mann backed them up in the critique. DeSmog Blog, a site whose tagline reads “clearing the PR pollution that clouds climate science,” reported on a letter from climate scientists who are canceling their subscriptions to the newspaper over its latest hire. In These Times’ headline pointedly asked: “Why the Hell did the New York Times just hire a climate denier?”

Even the Times’ own reporters publicly questioned the hire.

13 Better Things To Read Than Bret Stephens’ First New York Times Column |HuffPo

(via WUWT)

*

STEPEHENS has recently written another reasoned column in the Times that has no doubt sent the eco-freaks into another predictable tailspin!

IN the Feb 8 opinion piece, “Apocalypse Not“, Stephens argues that a healthy environment is dependent on a healthy economy first, namely a capitalist one.

“The foolish idea that capitalism is the enemy of the environment misses the point that environmentalism is itself a luxury that few poor countries can adequately afford. If you doubt this, contrast the air and water quality in New York City with that of any similar-sized city in the developing world.”

A view not shared by radical environmental groups who, including the UN, believe that in order to “save the planet” we must fundamentally change the current economic development model. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC) herself admitted that the goal of environmentalists is to destroy capitalism.

“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 Brussels February, 2015

FIGUERES even went so far as to affirm that Communism is the best model to fight global warming.

IN other words, the real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook.

GLOBAL Warming theory has long abandoned any connection it has with actual science. It is has become as ideology. A new religion. Australia’s former Prime Minister Tony Abbott likening it to, socialism masquerading as environmentalism“.

IN 2013, UN IPCC co-chair of Working Group 3 Dr. Ottmar Endenhoefer unleashed this stunning revelation…

 


HIGHLIGHTS from Stephens’ must read column in the times…

Apocalypse Not

Norman Borlaug, the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize laureate.CreditMicheline Pelletier/Sygma, via Getty Images

In 1919, the director of the U.S. Bureau of Mines offered a dire warning for the future. “Within the next two to five years the oil fields of this country will reach their maximum production, and from that time on we will face an ever-increasing decline.”

Nearly a century later, in July 2010, The Guardian ran a story with an ominous headline: “Lloyd’s adds its voice to dire ‘peak oil’ warnings.” Citing a report by the storied London insurer, the newspaper warned that businesses were “underestimating catastrophic consequences of declining oil,” including oil at $200 a barrel by 2013, a global supply crunch, and overall “economic chaos.”

I thought of these predictions on seeing the recent news that the United States is on the eve of breaking a 47-year production record by lifting more than 10 million barrels of crude a day. That’s roughly twice what the U.S. produced just a decade ago, and may even put us on track to overtake Saudi Arabia and even Russia as the world’s leading oil producer. As for global production, it rose by some 11 percent just since the Lloyd’s report, and by almost 200 percent since 1965.

Call it yet another case of Apocalypse Not.

—–

“In best-selling books and powerful speeches, Vogt argued that affluence is not our greatest achievement but our biggest problem,” Mann writes. “Our prosperity is temporary, he said, because it is based on taking more from than earth than it can give. If we continue, the unavoidable result will be devastation on a global scale, perhaps including our extinction.”

In our own day, people like Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein have made careers saying more or less the same thing. This is a world where the clock is permanently set at two minutes to midnight, and where only a radical transformation of modern society (usually combining dramatic changes in personal behavior along with a heavy dose of state intervention) can save us.

—–

The foolish idea that capitalism is the enemy of the environment misses the point that environmentalism is itself a luxury that few poor countries can adequately afford. If you doubt this, contrast the air and water quality in New York City with that of any similar-sized city in the developing world.

I fall in the Borlaugian camp. That’s worth noting because one of the more tedious criticisms by the environmental left is that people like me “don’t care about the environment.” But imputing bad faith, stupidity or greed is always a lousy argument. Even conservatives want their children to breathe.

—–

Borlaugians are environmentalists, too. They simply think the road to salvation lies not through making do with less, but rather through innovation and the conditions in which innovation tends to flourish, greater affluence and individual freedom most of all.

—–

If environmental alarmists ever wonder why more people haven’t come around to their way of thinking, it isn’t because people like me occasionally voice doubts in newspaper op-eds. It’s because too many past predictions of imminent disaster didn’t come to pass.

(Climatism bolds)

Read Stephens’ excellent piece in full here…

•••

PLEASE Tip The Climatism Jar To Help Keep The Good Fight Alive!

(Still waiting for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)

Click this link for brief info…TQ

Donate with PayPal

•••

Related :

Climate Science related :

 


WESTERN Nations, Driven By A Global Agenda Of Climate Alarmism, Are Destroying Their Industries With Carbon Taxes And Promotion Of Expensive, Intermittent Green Energy

green-agenda

 

ANTHROPOGENIC “climate change”, and the control of carbon dioxide (energy) has deep roots in a radical, yet gravely misguided campaign to reduce the world’s population.

GLOBAL warming aka climate change has little to do with the “environment” or “saving the planet”. Rather, its roots lie in a misanthropic agenda engineered by the environmental movement in the mid 1970’s, who realised that doing something about “global warming” would play to quite a number of the Lefts social agendas.

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

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

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

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

aaaaaa

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

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

WE are given clues as to the motives of this extreme agenda from various statements by prominent environmental ‘icons’…

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

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

If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of
saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have
an ecologically sound society under socialism.
I don’t think it is possible under capitalism

– Judi Bari,
principal organiser of Earth First

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

– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

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

“In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming” – Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

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

Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Earth Summit, 1992.

*

VIV Forbes on how the control of population growth and people’s lifestyles manifests today through the control of energy supply…

The “zero-emissions” zealots want to force us backwards down the energy ladder to the days of human, animal and solar power. They oppose the main thing that sets us apart from all other species – the use of fire from explosives, coal, oil, gas or nuclear power.

They have yet to explain how our massive fleet of planes, trains, tractors, harvesters, trucks, road trains, container-ships and submarines will be powered and lubricated by windmills, treadmills, windlasses, solar energy, distilled whiskey and water wheels.

Western nations, driven by a global agenda of climate alarmism, are destroying their profitable industries with carbon taxes; and their promotion of expensive, intermittent green energy is pushing us back down the energy ladder; and our competitors in Asia are climbing the energy ladder as quickly as they can. At the same time, the enormous waste of public money on government promotion of the climate industry has created a global fiscal mess.

Unless reversed, this wasteful de-energising policy will drive much of the world’s population back to the poverty and famines which often prevailed in the past. Some see the inevitable de-population this would cause as a desirable goal.

READ the whole post here: Falling Down the Energy Ladder | US Issues

JO Nova on how the radical environmental movement has succeeded in the implementation of draconian climate change policy that has created an era of energy poverty that is destroying western economies and hurting the poor…

Electricity prices declined for forty years. Obviously that had to stop.

Here’s is the last 65 years of Australian electricity prices — indexed and adjusted for inflation. During the coal boom, Australian electricity prices declined decade after decade.  As renewables and national energy bureaucracies grew, so did the price of electricity. Must be a coincidence…

Today all the hard-won masterful efficiency gains of the fifties, sixties and seventies have effectively been reversed in full.

indexed-real-consumer-electricity-prices 1955-2018a

For most of the 20th Century the Australian grid was hotch potch of separate state grids and mini grids. (South Australia was only connected in 1990). In 1998 the NEM (National Energy Market) began, a feat that finally made bad management possible on a large scale. Though after decades of efficiency gains, Australians would have to wait years to see new higher “world leading” prices. For the first years of the NEM prices stayed around $30/MWh.

But sooner or later  a national system is a sitting duck for one small mind to come along and truly muck things up.

Please spread this graph far and wide.

Thanks to a Dr Michael Crawford who did the original, excellent graph.

Electricity prices fell for forty years in Australia, then renewables came… « JoNova

•••

PLEASE Tip The Climatism Jar To Help Keep The Good Fight Alive!

Donate with PayPal

•••

Energy Poverty and Skyrocketing Power Prices related :

Climate Scam related and the Malthusian Motive :

 

 


10 Problems With The Green Agenda

crunchtime-logo

“FEW things are so deadly as a misguided sense of compassion.” – Charles Colson

“THE road to hell is paved with good intentions.” – Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1090 – 1153)

*

WE all want to be good stewards of the environment. However, in the era of “Save The Planet” virtue-signalling, the need for deeds may, in fact, be doing more harm than good, to you and Mother Nature!

THE “10 Problems With The Green Agenda” remind us that noble intentions are often misguided leading to undesired environmental outcomes and frequent misallocation of public resources with little regard for accountability and budget constraints.

10 Problems With the Green Agenda

MORRIS M.

If the road to hell is paved with good intentions then the road to climategeddon must be paved with pages from the green agenda. For the past couple of decades, armchair environmentalists and image-conscious politicians have been pushing through planet-saving initiatives that are often anything but. Initiatives like:

10. Carbon Offsetting

Url-34

Let’s say you’re environmentally-conscious but need to fly. Enter carbon offsetting: for the price of a coffee you can pay some third world farmer to quit burning coal, or some company to plant enough trees to cancel out the emissions from your trip.

If it sounds too good to be true, that’s because it is. The whole practice of carbon offsetting is so fundamentally flawed that eco-writer George Monbiot compared it to pushing food around your plate “to create the impression you have eaten it.” The numbers simply don’t add up: if we in the West decided to offset even fifty percent of our emissions targets, developing nations would have to magically start emitting negative amounts of carbon. Commercial offsetting is no better; investigations routinely find companies fudging their figures, or outright lying. With no industry standard, there’s nothing to measure improvements against; meaning companies can claim whatever they like.

9. Organic Food

Url-1-17

Organic foods are routinely billed as environmentally friendly and chemical free; despite being neither. All the nasty stuff we use in agriculture was developed to solve efficiency problems; take it away and you’re back to square one. A liter of organic milk, for example, can require up to eighty percent more land to produce than regular milk. This means deforestation, destruction of habitats and other things you don’t associate with organic. But wait, it gets worse: multiple studies have found high levels of pesticide in supposedly-organic food; while researchers have concluded eating it is no healthier and its production may lead to increased pollution. The chasm between what we expect and what we get from organic food has gotten so wide even die hard Greens have dropped it in favor of local and sustainable.

8. Water Conservation

Url-2-13

If you’re in possession of a Y chromosome, you’ve probably experienced the waterless urinals in McDonald’s. Insofar as you were thinking about such things, they maybe even seemed like a good idea; after all, saving that much water must be a good thing, right?

Well, not if you want to work without the constant stench of urine. Turns out stagnant pee doesn’t react well with copper piping; and by that we mean it chews right through. Chicago City Hall wound up decommissioning their waterless urinals after that exact situation led to waste flooding the toilets. But what about day-to-day conservation, like in your home? Yeah, maybe—if your neighbors are flushing nonstop. In Germany people have gotten so good at keeping water usage down their sewers are getting backed up, forcing the utility companies to blast insane amounts of water through just to keep them working. As a result, water rates are skyrocketing—while little to no benefit is provided to the environment.

7. Insulation

Url-3-14

According to one green group, a single town with below-average insulation can waste as much energy in a year as the BP oil spill. By my maths, that’s something like the equivalent of a bazillion oil spills happening annually. No wonder governments are subsidizing home insulation.

Which is great, so long as people buy the right type. See, skinning cats and insulating houses have one thing in common: there’s no one way to do it. Some methods, such as mineral wool or denim, are super-green—others, involving blown hydrofluorocarbons, are like punching Mother Nature in the face. It’s estimated this poisonous junk has a global warming potential nearly 1,500 times that of carbon dioxide, meaning it’ll take roughly ten lifetimes to settle your environmental debt. Even worse, as demand for insulation grows, so does production, leading to more pollution and so on and so on until Armageddon.

6. Wind Turbines

Wind-Farm 2120870B

As anyone who’s ever lived below an RnB-obsessed neighbor knows, hearing stuff you don’t want to hear can be irritating as hell. Same applies to wind turbines.

To date no study has found a correlation between turbines and physical illness, though there may be an interesting mental one. According to that link, while people living near community-owned turbines rarely report health problems, people who have had them forced on their village often do. Complaints often focus on the low-level humming noise and shadow flickera sun-blocking side effect officially classed as an annoyance, but probably enough to send most of us into a blind murderous rage. Obviously they could just start building these turbines further away or go the Denmark route and give local people a stake in them, but that’s probably too much to ask.

5. Electric Cars

Url-4-10

Okay Science, now you’re just screwing with us. Regular cars are like environmental cyanide, how can electric ones possibly be worse?

It depends where in the world you are. As a Norwegian study pointed out, there’s no benefit to driving a car powered by electricity from a coal-firing power station. If your town happens to be on an old fashioned grid, all you’re doing by hopping in your losermobile is letting the world know you don’t understand science. As an extra kicker, the manufacturing process for green vehicles is more polluting than your average gas-guzzler, and will remain so until market pressure speeds up technological breakthroughs. At the current rate you can probably expect that to happen sometime after the last trumpet.

4. Biofuels

Url-5-10

The Biofuel cause has been on the wane for a few years now, but that didn’t stop Germany from attempting to make the switch in 2010. By bringing E10 to the pumps at 10 cents a liter cheaper than petrol, the government were hoping to boost the country’s already impressive green credentials. You can probably guess where this is going.

The opposite happened: a joint study by nine European environmental groups found large-scale biofuel development had led to deforestation and a lack of farming land in South America, increasing the risk of famine. But it’s not just E10, for years now environmental groups have opposed biofuels, arguing that their development wastes water and causes pollution. Yet the government keep on giving out subsidies, because apparently Obama hates petroleum and the environment.

3. Energy Efficient Light Bulbs

Url-6-6

Remember that story about a woman having to call in a hazmat team to clean up a broken CFL light bulb? Pretty dumb right, it’s not like there’s enough mercury in there to cause harm, is there?

There is if you’re involved in the production side. In Jinzhou, China, one manufacturer tested their workers and found 121 out of 123 were suffering from mercury poisoning, with one employee’s levels being 150 times the acceptable amount. Another factory was required to hospitalize sixty-eight of seventy-two workers, while the reopening of decommissioned mercury mines has led to entire regions being decimated. So what’s fueling this sudden boom in toxic substances? Demand from Britain and the EU, where we’re apparently determined to go green at the cost of every single other nation on the planet.

2. Recycling

Now I’m not saying recycling is a bad idea; just that its delivery is far from perfect. See, as a global business, recycling is focused not on the environment but making money. This can lead to some weird ecological side-effects: for example, if domestic demand for recycled produce drops, suppliers will ship it halfway across the world to unload it, carbon footprint be damned. Likewise, recyclable materials are routinely discarded for no reason other than aesthetics. Take PVC—when melted it goes a funky brown color most consumers would avoid like Bronie slash fiction, so centers simply burn it.

Then there’s our own ignorance. Most of us have no idea what plastics our city recycles. We just chuck it all in the recycling bin, a move likely to lead to energy-wasting hold ups at the plant and the stuff just getting burnt anyway.

1. Forgoing the Scientific Method

Url-7-3

Imagine you work in a field where the future of the planet may be in your hands. Most of the smartest minds on Earth agree with you, governments are starting to pay attention and even the skeptical public are coming round to your way of thinking. What’s the one thing you wouldn’t do?

How about sabotage the scientific method? In 2009 a leaked cache of emails briefly made the world sit up and question the validity of climate research. While the falsified data claims were quickly disproven, the essential idiocy of those involved is pretty much inarguable. Rather than relying on peer reviewing to weed out shoddy research, some of the researchers at the CRU at UEA had apparently used their position to censor, silence debate and generally act like they had something to hide. The resulting storm completely destabilized public support for their research and made a mockery of their claim to scientific impartiality. That’s not so much shooting yourself in the foot as blasting it off with a howitzer.

10 Problems With the Green Agenda – Listverse

H/t : @janggly  & @Carbongate

•••

PLEASE donate to Climatism to help keep the good fight alive! 

Jamie - Climatism fight

Jamie – Climatism author & founder.

Donate with PayPal

•••

See also :


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 :