VICTORIAN BUSHFIRES : A History Lesson For Climate Change Ambulance Chasers @Melissa4Durack
Posted: March 8, 2019 Filed under: Agenda 21, Alarmism Debunked, Alarmist media, Australia, BIG Government, Carbon Dioxide, Climate History, Climate History News, Climatism, Extreme Weather, Fact Check, Fires, Govt Climate Agenda, Green Agenda, Wildfires | Tags: Agenda 21, Alarmism, Australia, Bushfires, Carbon Dioxide, Climate Change, Climate Change Alarmism, Climate history, Climatism, CO2, environment, Fires, forest fires, Gippsland, Global Warming, Global Warming Alarmism, History, ICLEI, Koo Wee Rup, Melissa Price, Scott Morrison, Victoria, Wildfires Leave a comment“IN a brilliant strategic move, it was decided that
the environmentalist movement was a new and
promising vehicle for obtaining political influence and power.”
– Jennifer Marohasy PhD
***
AUSTRALIAN ‘conservative’ environment Minister Melissa Price is in “No Doubt” that Victoria’s recent bush fires were caused by mankind’s 1 extra carbon dioxide molecule in every 10,000, or an increase of one thousandth of one percent of CO2 over a 150 year period.
AUSTRALIA’S contribution to global plant food and fire-retardant CO2 = 1.3% of all that!
*
Environment Minister Melissa Price has linked this week’s devastating bushfires in Victoria to climate change, saying there is “no doubt” of its impact on Australia
As Victorians in the state’s east survey the damage done to their properties by bushfires, the Environment Minister said Australians across the nation had suffered from the nation’s hottest summer on record.
“There’s no doubt that there’s many people who have suffered over this summer. We talk about the Victorian bushfires; (in) my home state of Western Australia we’ve also got fires there,” she told Sky News this morning.
“There’s no doubt that climate change is having an impact on us. There’s no denying that.”
Coalition figures, including former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, have been reluctant in the past to link climate change to recent natural disasters such as bushfires.
Melissa Price links Victoria bushfires to climate change | The Australian
(paywalled)
*
MEANWHILE, residents of Tonimbuk, a small rural community heaviest hit by Victoria’s weekend bushfires, believe dangerously high fuel loads on vacant crown land contributed to the ferocity of a blaze that left Country Fire Authority firefighters unable to defend some properties…
Residents of a small rural community heaviest hit by Victoria’s weekend bushfires believe dangerously high fuel loads on vacant crown land contributed to the ferocity of a blaze that left Country Fire Authority firefighters unable to defend some properties.
The quiet hamlet of Tonimbuk, about 90km east of Melbourne, felt the brunt of the fire crisis, with seven properties destroyed and 11,000ha burnt by a lightning-strike blaze that raced out of the Bunyip State Forest.
Andrew Clarke, the owner of the Jinks Creek Winery destroyed by the Bunyip fire, believes a bureaucratic blunder cost him his life’s work.
He said a planned burn-off in 60ha between his vineyard and the state park was not done because of concerns for local birdlife.
“If they’d been doing the burning off they should have been doing, our place might still be there,’’ he told The Australian.
“They told me birds were nesting. I told them: ‘If we don’t do a burn-off now, there’ll be no birds. There’ll be no goannas, no snakes, no wallabies. They’ll all be barbecued.’’
Another Tonimbuk resident, cartoonist Mark Knight, said some residents were left to defend their homes without assistance from the CFA. “We fought this fire for three days on our own,’’ he said. “Black Saturday they were all over us. They were fantastic. We didn’t see them this year.’’
Victoria fires: Crown land growth ‘fuelled’ blazes | The Australian
*
THE Daily Telegraph’s climate ‘rationalist’ Miranda Devine with the brutal truth as to what is really fuelling 21st Century bushfires, overrun with ‘Green’ fodder…
Melissa Price, the new federal Environment Minister, has done untold political damage to a government already divided over climate action by spouting idiotic green propaganda about Victoria’s bushfires.
On Tuesday, she linked the fires to climate change, claiming there is “no doubt” of its impact on Australia.
“There’s no doubt that there’s many people who have suffered over this summer. We talk about the Victorian bushfires … There’s no doubt that climate change is having an impact on us. There’s no denying that.”
MORE FROM MIRANDA DEVINE: Climate change isn’t about science — it’s a hot mess of politics and big money
Sorry, minister, it wasn’t climate change that caused the latest bushfires which have so far destroyed nine homes in Victoria, and it wasn’t climate change that killed almost 200 people in the Black Saturday fires ten years ago.
The real culprit is green ideology which opposes the necessary hazard reduction of fuel loads in national parks and which prevents landholders from clearing vegetation around their homes.
The ongoing poor management of national parks and state forests in Victoria and green obstruction of fire mitigation strategies has led to dangerously high fuel loads over the past decade.
That means that when fires do inevitably break out they are so intense that they are devilishly difficult for firefighters to contain. As a federal parliamentary inquiry heard in 2003, if you quadruple the ground fuel, you get a 13-fold increase in the heat generated by a fire.
RELATED: Schools close as bushfires rage in Victoria’s east
Locals know the truth. Andrew Clarke, owner of Jinks Creek Winery, which has been destroyed by a fire which raged out of the Bunyip State Forest, “begged” for fuel reduction burns to protect his property.
“I’ve been begging them [Forest Fire Management Victoria] for 20 years to burn off the state forest at the back of our place and still to this day it hasn’t happened,” he told the ABC’s Country Hour.
Clarke said a planned burn-off was called off because of concerns about nesting birds.
So how did that work out for the birds?
Just three weeks ago, Victoria’s former chief fire officer Ewan Waller warned that state forest fuel loads were reaching deadly, Black Saturday levels. No one paid any attention.
But you can bet Premier Daniel Andrews will hide behind the climate change furphy.
Parroting green lies suits politicians because then they can avoid blame for their own culpability.
MORE FROM MIRANDA DEVINE: Who’s afraid of the big bad climate monster?
The Black Saturday Bushfire Royal Commission criticised the Victorian government for its failure to reduce fuel loads in state forests. It recommended more than doubling the amount of hazard reduction burns.
Instead, in the last three years, alone, the Andrews government has slashed the amount of public land being hazard reduced by almost two thirds.
It’s a crime.
The wonder is that the Morrison government is helping him with his alibi.
@mirandadevine
***
VICTORIAN BUSHFIRES : A HISTORY LESSON FOR CLIMATE CHANGE CO2-CENTRICS
BUSHFIRES and “extreme” heat-waves have been part and parcel of Victoria and Australia’s DNA for millennia, even when CO2 was at ‘safe’ levels …
*
DECEMBER 1954 (CO2 @ 313 PPM) :
“ELEVEN MORE PERISH IN FIRES. FOUR CHILDREN IN SAME FAMILY DEAD. TOWNSHIPS WIPED OUT“
***
JANUARY 1946 (CO2 @ 310 PPM) :
*
“FORTY BUSHFIRES IN VICTORIA – Melbourne’s 105 Deg. [41°C]“
*
“EXTREME HEAT buckled rail-lines” …
The extreme heat buckled one of the rail-lines between Box Hill and Surrey Hills, delaying Melbourne trains for 30 minutes.14 Jan 1946 – FORTY BUSHFIRES IN VICTORIA – Trove
*
*
“ST. KILDA sands baked” …
VICTORIAN BUSHFIRES.St. Kilda Sands Baked.MELBOURNE, Jan 13. – Nearly 40 bushfires were reported throughout Victoria today when the temperature in Melbourne rose to 105deg [41°C].*So hot was the sand at West St. Kilda yesterday that life-savers, in a march past, broke formation for the first time in the history of Victorian life-saving clubs and had to resume the march along the water’s edge.The secretary of the Royal Life Saving Society of Victoria (Mr. Pier dell) described yesterday as one of the worst he had known on Victorian beaches.14 Jan 1946 – TORRID HEAT. – Trove
***
FEBRUARY 1944 (CO2 @ 310 PPM) :
“12 DEATHS IN GIPPSLAND BUSHFIRES“
***
MARCH 1940 (CO2 @ 311 PPM) :
“103 DEGS. [39.4°C] IN MELBOURNE – 30 BUSHFIRES“
***
APRIL 1940 (CO2 @ 311 PPM) :
“VICTORIA – BUSHFIRES AGAIN“
***
APRIL 1936 (CO2 @ 310 PPM) :
“Night Of Terror Caused By Bushfires“
*
*
***
MARCH 1933 (CO2 @ 308.9 PPM) :
***
FEBRUARY 1932 (CO2 @ 308.3 PPM) :
“HISTORIC BUSHFIRES – How A Change Of Wind Saved Melbourne“
***
FEBRUARY 1931 (CO2 @ 308.3 PPM) :
“BUSHFIRES IN VICTORIA – Country Townships Menaced“
***
FEBRUARY 1926 (CO2 @ 305.8 PPM) :
“HEALESVILLE SURROUNDED – WORST FIRES SINCE 1919“
***
FEBRUARY 1898 (CO2 @ 295 PPM) :
***
CONCLUSION
AUSTRALIAN politicians push a never-ending barrage of fact-free global warming climate change alarmism, fear and propaganda on the taxpayer in order to stoke fear and justify the spending of billions upon billions of their hard-earned money on fake fixes to a fake scam.
HOW many more billions of taxpayers hard-earned money will be spent on the greatest pseudoscientific scam ever perpetrated against mankind before our politicians learn how to google “TROVE“? Basic climate history, documenting events no different to today that completely trashes their costly, fake, political, man-made climate change scam costing the country and the planet an estimated $2,000,000,000,000 US (2 Trillion) per year, every year!
POLITICIAN’S punishing industry and jobs with punitive and draconian climate policy, including billions spent on useless windmills and solar panels with ZERO criticism or investigation of years of reckless ‘Green’ environmental policy mandated by UN-infected local councils who, under the draconian program of Agenda 21 aka ICLEI, prevent the clearing of any foliage, trees or grasses above 8 inches on residents own private properties!
ENOUGH is enough. People’s livelihoods, their communities and economies are being ‘burned’ alive by gutless and superstitious politicians on a costly and dangerous crusade of “Save The Planet” hubris driven by politics, ideology and groupthink, pseudoscientific climate change dogma.
•••
RELATED :
- ‘UNPRECEDENTED’ EXTREMES : Heat Waves And Summer Snow Down Under | Climatism
- RECORD MARCH HEAT WAVE : Six Consecutive Days Above 100°F | Climatism
- Shock news 1923 : Meteorological Office Exists as a Corrective to Scare Mongering | Climatism
- BLACK THURSDAY 168 Years Ago : Bushfires Burn 5 Million Hectares or A Quarter Of Victoria | Climatism
- DRACONIAN UN CLIMATE AGENDA EXPOSED : ‘Global Warming Fears Are A Tool For Political and Economic Change…It Has Nothing To Do With The Actual Climate’ | Climatism
- AGENDA 21 IN AUSTRALIA – Human Free Habitat Zones – Green Dreaming of a Human-Free Environment — Quadrant Online
- TOMORROW’S Grim, Global, Green Dictatorship | Climatism
One Of The More Illuminating Articles You May Ever Read On Global Warming
Posted: September 23, 2013 Filed under: Climatism, Club Of Rome, Ecofascism, Environmentalists, Global Warming, Green Agenda, Malthus, Population Control, Sustainability, UN, UNEP | Tags: Agenda 21, Climate Change, club of rome, eco-scares, Environmentalism, Eugenics, Green Agenda, ICLEI, Malthus, Man-Made Global Warming, Population Control, UN, UNEP 1 Comment“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations
“The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point
•••
Having read one of the most influential and eye-opening books of my life, “Watermelons: How Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing your Children’s Future“, it was refreshing to stumble across the featured article in this post, penned by the same author James Delingpole, out of the Daily Telegraph.
Delingpole is a writer whose work border’s on literary genius, a grand master of elucidation. A staunch climate sceptic, who’s views and opinions, while rational, measured and considered, sizzle with humour and sarcasm to drive his message home.
He confidently boasts; “I’m right about everything“. When you follow his stuff, you realise that this has nothing to do with ego!
Most importantly, his writing stands in strident defence of our freedoms. A position taken for granted by so many today, yet the most basic right, one we must fiercely protect with constant vigilance.
If you haven’t read Watermelons, make sure you do. It is a true masterpiece that will educate you on issues which are about as critical and important as any, in our lives today.
In the meantime, try to read the below article line-by-line, for the words unlock the true story behind man-made global warming hysteria. A living constant that toys with people’s everyday lives and indeed threatens our “children’s future” much more than any theorised climate event.
•••
via The Telegraph (UK)
Earth does not have a cancer; the cancer is not man
By James Delingpole
Last updated: April 5th, 2011
Chris Packham, ‘wildlife expert’ (Photo: Paul Grover)
Any minute now I’m going to lay off blogging for a while, for health reasons. But I can’t pretend I’m going to find going cold turkey easy, especially not when there are stories like this around.
It concerns “wildlife expert” Chris Packham – presenter of some of the BBC’s most popular nature programmes including Springwatch and a new series called The Animal’s Guide To British Wildlife – and some deeply unpleasant remarks he made in the course of an interview with the Radio Times.
“There’s no point bleating about the future of pandas, polar bears and tigers when we’re not addressing the one single factor that’s putting more pressure on the ecosystem than any other – namely the ever-increasing size of the world’s population. I read the other day that, by 2020, there are going to be 70 million people in Britain. Let’s face it, that’s too many.”
So what does he suggest we do about it? Get people to stop having children?
“Yes. Absolutely. I wouldn’t actually penalise people for having too many children, as I think the carrot always works better than the stick. But what I would offer them tax breaks for having small families: say, 10 per cent off your tax bill if you decide to stick with just one child. And an even bigger financial incentive if you choose not to have a family at all.”
What frightens me almost more than these remarks – whose loathsomeness I shall gloss in a moment – is the response of the Daily Mail’s readership. All right, perhaps the Mail’s online audience is not representative of the entire country, but I do think they’re probably close to embodying what the reasonable other person from Middle England thinks, and in this case what they seem to think is frankly bloody terrifying.
All right, so I don’t imagine many of us here would quibble with the most popular comment so far, with 1300 plus positive votes:
How about offering people nothing for not having children as well as not giving them anything when they have ten children? Let them pay for their offspring with their own money for a change. That might make a few people consider the population even if it’s the one in their own home.
This is in line with the very sensible remarks that once got Howard Flight into such trouble. And of course the Tory peer was quite right: it’s absurd to have a situation where the most feckless, unproductive sector of the economy is subsidised by the state to have children they would otherwise be unable to afford.
But here are the second and third most popular comments, with well over 1000 positive votes each:
He is quite right you know, the most eco friendly thing you can do is not breed.
Well done Chris I couldn’t have said it better myself. That is the main problem with this planet — too many people. We require a massive birth control programme, never mind growing more food and building more houses — cut back on breeding is the only answer.
There are so many things wrong with this attitude I don’t know where to begin. But why not let’s start with the plight of only children? Almost everyone I know who was brought up without a brother or sister wishes it could have been otherwise. I myself grew up in a family of seven, and while it’s true that I have never quite forgiven one of them for voting for Caroline Lucas in the last election I count the friendship and kinship of my wonderful brothers and sisters one of the greatest joys of my existence. I know there are many in China who feel much the same way: the tyrannical one-child policy, it is now being recognised, has not only led to much unnecessary unhappiness but is also leading to potentially disastrous economic consequences (especially in its battle for economic supremacy with India, where no such restrictions have applied).
Yet such is the misery that Chris Packham wishes to import to Britain. And to be fair, he is far from the only high profile figure who thinks this way. Very much of the same view is that famously nice, caring natural history TV presenter David Attenborough, concerned environmentalist the Hon Sir Jonathon Porritt, actress Susan Hampshire, Gaia theory inventor James Lovelock, ex UN apparatchik Sir Crispin Tickell (the man who – briefly – persuaded Margaret Thatcher of the imminent perils of Man Made Global Warming) and chimp expert Jane Goodall. All of these luminaries are – with Packham – patrons of the Optimum Population Trust, an organisation which believes that the world’s growing population is “unsustainable” and which is dedicated to finding ways of reducing it.
The problem with the Optimum Population Trust – one of them anyway – is that its very existence is predicated on a vilely misanthropic view of the human species: that there are too many of us, that we do more harm than good.
And yes, superficially, this view of the world makes a kind of sense. It’s what I call an “I reckon” argument: the sort of argument you’d make in a pub, after a few beers, based on information you’ve established from a gut feeling so strong it doesn’t need any awkward details like facts getting in the way of your opinion. I mean obviously more people means less space, and more demand on “scarce resources”, so the more people there are the more trouble we’re in. Stands to reason dunnit?
This is exactly the kind of wrong thinking I address in my new book Watermelons. You’ll forgive me if I don’t come up with all the counterarguments here. (Read the bloody book!). But in a nutshell, it’s that this Neo-Malthusian pessimism – as warped and wrongheaded today as it was in the era of doom-monger Thomas Malthus (1766 to 1834) – is based on fundamental misconceptions about the ingenuity of the human species and about the nature of economic growth.
Sure if all populations did as they grew and grew was use up more finite “stuff”, then we would indeed have cause to worry. But they don’t: as populations increase in size, so they learn to specialise and adapt and find ever more ingenious ways of making more with less. That’s why, for example, the mass starvation predicted by Paul Ehrlich in his Sixties bestseller The Population Bomb never happened: because thanks to Norman Borlaug’s Green Revolution, crop yields dramatically increased while the area of land under cultivation remained unchanged. If you want to read more about this, I recommend not just my book, but also Matt Ridley’s superb The Rational Optimist or anything by Julian Simon (known as the Doomslayer because of the way he constantly confounded Neo Malthusian pessimism and junk science).
The reason I have become so obsessed with “global warming” in the last few years is not because I’m particularly interested in the “how many drowning polar bears can dance on the head of a pin” non-argument which hysterical sites like RealClimate and bloggers like Joe Romm are striving so desperately to keep on a life support machine. It’s because unlike some I’ve read widely enough to see the bigger picture.
One thing I’ve learned in this wide reading is how obsessed so many of the key thinkers in the green movement are with the notion of “overpopulation.” As one of their favourite think tanks, the Club of Rome, puts it: “Earth has a cancer and the cancer is man.” This belief explains, inter alia, why the “science” behind AGW is so dodgy: because the science didn’t come first. What came first was the notion that mankind was a problem and was doing harm to the planet. The “science” was then simply tortured until it fitted in with this notion. [Climatism Bolded]
I do not share this view. Indeed, though I believe that while people like Chris Packham (and Prince Charles; George Monbiot; Al Gore; David Attenborough; Robert Redford; Mikhail Gorbachev; Ted Turner; et al) may believe what they do for the noblest of reasons, their ecological philosophy is fundamentally evil. And I do mean evil. Any philosophy which has, as its core tenet, the belief that mankind is the problem not the solution cannot possibly be one that pertains to good, can it?
This is why I have been fighting this Climate War so hard for so long. And why I have no compunction whatsoever in calling the people who promote that repellant philosophy by the names they deserve. The ideological struggle that is being fought now over the issue of “Climate Change” (and related, quasi-Marxist weasel concepts such as Sustainability) may not yet involve the bloodshed caused in the wars against Nazism and Stalinism, but the threat it poses to individual freedom and economic security is every bit as great. But there aren’t enough of us fighting this war on the right side – and I’m knackered.
Continue Reading »
•••
Read more of James Delingpole’s cracking work here – James Delingpole – Telegraph Blogs
•••
Club Of Rome quotes via The Green Agenda :
“The greatest hope for the Earth lies in religionists and
scientists uniting to awaken the world to its near fatal predicament
and then leading mankind out of the bewildering maze of
international crises into the future Utopia of humanist hope.“
– Club of Rome,
Goals for Mankind
“In Nature organic growth proceeds according
to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. Such a ‘master plan’ is
missing from the process of growth and development of
the world system. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for
sustainable growth and world development based on global
allocation of all resources and a new global economic system.
Ten or twenty years form today it will probably be too late.”
– Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point
“Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and
it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely.
Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well
suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature
of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected
representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”
– Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution
“A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that
fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order
and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income.
Perhaps only a new and enlightened humanism
can permit mankind to negotiate this transition.”
– Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point
“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence
more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
– Club of Rome,
Goals for Mankind
•••
UPDATE
via wattsupwiththat
Extract from :
IPCC Climate: A Product of Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics Built On Inadequate Data
Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball
The climate debate cannot be separated from environmental politics. Global warming became the central theme of the claim humans are destroying the planet promoted by the Club of Rome. Their book, Limits to Growth did two major things both removing understanding and creating a false sense of authority and accuracy. First, was the simplistic application of statistics beyond an average in the form of a straight-line trend analysis: Second, predictions were given awesome, but unjustified status, as the output of computer models. They wanted to show we were heading for disaster and selected the statistics and process to that end. This became the method and philosophy of the IPCC. Initially, we had climate averages. Then in the 1970s, with the cooling from 1940, trends became the fashion. Of course, the cooling trend did not last and was replaced in the 1980s by an equally simplistic warming trend. Now they are trying to ignore another cooling trend. Continue Reading »
•••
Club Of Rome Related:
- Club Of Rome – “The First Global Revolution” (Archive)
- The Road to Copenhagen Part I: The Club of Rome
- CLUB OF ROME VIDEO – The Original MIT Modellers of Human Pollution Doom – LAST CALL trailer – YouTube
- Abel Danger: club of Rome – the data doesn’t matter – all heretics will be punished – do you believe?
- Unraveling the Club of Rome (part 1) | Recycle Washington
- The Green Agenda
- IPCC Control Calculations of Annual Human CO2 Production For Political Agenda – Dr Tim Ball
- The Creator, Fabricator And Proponent Of Global Warming – Maurice Strong | CACA
- THE CLUB OF ROME Official (www.clubofrome.org)
- The Creator, Fabricator And Proponent Of Global Warming – Maurice Strong | CACA
Beware the eco-friendly buzzword “Sustainability”:
- The Real Agenda Behind UN “Sustainability” Unmasked
- As of 2011, 238 Australian Councils were operating the UN’s ‘Agenda 21’ program through ‘ICLEI Oceania’ – Ironbark Sustainability: About ICLEI Oceania, Low Carbon Australia and Ironbark Sustainability
- Excellent explanation of sustainability: What Is Sustainability?
- UN Agenda 21 Links | CACA
- The United Nations “Agenda 21” and “ICLEI” in one easy lesson
- United Nations Agenda 21 : The Death Knell of Liberty | CACA
- Shock News : UN Wants To Ban Private Property And Create “Human Habitat Settlement Zones” | CACA
Climatism Links:
- NATURE STUDY Confirms Global Warming Stopped 15 Years Ago | CACA
- Scientists talking about no warming
- Peer into the Heart of the IPCC, Find Greenpeace | CACA
- UN-Settled Science
- 44th Pacific “Sinking Islands” Extortion Forum | CACA
- 97% of climate models say that 97% of climate scientists are wrong | CACA
- Bureaucratic Dioxide
- A cooling consensus
- Modelling Climate Alarmism
- GLOBAL WARMING THEORY – Circular reasoning at its best
- Obamaclimate and Europe’s Green Energy Basket-Case | CACA
- The Truth About the Global Warming Agenda by Former NASA Climatologist | CACA
Help, there’s an ICLEI in my backyard! (Part One)
Posted: September 22, 2013 Filed under: Agenda 21, Climate, Green Agenda, ICLEI, UN, UNEP | Tags: Agenda 21, ICLEI, IPCC, UN, UNEP Leave a commentFAUXGREEN
The cause of the Ontario Liberal government’s industrial wind turbine madness
Why, against all that is rational, ethical, and in the best interests of the people, is the Ontario Liberal government continuing to impose thousands more of the useless, destructive, dangerous, costly, un-green, landscape-blighting industrial wind turbines on large swaths of rural Ontario? The premiers McGunity/Wynne apparently did not do their homework on the efficacy of their green ambitions, which have proven to be economically, environmentally and socially ruinous. And yet Premier Wynne, successor to resigned-in-disgrace McGuinty, is undeterred, charging full blast into further unmitigated disaster, all the while making platitudinous, clichéd promises: ‘My responsibility is to make sure that going forward, we have a better process in place, and that’s what we’re doing.’ It’s a heartless, bullying process of the cruelest sort when you consider the absolute uselessness of it all. All industrial wind…
View original post 1,538 more words
UN-Settled Science
Posted: August 26, 2013 Filed under: Agenda 21, Carbon Dioxide, Climate, Climate models, Climatism, Club Of Rome, Global Warming, IPCC, Propaganda, Science, UN, UNEP | Tags: Agenda 21, Alarmism, Cimate Change, club of rome, environment, Global Warming, Global Warming stasis, Greenhouse gas, ICLEI, James Hansen, Malcolm Turnbull 2 Comments“Recent warming coincides with rapid growth of human-made greenhouse gases. The observed rapid warming gives urgency to discussions about how to slow greenhouse gas emissions.” – James Hansen
“The pace of global warming is accelerating and the scale of the impact is devastating. The time for action is limited – we are approaching a tipping point beyond which the opportunity to reverse the damage of CO2 emissions will disappear.” – Eliot Spitzer
“Climate change is a global problem. The planet is warming because of the growing level of greenhouse gas emissions from human activity. If this trend continues, truly catastrophic consequences are likely to ensue from rising sea levels, to reduced water availability, to more heat waves and fires.” – Malcolm Turnbull
•••
“We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis…”
– David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member
•••
UN Charts ‘Unprecedented’ Global Warming Since 2000 – Bloomberg July 3 2013
Global Warming alarmists tell us that the world is heating at an unprecedented rate due to the unprecedented output of human greenhouse gas emissions.
True, global emissions have risen sharply since the post World War II industrial boom from 1945 onwards, and at an unprecedented rate over the past 15 years due largely to the China and SE Asian industrial booms. However, the dramatic increase in global GHG industrial emissions has not been accompanied by the UN IPCC’s predicted rise in global surface temperatures over the past 15 years, at all.
Hundreds of millions of dollars that have gone into the expensive climate modelling enterprise has all but destroyed governmental funding of research into natural sources of climate change. For years the modelers have maintained that there is no such thing as natural climate change…yet they now, ironically, have to invoke natural climate forces to explain why surface warming has essentially stopped in the last 15 years! — Dr Roy Spencer
Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means
China emits a quarter of the world’s industrial emissions, with its CO2 output having increased by around 300% from 1998 to 2011. Total world CO2 emissions have increased by around 30% over the same period:
International Energy Statistics
THE GLOBAL WARMING HYPOTHESIS
A hypothesis that cannot be falsified by empirical observations, is not science. The current hypothesis on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), as presented by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is that CO2 emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth’s atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space.
Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Einstein’s words express a foundational principle of science intoned by the logician, Karl Popper: Falsifiability. In order to verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved false. A thousand observations may appear to verify a hypothesis, but one critical failure could result in its demise.
MEASURING GLOBAL WARMING
Although temperature is not a measurement of ‘heat’ in the climate system, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), former directer James Hansen, and the British Hadley Centre for Climate Change, have consistently promoted the use of surface temperature as a metric for global warming. The highly publicised, monthly global surface temperature has become an icon of AGW alarmist projections made by the IPCC.
Atmospheric surface temps have been used and marketed since the end of the last global cooling phase from 1945-1976 and explicitly through the 1990′s as the definitive measure of ‘theorised’ human-induced (anthropogenic) global warming.
The warming through the 1980′s and 90′s, that gave birth to the man-made global warming scare, has been theorised as a result of the steady increase in human greenhouse gas emissions.
THE CRITICAL FAILURE?
OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. This has become one the biggest mysteries and most controversial issues in climate science today, throwing doubt over the assumed climate sensitivity to CO2.
The distinct lack of any warming has compromised greatly the ability of climate models to accurately predict short and long-term climate trends, and in my opinion goes a long way toward the ‘critical failure’ that falsifies the very hypothesis and foundation of the anthropogenic global warming theory.
AGW FALSIFIED?
Satellite temperature records on six different data sets show that there has been no atmospheric global warming since 1998 or any statistically-significant warming for between 18 and 23 years. A distinct lack of any warming evident, despite a dramatic rise in industrial greenhouse gas emissions over the same period:
WoodForTrees.org
Peer-Reviewed studies that confirm the lack of any global warming since 1998:
- Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008
- Retrospective prediction of the global warming slowdown in the past decade
- Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years – Nature Climate Change 28/8/2013
- Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling – Nature Journal 28/8/2013
- Warmist scientists talk about no Global Warming
•••
PRIMARY DRIVER OF GLOBAL TEMP/CLIMATE CHANGE?
A Study by the U.N. panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.
WattsUpWithThat on the IPCC AR5 leaked findings:
When somebody hits you with that new ‘IPCC is 95% certain’ talking point on global warming, show them this
Here is the statement again, emphasis mine:
Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the U.N. panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.
OK, so here’s the 64 thousand dollar questions for IPCC cheerleaders:
- Which side is which time period?
- What caused the warming before CO2 became an issue to be essentially identical to the period when it is claimed to be the main driver?
- How is the IPCC 95% certain one side is caused by man and the other is not?
Early warming period 1917-1944 (280-300 ppm CO2) had the same rate of warming (with less CO2) as late warming period 1976-2012 (350-400 ppm CO2):
The case against CO2 – 100 years of temperature change: After 50 years, 1961 had a greater mean temperature increase with less CO2:
Last 100 Years of CO2 & Temperatures: The IPCC’s HadCRUT Data Confirms CO²’s Small Impact On Global Warming
The UN IPCC claim humans 0.0012% or 12 parts per million addition of CO2 into the total atmosphere (versus natures 97%) is driving temp/climate change and potential CAGW. Their workings discount natural influences; solar radiation, clouds, volcanic eruptions, ocean currents PDO/AMO as having any real effect on the climate. The IPCC’s original brief by UNEP & WMO was to isolate the effect and human fingerprint of only human CO2 emissions and NOT natural variation. 20 years on and $100 Billion later, the IPCC is still yet to find the global signature of human CO2. See missing hotspot »
Sceptical scientists and climate realists, contest natural variation; solar magnetic effects, volcanic eruptions, solar irradiance, ozone depletion, ocean currents PDO/AMO, clouds, all play a much more significant role in the climate system.
•••
PRIMARY DRIVERS OF GLOBAL CHANGE?
‘Club Of Rome’ an environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations (founders of the IPCC), published these thoughts in their 1991 book The First Global Revolution:
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
The First Global Revolution
Founder of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) Maurice Strong:
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialised civilisations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the
affluent middle class – involving high meat intake,
use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning,
and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
– Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit
UNEP Promoting Sustainable Human Settlement/Habitat Development Zones
UN Agenda 21 – global action plan for sustainable development into the 21st century: 238 Australian councils currently operate UN’s Agenda 21 Sustainable Development program through ICLEI Oceania:
“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound
reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world
has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both
governments and individuals and an unprecedented
redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift
will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences
of every human action be integrated into individual and
collective decision-making at every level.“
– UN Agenda 21
The UN’s goal of de-industrialising the world by limiting the use of carbon based energies (whilst offering no viable alternatives) embodied here by Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation:
“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
Timothy Wirth is a follower of the teachings Thomas Malthus, the British economist who predicted in 1789 that the planet’s rapid increase in population would soon outstrip the planet’s ability to produce food resulting in massive worldwide starvation.
Upon Wirth’s election to Congress in 1974, he asked: “Are we going to blow ourselves off the face of the globe or are we going to propagate ourselves off the face of the globe?”
The science of global warming means little to AGW zealots who use the guise of environmentalism to pursue radical ideological, social and political change:
“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
•••
Every true genius is bound to be naive …
“If Margaret Thatcher took climate change seriously and believed that we should take action to reduce global greenhouse emissions, then taking action and supporting and accepting the science can hardly be the mark of incipient Bolshevism.” – Malcolm Turnbull
•••
ATMOSPHERIC Physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen, examines 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:
“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.”
Related:
- NATURE STUDY Confirms Global Warming Stopped 15 Years Ago | CACA
- 97% of climate models say that 97% of climate scientists are wrong | CACA
- Carbon Dioxide (CO²) Is Not Pollution
- Peer into the Heart of the IPCC, Find Greenpeace | CACA
- Modelling Climate Alarmism
- DATA TAMPERING – Real Science Fraud File
- Global warming: a classic case of alarmism
- SHOCK NEWS! Arctic Summers Ice-Free by 2013
- Climate Change in 12 Minutes
- Science Facts In A Nutshell – Facts On CO²
- Peer into the Heart of the IPCC, Find Greenpeace
- The Green Agenda
- SENATE ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT & TELECOMMUNICATIONS CMTE – Climate Change – Dr Don Easterbrook
- MUST SEE: Professor Bob Carter “Climate Context As A Basis For Better Policy”
Afterthought: If mother nature emits 97% of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere, does that mean she emits 97% ‘Carbon Pollution’?
Steroids, Baseball and Climate Change
Posted: July 28, 2013 Filed under: Agenda 21, Alarmism, Climate, Climatism, ICLEI | Tags: Agenda 21, Alarmism, Alberta, Canada, Climate Change, Extreme weather, flood, ICLEI, IPCC Leave a commentICLEI Canada believe the difference between “normal” extreme weather and “climate change enhanced” extreme weather is anthropogenic “steroids”.
It’s mid-July [2013], and summer has already produced a number of very significant and newsworthy weather events. But can we blame climate change? Yes, but it isn’t as simple as saying that climate change caused any single event.
On June 20th, continued heavy rains in southern Alberta overwhelmed many streams and rivers emanating from the Rocky Mountain foothills, causing widespread flooding.
Of course, these types of extreme events have existed forever, and it would be incorrect to place all of the blame of these events on changing climates…The challenge is often explaining the difference between “normal” extreme weather and “climate change enhanced” extreme weather.
EXTREME WEATHER AND CLIMATE CHANGE – ICLEI Canada
The flow rate of the Bow River in Calgary peaked at 1,500 cubic metres of water per second. Previous floods in the 1900s, 1930s and late 1800s were ‘worse’ in terms of river flow rate. Red Deer River flow rate peaked at 1,930 cms in 1915.
2013 Alberta floods were ‘worse’ due to the presence of a highly-developed city of over one million residents downstream. Thus, because of increased economic loss, the floods were naturally caused by human green-house gas emissions, and a climate on steroids.
Fortunately the IPCC can’t find the link between anthropogenic steroids and extreme weather, confirming “We do not know if the climate is becoming more extreme”
In any case, if extreme flooding is a concern, you can always take refuge on the 45th floor of a United Nations ICLEI Agenda 21 ‘Human Habitat Settlement Zone’ high-rise building. Coming to a ‘smart growth zone’ near you!
H/t to Brendan
Recent Comments