DEATH OF A CLIMATE ICON : A Lesson For Researchers In Other Areas Who Have Failed To Stop The Invasion Of Politics Into Their SciencePosted: April 7, 2019
“Those who can make you believe absurdities,
can make you commit atrocities.”
“Blind trust in authority
is the greatest enemy of the truth.”
– Albert Einstein
THE polar bear as an icon for
Global Warming Climate Change is dead, because the distorted predictions made by Polar Bear ‘specialists’ were wrong.
THIS is a lesson for researchers in other areas who have failed to stop the invasion of politics into their science.
TUCKER CARLSON interviews Zoologist and Polar Bear specialist Dr. Susan Crockford on the prime time ratings-killer show Tucker Carlson Tonight, in a must watch segment that demonstrates how “overpopulation”, not extinction, is now the problem :
THE Global Warming Policy Foundation has since released an excellent short video showing why the polar bear no longer serves as the icon of the climate change movement :
H/t Green Jihad
POLAR BEAR related :
- DEAR Climate Change Alarmists, We Are Doing Just Fine Thanks, And So Is Our Sea-Ice! Regards, Polar Bears | Climatism
- Latest global polar bear abundance ‘best guess’ estimate is 39,000 (26,000-58,000) | polarbearscience
- POLAR BEAR Habitat Update: Abundant Sea Ice Across The Arctic, Even In The Barents Sea | Climatism
- STATE OF THE POLAR BEAR REPORT 2018: Polar Bears Continue To Thrive | Climatism
- HUDSON BAY ICE Update: More Thick First-Year Ice Habitat For #PolarBears In 2018 Than 2004 | Climatism
- REALITY Check: Nunatsiavut Wildlife Manager Says Polar Bears Not Starving, Public Misinformed | Climatism
- LESS Svalbard Polar Bear Habitat During The Early Holocene Than Now | Climatism
SEE also :
- 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
- COGNITIVE BIAS : Climate Change Alarmists Refuse To Accept ‘The Science’ That Proves Extreme Weather Events Are NOT Increasing | Climatism
NOW That We Know Renewables Can’t ‘Save The Planet’, Are We Really Going To Stand By And Let Them Destroy It?Posted: March 2, 2019
“REMEMBER when we paved the world with electronic waste
that chopped eagles and condors and made bats extinct
because we thought wind was natural and uranium evil?
– man that was a dark age!”
– Michael Shellenberger
ONE of the great falsehoods and dangerous myths pushed by reckless
global warming climate change zealots and the mainstream media is that ‘renewable energy’ – wind and solar – is “clean, green and renewable”.
‘RENEWABLES’ are neither “clean, green, or renewable”. In fact, they are pure embodiments of fossil fuel technology, with oil and coal derivatives required for :
WIND and solar power are incredibly land intensive owing to the inherent low-energy density of their electrons. And, the small fact that the sun only shines and the wind only blows 10-40% of the time.
HOW much land and how many wind turbines would be needed just to supply the planets ‘new’ demand for energy?
If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s.
At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area greater than the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs.
IF Greens love nature, why aren’t they more concerned about carpeting pristine landscapes with industrial wind turbines?
“SAVING THE PLANET”
IF ‘Greens’ were serious about “Saving The Planet”, they would be embracing (CO2-free) nuclear energy.
THE fact that they are not, says a lot about today’s New Green Climate Warrior – concerned more about totalitarian power and control than tangible care of the physical environment.
IMHO, ‘Climate Change’ has absolutely nothing to do with the environment or “Saving The Planet”. If it did, every
global warming climate change bedwetter would be castigating China for unlimited emissions until 2030.
CLIMATE CHANGE activism has everything to do with economic, political and cultural power and control.
THIS brilliant piece from (old-school) environmentalist Michael Shellenberger has been touring social and mainstream media in a big way, and rightly so, but wanted to pin it here for Climatism followers to enjoy and hopefully share with friends, family and their local energy/environment representative!
From Quillette :
Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet
When I was a boy, my parents would sometimes take my sister and me camping in the desert. A lot of people think deserts are empty, but my parents taught us to see the wildlife all around us, including hawks, eagles, and tortoises.
After college, I moved to California to work on environmental campaigns. I helped save the state’s last ancient redwood forest and blocked a proposed radioactive waste repository set for the desert.
In 2002, shortly after I turned 30, I decided I wanted to dedicate myself to addressing climate change. I was worried that global warming would end up destroying many of the natural environments that people had worked so hard to protect.
I thought the solutions were pretty straightforward: solar panels on every roof, electric cars in every driveway, etc. The main obstacles, I believed, were political. And so I helped organize a coalition of America’s largest labor unions and environmental groups. Our proposal was for a $300 billion dollar investment in renewables. We would not only prevent climate change but also create millions of new jobs in a fast-growing high-tech sector.
Our efforts paid off in 2007 when then-presidential candidate Barack Obama embraced our vision. Between 2009–15, the U.S. invested $150 billion dollars in renewables and other forms of clean tech. But right away we ran into trouble.
The first was around land use. Electricity from solar roofs costs about twice as much as electricity from solar farms, but solar and wind farms require huge amounts of land. That, along with the fact that solar and wind farms require long new transmissions lines, threatened local communities, and conservationists trying to preserve wildlife, particularly birds.
Another challenge was the intermittent nature of solar and wind energies. When the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing, you have to quickly be able to ramp up another source of energy.
Happily, there were a lot of people working on solutions. One solution was to convert California’s dams into big batteries. The idea was that, when the sun was shining and the wind was blowing, you could pump water uphill, store it for later, and then run it over the turbines to make electricity when you needed it.
Other problems didn’t seem like such a big deal, on closer examination. For example, after I learned that house cats kill billions of birds every year it put into perspective the nearly one million birds killed by wind turbines.
It seemed to me that most, if not all, of the problems from scaling up solar and wind energies could be solved through more technological innovation.
But, as the years went by, the problems persisted and in some cases grew worse. For example, California is a world leader when it comes to renewables but we haven’t converted our dams into batteries, partly for geographic reasons. You need the right kind of dam and reservoirs, and even then it’s an expensive retrofit.
A bigger problem is that there are many other uses for the water that accumulates behind dams, namely irrigation and cities. And because the water in our rivers and reservoirs is scarce and unreliable, the water from dams for those other purposes is becoming ever-more precious.
Without large-scale ways to back-up solar energy California has had to block electricity coming from solar farms when it’s extremely sunny, or pay neighboring states to take it from us so we can avoid blowing-out our grid.
Despite what you’ve heard, there is no “battery revolution” on the way, for well-understood technical and economic reasons.
As for house cats, they don’t kill big, rare, threatened birds. What house cats kill are small, common birds, like sparrows, robins and jays. What kills big, threatened, and endangered birds—birds that could go extinct—like hawks, eagles, owls, and condors, are wind turbines.
In fact, wind turbines are the most serious new threat to important bird species to emerge in decades. The rapidly spinning turbines act like an apex predator which big birds never evolved to deal with.
Solar farms have similarly large ecological impacts. Building a solar farm is a lot like building any other kind of farm. You have to clear the whole area of wildlife.
In order to build one of the biggest solar farms in California the developers hired biologists to pull threatened desert tortoises from their burrows, put them on the back of pickup trucks, transport them, and cage them in pens where many ended up dying.
As we were learning of these impacts, it gradually dawned on me that there was no amount of technological innovation that could solve the fundamental problem with renewables.
You can make solar panels cheaper and wind turbines bigger, but you can’t make the sun shine more regularly or the wind blow more reliably. I came to understand the environmental implications of the physics of energy. In order to produce significant amounts of electricity from weak energy flows, you just have spread them over enormous areas. In other words, the trouble with renewables isn’t fundamentally technical—it’s natural.
Dealing with energy sources that are inherently unreliable, and require large amounts of land, comes at a high economic cost.
There’s been a lot of publicity about how solar panels and wind turbines have come down in cost. But those one-time cost savings from making them in big Chinese factories have been outweighed by the high cost of dealing with their unreliability.
Consider California. Between 2011–17 the cost of solar panels declined about 75 percent, and yet our electricity prices rose five times more than they did in the rest of the U.S. It’s the same story in Germany, the world leader in solar and wind energy. Its electricity prices increased 50 percent between 2006–17, as it scaled up renewables.
I used to think that dealing with climate change was going to be expensive. But I could no longer believe this after looking at Germany and France.
Germany’s carbon emissions have been flat since 2009, despite an investment of $580 billion by 2025 in a renewables-heavy electrical grid, a 50 percent rise in electricity cost.
Meanwhile, France produces one-tenth the carbon emissions per unit of electricity as Germany and pays little more than half for its electricity. How? Through nuclear power.
Then, under pressure from Germany, France spent $33 billion on renewables, over the last decade. What was the result? A rise in the carbon intensity of its electricity supply, and higher electricity prices, too.
What about all the headlines about expensive nuclear and cheap solar and wind? They are largely an illusion resulting from the fact that 70 to 80 percent of the costs of building nuclear plants are up-front, whereas the costs given for solar and wind don’t include the high cost of transmission lines, new dams, or other forms of battery.
It’s reasonable to ask whether nuclear power is safe, and what happens with its waste.
It turns out that scientists have studied the health and safety of different energy sources since the 1960s. Every major study, including a recent one by the British medical journal Lancet, finds the same thing: nuclear is the safest way to make reliable electricity.
Strange as it sounds, nuclear power plants are so safe for the same reason nuclear weapons are so dangerous. The uranium used as fuel in power plants and as material for bombs can create one million times more heat per its mass than its fossil fuel and gunpowder equivalents.
It’s not so much about the fuel as the process. We release more energy breaking atoms than breaking chemical bonds. What’s special about uranium atoms is that they are easy to split.
Because nuclear plants produce heat without fire, they emit no air pollution in the form of smoke. By contrast, the smoke from burning fossil fuels and biomass results in the premature deaths of seven million people per year, according to the World Health Organization.
Even during the worst accidents, nuclear plants release small amounts of radioactive particulate matter from the tiny quantities of uranium atoms split apart to make heat.
Over an 80-year lifespan, fewer than 200 people will die from the radiation from the worst nuclear accident, Chernobyl, and zero will die from the small amounts of radiant particulate matter that escaped from Fukushima.
As a result, the climate scientist James Hanson and a colleague found that nuclear plants have actually saved nearly two million lives to date that would have been lost to air pollution.
Thanks to its energy density, nuclear plants require far less land than renewables. Even in sunny California, a solar farm requires 450 times more land to produce the same amount of energy as a nuclear plant.
Energy-dense nuclear requires far less in the way of materials, and produces far less in the way of waste compared to energy-dilute solar and wind.
A single Coke cans worth of uranium provides all of the energy that the most gluttonous American or Australian lifestyle requires. At the end of the process, the high-level radioactive waste that nuclear plants produce is the very same Coke can of (used) uranium fuel. The reason nuclear is the best energy from an environmental perspective is because it produces so little waste and none enters the environment as pollution.
All of the waste fuel from 45 years of the Swiss nuclear program can fit, in canisters, on a basketball court-like wearhouse, where like all spent nuclear fuel, it has never hurt a fly.
We tend to think of solar panels as clean, but the truth is that there is no plan anywhere to deal with solar panels at the end of their 20 to 25 year lifespan.
Experts fear solar panels will be shipped, along with other forms of electronic waste, to be disassembled—or, more often, smashed with hammers—by poor communities in Africa and Asia, whose residents will be exposed the dust from toxic including lead, cadmium, and chromium.
Wherever I travel in the world I ask ordinary people what they think about nuclear and renewable energies. After saying they know next to nothing, they admit that nuclear is strong and renewables are weak. Their intuitions are correct. What most of us get wrong—understandably — is that weak energies are safer.
But aren’t renewables safer? The answer is no. Wind turbines, surprisingly, kill more people than nuclear plants.
In other words, the energy density of the fuel determines its environmental and health impacts. Spreading more mines and more equipment over larger areas of land is going to have larger environmental and human safety impacts.
It’s true that you can stand next to a solar panel without much harm while if you stand next to a nuclear reactor at full power you’ll die.
But when it comes to generating power for billions of people, it turns out that producing solar and wind collectors, and spreading them over large areas, has vastly worse impacts on humans and wildlife alike.
Our intuitive sense that sunlight is dilute sometimes shows up in films. That’s why nobody was shocked when the recent remake of the dystopian sci-fi flick, “Blade Runner,” opened with a dystopian scene of California’s deserts paved with solar farms identical to the one that decimated desert tortoises.
Over the last several hundred years, human beings have been moving away from what matter-dense fuels towards energy-dense ones. First we move from renewable fuels like wood, dung, and windmills, and towards the fossil fuels of coal, oil, and natural gas, and eventually to uranium.
Energy progress is overwhelmingly positive for people and nature. As we stop using wood for fuel we allow grasslands and forests to grow back, and the wildlife to return.
As we stop burning wood and dung in our homes, we no longer must breathe toxic indoor smoke. And as we move from fossil fuels to uranium we clear the outdoor air of pollution, and reduce how much we’ll heat up the planet.
Nuclear plants are thus a revolutionary technology—a grand historical break from fossil fuels as significant as the industrial transition from wood to fossil fuels before it.
The problem with nuclear is that it is unpopular, a victim of a 50 year-longconcerted effort by fossil fuel, renewable energy, anti-nuclear weapons campaigners, and misanthropic environmentalists to ban the technology.
In response, the nuclear industry suffers battered wife syndrome, and constantly apologizes for its best attributes, from its waste to its safety.
Lately, the nuclear industry has promoted the idea that, in order to deal with climate change, “we need a mix of clean energy sources,” including solar, wind and nuclear. It was something I used to believe, and say, in part because it’s what people want to hear. The problem is that it’s not true.
France shows that moving from mostly nuclear electricity to a mix of nuclear and renewables results in more carbon emissions, due to using more natural gas, and higher prices, to the unreliability of solar and wind.
Oil and gas investors know this, which is why they made a political alliance with renewables companies, and why oil and gas companies have been spending millions of dollars on advertisements promoting solar, and funneling millions of dollars to said environmental groups to provide public relations cover.
What is to be done? The most important thing is for scientists and conservationists to start telling the truth about renewables and nuclear, and the relationship between energy density and environmental impact.
Bat scientists recently warned that wind turbines are on the verge of making one species, the Hoary bat, a migratory bat species, go extinct.
Another scientist who worked to build that gigantic solar farm in the California desert told High Country News, “Everybody knows that translocation of desert tortoises doesn’t work. When you’re walking in front of a bulldozer, crying, and moving animals, and cacti out of the way, it’s hard to think that the project is a good idea.”
I think it’s natural that those of us who became active on climate change gravitated toward renewables. They seemed like a way to harmonize human society with the natural world. Collectively, we have been suffering from a naturalistic fallacy no different from the one that leads us to buy products at the supermarket labeled “all natural.” But it’s high time that those of us who appointed ourselves Earth’s guardians should take a second look at the science, and start questioning the impacts of our actions.
Now that we know that renewables can’t save the planet, are we really going to stand by and let them destroy it?
Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,” and president of Environmental Progress, an independent research and policy organization. Follow him on Twitter @ShellenbergerMD
SHELLENBERGER Related :
SEE also :
- 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
- BILL GATES Slams Unreliable Wind & Solar: ‘Let’s Quit Jerking Around With Renewables & Batteries’ | Climatism
- UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity And The Environment | Climatism
- WHAT I See When I See a Wind Turbine | Climatism
- ‘GREEN’ Energy Future | Climatism
- IF CO2’s Your Poison, Renewable Energy Is No Antidote | Climatism
- TRULY GREEN? How Germany’s #Energiewende Is Destroying Nature | Climatism
- WIND TURBINES Are Neither Clean Nor Green And They Provide Zero Global Energy | Climatism
- WHY “Green” Energy Is Futile, In One Lesson | Climatism
- THE Greatest Threat To The Environment Is Not Affluence, It’s Poverty | Climatism
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” – Bertrand Russel
ANTHROPOGENIC global warming theory implies that mankind’s gasses, primarily, carbon dioxide (deceptively known as “carbon pollution” for politics and shock value) is supposed to be warming the lower troposphere – the first 10 kilometres of Earth’s atmosphere.
WHILE the fingerprint for Carbon Dioxide forcing exists in computer simulations, it is yet to be found in the physical world:
THE MISSING ‘HOT SPOT’
WHILE debate rages about the causes of global warming, most of the public and our policy makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
Dr David Evans, former consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005
S-NO-W HOT SPOT OVER HAWAII!
BESIDES precipitation, the most important element required for snow to form is cold air. Yesterday’s winter blast set a new (interim) record cold temperature for the 50th state of -12°F or -11.1°C.
via weather.com :
Just after midnight on Monday, a number of sensors atop Mauna Kea dipped below 12 degrees Fahrenheit, according to the Mauna Kea Weather Center, a facility supporting a number of telescopes atop the 13,770-foot volcano on the Big Island of Hawaii.
If those temperatures are deemed accurate, at least four of those sensors would exceed the official all-time state record low in Hawaii of 12 degrees (-11.1 degrees Celsius) also set atop Mauna Kea on May 17, 1979.
LOWEST-ELEVATION SNOWFALL EVER RECORDED
SNOW is not unheard of in mountainous parts of the tropical island chain, but officials say the coating at 6,200 feet (1,900 meters) at Polipoli State Park on Maui could mark the lowest-elevation snowfall ever recorded in the state.
SEE original video of ’emotional’ gentleman discovering rare snowfall at 6,200 feet here :
IT’S ONLY WEATER, BUT…
GLOBAL Warming alarmists have already been quick to denounce this as just a weather event, which it is. “You’re confusing weather with climate!” they insist on my twitter account. As they themselves aggressively look for the next heatwave, flood, drought or forest fire to blame on “CLIMATE CHANGE!”.
REMEMBER that rule: Cold = Weather, Hot = Climate.
YES, this is just a weather event. However, it’s worth keeping in mind that such “weather” including the record cold and snow experienced in the current NH winter was not expected in the era of the “HOTTEST XXX EVAHH”, so gleefully marketed by the global warming theory obsessed mainstream media.
IN FACT, according to the ‘97% consensus’ of ‘climate experts’ and sycophant mainstream media, “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past“. And, “a very rare and exciting event [where] children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
SEE for yourself what climate ‘experts’ predicted about snow…
IN 2000, climate expert Dr David Viner of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) assured us that :
Snowfall will become “A very rare and exciting event…
Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
Dr David Viner – Senior scientist, climatic research unit (CRU)
IN 2001, the UN IPCC predicted diminished snowfalls as human CO2 increased, claiming that “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms” due to human activity…
THEY also forecast “warmer winters and fewer cold spells, because of climate change…”
2000 : a prediction from Professor Mojib Latif of Germany’s GEOMAR Heimholtz Centre for Ocean Research…
“Winters with strong frosts and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will no longer exist at our latitudes.” – Professor Mojib Latif
2000 : Spiegel…
“Good bye winter. Never again snow?”
2004 : Mark Lynas told us…
“Snow has become so rare that when it does fall – often just for a few hours – everything grinds to a halt. In early 2003 a ‘mighty’ five-centimetre snowfall in southeast England caused such severe traffic jams that many motorists had to stay in their cars overnight. Today’s kids are missing out . . . Many of these changes are already underway, but have been accelerating over the last two decades. Termites have already moved into southern England. Garden centres are beginning to stock exotic sub-tropical species, which only a few years ago would have been killed off by winter…” – Mark Lynas
Planning for a snowless future: “Our study is already showing that that there will be a much worse situation in 20 years.”
Winter is no longer the great grey longing of my childhood. The freezes this country suffered in 1982 and 1963 are – unless the Gulf Stream stops – unlikely to recur. Our summers will be long and warm. Across most of the upper northern hemisphere, climate change, so far, has been kind to us…
2006 : Daniela Jacob of Max Planck Institute for Meterology, Hamburg …
“Yesterday’s snow… Because temperatures in the Alps are rising quickly, there will be more precipitation in many places. But because it will rain more often than it snows, this will be bad news for tourists. For many ski lifts this means the end of business.”
2006 : The Independent‘s somber editorial admonished us that the lack of snow was evidence of a “dangerous seasonal disorder”…
The countryside is looking rather peculiar this winter. It seems we have a number of unexpected guests for Christmas. Dragonflies, bumblebees and red admiral butterflies, which would normally be killed off by the frost, can still be seen in some parts of the country . . . Some might be tempted to welcome this late blossoming of the natural world as a delightful diversion from the bleakness of this time of year. But these fluctuations should be cause for concern because it is overwhelmingly likely that they are a consequence of global warming . . . all this is also evidence that global warming is occurring at a faster rate than many imagined…
2007 : BBC “One Planet Special”…
“It Seems the Winters of Our Youth are Unlikely to Return” presenter Richard Hollingham … speaks to climate scientists to get their views. Their conclusion? In the words of the BBC, they all give “predictions of warmer winters, for UK & the Northern Hemisphere”.
2007 : Schleswig Holstein NABU…
“Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters” … “Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change.”
2007 : Western Mail (Wales Online) … article, entititled “Snowless Winters Forecast for Wales as World Warms Up” quotes one of the global warming movement’s key figures, Sir John Houghton, former head of the IPCC and former head of the UK Met Office…
Former head of the Met Office Sir John Houghton, who is one of the UK’s leading authorities on climate change, said all the indicators suggest snowy winters will become increasingly rare He said, “Snowlines are going up in altitude all over the world. The idea that we will get less snow is absolutely in line with what we expect from global warming.”
2007 : Die Zeit…
“First the snow disappears, and then winter.”
2008 : Another prediction…
A study of snowfall spanning 60 years has indicated that the Alps’s entire winter sports industry could grind to a halt through lack of snow…. In some years the amount that fell was 60 per cent lower than was typical in the early 1980s, said Christoph Marty, from the Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research in Davos, who analysed the records. ”I don’t believe we will see the kind of snow conditions we have experienced in past decades,” he said.
2014 : the global warming theory-obsessed New York Times touted “The End of Snow?” Reassuring their readers that “This is no longer a scientific debate. It is scientific fact.”
“The truth is, it is too late for all of that. Greening the ski industry is commendable, but it isn’t nearly enough. Nothing besides a national policy shift on how we create and consume energy will keep our mountains white in the winter — and slow global warming to a safe level.
This is no longer a scientific debate. It is scientific fact. The greatest fear of most climate scientists is continued complacency that leads to a series of natural climatic feedbacks…”
2017 : The Age’s resident global warming catastrophist Peter Hannam signalled the end of snow…
Australia’s ski resorts face the prospect of a long downhill run as a warming climate reduces snow depth, cover and duration. The industry’s ability to create artificial snow will also be challenged, scientists say.
A 2003 CSIRO report, part-funded by the ski industry, found that resorts could lose a quarter of their snow within 15 years…
DOES the CSIRO and ‘97% of all experts’ still stand by their predictions of “no-snow”? Or is their alarmist sophistry simply more
global warming climate change fear-mongering designed to push their socialist agenda based not on evidence but on political dogma, ideology and overheated UN IPCC / CSIRO climate models?
SNOW EXTENT DATA
WINTER snow extent is increasing globally as CO2 emissions rise…
HIGHEST snow mass build-up since 1982
RECORD NORTH AMERICAN SNOWFALL 2018
‘FALL’ snow extent is also increasing globally as CO2 emissions rise…
NOW, of course, climate scientists are trying to dig themselves out of snow that’s kept falling…
Looking back at 65 years’ worth of statistics, Environment Canada’s senior climatologist David Phillips noted that since 1948, winter temperatures in the prairie regions have increased by an average of four degrees Celsius… Ironically, warmer weather can mean greater snowfall. “As we warm up, we may see more moisture, we may see more moist air masses, and therefore we could very well see more snow rather than less snow, because the air masses are going to be more moist and so therefore you’re going to be able to wring out more snow than you would be if it was dry air,” Phillips said.
“Interestingly, some scientists have stated that increasing snow is consistent with climate change because warmer air holds more moisture, more water vapor and this can result in more storms with heavy precipitation. The trick, of course, is having sufficient cold air to produce that snow. But note that 93% of the years with more than 60″ of snow in Boston were colder than average years. The reality is cooling, not warming, increases snowfall.” – Veteran Meteorologist Barry Burbank
LISTEN to what the ‘experts’ promised you back then. Because, if they got it wrong then, how can you trust what they are foretelling today or tomorrow? The answer is you cannot, because they have no idea what long-range conditions Mother Nature is going to serve up in such a “chaotic” and complex system as our climate.
BUT, one thing is a “97%” certainty within the current and scary world of post-modern climate ‘science’ – whatever scenario suits and supports the political and ideological position of man-made ‘climate change’ will be predicted, promoted and spread like a hurricane within the compliant mainstream media, throughout our most ‘esteemed’ scientific institutions, our schools and of course throughout academia – DAMN the data and real-world evidence!
SEE also :
- SNOW : Setting The Record Straight | Climatism
- ‘GLOBAL WARMING’ UPDATE : Montreal’s Fête Des Neiges (Winter Snow Festival) Cancelled Due To Extreme Cold! | Climatism
- CLIMATE DUD-PREDICTIONS : ‘Ice-Free’ Arctic Prophesies By The ‘97% Consensus’ And Compliant Mainstream Media | Climatism
- BREAKING : Carbon Dioxide Causes Both Record Hot And Record Cold | 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
“CLIMATE alarmism is a gigantic fraud: it only survives by suppressing dissent and by spending tens of billions of dollars of public money every year on pseudo-scientific propaganda.” – Leo Goldstein
“TO tell preposterous untruths in this ‘good’ cause
is not just forgivable but a sign of superior morality.
The bigger the whopper the more you must really care.”
– Andrew Bolt
AUSTRALIA’s Great Barrier Reef, all-too-often garners the attention of the mainstream media for all the wrong reasons. It has long been a favoured icon of the $2,000,000,000,000 US per year (2 Trillion) Climate Crisis Industry used to push their draconian, CO2 Climate Change agenda. How dare we actually get to enjoy the Reef’s overwhelming pristine beauty!
THREE surveys conducted in Britain, China, and the United States, have shown citizens in those countries – when the situation is raised with them – say that are concerned that the world-renowned reef is under severe threat. And many would reconsider visiting as a result…
An estimated 175,000 fewer tourists could visit Australia if the bleaching persists and worse if the [claimed] damage becomes permanent.
The polls, which surveyed the attitudes and awareness of 1000 people in each market, found potential visitors were concerned over the state of the reef, which in turn could feed into them deciding to visit other Australian attractions or to go to places other than Australia entirely.
The finding suggests the tourism businesses and related local economies adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef, could suffer the loss of 10,000 jobs and that the Australian economy could lose as much as $1 billion per year in overseas income.
The reef supports an estimated 70,000 jobs in the tourism and related sectors and accounts for a significant proportion of Australia’s tourist income.
COCKATOO REEF is a piece of the reef that the climate change zealots haven’t yet spoiled with a government grant or a pal-reviewed acid-attack. And is yet to be sullied by the panicked-pen of Sydney Morning Herald’s climate catastrophist-in-chief Peter Hannam.
SO, enjoy the Cockatoo blue hole in all its glory, before it’s put on the threatened species list by the CO2-centrics and mainstream media hacktivists.
Blue hole thinking
Getting to this remote sinkhole in the Great Barrier Reef was a mission. And what marine biologist Johnny Gaskell found in it blew him away…
By ROSS BILTON
From The Weekend Australian Magazine February 1, 2019
Johnny Gaskell’s fascination with the blue holes of the Great Barrier Reef began when he was hunched over his computer one night in 2017. The marine biologist, tasked with finding coral colonies that might have escaped the ravages of Cyclone Debbie, was poring over satellite images on Google Maps when he noticed a weird anomaly — a circular indigo spot — in Cockatoo Reef, part of the remote Pompey Complex 200km off Mackay. All he could find about it online was a 1979 scientific paper that confirmed it was a marine sinkhole (you’ll have seen pictures of terrestrial versions, swallowing up entire houses) and one of a handful in the Great Barrier Reef. It gave Gaskell an idea: might these deep holes, protected from storms, harbour undamaged coral?
His first exploratory trip, to a blue hole near his base on Daydream Island in the Whitsundays, confirmed this hunch. And not only was the coral pristine, it was unlike anything he’d seen before: over decades in the 30m-deep, perfectly still water it had developed “very delicate, elongated, spindly branches” that looked like abstract sculptures. He found himself wondering, Why aren’t these blue holes better known?
Last November, the answer became clear when he finally made it out to the Pompey Complex to dive the Cockatoo Reef blue hole and two others. A 12-hour boat trip offshore, it’s a treacherous area: huge tides race through the reef channels, and even modern charts mark sections as “Unsurveyed”. Gaskell, 37, had to wait for slack water during a neap tide to thread his tender through Cockatoo Reef to its 220m-wide blue hole, a little oasis of perfect calm. He snapped this shot with a drone.
Such adventures are a far cry from his childhood in central Victoria, studying critters that he’d scoop out of creeks with a jam jar. Next winter he’s planning to visit another, unnamed blue hole hinted at in that 1979 paper — the most remote and mysterious one yet. “Legend has it it’s 70m deep,” he says. What does he expect to find? “Who knows? Big sharks,” he laughs.
SEE also :
- ALARMISTS U-TURN : Scientists Confirm Great Barrier Reef Is Recovering From Bleaching, Again | Climatism
- GREAT BARRIER REEF SCIENTIST : Coral Can Take The Heat, Unlike ‘Experts’ Crying Wolf | Climatism
CONTRARY to popular thinking and clever marketing, there is no “consensus” on the theory of dangerous man-made climate change. Too many variables exist within the climate system to allow for certainty of future scenarios.
THIS doesn’t deter the $2,000,000,000,000 US per year (2 Trillion) Climate Crisis Industry who manufacture catastrophic climate scenarios (pushed far enough into the distant future as to not be held accountable) with a guarantee of climate calamity unless their utopian ‘green’ dreams are realised.
BUOYED by their recent House Congress win in the 2018 mid-term elections, the hard-Left of the American Democrat party, led by pinup-socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have doubled-down on their pet global warming theory, proposing the radically-dystopian climate agenda, a Green New Deal.
FOR all the economic pain and social upheaval that inevitably ensues when draconian climate policy is enacted, it is only fair and reasonable for the taxpayer to ask one simple question about a climate which demands so much of their hard-earned money – “what is broken?”.
THE best way to answer this is to look at the current state of a set of common environmental metrics and analyse their relationship with carbon dioxide – the colourless, odourless, tasteless trace gas at the centre of the supposed “climate crisis”.
CLIMATE CHANGE METRICS
- EXTREME WEATHER (Heatwaves, Cyclones, Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Drought, Floods)
- SEA LEVELS
- POLAR BEARS
- GLOBAL GREENING
- GLOBAL FOOD PRODUCTION
- GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
IN the interests of “cherry-picking”, there are a myriad of environmental metrics that make up the climate system. The examples cited for the purpose of this report are the more common associations picked up by the press and interest groups to facilitate climate change discussion and ‘debate’.
*THE empirical evidence featured in this post is taken from the latest data supplied by government scientific agencies and peer-reviewed studies. Hyper and direct links supplied per sample.
STATE OF ARCTIC SEA-ICE : 2018 SUMMER MINIMUM
ARCTIC SEA-ICE EXTENT (September 2018)
MINIMUM sea-ice extent has been trending up over the past decade. The EXACT opposite of what the press and ‘97% experts’ have been telling you :
ARCTIC SEA-ICE EXTENT TO DATE
ARCTIC sea-ice extent is very close to the 1981-2010 median:
ARCTIC sea-ice extent is essentially unchanged since January 2006:
ARCTIC SEA-ICE VOLUME
THE area of the Arctic covered with thick sea ice has greatly expanded over the past eleven years:
SO far this month, ice volume gain has seen a record high:
AND January 9 Arctic sea ice volume has been increasing for over a decade:
*Support data Via Real Climate Science
MINIMUM sea-ice volume has been rising since 2007:
ARCTIC temperatures correlate almost perfectly with ocean circulation cycles, and show no correlation with atmospheric CO2 levels.
ALARMIST MAINSTREAM MEDIA ARCTIC HYSTERIA
CLIMATE ‘experts’ describe these record large increases in ice as an unprecedented meltdown:
WIND lobbyists say bird deaths are small compared with millions that collide with windows etc. This is a fallacy. The argument ignores affected species. If 50 pigeons fly into windows, it has no effect on population. But, when a breeding Raptor is chopped, it represents a significant loss for the species.
THIS latest study of wind-related predatory bird slaughter will be conveniently buried by ‘environmental’ groups and sycophant mainstream media.
BIAS by omission – the mainstream media’s favourite form of propaganda. Disgraceful.
One issue that annoys RE zealots, like a burr under a frisky pony’s saddle blanket, is the wind industry’s rampant bird and bat slaughter. It’s an inconvenient truth to be sure. But, as with everything that the wind industry does, if you can’t keep a straight face while lying about it any more, then pull out all stops and cover it up.
The wholesale slaughter of millions of birds and bats – includes rare, endangered and majestic species, like America’s iconic bald and golden eagles. The default response from the wind industry is to lie like fury and – when the corpses can no longer be hidden and the lying fails – to issue court proceedings to literally bury those facts (see our post here).
The hackneyed retort from the wind cult is that cars, cats and tall buildings…
View original post 711 more words
“WE need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.“
– Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
The Bolt Report with leading climate scientist Dr Judith Curry :
JUDITH CURRY is one of the world’s leading climate scientists. Unlike our politicians, she doesn’t think there’s much point to slashing emissions:
CLICK for interview link (0:49s) …
“I don’t think that even if we had the political will we could do very much to change the climate. Carbon dioxide is not a control knob for the climate. It has some effect on very long time scales but it is nothing you can really dial up or down on the time scale of a century and change the climate. There’s a lot of natural forces in play here that determine the climate and thinking that we can really control the climate by dialling down the CO2 emissions is really misguided hubris.” – Judith Curry PhD
WHY THEN IS “CARBON DIOXIDE” (or as climate zealots deceitfully label it – “Carbon Pollution”) THE KEY INGREDIENT OF THEORISED MAN-MADE “CLIMATE CHANGE”?
LIKE with all Socialistic edicts, the answer is absolute power and control over you and your lifestyle.
ATMOSPHERIC Physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen, explains :
“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…” – Richard S. Lindzen
“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.” – Richard S. Lindzen
IN a MUST WATCH 5 minutes, Lindzen examines the science, politics and ideology behind the global warming scam, identifying key lobby groups who drive the fear, alarmism and groupthink that dominates debate over objective science and reason.
Prager Uni forward :
Climate change is an urgent topic of discussion among politicians, journalists and celebrities…but what do scientists say about climate change? Does the data validate those who say humans are causing the earth to catastrophically warm? Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world’s leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.