SO, “Carbon Dioxide” is not the evil “pollutant” hysterically demonised by the climate cabal and even enshrined in law, as a “pollutant”, by Obama’s EPA!
The extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, whether produced by humans or nature, is actually growing Earths forests! Shock news.
Another reason other than “carbon pollution (sic)” promoting forest growth, would be the advancements in energy technology, in particular the burning of efficient and energy dense ‘fossil fuels’…
When we’re burning fossil fuels, it means we’re not burning something else and cutting down forests.
The more we burn fossil fuels, the more we can produce fertiliser. That means we use less land to grow food, so we can spare land for forests. So there is net forest increase, particularly in America. New England used to be 70% farmland, it’s now 70% forest. Countries like Bangladesh are growing more forest.
The best example of this is the border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Haiti is almost 99% deforested, as they rely totally on wood for domestic and industrial fuel. On the other side, the forests of the fossil fuel burning, eco-terrorists – the Dominican Republic, remain lush and green…
A new satellite that measures greening of the earth has found that about 20% is getting greener. So the rain forests and forests of the world are getting greener from burning CO2. That happens to be a very unwelcome message for the environmental movement, but it happens to be true.
We’ve spent so long demonising fossil fuels, without objectively assessing the enormous benefits they provide, both for the environment and for the health and wellbeing of society in general.
The cheap, reliable nature of fossil fuels even made it possible to end slavery! Because we use machines instead of people. You either have cheap labour or cheap energy.
Moral of the story, THE greatest threat to the environment is not affluence, it’s poverty…
A new survey using high-definition satellite images has found 378 million additional hectares of forest around the globe—it’s as if all of Earth’s forests just grew by 9%.
(The hectare is an SI accepted metric system unit of area equal to 100 ares (10,000 m²) and primarily used in the measurement of land. An acre is about 0.4047 hectare and one hectare contains about 2.47 acres. I don’t do metric, and assume that some of you don’t either. You can also think of it as an area of forest equal to sixty percent of the size of Australia, if that helps)
“Subsequently their politicians hurriedly put 150 diesel generators in their shed (costing A$11 million per month).”
THIS IS the result of Tasmania’s (job and economy wrecking) push for ‘unreliable’ green-energy sources based on fake global warming scares and climate change hysteria.
Another classic example of how “green” hysteria and global warming policies are doing far more damage than any prophesied weather or climate event could ever do by next century or when the so-called ‘experts’ predict.
Greens and green energy policies – “killing the earth to save it!”
A Diesel in the Shed
14 April 2017
You can have your solar panels
and your turbines on the hills;
You can use the warmth of sunshine
to reduce your heating bills.
You can dream you’re self-sufficient
as you weed your vegie bed;
As long as you make sure to keep
A diesel in the shed.
When I was a kid on a dairy farm in Queensland, we relied on green energy – horses and human muscles provided motive power; fire-wood and beeswax candles supplied heat and light; windmills pumped water and the sun provided solar energy for growing crops, vegies and pastures. The only “non-green” energy used was a bit of kerosene for the kitchen lamp, and petrol for a small Ford utility.
Our life changed dramatically when we put a diesel in the dairy shed. This single-cylinder engine drove the milking machines, the cream…
View original post 573 more words
Yet another fake climate scare fails to materialise. But don’t expect DiCaprio, CNN, BBC, ABC or their chums at Greenpeace and WWF to be celebrating this one. Their guaranteed silence telling.
Polar bear numbers have risen since 2005, no matter how you look at it:
USGS estimated 24,500 (average) polar bears in 2005.
IUCN estimated 26,500 (average of 22,000-31,000) in 2015
(assessment completed in July, released in November).
Subpopulation surveys completed or reported after July 2015 (Baffin Bay, Kane Basin, Barents Sea) added ~2,000 bears.
This brings the adjusted average total at 2015 to ~28,500.
Explained in full in this published paper, pgs 20-21:
Crockford, S.J. 2017 V3. Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus). PeerJ Preprints 2 March 2017. Doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2737v3 Open access. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.2737v3
“Polar bear science got some long overdue scrutiny by a large number of people at this meeting. Not unexpectedly, a good many folks were surprised and outraged to learn how the polar bear/sea ice situation has actually unfolded compared to the predicted outcome and on-going media hype.”
The same can be said for all state-sponsored climate “science” with its litany of alarmist, false, fake and dud-predictions.
Congrats Susan Crockford and thanks for having the guts to tell the scientific truth about Polar Bears while risking personal and professional attacks, smears and slander from the “Climate Industrial Complex.”
I’ve just returned from a few days in Washington DC, where I presented the details on the global warming icon that refused to die as modeled (see my slide #12 below) to an enthusiastic and influential audience at The Heartland Institute‘s 12th International Climate Change Conference (ICCC-12).
Polar bear science got some long overdue scrutiny by a large number of people at this meeting. Not unexpectedly, a good many folks were surprised and outraged to learn how the polar bear/sea ice situation has actually unfolded compared to the predicted outcome and on-going media hype.
I spent more time than I expected giving interviews (several that were video taped) – with the first request coming 2 minutes after I walked into my hotel room after check-in!
I also spent as much time as I’d hoped signing copies of my polar bear science books (see sidebar) and talking…
View original post 137 more words
Yet again, “Climate Change” fingered as the great demon that causes unending planetary horror.
However, it appears its evil byproducts – modelled heat and CO2 – are in fact increasing, not decreasing wheat crop yields in Australia…
“Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences tips record national crop” (Sep 2016)
And their prediction was spot on:
“Australia’s winter grain crop officially a record at 59 million tonnes.” (Feb 2017)
What planet do the CSIRO climate-obsessed, doomsday scenario “scientists” live on?
Sounds to me that they live on the ever-forgiving and lucrative planet of horror-scenario computer models providing endless government (taxpayer funded) “climate” research grants…
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to the Australian CSIRO, “The lines will cross” in 20 years, heralding the end of biotechnology’s ability to improve wheat yields.
Climate change to blame for flatlining wheat yield gains: CSIRO
By Anna Vidot
Updated Thu at 11:59am
Australia’s wheat productivity has flatlined as a direct result of climate change, according to CSIRO research.
While 2016 set a new national wheat harvest record, the national science organisation’s findings indicate that result masks a more troubling long-term trend.
While Australian wheat yields tripled between 1900 and 1990, growth stagnated over the following 25 years.
Zvi Hochman, a senior research scientist with CSIRO Agriculture and Food said the team considered whether other factors could have shared the blame, such as investment in research and development (R&D), changing patterns of land use, and soil fertility.
But those could all be ruled out: investment in grains R&D…
View original post 329 more words
“Climate scientists regularly embarrass themselves with “end of snow” predictions, because they are an inevitable consequence of the “projections” (don’t say predictions) of their runaway climate models.”
Dr David Viner of CRU should have taught the climate catastrophists a lesson or three. Although, that was back in 2000. Short memories them climate “scientists”, perhaps ?!
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
UCLA thinks that by the end of the century, Climate will reduce the Sierra Nevada snowpack by 85%.
Climate change puts California’s snowpack in jeopardy in future droughts
UCLA research shows how warming trends affect the Sierra Nevada now and in the future
Belinda Waymouth | March 09, 2017
Skiing in July? It could happen this year, but California’s days of bountiful snow are numbered.
After five years of drought and water restrictions, the state is reeling from its wettest winter in two decades. Moisture-laden storms have turned brown hillsides a lush green and state reservoirs are overflowing. There’s so much snow, Mammoth Mountain resort plans to be open for business on Fourth of July weekend.
The Sierra Nevada snowpack, which provides 60 percent of the state’s water via a vast network of dams and reservoirs, has already been diminished by human-induced climate change…
View original post 570 more words
From the department of CRU climate expert snow predictions 2000 ❄️…
…..within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. (Dr David Viner, 2000)
From the “California is in a permanent drought due to climate change – because we said so” department comes this good news from NASA, CA DWR, and NOAA
Abundant Snowpack Blankets the Sierra Nevada
March 3, 2017
Snowpack on the Sierra Nevada provides one-third of the water consumed by California citizens, farmers, and businesses each year. For the first time in at least five years, there should be more than enough of it.
According to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), the water stored as snow in the Sierra Nevada range was 185 percent of the long-term average for the beginning of March. One year ago, it was 83 percent of the norm. According to the latest measurements from 98 ground-based stations, the average snow-water equivalent in the mountains was 45.5 inches as of March 1, 2017. Snow-water equivalent is an estimate of how much…
View original post 1,677 more words