The National Climate Assessment claims unambiguous warming globally and in the US since 1880.
They show a very detailed graph and map which expresses the claimed warming.
HOW radical environmentalism self-perpetuates, causing actual harm to people’s livelihoods, their economies and indeed the ‘environment’…
SPOTLIGHT: Late last year, the European Union voted down a ban on glyphosate – a safe, effective weed killer used by farmers around the world. Afterward, Mark Lynas, an environmental journalist, denounced the activists who’d pushed hard for that ban.
BIG PICTURE: We think of environmentalists as selfless, virtuous, avenging angels. But green groups have morphed into multinationalcorporations with enormous budgets. Paying the salaries of all those lawyers and lobbyists requires an ongoing tsunami of financial donations.
Many green groups have morphed into perpetual outrage machines whose campaigns now have little connection to what’s reasonable or sensible. As Lynas declares in his article, “Europe Still Burns Witches,” the activists “were clearly not interested in whether glyphosate was actually harming anyone in the real world.”
Despite “the obvious perversion of both science and natural justice,” he says, they “very nearly got away with it.” In a few years…
View original post 148 more words
“So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems…” Tim Flannery 2007
WHEN the Abbott Government axed the Climate Commission in 2013, in what was its very first act of government, professional alarmist Tim Flannery and his mates immediately created a Climate Council to keep up their propagandising.
IT wasn’t a hard decision for then PM Abbott to make considering the string of outlandish claims made by Flannery and the Commission…
IN what was to be their final report and parting gift to the Australian taxpayer, the Climate Commission’s 2013 “Critical Decade” report, claimed that there is a one-in-two chance that there will be no humans left on the planet by 2100
“There’s a one in two chance that by 2100 there’ll be no human beings left on this planet. The planet will exist, but it’s just that my granddaughter won’t be part of it. And I think that’s a pretty alarming statistic, probability, one in two chance if we don’t correct our behaviours.” – Former Defence Force chief Admiral Chris Barrie releasing the Climate Commission’s 2013 doomist report
SINCE then, the Climate Council has maintained its position as Australia’s premier alarmism generating machine. Every year the level of hysteria increasing faster than global temperatures.
THEIR latest report couched in pseudo-science and alarmism claims that Australia’s $40 billion tourism industry is at risk thanks to your sinful existence…
This morning Tim Flannery & Co [at the Climate Council] must be tickled pink to see how much adverse publicity they have generated [with their report last week], and not merely in the domestic press. From Pakistan to the Caribbean there are stories today about the slow death of the Great Barrier Reef, the intolerable heat allegedly set to afflict the Red Centre and how big chunks of Hobart will be swallowed by the heat-swollen waters of the Great Southern Ocean.
That there are casualties and collateral damage as a consequence of one organisation’s blinkered determination to promote itself and its allies’ climate cause should not need to be stated…
[T]here were no reassuring words from Queensland Tourism Minister Kate Jones… So how did the tourism minister react to the Climate Council’s codswallop and bleak appraisal of tourism’s future? Why, God help us, she endorsed it!….
That impression that North Queensland (and the Centre and Hobart, too) are not worth a visit would be hard to avoid in light of the Reef-is-dying coverage the Climate Council orchestrated. Below, a collection of international headlines and snippets re-broadcasting word of the Reef’s impending demise:
Australian Tourism Industry Under Climate Change Threat
Climate change threatens Aussie tourism
Australia tourism industry under climate change threat – study
Why are coral reefs important and why are they dying?
Tourism is the Australian industry least prepared for climate change, report says
Climate change to cripple Australian tourism industry: report
Australia tourism industry under climate change threat, study warns
Aussie tourism hotspots threatened by climate change
Australia’s popular tourist destinations are in the climate firing line: report
All in all, not a bad day’s damage for the Climate Council to inflict on an innocent industry.
THIS latest episode of climate alarmism churned out of Flannery’s panic-factory, based solely on the ‘evidence’ of broken and overheated UN IPCC computer models further trashes Australia’s international reputation, directly affecting the crucial tourist industry and the livelihoods of the good people who are employed within it.
MORE evidence that climate alarmism has cost far more than any slight global warming ever could!
AT risk, an estimated 10,000 jobs. How many more are at risk now?
WHO will be made accountable or held responsible for the exaggeration of data and wreckless alarmism? No one, of course. Because again, the worst any climate change alarmist can ever be accused of is an excess of “Save the planet” virtue.
See more Flannery :
“FEW things are so deadly as a misguided sense of compassion.” – Charles Colson
“THE road to hell is paved with good intentions.” – Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1090 – 1153)
WE all want to be good stewards of the environment. However, in the era of “Save The Planet” virtue-signalling, the need for deeds may, in fact, be doing more harm than good, to you and Mother Nature!
THE “10 Problems With The Green Agenda” remind us that noble intentions are often misguided leading to undesired environmental outcomes and frequent misallocation of public resources with little regard for accountability and budget constraints.
If the road to hell is paved with good intentions then the road to climategeddon must be paved with pages from the green agenda. For the past couple of decades, armchair environmentalists and image-conscious politicians have been pushing through planet-saving initiatives that are often anything but. Initiatives like:
10. Carbon Offsetting
Let’s say you’re environmentally-conscious but need to fly. Enter carbon offsetting: for the price of a coffee you can pay some third world farmer to quit burning coal, or some company to plant enough trees to cancel out the emissions from your trip.
If it sounds too good to be true, that’s because it is. The whole practice of carbon offsetting is so fundamentally flawed that eco-writer George Monbiot compared it to pushing food around your plate “to create the impression you have eaten it.” The numbers simply don’t add up: if we in the West decided to offset even fifty percent of our emissions targets, developing nations would have to magically start emitting negative amounts of carbon. Commercial offsetting is no better; investigations routinely find companies fudging their figures, or outright lying. With no industry standard, there’s nothing to measure improvements against; meaning companies can claim whatever they like.
9. Organic Food
Organic foods are routinely billed as environmentally friendly and chemical free; despite being neither. All the nasty stuff we use in agriculture was developed to solve efficiency problems; take it away and you’re back to square one. A liter of organic milk, for example, can require up to eighty percent more land to produce than regular milk. This means deforestation, destruction of habitats and other things you don’t associate with organic. But wait, it gets worse: multiple studies have found high levels of pesticide in supposedly-organic food; while researchers have concluded eating it is no healthier and its production may lead to increased pollution. The chasm between what we expect and what we get from organic food has gotten so wide even die hard Greens have dropped it in favor of local and sustainable.
If you’re in possession of a Y chromosome, you’ve probably experienced the waterless urinals in McDonald’s. Insofar as you were thinking about such things, they maybe even seemed like a good idea; after all, saving that much water must be a good thing, right?
Well, not if you want to work without the constant stench of urine. Turns out stagnant pee doesn’t react well with copper piping; and by that we mean it chews right through. Chicago City Hall wound up decommissioning their waterless urinals after that exact situation led to waste flooding the toilets. But what about day-to-day conservation, like in your home? Yeah, maybe—if your neighbors are flushing nonstop. In Germany people have gotten so good at keeping water usage down their sewers are getting backed up, forcing the utility companies to blast insane amounts of water through just to keep them working. As a result, water rates are skyrocketing—while little to no benefit is provided to the environment.
According to one green group, a single town with below-average insulation can waste as much energy in a year as the BP oil spill. By my maths, that’s something like the equivalent of a bazillion oil spills happening annually. No wonder governments are subsidizing home insulation.
Which is great, so long as people buy the right type. See, skinning cats and insulating houses have one thing in common: there’s no one way to do it. Some methods, such as mineral wool or denim, are super-green—others, involving blown hydrofluorocarbons, are like punching Mother Nature in the face. It’s estimated this poisonous junk has a global warming potential nearly 1,500 times that of carbon dioxide, meaning it’ll take roughly ten lifetimes to settle your environmental debt. Even worse, as demand for insulation grows, so does production, leading to more pollution and so on and so on until Armageddon.
6. Wind Turbines
As anyone who’s ever lived below an RnB-obsessed neighbor knows, hearing stuff you don’t want to hear can be irritating as hell. Same applies to wind turbines.
To date no study has found a correlation between turbines and physical illness, though there may be an interesting mental one. According to that link, while people living near community-owned turbines rarely report health problems, people who have had them forced on their village often do. Complaints often focus on the low-level humming noise and shadow flickera sun-blocking side effect officially classed as an annoyance, but probably enough to send most of us into a blind murderous rage. Obviously they could just start building these turbines further away or go the Denmark route and give local people a stake in them, but that’s probably too much to ask.
Okay Science, now you’re just screwing with us. Regular cars are like environmental cyanide, how can electric ones possibly be worse?
It depends where in the world you are. As a Norwegian study pointed out, there’s no benefit to driving a car powered by electricity from a coal-firing power station. If your town happens to be on an old fashioned grid, all you’re doing by hopping in your losermobile is letting the world know you don’t understand science. As an extra kicker, the manufacturing process for green vehicles is more polluting than your average gas-guzzler, and will remain so until market pressure speeds up technological breakthroughs. At the current rate you can probably expect that to happen sometime after the last trumpet.
The Biofuel cause has been on the wane for a few years now, but that didn’t stop Germany from attempting to make the switch in 2010. By bringing E10 to the pumps at 10 cents a liter cheaper than petrol, the government were hoping to boost the country’s already impressive green credentials. You can probably guess where this is going.
The opposite happened: a joint study by nine European environmental groups found large-scale biofuel development had led to deforestation and a lack of farming land in South America, increasing the risk of famine. But it’s not just E10, for years now environmental groups have opposed biofuels, arguing that their development wastes water and causes pollution. Yet the government keep on giving out subsidies, because apparently Obama hates petroleum and the environment.
3. Energy Efficient Light Bulbs
Remember that story about a woman having to call in a hazmat team to clean up a broken CFL light bulb? Pretty dumb right, it’s not like there’s enough mercury in there to cause harm, is there?
There is if you’re involved in the production side. In Jinzhou, China, one manufacturer tested their workers and found 121 out of 123 were suffering from mercury poisoning, with one employee’s levels being 150 times the acceptable amount. Another factory was required to hospitalize sixty-eight of seventy-two workers, while the reopening of decommissioned mercury mines has led to entire regions being decimated. So what’s fueling this sudden boom in toxic substances? Demand from Britain and the EU, where we’re apparently determined to go green at the cost of every single other nation on the planet.
Now I’m not saying recycling is a bad idea; just that its delivery is far from perfect. See, as a global business, recycling is focused not on the environment but making money. This can lead to some weird ecological side-effects: for example, if domestic demand for recycled produce drops, suppliers will ship it halfway across the world to unload it, carbon footprint be damned. Likewise, recyclable materials are routinely discarded for no reason other than aesthetics. Take PVC—when melted it goes a funky brown color most consumers would avoid like Bronie slash fiction, so centers simply burn it.
Then there’s our own ignorance. Most of us have no idea what plastics our city recycles. We just chuck it all in the recycling bin, a move likely to lead to energy-wasting hold ups at the plant and the stuff just getting burnt anyway.
1. Forgoing the Scientific Method
Imagine you work in a field where the future of the planet may be in your hands. Most of the smartest minds on Earth agree with you, governments are starting to pay attention and even the skeptical public are coming round to your way of thinking. What’s the one thing you wouldn’t do?
How about sabotage the scientific method? In 2009 a leaked cache of emails briefly made the world sit up and question the validity of climate research. While the falsified data claims were quickly disproven, the essential idiocy of those involved is pretty much inarguable. Rather than relying on peer reviewing to weed out shoddy research, some of the researchers at the CRU at UEA had apparently used their position to censor, silence debate and generally act like they had something to hide. The resulting storm completely destabilized public support for their research and made a mockery of their claim to scientific impartiality. That’s not so much shooting yourself in the foot as blasting it off with a howitzer.
PLEASE donate to Climatism to help keep the good fight alive!
See also :
AS the old saying goes “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants“. One man who has been tireless and paid-less (sic) in the pursuit of exposing the blatant and unequivocal global temperature data fraud, executed by taxpayer funded government scientific agencies worldwide, has been Tony Heller aka Steve Goddard.
THERE are literally thousands upon thousands of mind-blowing examples of temperature data manipulation/fraud carried out in-plain-sight by climate activist agencies namely – NOAA, NASA, BoM, Met Office UK – who happen to be the literal gate-keepers of global temperature. They do this simply to make you believe that the climate is warming catastrophically thanks to your carbon dioxide (energy) emissions.
THE blink giff included in this post is really all one needs to know about how climate scientists literally “change the data to fit the theory” – a quote linked to Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukacs in his ‘Tactics and Ethics’ (1923) though often associated with Albert Einstein as a non-literal quip.
OTHER than driving the climate scare and maintaining taxpayer funding to the tune of $Trillions worldwide, hysterical claims of the “hottest year, month, day ever” tell us far more about
global warming climate change marketing than they do about actual ‘science’.
Via Tony Heller’s “The Deplorable Climate Science Blog“ :
The National Climate Assessment claims unambiguous warming globally and in the US since 1880.
They show a very detailed graph and map which expresses the claimed warming.
All that red looks pretty scary. Red is the color of fire, and it isn’t hard to convince some people that their carbon sins will lead to hell fire.
What they aren’t telling is that their graph and map are fake. They have no idea what global temperatures were in 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940, or in fact the present, because outside of the US there is very little verifiable data.
As late as 1940, there was almost no daily coverage of South America or Africa.
NOAA’s current data in Africa and much of the rest of the world is still fake. They make up record temperatures in countries where they have no thermometer data.
By their own admission, the ocean data is also fake.
date: Wed Apr 15 14:29:03 2009
from: Phil Jones <email@example.com> subject: Re: Fwd: Re: contribution to RealClimate.org
to: Thomas Crowley <firstname.lastname@example.org>
The issue Ray alludes to is that in addition to the issue
of many more drifters providing measurements over the last
5-10 years, the measurements are coming in from places where
we didn’t have much ship data in the past. For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there.
The only location on Earth with good long term daily temperature data in the US.
Before NOAA tampers with their data, the US shows no warming over the past century.
The lack of US warming wrecks global warming theory, so NOAA and NASA tamper with their own data to create fake warming.
The frequency and coverage of hot weather has plummeted in the US over the past century. The US isn’t getting hotter – afternoons are getting cooler.
The US temperature data is tampered with by NOAA in a massive hockey stick.
Which is designed to bring the data precisely in line with CO2 theory.
NOAA knows perfectly well that the US is not warming.
US and global temperatures are constantly being tampered with to cool the past and warm the present.
US tampering :
Global tampering :
All of the claims in the National Climate Assessment about global warming are unsupportable junk science, made largely with fraudulent or imaginary data. Global warming is the biggest scam in science history. It has been thoroughly corrupted by tens of billions of dollars of government money – which fake climate scientists refuse to let go of.
The only thing global and unambiguous in the National Climate Assessment, is the level of junk science and fraud it represents.
NASA / NOAA Data Fraud Related :
Iowa Climate Change
A digest of current thoughts
Uncomfortable Truth About Climate Change
Truth, beauty and laughter.
North Queensland People Power News Service
Just another WordPress.com weblog
Christianity is the root of freedom
What do we really know about science and what is just modern mythology?
How bad knowledge contaminates good data
Climate science is sophistry...i.e., BS.
Nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri (be sceptical of the experts)
A fine WordPress.com site
Relevant News in one place
Climate change is primarily a natural phenomenon!
What's hot, what's not