GLOBAL WARMING Alarmists – The Real “Science” Deniers

Paul Bongiorno.jpg

Image: Paul Bongiorno, RN ABC Breakfast Political Commentator (ABC RN/Elliot Dunn)

“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 Russell

A STARK lesson in climate facts and data Vs ABC groupthink eco-ideology via “denier” numero uno – Andrew Bolt of The Herald Sun.

MAKE your own mind up. Who really are the real “science deniers”, the sceptics or the “save the planet” virtue-signalling, eco-zealots? …

PAUL BONGIORNO, THE REAL DENIER

The real “deniers” are generally not the global warming sceptics but the extremists who denounce them. Take ABC commentator Paul Bongiorno, who today denied the science in attacking Tony Abbott’s speech in London overnight.

Tony Abbott:

In most countries, far more people die in cold snaps than in heat waves, so a gradual lift in global temperatures, especially if it’s accompanied by more prosperity and more capacity to adapt to change, might even be beneficial.

ABC presenter Fran Kelly on ABC Radio Breakfast quoted this at Paul Bongiorno this morning. His response:

This just flies in the face of contemporary science.

Actually, it’s warmist Paul himself who flies in the face of science.

Cold weather is 20 times as deadly as hot weather... The study — published in the British journal The Lancet — analyzed data on more than 74 million deaths in 13 countries between 1985 and 2012. Of those, 5.4 million deaths were related to cold, while 311,000 were related to heat.

Same story in Australia:

A new study published in The Lancet shows 6.5% of deaths in this country are attributed to cold weather, compared with 0.5% from hot weather. Most deaths will be from cardiovascular and respiratory disease, as it’s the heart and lungs that struggle when we are outside our comfort zone.

And global warming policies of the kind Bongiorno supports will make the dying worse by making electricity too expensive for the poor:

The situation has become so dire that 77 per cent of low-income NSW households are going without heating in a bid to reduce their onerous power bills, new research from the NSW Council of Social Service (NCOSS) shows. And one in three low-income earners have been forced to stop using hot water for bathing to pay for energy bills.

Then there’s the increased crops we’re getting as the world (mildly) warms.

February:

Australia’s winter grain harvest is now officially the largest for every single mainland state.

Last week:

The latest indications for the current season point to record cereal production in 2017 at the world level with total inventories hitting a new peak.

World crops.jpeg

World cereal crops

It’s the invincible ignorance of Bongiorno that staggers me. Confronted with facts that challenge his ideology he instinctively denies them, and, indeed, went on to insult Abbott as someone he falsely claimed had said he couldn’t be believed unless he’d written it down (which, incidentally, Abbott had actually done in this case).

And what of Fran Kelly? She fancies herself as someone who is pretty well informed on global warming, which she, too, spruiks.

But to Bongiorno’s false claims she offered not a word of demurral.

UPDATE

Astonishingly, the Fairfax reporter is also astonished by Abbott’s claim, finding it so remarkable that she leads her report with it:

Tony Abbott says voters should beware the science of climate change but argues that higher temperatures “might even be beneficial” because “far more people die in cold snaps”.

Lancet reports that more people die in the cold than the heat and Fairfax doesn’t blink. But when Abbott says it Fairfax faints.

PAUL BONGIORNO, THE REAL DENIER | Herald Sun

•••

Climatism Related Hot Links :

Advertisements

CLIMATE Ambulance Chaser – Peter Hannam – Blames Houston’s Residents For Harvey!

FAILING Fairfax Media’s resident climate change catastrophist Peter Hannam is officially off his meds, blaming Houston’s residents for the weather!

HANNAM couldn’t even wait for Harvey and the flooding to subside, for residents to find dry land, before slapping them around as the “self-styled “world capital of the oil and gas industry”” – brutishly and falsely linking the fossil fuel industry to extreme weather events.

MEMO to Peter : There is NO evidence that the use of fossil fuels has had any effect on “extreme weather”. In fact, even the alarmist UN IPCC begrudgingly admitted in their last climate report (AR5) a level of “low confidence” that human greenhouse gas emissions have had any effect on extreme weather events.

IN the IPCC’s own words from their SREX report : “We Do Not Know If The Climate Is Becoming More Extreme”.

FURTHERMORE, Hurricane Harvey that made landfall in Texas as a category four, ended America’s record 4,324 day major hurricane drought.

BUT, climate facts like these don’t seem to sit well for the alarmist ‘journalists’ over at Fairfax…the one’s that still remain!

PETER, if you’d even bothered to google ‘Galveston Hurricane‘ before perversely smearing and sliming Texan residents, you might have found this piece of perspective via wikipedia:

Screen Shot 2017-08-29 at , August 29, 12.37.55 PM

On September 8, 1900, a Category 4 hurricane ripped through Galveston, Texas, killing an estimated 6,000 to 8,000 people. It is still North America’s worst natural disaster ever recorded.

 

HOW developed were the Texan oil fields 117 years ago, Peter?

 

See also : EXTREME WEATHER Expert: “World Is Presently In An Era Of Unusually Low Weather Disasters” | Climatism

*

More via Herald Sun’s Andrew Bolt :

Sydney Morning Herald alarmist Peter Hannan stoops to a new low as floods hit Houston.

He treats weather as climate.

He ignores evidence that cyclones have actually got fewer over the past decades.

And he then blames the victims:

Yes, Houston, you do have a problem, and – as insensitive as it seems to bring it up just now – some of it is your own making…

Houston is facing worsening historic flooding in the coming days as Tropical Storm Harvey dumps rain on the city, swelling rivers to record levels.

But, as the self-styled “world capital of the oil and gas industry”, there’s a connection between rising global greenhouse gas levels and the extreme weather now being inflicted that some of your residents have understood for decades and had a hand in.

To see how deceitful this is, note these conclusions from the latest report on global warming by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Note also that the IPCC is alarmist, prone to exaggeration, yet is forced to admit:

In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale…

In summary, this assessment does not revise the SREX conclusion of low confidence that any reported long-term (centennial) increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust… In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low… Over periods of a century or more, evidence suggests slight decreases in the frequency of tropical cyclones making landfall in the North Atlantic and the South Pacific, once uncertainties in observing methods have been considered…

Callaghan and Power (2011) find a statistically significant decrease in Eastern Australia land-falling tropical cyclones since the late 19th century…

Changes in extremes for other climate variables are generally less coherent than those observed for temperature… Analyses of land areas with sufficient data indicate increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation events in recent decades, but results vary strongly between regions and seasons. For instance, evidence is most compelling for increases in heavy precipitation in North America, Central America and Europe, but in some other regions—such as southern Australia and western Asia—there is evidence of decreases.

So there have actually been fewer cyclones or tropical storms like Harvey and little evidence of more floods. Yet Hannan seizes on one of the floods to regularly batter the US gulf coast and insists it’s caused by global warming.

What a snake oil salesman.

One of the world’s top climate scientists, Dr Roy Spencer, explains what Hannan won’t – that this cyclone was not the worst, the floods are not the highest, the deaths are not the greatest and the cause is not man-made:

The flood disaster unfolding in Houston is certainly very unusual. But so are other natural weather disasters, which have always occurred and always will occur…

Major floods are difficult to compare throughout history because the ways in which we alter the landscape. For example, as cities like Houston expand over the years, soil is covered up by roads, parking lots, and buildings, with water rapidly draining off rather than soaking into the soil. The population of Houston is now ten times what it was in the 1920s. The Houston metroplex area has expanded greatly and the water drainage is basically in the direction of downtown Houston.

There have been many flood disasters in the Houston area, even dating to the mid-1800s when the population was very low. In December of 1935 a massive flood occurred in the downtown area as the water level height measured at Buffalo Bayou in Houston topped out at 54.4 feet… By way of comparison, as of 6:30 a.m. this (Monday) morning, the water level in the same location is at 38 feet, which is still 16 feet lower than in 1935. I’m sure that will continue to rise.

Are the rainfall totals unprecedented?

Even that question is difficult to answer. The exact same tropical system moving at, say, 15 mph might have produced the same total amount of rain, but it would have been spread over a wide area, maybe many states, with no flooding disaster. This is usually what happens with landfalling hurricanes.

Instead, Harvey stalled after it came ashore and so all of the rain has been concentrated in a relatively small portion of Texas around the Houston area. In both cases, the atmosphere produced the same amount of rain, but where the rain lands is very different. People like those in the Houston area don’t want all of the rain to land on them.

There is no aspect of global warming theory that says rain systems are going to be moving slower, as we are seeing in Texas. This is just the luck of the draw. Sometimes weather systems stall, and that sucks if you are caught under one. The same is true of high pressure areas; when they stall, a drought results.

Even with the system stalling, the greatest multi-day rainfall total as of 3 9 a.m. this Monday morning is just over 30 39.7 inches, with many locations recording over 20 inches. We should recall that Tropical Storm Claudette in 1979 (a much smaller and weaker system than Harvey) produced a 43 inch rainfall total in only 24 hours in Houston.

Was Harvey unprecedented in intensity?

In this case, we didn’t have just a tropical storm like Claudette, but a major hurricane, which covered a much larger area with heavy rain. Roger Pielke Jr. has pointed out that the U.S. has had only four Category 4 (or stronger) hurricane strikes since 1970, but in about the same number of years preceding 1970 there were 14 strikes. So we can’t say that we are experiencing more intense hurricanes in recent decades.

Going back even earlier, a Category 4 hurricane struck Galveston in 1900, killing between 6,000 and 12,000 people. That was the greatest natural disaster in U.S. history.

And don’t forget, we just went through an unprecedented length of time – almost 12 years – without a major hurricane (Cat 3 or stronger) making landfall in the U.S.

So what makes this event unprecedented?

The National Weather Service has termed the event unfolding in the Houston area as unprecedented. I’m not sure why. I suspect in terms of damage and number of people affected, that will be the case. But the primary reason won’t be because this was an unprecedented meteorological event.

If we are talking about the 100 years or so that we have rainfall records, then it might be that southeast Texas hasn’t seen this much total rain fall over a fairly wide area. At this point it doesn’t look like any rain gage locations will break the record for total 24 hour rainfall in Texas, or possibly even for storm total rainfall, but to have so large an area having over 20 inches is very unusual…

Bill Read, a former director of the National Hurricane Center was asked by a CNN news anchor whether he thought that Harvey was made worse because of global warming. Read’s response was basically, No.

But Peter Hannan, paid alarmist, says yes, yes, yes.

•••

Harvey Related :

Extreme Weather Related :

Failing Fairfax Media Related :


LIFE In A Fossil-Fuel-Free Utopia

before_after_fossil_fuels.png

ANOTHER must read Paul Driessen masterpiece.

Worth an intro with a few notable comments from posting at WUWT

“Loved reading this, pure common sense and reality. Thank you for posting the truth! These enviro-nutters are dangerous.” (John on August 13, 2017 at 10:08 am)

*

“I have to agree, an excellent article. Too bad it won’t get to those who need to read it. Too bad they wouldn’t read it even if it were available to them.” (Rhoda R on August 13, 2017 at 10:21 am)

*

“Our cargo cult’s easy access to…everything

Notice there’s only two types worried about global warming…

The ones that get paid..
…and the ones in affluent societies that have the leisure time to think about it

Global warming it a product of affluent societies” (Latitude on August 13, 2017 at 10:36 am)

*

The belief that Gorebal Warming is an existential threat, requiring urgent action is the product of a dumbed-down education system.

The belief that fossil fuels and nuclear power can be replaced by “renewable energy” is the product of a “participation trophy” society.

The belief that the world can painlessly transition away from fossil fuels is the product of an affluent society.

It’s a combination of STEM ignorance, a sense of entitlement and affluence.” (David Middleton on August 13, 2017 at 10:57 am

*

Why don’t they advertise a hunter-gatherer lifestyle?” (Curious George on August 13, 2017 at 1:10 pm)

 

•••

Foreword via Anthony Watts @ WUWT:

The drumbeat for a fossil-fuel-free energy utopia continues. But few have pondered how we will supposedly generate 25 billion megawatts of total current global electricity demand using just renewable energy: wind turbines, for instance. For starters, we’re talking about some 830 million gigantic 500-foot-tall turbines – requiring a land area of some 12.5 billion acres. That’s more than twice the size of North America, all the way through Central America.

But where it really gets interesting is what life would actually be like in a totally renewable electricity world. Think back to Colonial Williamsburg – the good old days. The way they really were. Not the make-believe, idyllic version of history they teach in school these days. Read on, to take a journey to the nirvana of the “stabilized climate” future.

*

Life in fossil-fuel-free utopia

Life without oil, natural gas and coal would most likely be nasty, brutish, and short

Via CFACT

Al Gore’s new movie, a New York Times article on the final Obama Era “manmade climate disaster” report, and a piece saying wrathful people 12 years from now will hang hundreds of “climate deniers” are a tiny sample of Climate Hysteria and Anti-Trump Resistance rising to a crescendo. If we don’t end our evil fossil-fuel-burning lifestyles and go 100% renewable Right Now, we are doomed, they rail.

Maybe it’s our educational system, our cargo cult’s easy access to food and technology far from farms, mines, and factories, or the end-of-days propaganda constantly pounded into our heads. Whatever the reason, far too many people have a pitiful grasp of reality: natural climate fluctuations throughout Earth history; the intricate, often fragile sources of things we take for granted; and what life would really be like in the utopian fossil-fuel-free future they dream of. Let’s take a short journey into that idyllic realm.

Suppose we generate just the 25 billion megawatt-hours (MWh) of today’s total global electricity consumption using wind turbines. (That’s not total energy consumption, and it doesn’t include what we’d need to charge a billion electric vehicles.) We’d need more than 830 million gigantic 3-MW turbines!

Spacing them at just 15 acres per turbine would require 12.5 billion acres! That’s twice the land area of North America! All those whirling blades would virtually exterminate raptors, other birds, and bats. Rodent and insect populations would soar. Add in transmission lines, solar panels, and biofuel plantations to meet the rest of the world’s energy demands – and the mostly illegal tree cutting for firewood to heat poor families’ homes – and huge swaths of our remaining forest and grassland habitats would disappear.

The renewable future assumes these “eco-friendly alternatives” would provide reliable, affordable energy 24/7/365, even during windless, sunless weeks and cold, dry growing seasons. They never will, of course. That means we will have electricity and fuels when nature cooperates, instead of when we need it.

With backup power plants gone, constantly on-and-off electricity will make it impossible to operate assembly lines, use the internet, do an MRI or surgery, enjoy favorite TV shows, or even cook dinner. Refrigerators and freezers would conk out for hours or days at a time. Medicines and foods would spoil.

Petrochemical feed stocks would be gone – so we wouldn’t have paints, plastics, synthetic fibers, or pharmaceuticals, except what can be obtained at great expense from weather-dependent biodiesel. Kiss your cotton-polyester-lycra leggings and yoga pants good-bye.

But of course all that is really not likely to happen. It would actually be far worse.

First of all, there wouldn’t even be any wind turbines or solar panels. Without fossil fuels – or far more nuclear and hydroelectric plants, which rabid environmentalists also despise – we couldn’t mine the needed ores, process and smelt them, build and operate foundries, factories, refineries, or cement kilns, or manufacture and assemble turbines and panels. We couldn’t even make machinery to put in factories.

Wind turbines, solar panels, and solar thermal installations cannot produce consistently high enough heat to smelt ores and forge metals. They cannot generate power on a reliable enough basis to operate facilities that make modern technologies possible. They cannot provide the power required to manufacture turbines, panels, batteries or transmission lines – much less power civilization.

My grandmother used to tell me, “The only good thing about the good old days is that they’re gone.” Well, they’d be back, as the USA is de-carbonized, de-industrialized, and de-developed.

Ponder America and Europe before coal fueled the modern industrial age. Recall what we were able to do back then, what lives were like, how long people lived. Visit Colonial Williamsburg and Claude Moore Colonial Farm in Virginia, or similar places in your state. Explore rural Africa and India.

Imagine living that way, every day: pulling water from wells, working the fields with your hoe and ox-pulled plow, spinning cotton thread and weaving on looms, relying on whatever metal tools your local blacksmith shop can produce. When the sun goes down, your lives will largely shut down.

Think back to amazing construction projects of ancient Egypt, Greece, or Rome – or even 18th century London, Paris, or New York. Ponder how they were built, how many people it took, how they obtained and moved the raw materials. Imagine being part of those wondrous enterprises, from sunup to sundown.

The good news is that there will be millions of new jobs. The bad news is that they’d involve mostly backbreaking labor with picks and shovels, for a buck an hour. Low-skill, low-productivity jobs just don’t pay all that well. Maybe to create even more jobs, the government will issue spoons, instead of shovels.

That will be your life, not reading, watching TV and YouTube, or playing video games. Heck, there won’t even be any televisions or cell phones. Drugs and alcohol will be much harder to come by, too. (No more opioid crisis.) Water wheels and wind mills will be back in fashion. All-natural power, not all the time.

There’ll be no paved streets – unless armies of low-skill workers pound rocks into gravel, mine and grind limestone, shale, bauxite, and sand for cement, and make charcoal for lime kilns. Homes will revert to what can be built with preindustrial technologies, with no central heat and definitely no AC.

Ah, but you folks promoting the idyllic renewable energy future will still be the ruling elites. You’ll get to live better than the rest of us, enjoy lives of reading and leisure, telling us commoners how we must live. Don’t bet on it. Don’t even bet on having the stamina to read after a long day with your shovel or spoon.

As society and especially big urban areas collapse into chaos, it will be survival of the fittest. And that group likely won’t include too many Handgun Control and Gun Free Zone devotees.

But at least your climate will be stable and serene – or so you suppose. You won’t have any more extreme weather events. Sea levels will stay right where they are today: 400 feet higher than when a warming planet melted the last mile-thick glaciers that covered half the Northern Hemisphere 12,000 years ago.

At least it will be stable and serene until those solar, cosmic ray, ocean currents, and other pesky, powerful natural forces decide to mess around with Planet Earth again.

Of course, many countries won’t be as stupid as the self-righteous utopian nations. They will still use fossil fuels, plus nuclear and hydroelectric, and watch while you roll backward toward the “good old days.” Those that don’t swoop in to conquer and plunder may even send us food, clothing, and monetary aid (most of which will end up with ruling elites and their families, friends, cronies, and private armies).

So how about this as a better option?

Stop obsessing over “dangerous manmade climate change.” Focus on what really threatens our planet and its people: North Korea, Iran, Islamist terrorism – and rampant poverty, disease, malnutrition, and early death among the billions who still do not have access to electricity and the living standards it brings.

Worry less about manmade climate cataclysms – and more about cataclysms caused by policies promoted in the name of controlling Earth’s climate, when they really end up controlling our lives.

Don’t force-feed us with today’s substandard, subsidized, pseudo-sustainable, pseudo-renewable energy systems. When better, more efficient, more practical energy technologies are developed, they will replace fossil fuels. Until then, we would be crazy to go down the primrose path to renewable energy utopia.

About the Author: Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for CFACT and author of Cracking Big Green and Eco-Imperialism: Green Power – Black Death.

Related :

•••

CLIMATE CHANGE sense and reason via Paul Driessen :

MUST read Driessen :

MORE excellent Driessen :

 


AL GORE Confirms : Global Warming Is A Religion

Saint-Gore.jpg

Pic source : Climate conversion? Al Gore: ‘I could become a Catholic because of this Pope’ | Climate Depot

Via Andrew Bolt – Herald Sun

I’ve warned that global warming is a religion, with little to do with reason.

Now warming preacher Al Gore confirms it:

Father John Rausch: As a priest living in central Appalachia, I’ve come to – I’ve come to realise that the climate crisis, I believe, is a crisis in spirituality.

Al Gore: The way we live our lives is definitely connected to this. It is – it’s not a political issue. It is a moral and spiritual issue and thank you for bringing that up.

This explains so much: the hatred of sceptics; the persecution of sceptics as heretics; the resistance to reason; the end-of-days apocalyptic rhetoric; the demand for purely symbolic sacrifices; the disdain for evidence showing little warming and no added catastrophes.

•••

UPDATE

Al Gore’s swimming pool uses the same electricity as six US homes

via Jo Nova

The National Center for Public Policy Research released a report that tells us Al Gore’s swimming pool uses the same electricity as six average US homes. In kilowatt hours, his house draws a total annual load equivalent to 21 homes — averages 19,241 kWh per month. He probably lives alone now that Tipper and the kids have moved out. This is after he paid $60,000 to add solar panels which provide about 5% of his domestic electricity (Why doesn’t he just go solar, that’d be only $720k, plus batteries).

He owns two other homes.

I would never use this as an ad hom argument to say that man-made global warming crisis is wildly exaggerated (there are plenty of other reasons to say that). Obviously poor Al needs to use more electricity than most people so he can swim in between flights, because he is constantly being attacked in articles like this one:

How Al Gore Fooled The World Into Paying For His Giant Carbon Footprint

 …The real reason Al Gore wants you to read his books and go see his movies and even see his lectures isn’t because he is trying to save the Earth from global warming and climate change, but because he’s invested in products that will be successful as long as people are convinced by the climate change scare tactics.

He quotes Andrew Follett in the Daily Caller:

The former vice president’s global warming activism has helped increase his net worth from $700,000 in 2000 to an estimated net worth of $172.5 million by 2015. Gore and the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management made nearly $218 million in profits between 2008 and 2011 from a carbon trading company they co-founded. By 2008, Gore was able to put a whopping $35 million into hedge funds and other investments.

Gore also has a remarkable record of investing in companies right before they get huge grants from the government.

Obviously Gore believes the planet is in a crisis and is doing his best to save it.

From the report:

In powering his home, Gore still greatly outpaces most Americans in energy consumption. The findings were shocking:

• The past year, Gore’s home energy use averaged 19,241 kilowatt hours (kWh) every month, compared to the U.S. household average of 901 kWh per month.3,4
• Gore guzzles more electricity in one year than the average American family uses in 21 years.5
• In September of 2016, Gore’s home consumed 30,993 kWh in just one month – as much energy as a typical American family burns in 34 months.
• During the last 12 months, Gore devoured 66,159 kWh of electricity just heating his pool. That is enough energy to power six average U.S. households for a year.
• From August 2016 through July 2017, Gore spent almost $22,000 on electricity bills.6
• Gore paid an estimated $60,000 to install 33 solar panels. Those solar panels produce an average of 1,092 kWh per month, only 5.7% of Gore’s typical monthly energy consumption.

MUST See also : AL GORE GASSES ON AT HOME | Herald Sun

Saint Gore Related :


Daily Telegraph: There is No Such Thing as Affordable Renewable Energy

“The biggest deniers in the whole climate change debate are those who think we can have affordable power, lower emissions and a reliable network.”

Peta Credlin for PM! Spot-on, again.

Watts Up With That?

EAPI represents the average commodity price of retail electricity paid by Australian businesses based on a Standard Retail Contract (commences in 6-months and operates for 2½ years). EAPI represents the average commodity price of retail electricity paid by Australian businesses based on a Standard Retail Contract (commences in 6-months and operates for 2½ years). Source Energy Action

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Awareness is slowly permeating through the media that renewables inevitably lead to higher electricity prices – and that the Australian energy grid is in deep trouble. But this awareness is too little, too late, to save what is left of what was once one of the cheapest electricity grids in the world.

Climate change zealots need to get real

Peta CredlinJune 18, 2017 12:00am

WELL, now we know.

The biggest deniers in the whole climate change debate are those who think we can have affordable power, lower emissions and a reliable network.

We can’t.

And after they almost sleepwalked their way to defeat at the last election, it would appear Coalition MPs have found their…

View original post 509 more words


Homogenization of Temperature Data By the Bureau of Meteorology

“None of these organizations will say or explain what they are doing or are being vague when asked. Raw data is being removed from public scrutiny and no one knows if it is actually being destroyed. Officially they are providing no scientific basis for making these adjustments.”

“Once you start introducing reasons to make adjustments then it becomes too easy to use them as an excuse to adjust everything to suit a purpose. It becomes easy to allow for political interference. Political interference should be impossible.”

Welcome to the political, pseudoscientific world “man-made” global warming…

Watts Up With That?

Guest essay by Brendan Godwin

Background

I worked for Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology – BOM for 2 years from 1973 to 1975. I was trained in weather observation and general meteorology. I spent 1 year observing Australia’s weather and 1 year observing the weather at Australia’s Antarctic station at Mawson.

As part of it’s Antarctic program, Australia drills ice cores at Law Dome near it’s Casey station. On our return journey in 1975 we repatriated a large number of ice cores for scientific analysis. The globe’s weather and climate records are stored in these ice cores for the past 1 million years approximately.

Australia’s Antarctic program went by the name of Australian National Antarctic Research Expedition or ANARE for short. This is now known as Australian Antarctic Division or AAD. Returned expeditions formed a club called the ANARE Club of which I have been a member since 1975. Members have…

View original post 2,046 more words


South Australia’s Repeated Wind Power Blackouts Force Retreat to Fossil-Fuels: Base-load Gas Plant Ordered to Run Constantly

So, it took job losses, heavy-industries to close and relocate, fuel poverty, economic ruin, environmental destruction, bird and bat slaughter, infrasound health atrocities, numerous multi-million dollar blackouts and the internationally famous September statewide blackout, not to mention the international trashing of SA’s business reputation for Australia’s climate-obsessed Government(s) to finally realise that *fossil fuels* are the ONLY genuine source of reliable baseload energy?!

What a disastrous joke the windmill and solar-panel experiment has truly become.

But fear not! Wind weasels and the eco-brainwashed will press on and most likely double-down on their insistence for “unreliable” energy sources in their religious quest to “SAVE THE PLANET”. Even if saving-the-planet means being 100% reliant on fossil fuels – the very energy source they despise!

Let that sink in for a minute.

STOP THESE THINGS

jay weatherill AEMO prescribes gas for Jay Weatherill’s fatal case of wind.

***

Clueless and desperate, Australia’s political leaders are fiddling while Rome continues to burn.

The calamity that is South Australia’s self-inflicted power pricing and supply chaos, threatens to spread across state borders like a malignant tumour.

While State Labor governments in Queensland and Victoria continue to talk the talk about their desire to carpet their states with tens of thousands of these things, it’s apparent that they’re not so keen to walk the walk.

Rocketing power prices, routine load shedding and statewide blackouts have not only rendered South Australia an international laughing stock, but make it a prescient warning about what happens when ideology trumps common sense, market economics and sound engineering.

The politicised nonsense keeps spewing forth, however.  Twaddle about batteries providing some kind of solution; and pie in the sky waffle about building interconnectors that cost $billions and…

View original post 2,528 more words