“ELDERLY people are dying in their cold homes or being rushed to hospital because they can’t afford to put the heater on.
MORE than 130 people were admitted to NSW emergency departments last winter with cold-related problems including hypothermia, a 34 per cent increase from 10 years ago.
Over the same period power prices have increased by 117 per cent.”
WAKE-UP politicians, addicted to UNreliables to feather their ‘green’ credentials. Enough is enough. @sussanley
Australia’s wind and solar obsession has driven power prices through the roof and the poor and elderly to early graves. Staying warm in the depth of winter is no longer just a matter of turning up the dial on the AC, for the poorest and most vulnerable it’s a daily battle for survival.
In the space of a decade, power prices have doubled and so too the number of households disconnected from the grid; because they can no longer afford to pay their bills.
A generation ago, Australians enjoyed the world’s cheapest power prices; thanks to its suicidal renewable energy policies, they now suffer among the highest.
That all of this was perfectly predictable, and perfectly avoidable, makes it all the more outrageous. Here’s Peta Credlin expressing just that.
‘What a joke’ that Australians are ‘too frightened to turn on appliances’
Peta Credlin, Luke Grant and Jeremy Cordeaux
View original post 1,282 more words
“IN a brilliant strategic move, it was decided that
the environmentalist movement was a new and
promising vehicle for obtaining political influence and power.”
– Jennifer Marohasy PhD
AUSTRALIAN ‘conservative’ environment Minister Melissa Price is in “No Doubt” that Victoria’s recent bush fires were caused by mankind’s 1 extra carbon dioxide molecule in every 10,000, or an increase of one thousandth of one percent of CO2 over a 150 year period.
AUSTRALIA’S contribution to global plant food and fire-retardant CO2 = 1.3% of all that!
Environment Minister Melissa Price has linked this week’s devastating bushfires in Victoria to climate change, saying there is “no doubt” of its impact on Australia
As Victorians in the state’s east survey the damage done to their properties by bushfires, the Environment Minister said Australians across the nation had suffered from the nation’s hottest summer on record.
“There’s no doubt that there’s many people who have suffered over this summer. We talk about the Victorian bushfires; (in) my home state of Western Australia we’ve also got fires there,” she told Sky News this morning.
“There’s no doubt that climate change is having an impact on us. There’s no denying that.”
Coalition figures, including former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, have been reluctant in the past to link climate change to recent natural disasters such as bushfires.
MEANWHILE, residents of Tonimbuk, a small rural community heaviest hit by Victoria’s weekend bushfires, believe dangerously high fuel loads on vacant crown land contributed to the ferocity of a blaze that left Country Fire Authority firefighters unable to defend some properties…
Residents of a small rural community heaviest hit by Victoria’s weekend bushfires believe dangerously high fuel loads on vacant crown land contributed to the ferocity of a blaze that left Country Fire Authority firefighters unable to defend some properties.
The quiet hamlet of Tonimbuk, about 90km east of Melbourne, felt the brunt of the fire crisis, with seven properties destroyed and 11,000ha burnt by a lightning-strike blaze that raced out of the Bunyip State Forest.
Andrew Clarke, the owner of the Jinks Creek Winery destroyed by the Bunyip fire, believes a bureaucratic blunder cost him his life’s work.
He said a planned burn-off in 60ha between his vineyard and the state park was not done because of concerns for local birdlife.
“If they’d been doing the burning off they should have been doing, our place might still be there,’’ he told The Australian.
“They told me birds were nesting. I told them: ‘If we don’t do a burn-off now, there’ll be no birds. There’ll be no goannas, no snakes, no wallabies. They’ll all be barbecued.’’
Another Tonimbuk resident, cartoonist Mark Knight, said some residents were left to defend their homes without assistance from the CFA. “We fought this fire for three days on our own,’’ he said. “Black Saturday they were all over us. They were fantastic. We didn’t see them this year.’’
THE Daily Telegraph’s climate ‘rationalist’ Miranda Devine with the brutal truth as to what is really fuelling 21st Century bushfires, overrun with ‘Green’ fodder…
Melissa Price, the new federal Environment Minister, has done untold political damage to a government already divided over climate action by spouting idiotic green propaganda about Victoria’s bushfires.
On Tuesday, she linked the fires to climate change, claiming there is “no doubt” of its impact on Australia.
“There’s no doubt that there’s many people who have suffered over this summer. We talk about the Victorian bushfires … There’s no doubt that climate change is having an impact on us. There’s no denying that.”
Sorry, minister, it wasn’t climate change that caused the latest bushfires which have so far destroyed nine homes in Victoria, and it wasn’t climate change that killed almost 200 people in the Black Saturday fires ten years ago.
The real culprit is green ideology which opposes the necessary hazard reduction of fuel loads in national parks and which prevents landholders from clearing vegetation around their homes.
The ongoing poor management of national parks and state forests in Victoria and green obstruction of fire mitigation strategies has led to dangerously high fuel loads over the past decade.
That means that when fires do inevitably break out they are so intense that they are devilishly difficult for firefighters to contain. As a federal parliamentary inquiry heard in 2003, if you quadruple the ground fuel, you get a 13-fold increase in the heat generated by a fire.
Locals know the truth. Andrew Clarke, owner of Jinks Creek Winery, which has been destroyed by a fire which raged out of the Bunyip State Forest, “begged” for fuel reduction burns to protect his property.
“I’ve been begging them [Forest Fire Management Victoria] for 20 years to burn off the state forest at the back of our place and still to this day it hasn’t happened,” he told the ABC’s Country Hour.
Clarke said a planned burn-off was called off because of concerns about nesting birds.
So how did that work out for the birds?
Just three weeks ago, Victoria’s former chief fire officer Ewan Waller warned that state forest fuel loads were reaching deadly, Black Saturday levels. No one paid any attention.
But you can bet Premier Daniel Andrews will hide behind the climate change furphy.
Parroting green lies suits politicians because then they can avoid blame for their own culpability.
The Black Saturday Bushfire Royal Commission criticised the Victorian government for its failure to reduce fuel loads in state forests. It recommended more than doubling the amount of hazard reduction burns.
Instead, in the last three years, alone, the Andrews government has slashed the amount of public land being hazard reduced by almost two thirds.
It’s a crime.
The wonder is that the Morrison government is helping him with his alibi.
VICTORIAN BUSHFIRES : A HISTORY LESSON FOR CLIMATE CHANGE CO2-CENTRICS
BUSHFIRES and “extreme” heat-waves have been part and parcel of Victoria and Australia’s DNA for millennia, even when CO2 was at ‘safe’ levels …
DECEMBER 1954 (CO2 @ 313 PPM) :
JANUARY 1946 (CO2 @ 310 PPM) :
“EXTREME HEAT buckled rail-lines” …
“ST. KILDA sands baked” …
VICTORIAN BUSHFIRES.St. Kilda Sands Baked.MELBOURNE, Jan 13. – Nearly 40 bushfires were reported throughout Victoria today when the temperature in Melbourne rose to 105deg [41°C].*So hot was the sand at West St. Kilda yesterday that life-savers, in a march past, broke formation for the first time in the history of Victorian life-saving clubs and had to resume the march along the water’s edge.
FEBRUARY 1944 (CO2 @ 310 PPM) :
MARCH 1940 (CO2 @ 311 PPM) :
APRIL 1940 (CO2 @ 311 PPM) :
APRIL 1936 (CO2 @ 310 PPM) :
MARCH 1933 (CO2 @ 308.9 PPM) :
FEBRUARY 1932 (CO2 @ 308.3 PPM) :
FEBRUARY 1931 (CO2 @ 308.3 PPM) :
FEBRUARY 1926 (CO2 @ 305.8 PPM) :
FEBRUARY 1898 (CO2 @ 295 PPM) :
AUSTRALIAN politicians push a never-ending barrage of fact-free
global warming climate change alarmism, fear and propaganda on the taxpayer in order to stoke fear and justify the spending of billions upon billions of their hard-earned money on fake fixes to a fake scam.
HOW many more billions of taxpayers hard-earned money will be spent on the greatest pseudoscientific scam ever perpetrated against mankind before our politicians learn how to google “TROVE“? Basic climate history, documenting events no different to today that completely trashes their costly, fake, political, man-made climate change scam costing the country and the planet an estimated $2,000,000,000,000 US (2 Trillion) per year, every year!
POLITICIAN’S punishing industry and jobs with punitive and draconian climate policy, including billions spent on useless windmills and solar panels with ZERO criticism or investigation of years of reckless ‘Green’ environmental policy mandated by UN-infected local councils who, under the draconian program of Agenda 21 aka ICLEI, prevent the clearing of any foliage, trees or grasses above 8 inches on residents own private properties!
ENOUGH is enough. People’s livelihoods, their communities and economies are being ‘burned’ alive by gutless and superstitious politicians on a costly and dangerous crusade of “Save The Planet” hubris driven by politics, ideology and groupthink, pseudoscientific climate change dogma.
- ‘UNPRECEDENTED’ EXTREMES : Heat Waves And Summer Snow Down Under | Climatism
- RECORD MARCH HEAT WAVE : Six Consecutive Days Above 100°F | Climatism
- Shock news 1923 : Meteorological Office Exists as a Corrective to Scare Mongering | Climatism
- BLACK THURSDAY 168 Years Ago : Bushfires Burn 5 Million Hectares or A Quarter Of Victoria | Climatism
- DRACONIAN UN CLIMATE AGENDA EXPOSED : ‘Global Warming Fears Are A Tool For Political and Economic Change…It Has Nothing To Do With The Actual Climate’ | Climatism
- AGENDA 21 IN AUSTRALIA – Human Free Habitat Zones – Green Dreaming of a Human-Free Environment — Quadrant Online
- TOMORROW’S Grim, Global, Green Dictatorship | Climatism
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 :
- 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 collusion between wind energy and government disgusts me. If the Federal Production Tax Credit for wind energy didn’t exist, you would not see another industrial wind energy turbine built.” – Warren Buffet
THE entire rationale for wind turbines is to stop
global warming climate change by reducing the amount of CO2 being returned to the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels.
THE energy required for a helicopter to de-ice all the blades on a wind farm must outweigh any supposed saving in CO2 by a factor of 100 or more. Notwithstanding that no wind farm has saved a gram of CO2 due to construction and the necessary spinning reserve.
THE attached picture, taken from a wind farm in Sweden, is a metaphor for the complete insanity of the mad rush into useless UNreliables – wind and solar. Symbolic ‘energy’ gestures to the folly of ‘green’ madness that fail both physically and financially wherever installed.
THIS one photo alone sums up the collective era of eco-stupidity that we live in today, where rational thought, logic, reason and commonsense has been gleefully abandoned for enormous amounts of public money with valuable resources needlessly sacrificed.
AND, who pays? You pay!
MORE ‘GREEN’ WINTER JOBS
UNRELIABLES related :
- NOTE TO POLICY MAKERS : 41 Reasons Why Wind ‘Power’ Can Not Replace Fossil Fuels | Climatism
- WHAT I See When I See a Wind Turbine | Climatism
- ‘GREEN’ Energy Future | Climatism
- UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity And The Environment | Climatism
- TRULY GREEN? How Germany’s #Energiewende Is Destroying Nature | Climatism
- GREEN Energy Is The Perfect Scam | Climatism
- DO NOT PASS GO! Seven Years Jail Time For Using Cheap Electricity In Australia | Climatism
- WESTERN Nations, Driven By A Global Agenda Of Climate Alarmism, Are Destroying Their Industries With Carbon Taxes And Promotion Of Expensive, Intermittent Green Energy | Climatism
“Kevin and I will keep [skeptic papers] out [of IPCC] somehow –
even if we have to redefine what peer-review literature is.”
– Phil Jones to Michael Mann | Climategate Emails
“As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.” – Phil Jones (Uni East Anglia CRU Head)
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all,
it’s about plausibly deniable accusations.”
– Michael Mann (Climategate Emails)
THE “Hottest Year Ever” meme is just one in a long line of propaganda tools used by the Climate Crisis Industry to make you believe that the 1°C rise in global temperature since the end of the Little Ice Age – around 1880 – is “unprecedented” and will bring chaos to wildlife, humans and the planet.
HOW much of these claims are scientific, versus propaganda designed to heighten alarm around the agenda of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW), is the centre of much conjecture and debate.
OF particular concern is how a handful of government climate ‘scientists’ have ‘homogenised’ the official surface-based temperature records to land us in the costly, hot mess we face today.
SATELLITES Vs THERMOMETERS?
NASA’s 15 MSU and AMSU satellites generate the RSS and UAH datasets, which measure the average temperature of every cubic inch of the lower troposphere, the exact place where
global warming climate change theory is meant to occur.
BEFORE 2016, UAH and RSS both tracked closely showing very little warming in their data sets which led to the identification and validation of “the pause” in global warming which has since become the subject of much research and debate in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
From the RSS website:
“The simulation as a whole are predicting too much warming” – RSS
HOWEVER, by 2016, Carl Mears, chief scientist for RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) decided that the lengthy and inconvenient global warming “pause” or “hiatus” was not a good look for the global warming narrative, so RSS was adjusted upwards, eliminating “the pause”.
Differences between the old version and new version of RSS:
MEARS’ objectivity towards the business of global temperature data collection and reporting can be found in his commentary on his website, whilst making his global-warmist intentions clear by unleashing the groupthink pejorative “denialist” – in distasteful reference to NAZI holocaust denial…
MEARS then published a paper claiming that new and improved ‘adjustments’ had “found” that missing warming.
Mears, C., and F. Wentz, 2016: Sensitivity of satellite-derived tropospheric
temperature trends to the diurnal cycle adjustment. J. Climate. doi:10.1175/JCLID-
15-0744.1, in press.
UAH NASA SATELLITE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE ANOMALY
FOR the purpose of this post, we’ll look at the untampered UAH (University Alabama Huntsville) satellite data set run by Dr. John R. Christy – Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, and Roy Spencer Ph.D. – Principal Research Scientist at UAH.
SPENCER comments on the divergence between RSS and UAH post “adjustment”:
“We have a paper in peer review with extensive satellite dataset comparisons to many balloon datasets and reanalyses. These show that RSS diverges from these and from UAH, showing more warming than the other datasets between 1990 and 2002 – a key period with two older MSU sensors both of which showed signs of spurious warming not yet addressed by RSS. I suspect the next chapter in this saga is that the remaining radiosonde datasets that still do not show substantial warming will be the next to be “adjusted” upward.
The bottom line is that we still trust our methodology. But no satellite dataset is perfect, there are uncertainties in all of the adjustments, as well as legitimate differences of opinion regarding how they should be handled.
Also, as mentioned at the outset, both RSS and UAH lower tropospheric trends are considerably below the average trends from the climate models.
And that is the most important point to be made.”
DECEMBER 2018 UAH TEMPERATURE ANOMALY
GLOBAL atmospheric temperatures continue their rapid decline off the record heights of the 2015/16 super El Niño, despite record and rising CO2 emissions.
UAH global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December, 2018 was +0.25°C above the 40-year average:
RECORD 2-YEAR GLOBAL TEMPERATURE DROP (HadCRUT4)
GLOBAL temperature dropped by a record 0.4°C in three years according to U.K. HadCRUT4 temperature data set:
DELLERS with the details :
Our planet has just experienced the most extreme two-year cooling event in a century. But where have you seen this reported anywhere in the mainstream media?
You haven’t, even though the figures are pretty spectacular. As Aaron Brown reports hereat Real Clear Markets:
From February 2016 to February 2018 (the latest month available) global average temperatures dropped 0.56°C. You have to go back to 1982-84 for the next biggest two-year drop, 0.47°C—also during the global warming era. All the data in this essay come from GISTEMP Team, 2018: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP). NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (dataset accessed 2018-04-11 at https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/). This is the standard source used in most journalistic reporting of global average temperatures.
The 2016-18 Big Chill was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average. February 2018 was colder than February 1998.
To put this temperature drop in context, consider that this is enough to offset by more than half the entirety of the global warming the planet has experienced since the end of the 19th century.
Read the rest on Breitbart.
NASA GLOBAL LAND & OCEAN TEMPERATURE ANOMALY
Global Mean Estimates based on Land and Ocean Data:
NASA LAND & OCEAN TEMP DATA OBSERVATIONS :
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.
CLIMATE CHANGE DATA FRAUD : Death By Gif(s)
“HE who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” – George Orwell
NOW it’s time to see how NASA GISS (Gavin Schmidt) and NOAA (Tom Karl) have created the ‘hockey-stick’ temperature rise over recent years in order to drive the Mann-made global warming agenda.
MIND-blowing adjustments to raw data that without exception – cool the past and warm the present – despite UHI (Urban Heat Island effect) undoubtedly compromising the latter parts of the modern temp record.
AND, if you think that the tampering of the earth’s temperature record, by cooling the past and warming the present to fit the man-made global warming narrative is another climate “denier” conspiracy theory then read this Climategate email from the UK’s leading climate expert, Phil Jones, to the UK Met Office and officials:
THE problem of the 1940’s warming “blip” :
THEY did exactly what Wigley was suggesting, removing more than 0.15 C from 1940′s global temperatures. This tampering is what made the hockey stick possible.
If the present refuses to get warmer, then the past must become cooler …
U.S. TEMPERATURE RECORD
THE lack of US warming wrecks global warming theory, so NOAA and NASA reduced the “1940’s Blip” in the US record to create fake warming:
NOAA knows perfectly well that the US is not warming:
GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECORD
NASA has doubled global warming since 2001:
“HOTTEST YEAR EVAHH”
NASA make up record temperatures in countries where they have no thermometer data. NOAA’s current data in Africa and much of the rest of the world is fake.
THIS enables them to make the fake “Hottest Year Ever” announcements. Memes that have more to do with PR and marketing than actual science:
ERASING “THE BLIP” – VARIOUS LOCATIONS
Changes to GISS Iceland temperatures between V2 and V3
NASA didn’t like the 1940’s warmth in Greenland, so they simply made it disappear:
((SEE more extreme examples of NASA / NOAA temperature data fraud at Tony Heller’s superb resource: The Deplorable Climate Science Blog | “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” – Richard Feynman))
(Charts via Tony Heller “Real Climate Science”)
THE NASA global temperature record has been massively altered over the last 20 years to cool the past and warm the present:
NASA GISS : THE DATA SET OF CHOICE FOR THE CLIMATE THEORY OBSESSED MAINSTREAM MEDIA & POLITICAL ELITE!
IT’s not difficult to see why the NASA GISS data set is the preferred go-to for global warming activists, mainstream media, the UN IPCC and virtue-peddling politicians seeking to destroy cheap, efficient energy supply – namely coal-fired power – through the implementation of draconian climate change policy, and proposals like the U.S. Democrats’ “New Green Deal”, that if implemented will annihilate both the U.S. and the global economy and result in total control of every aspect of your life, lifestyle and any freedoms you currently enjoy.
NASA GISS’ Gavin Schmidt wants to use his junk science to control public policy, and says questions from policy makers are “tiresome” :
PRESIDENT EISENHOWER WARNED US OF THE “danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
President Eisenhower January 17, 1961
FOR so long, climate ‘sceptics’ have been labeled climate/science “deniers”, in crude reference to those who deny the holocaust, with the pejorative used in a broader effort to shut down debate and silence dissent. However, when hard evidence is laid out over alarmist rhetoric, it’s not hard to see who in fact are the real deniers of history and indeed, deniers of science.
EVEN when hard data, “the science” and empirical evidence completely contradict alarmist predictions and forecasts peddled by the mainstream media and grant-driven ‘scientists’, alarmists continue to double-down on their fear-mongering instead of evaluating their theory, adhering to the “scientific method” and admitting that they might just have got it all wrong.
GLOBAL WARMING dogma has ruinously snowballed into a $TRILLION dollar religion to be defended at all costs by alarmist ‘scientists’, UNreliables rent-seekers and the climate theory-obsessed mainstream media in order to protect egos, jobs, reputations and access to unlimited “Save The Planet” taxpayer trillions, completely immune to oversight.
THIS is not ‘science’, it is zealotry run amok.
SEE now what their panic-making has inspired – global warming schemes that have hurt us infinitely more than any slight global warming could ever do.
IT has been estimated that globally, warmists burn collectively more than a $BILLION dollars a day. But, what are we trying to stop, anyway? Recent scientific papers confirm there’s been much less warming over the past two decades than predicted …
TIME to stop the rot for the sake of “science” and Western civilisation that has given us so much to be thankful for, like the dramatic drop in global poverty. Primarily due to the deployment of cheap, reliable and abundant hydrocarbon fuels. Life-giving and poverty-reducing energy sources that the zero-emissions zealots want to replace with sunshine and breezes, forcing us backwards down the energy ladder to the days of human, animal and solar power.
JUST as socialist central planning failed miserably before it was replaced by free market economies, green central planning will have to be discarded before Australia and other Western nations, crippled by the mad rush into costly and ruinous UNreliables, will see a return to energy security, competitive pricing and a ‘liveable’ existence for our most vulnerable.
LIKEWISE, climate data fraud must be called out and crushed with the scientific method restored to allay dangerous and costly climate change fear and alarmism.
SEE also :
- THE Mind-blowing Costs Of Global Warming Hysteria | Climatism
BRUTAL and comprehensive rebuttal by Paul Homewood to the latest climate agitprop out of the taxpayer funded BBC, released in time to further pollute the minds of their readers as they focus on the UN COP24 climate junket in Katowice, Poland.
By Paul Homewood
h/t Philip Bratby
The BBC have now stopped even trying to camouflage their bias on climate change, with this latest piece of propaganda:
Representatives from nearly 200 countries are gathering in Poland for talks on climate change – aimed at breathing new life into the Paris Agreement.
The UN has warned the 2015 Paris accord’s goal of limiting global warming to “well below 2C above pre-industrial levels” is in danger because major economies, including the US and the EU, are falling short of their pledges.
But scientists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the leading international body on global warming – last month argued the 2C Paris pledge didn’t go far enough. The global average temperature rise actually needed to be kept below 1.5C, they said.
So how warm has the world got and what can we do about it?
The world is now…
View original post 1,824 more words
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.“
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” – Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Earth Summit, 1992.
IT’s time for sensible, democratic governments to push back and vigorously question the motives of unelected, bureaucratic behemoths at the UN,
stealing corralling global taxpayer money to fund their ruinous globalist, Leftist agendas that have absolutely nothing to with “saving the planet” or helping the environment.
QUEENSLAND One Nation leader, Steve Dickson conveying what most Australian’s are feeling, in stark contrast to the major ruling parties who are both pandering to the UN climate gods …
A MUST read opinion piece on the corrupt United Nations by Maurice Newman, former head of Deutsche Bank, the ABC and ASX…
“Australians are at that point, sick of being lectured to by UN “special rapporteurs”. They are crying out for leaders to stare down faceless bureaucrats in Geneva. They are angry at meaningless gestures and slavish obedience to pointless emissions targets that are crippling our industry and causing personal hardships.“
Corrupted UN must never be allowed to lecture us
If the leaders of some nation states were citizens living in a civilised society, they would be in jail for perpetrating, or being accessories to, murder, torture, theft and corruption.
Yet they and their chosen representatives shamelessly take their place in the hallowed chamber of the UN General Assembly as arbiters of how the rest of the world should behave.
Take the Human Rights Council, which counts among its members the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where Joseph Kabila’s unconstitutional rule features massacres and gender-based violence among a long list of atrocities; and Venezuela, where President Nicolas Maduro strangles political opposition by carrying out hundreds of arbitrary killings under the guise of fighting crime.
There’s The Philippines, whose President Rodrigo Duterte condones policies that result in extrajudicial killings of suspected drug dealers; and Cuba, where President Miguel Diaz-Canel, in true Castro style, allows beatings, public shaming and termination of employment to quell political opposition. China’s President-for-life Xi Jinping oversees the holding of about a million Muslim Uighurs, including women and children, in re-education camps.
Yet this year Australia celebrated its membership of the UNHRC, while the US commendably withdrew, saying the council “has provided cover, not condemnation, for the world’s most inhumane regimes”.
Australia is also a member of the Economic and Social Council which, “to find effective approaches to ending poverty”, believes “those experiencing it must have a seat at the table’’. And so they do. The leaders of Algeria, Chad, El Salvador, South Africa, Sudan, Togo and Venezuela, to name a few, all believe in wealth redistribution. They practise authoritarian central planning and asset confiscation.
Not too many champions of competition and market economics there. Australia acts as a good global citizen, lending support for “collective action” that rewards bad behaviour.
Unsurprisingly, the UN’s Ecosoc readily accepts that “climate change and environmental crises are the result of vastly unequal levels of development in the last few centuries. The countries which are now rich became so by ignoring the consequences for the environment which now threaten the entire planet.” Ecosec reminds us of Agenda 21, put to the UN’s 1992 Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit, which recognises that the burden of climate change (whatever that may be) “falls most heavily on poor countries”.
Masterminded by Canadian socialist/Marxist and multimillionaire Maurice Strong and held under the auspices of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Rio summit was the largest political gathering in history. Strong believed the UN should become a world government with “environmentalism” the key driver. He believed: “The concept of national sovereignty … will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental co-operation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful.”
Journalist and long-time UN expert Claudia Rosett observes Strong understood how the “UN’s bureaucratic culture of secrecy, its diplomatic immunities, and its global reach, lends itself to manipulation by a small circle of those who best know its back corridors”.
Strong exploited this culture to ensure climate change became so embedded in global politics that few Western politicians would have the courage to challenge it, no matter how exaggerated its claims, or the financial cost. And so it has proved. His successor and fellow Marxist, Christiana Figueres, led the Paris climate conference that captured Australia.
Enter US President Donald J. Trump. In his second address to the UN General Assembly in September, Trump said: “America is governed by Americans. We reject the ideology of globalism and accept the doctrine of patriotism.”
He said the UN Human Rights Council had become a “grave embarrassment” and that countries admitted to the WTO “violate every single principle on which the organisation is based”. He said: “We will not allow our workers to be victimised, our companies to be cheated, and our wealth to be plundered and transferred.” He withdrew from the Paris climate agreement, calling it a “massive redistribution of United States’ wealth to other countries”.
In the 26 years since the Rio summit, no world leader has posed such a comprehensive threat to UN hegemony. Not only does Trump reflect disillusionment with globalism at home, he also taps into growing disenchantment with supranational governments in many places around the world, particularly in Europe.
Brexit was the first example. Italy’s defiance in the face of Europe’s rejection of its draft budget is the latest. While acknowledging Italy violates EU rules, Deputy Prime Minister Luigi Di Maio says: “This is the first Italian budget that the EU doesn’t like. I am not surprised. This is the first Italian budget that was written in Rome and not in Brussels.” A recent poll in Poland found a third of the country now backs an EU exit.
It is clear serious cracks in the relationship between the people and governing bodies like the UN and the EU are emerging. People may not fully understand the way remote, supranational governments work, but they can recognise authority which is harmful and lacking in integrity.
Australians are at that point, sick of being lectured to by UN “special rapporteurs”. They are crying out for leaders to stare down faceless bureaucrats in Geneva. They are angry at meaningless gestures and slavish obedience to pointless emissions targets that are crippling our industry and causing personal hardships.
The latest Australian Institute of Company Directors survey confirms the desperation corporate leaders feel over the government’s inept response to climate change, the No 1 issue they want addressed.
The UN and agencies like the IMF have been exposed as hypocritical emperors without clothes. If this is a preview of world government, we face a grim future.
MAURICE NEWMAN related :
- Maurice Newman | Search Results | Climatism
- Shock news : The UN’s Real Agenda Is A New World Order Under Its Control | Climatism
“Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in the history. When people come to
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC
Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical
“I am no longer reading this garbage” – “Similar claims are on par with the spam about penis enlargement” – Former Harvard U. Physicist, Luboš Motl rejects new UN IPCC Report
EXTREME WEATHER, the Climate Crisis Industries favoured weapon of mass hysteria has been scuttled, once again, by their very own authority, the UN IPCC!
THE latest report finding that there is “little basis or evidence” for claiming that drought, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes have increased due to greenhouse gases.
BUT, alas! Just as the extreme weather findings from last IPCC report – AR5 (2013) – were conveniently dismissed by the mainstream media and climate crusaders, so too will the latest ‘inconvenient’ findings from the SR15 ‘Special Report’.
FROM Chapter 4 of SREX (2013) :
- “There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”
- “The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados”
- “The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses”
IPCC REPORT SR15 – Extreme Weather Findings
EXTREME WEATHER DATA
IN August 1934, when CO2 was at ‘safe’ levels, severe to extreme drought covered around 80% of the entire US. Such conditions endured for most of the decade known as the “Dust Bowl” era:
CURRENT U.S. drought conditions under Donald Trump’s reign of climate “denial” terror: