“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
“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 UNEP
WITH far greater frequency than a hurricane strike in the Floridas, the biggest names in the political and climate world gather at exotic locations around the globe to pretend that they are intent on “saving the planet”, again. Quite simply the Oscars of virtue signalling.
YET it’s (almost) set in stone that these confabs will fail their primary objective. That is, to force rich countries to quietly destroy their economies and for the poor economies, with the highest death rates, to reject energy and prosperity.
THE only resolution guaranteed by all ‘parties’ (excuse the pun) is where to hold the next, taxpayer-funded climate change junket.
MEANWHILE, all those taxpayer funded frequent flyer miles hurt your hip pocket and apparently the planet too. Or, maybe only when it’s you doing the flying…?
SCIENCE writer Viv Forbes wraps up the latest UNFCCC climate party…
Poland climatefest dumps several million tonnes of CO2 into atmosphere aiding plant growth
$500M Climate Carnival Concludes.
COP 24 just concluded in Poland. Nearly 23,000 climate saviours attended this 24th annual climate carnival.
Every year, plane-loads of concerned busybodies fly to some interesting new location to spend tax dollars on a well-fed 12 day holiday. They concoct plans to ration and tax the energy used by real workers, farmers and families back home.
Few delegates arrived by bicycle or solar-powered plane – a fleet of at least 100 commercial, private and charter aircraft brought them at a cost estimated at US$57M. When the costs of hotels, ground transport, food, entertainment, air conditioning and office services are added, the bill is likely to top $500 M.
Australian taxpayers supported 46 junketeers. Now these Chicken Littles are back home spreading climate scare stories and lecturing locals to not overspend on Christmas presents.
There is a bright side – all that carbon dioxide emitted by planes, cars, buses, heaters, stoves, beer, champagne and Poland’s coal-fired power stations will help global plant growth.
One of the largest conferences of the year just wrapped up this past weekend in Katowice, Poland. And it was on everyone’s favorite subject, climate change.
Yes, this is the annual conference where tens of thousands of delegates fly into a foreign town. On your tax dollars. To iron out a plan for the future of the planet.
It’s called the United Nations Climate Change Conference. And this years’ went under the short name of COP24 (Conference of the Parties – 24th edition).
And it was the second biggest one since the monster Paris Climate Change conference back in December 2015 (COP21 for those keeping count).
According to this official attendance list, there were 22,700 delegates from 197 countries there.
This conference was not a weekend or even a week long.
It was hosted for 12 whole days.
But first, all these people had to get to the COP24 Climate Change conference. And unfortunately, zero-emission transit was not available to get them all to Katowice.
There are no bike lanes crossing the Atlantic Ocean or the Mediterranean Sea.
If you think trillions of dollars over dozens and dozens of years is impossible for parties to fight climate change with their vision…
Here’s how Cultural Communists Spent Nearly Half of Billion Dollars in 12 days:
These attendees took commercial, charter and private planes to get to Katowice International Airport just north of the city.
For all their green agendas, they flew the big, bulky, carbon-spewing and nature polluting airplanes.
Without every receipt, it’s not easy to pinpoint how much various flight types cost. But you can bet even those travelling on commercial aircraft were not flying with the common folk.
Let’s assume $2,500 per person to fly to and from Katowice, Poland.
Cost of Flights = 22,700 x $2,500 = $57 million dollars.
Thinking that the delegates like to travel together, let’s be conservative and say they all flew commercial on a Boeing 747 in groups of 227. Unlikely, but it makes our napkin calculation simple.
This would require 100 planes flying in and flying out…
According to Blue Sky Model, 1 mile of flight produces about 53 pounds of carbon dioxide for the average plane.
Now sticking with simplicity, let’s assume the average flight was just about the distance between New York City and Katowice – 4,283 miles. In reality, people flew from as far away as Auckland, New Zealand.
The total amount of carbon emitted = 100 planes x 4,283 miles x 53 pounds per mile x 2 trips = at least 45 million pounds of evil, harmful polluting carbon dioxide into the air.
Do as the cultural communists say, I guess. Not as they do.
And I’m being optimistic.
For reference, WIRED Magazine estimates that all the planes that flew to the Paris climate talks released about 575 million pounds of CO2.
Now let’s correctly assume that politicians, dignitaries and their entourages didn’t stay in Holiday Inn’s or Best Westerns like the working class.
Nor would they opt for AirBnB type services for their fellow taxpayers…
And since this conference would be among the top destinations in the world at this climate change time of year, hoteliers would have increased their nightly room prices. It’s Opportunism 101.
So let’s allow $500 per night for hotels or private flats. Katowice and the surrounding areas aren’t exactly Paris. So things are a bit more affordable.
Cost of hotels = 27,700 people x 12 nights x US $500 = $166 million dollars
Delegates then had to drive the roughly 34 kilometers (21 miles) to the city core.
Heaven forbid if these people all took the transit system. How could they possible hold a dignified image taking the subway or public buses?
So they likely hired private cars and limousines.
The rates for these vehicles goes anywhere from $500 – $1,000 per day. Let’s assume some attendees followed their agendas and carpooled, thus requiring only 20,000 cars.
Cost of Transportation = 20,000 cars x $750 per day x 12 days = $180 million dollars
Let’s not forget that people need to eat.
And when in Poland, you can’t be eating Subway or McDonalds. How can you possibly pair a fine Bordeaux with a Big Mac?
So we have to factor in meals and entertainment.
Most attendees will have gotten a per diem for their travels. We can safely assume these costs to be anywhere from $100 – $500 per day depending on their stature.
Cost of food = 27,700 x $250 per diem x 12 days = $83 million dollars
And what about the workers who put it all together?
The average wage in Poland is just shy of $1,170 per month.
Data on workers hasn’t been released yet. But at the Paris conference 3 years ago, there were 3,000 workers hired directly for the conference and about 11,000 police and military to keep the place secure.
Let’s assume the same amount of security and workers were used in Poland.
And considering security forces are not cheap, let’s just assume they all made double the average wage…
Cost of personnel = 14,000 x $1,170 x 2 x ½ month’s work = $16.3 million dollars
Let’s sum it all up…
There is a good chance I have been too conservative and underestimated some of the costs.
The cost of saving the future world for just a couple weeks was half a billion dollars. But you’ll be happy to know that the official meal plan for attendees had some options for a low emission footprint, as you can see below.
COP24 Menu GHG Emissions
Until next year’s Climate Change conference in Chile…
Wait, did I not mention the pre-conference in Costa Rica?
• “This is major progress for people who care about energy security, sovereignty and who are against the UN agenda.”
• “Any impact man has on the climate is indistinguishable from natural variability”
• “This is a this political and economic movement. It has nothing to do with the actual climate. They’re talking about central transformation, that is what the UN Climate head, we seek central transformation to make the climate different. They’re using a climate scare on people.”
THE global warming climate change scare has absolutely nothing to do with the environment or “Saving The Planet”. Rather, its roots lie in a misanthropic agenda engineered by the environmental movement of the mid 1970’s, who realised that doing something about claimed man-made “global warming” would play to quite a number of the Left’s social agendas.
THE goal was advanced, most notably, by The Club Of Rome(Environmental consultants to the UN) – a group of mainly European scientists and academics, who used computer modelling to warn that the world would run out of finite resources if population growth were left unchecked.
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that .. the threat of global warming.. would fit the bill.. the real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” – Club Of Rome (Environmental consultants to the U.N.)
THE Club Of Rome’s 1972 environmental best-seller “The Limits To Growth”, examined five variables in the original model: world population, industrialisation, pollution, food production and resource depletion.
NOT surprisingly, the study predicted a dire future for mankind unless we ‘act now’:
AROUND the same time, influential anthropologist and president of the American Medical Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Margaret Mead, gathered together like-minded anti-population hoaxsters at her 1975, North Carolina conference, “The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering”. Mead’s star recruits were climate scare artist Stephen Schneider, population-freak George Woodwell and former AAAS head, John Holdren (Barack Obama’s Science and Technology Czar). All three of them disciples of Malthusian catastrophist Paul Ehrlich, author of the “The Population Bomb”.
THE conference concluded that human-produced carbon dioxide would fry the planet, melt the ice caps, and destroy human life. The idea being to sow enough fear of man-made climate change to force global cutbacks in industrial activity and halt Third World development.
THE CREATOR, FABRICATOR AND PROPONENT OF GLOBAL WARMING – Maurice Strong (UNEP)
THE creator, fabricator and proponent of global warming alarmism Maurice Strong, founded UNEP and ‘science’ arm, the UN IPCC, under the premise of studying only human (CO2) driven causes of climate change.
STRONG and the UN’s ‘Climate Change’ agenda was clearly laid out before the ‘science’ of Climate Change was butchered and tortured to fit the Global Warming narrative…
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity 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, Rio Earth Summit
“It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.“ – Maurice Strong, first Secretary General of UNEP
WHY CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) aka “Carbon Pollution”?
ATMOSPHERIC Physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen, examines the politics and ideology behind the CO2-centricity that drives the man-made climate change agenda.
LINDZEN’S summary goes to the very heart of why Carbon Dioxide has become the centre-piece of the ‘global’ climate debate:
“For a lot of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonise it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…”
“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.”
ENERGY rationing and the control of carbon dioxide, the direct byproduct of cheap, reliable hydrocarbon energy, has always been key to the Left’s Malthusian and misanthropic agenda of depopulation and deindustrialisation. A totalitarian ideology enforced through punitive emissions controls under the guise of “Saving The Planet”.
THE motives of the UN and its affiliates are no different from those of the radical eco-zealots of the 1970’s. They despise capitalism, development, growth and freedom, with the misguided fear of overpopulation, a principle driver.
THEIR solution is to use the emotive issue of ‘Climate Change’ to pursue a radical transformation in cultural, economic and political structures across the globe through their various unelected, taxpayer funded global(ist) bodies…
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.” – Christiana Figueres, fmr executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change (Feb 2015, Brussels)
An analysis of delegates by Carbon Brief found Guinea topped the list with 406 delegates, down 86 from last time. The Democratic Republic of Congo is second, with 237. Host nation Poland is third, with 211 delegates, followed by Ivory Coast, whose delegation this year has more than halved to 208 people…
Those huge delegations from these poor nations are actually down on last time? Wow.
Graham Lloyd puts it extremely diplomatically:
While some African countries give delegate tickets to non-governmental organisations, the make-up gives an indication of how important they consider the talks for securing development and mitigation funds.
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 …
It's time to follow Trump's lead, stop sending Australian money overseas and withdraw from the United Nations.
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.“
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”.
The United Nations headquarters in New York.
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 stark reality is that healthier economies mean more energy use, and consequently, rising emissions (though not always). When economies were in a slump, it was easier to commit to emissions reductions. When countries’ economies began to grow, many saw emissions rise.
“…the Berlin-based organization Urgewald projects that 1,600 new coal-fired generating plants under construction or planned will result in 840,000 megawatts of new capacity.
“Germany, a world leader on climate action, has failed to cut emissions and has actually seen emissions rise during the past two years.
June 1 marks the first anniversary of President Donald Trump’s having begun the process of withdrawing the United States from the Paris climate accord.
Foreign leaders immediately criticized the decision. German Chancellor Angela Merkel called the decision to leave “extremely regrettable,” while the prime minister of Denmark, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, called the move “a sad day for the world.”
Most nations that signed the Paris climate accords will soon fail to meet their agreement-defined deadlines for fossil fuel reduction. (Photo: baona/Getty Images)
Trump justified the withdrawal by calling the situation “the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries.”
Trump was wrong. The climate accord is not just a bad deal for the U.S., but for all of the developed countries that have committed to higher energy…
“THE belief that Global Warming is an existential threat, requiring urgent action is the product of a dumbed-down education system. THE belief that the world can painlessly transition away from fossil fuels is the product of an affluent and spoiled society.” – @JWSpry
VIV Forbes, Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition, with the grim reality of what life looks like under the totalitarian rule of the feel-good ‘Greens’. The “zero-emissions” zealots who want to force us backwards down the energy ladder to the days of human, animal and solar power…
Border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic: Guess which country contains eco-criminals that can afford to use fossil fuels, and which country contains nature-lovers who are dependent on natural renewable organic biomass for energy? (99% of Haiti’s forests have been decimated, not for building materials, but for cooking fuel.)
WHEN the New York Times hired climate ‘Lukewarmer’ Bret Stephens as a contributing columnist in late April 2017, a collective cry of treasonous rage was heard throughout the deep-green environmental community. How dare anyone question whether we should accept absolutely every pronouncement of imminent eco-doom at face value?!
A snippet of the enraged reporting at the time from the usual suspects…
Climate Scientists Cancelling Their New York Times Subscription Over Hiring of Climate Denialist Bret Stephens
By Graham Readfearn • Thursday, April 27, 2017 – 16:59
A New York Times defence of its hiring of a climate science denialist as a leading columnist is pushing high-profile climate scientists to cancel their subscriptions.
Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research in Germany, is the latest scientist to write publicly to the New York Times detailing his reasons for cancelling their subscriptions.
Stephens wrote several columns while at the WSJ disparaging climate science and climate scientists, which he has collectively described as a “religion” while claiming rising temeperatures may be natural.
The NYT has been defending its decision publicly, saying that “millions of people” agree with Stephens on climate science and just because their readers don’t like his opinions, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be heard.
13 Better Things To Read Than Bret Stephens’ First New York Times Column
The Gray Lady’s newest hire used his debut column to defend his record of climate science denial.
29/04/2017 9:09 AM AEST Alexander C. Kaufman Business & Environment Reporter, HuffPost
The New York Times took a lot of heat for hiring Bret Stephens, a former opinion writer at The Wall Street Journal, as its newest columnist. There was a lot to criticize. In his storied tenure on some of the most radically conservative pages in print journalism, Stephens accused Arabs of suffering a “disease of the mind,” railed against the Black Lives Matter movement and dismissed the rise of campus rape as an “imaginary enemy.”
But Stephens’ views on climate change ― namely that the jury is still out on whether burning fossil fuels is the chief cause ― drew the widest condemnation. ThinkProgress admonished the Gray Lady for hiring an “extreme climate denier,” and famed climatologist Michael Mann backed them up in the critique. DeSmog Blog, a site whose tagline reads “clearing the PR pollution that clouds climate science,” reported on a letter from climate scientists who are canceling their subscriptions to the newspaper over its latest hire. In These Times’ headline pointedly asked: “Why the Hell did the New York Times just hire a climate denier?”
STEPEHENS has recently written another reasoned column in the Times that has no doubt sent the eco-freaks into another predictable tailspin!
IN the Feb 8 opinion piece, “Apocalypse Not“, Stephens argues that a healthy environment is dependent on a healthy economy first, namely a capitalist one.
“The foolish idea that capitalism is the enemy of the environment misses the point that environmentalism is itself a luxury that few poor countries can adequately afford. If you doubt this, contrast the air and water quality in New York City with that of any similar-sized city in the developing world.”
A view not shared by radical environmental groups who, including the UN, believe that in order to “save the planet” we must fundamentally change the current economic development model. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC) herself admitted that the goal of environmentalists is to destroy capitalism.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.” – Christiana Figueres Brussels February, 2015
In 1919, the director of the U.S. Bureau of Mines offered a dire warning for the future. “Within the next two to five years the oil fields of this country will reach their maximum production, and from that time on we will face an ever-increasing decline.”
Nearly a century later, in July 2010, The Guardian ran a story with an ominous headline: “Lloyd’s adds its voice to dire ‘peak oil’ warnings.” Citing a report by the storied London insurer, the newspaper warned that businesses were “underestimating catastrophic consequences of declining oil,” including oil at $200 a barrel by 2013, a global supply crunch, and overall “economic chaos.”
I thought of these predictions on seeing the recent news that the United States is on the eve of breaking a 47-year production record by lifting more than 10 million barrels of crude a day. That’s roughly twice what the U.S. produced just a decade ago, and may even put us on track to overtake Saudi Arabia and even Russia as the world’s leading oil producer. As for global production, it rose by some 11 percent just since the Lloyd’s report, and by almost 200 percent since 1965.
Call it yet another case of Apocalypse Not.
“In best-selling books and powerful speeches, Vogt argued that affluence is not our greatest achievement but our biggest problem,” Mann writes. “Our prosperity is temporary, he said, because it is based on taking more from than earth than it can give. If we continue, the unavoidable result will be devastation on a global scale, perhaps including our extinction.”
In our own day, people like Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein have made careers saying more or less the same thing. This is a world where the clock is permanently set at two minutes to midnight, and where only a radical transformation of modern society (usually combining dramatic changes in personal behavior along with a heavy dose of state intervention) can save us.
The foolish idea that capitalism is the enemy of the environment misses the point that environmentalism is itself a luxury that few poor countries can adequately afford. If you doubt this, contrast the air and water quality in New York City with that of any similar-sized city in the developing world.
I fall in the Borlaugian camp. That’s worth noting because one of the more tedious criticisms by the environmental left is that people like me “don’t care about the environment.” But imputing bad faith, stupidity or greed is always a lousy argument. Even conservatives want their children to breathe.
Borlaugians are environmentalists, too. They simply think the road to salvation lies not through making do with less, but rather through innovation and the conditions in which innovation tends to flourish, greater affluence and individual freedom most of all.
If environmental alarmists ever wonder why more people haven’t come around to their way of thinking, it isn’t because people like me occasionally voice doubts in newspaper op-eds. It’s because too many past predictions of imminent disaster didn’t come to pass.
Institutionalised data bias is a handy default for radical-left eco-catastrophists who have a tendency to extract worst-case scenarios from every weather event. | THE AUSTRALIAN
GLOBAL warming alarmists want to change us, they want to change our behaviour, our way of life, our values and preferences. They want to restrict our freedom because they themselves believe they know what is good for us. They are not interested in climate or the environment. They misuse the climate in their goal to restrict our freedom. Therefore, what is in danger is freedom, not the climate.
FORMER head of Deutsche Bank, the ABC and ASX, Maurice Newman, writes another insightful piece in todays Australian maintaining that “it’s not carbon dioxide that threatens us with extinction but blind ideology dressed up as science.”
The inconvenient truth is that catastrophists are wrong
It should come as a great relief to know the freezing temperatures recently experienced in the northern hemisphere do not signal an end to global warming.
Imagine if mankind’s increasingly costly attempts to arrest CO2 emissions were unnecessary. That the misallocation of productive resources, prolonging the misery of the world’s most vulnerable people, was nothing more than a cynical ideological exercise?
Hopefully, those global warming doubters in Florida watching frozen iguanas falling stiff from the trees now know that while they were freezing, according to Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, little old Penrith in Sydney, Australia, was the warmest spot on the planet, recording its highest temperature ever, having “broken the all-time maximum temperature record for … the Sydney metropolitan area”.
Well, perhaps in all that excitement the bureau can be forgiven for overlooking the fact Penrith Lakes started recording temperatures only in 1995 and for missing a much higher temperature recorded in nearby Richmond in 1939. But they were right. It was hot.
In a hurried piece in Fairfax publications, the Climate Council of Australia’s Will Steffen throws hot water on any misconceptions that may have been drawn from abnormal snowfalls in Britain, Switzerland and Japan, the record-breaking cold snap in Canada and the US, and the expansion of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.
He says: “Terms like ‘global warming’ and the mental images they trigger can be misleading when people attempt to understand what is happening to the climate. A far better term is ‘climate disruption’, which captures the real nature of the vast array of changes, many of them abrupt and unexpected, that are occurring.” So fire and ice, it’s to be expected.
Of course you won’t be surprised to learn Steffen claims “the climate disruption we are increasingly experiencing is not natural. It is caused by the heat-trapping gases we humans are pouring into the atmosphere primarily by the burning of coal, oil and gas.”
On the day Steffen’s opinion piece appeared, this newspaper republished Matt Ridley’s article in The Times claiming “the Earth is very slowly slipping back into a proper ice age”. This confirms research by Henrik Svensmark, Australia’s David Evans and others, who correlated low solar activity (fewer sunspots) and increased cloud cover (as modulated by cosmic rays), with a cooling climate.
Indeed, last year scientists submitted 120 papers linking historical and modern climate change to variations in solar activity.
Steffen wasn’t among them. He says: “Whole ecosystems are succumbing to (human-induced) climate disruption. In 2016 unusually dry and hot conditions triggered massive fires in Tasmania’s World Heritage forests, while ocean circulation patterns have moved unprecedented underwater heatwaves around the world, driving the tragic coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef.’’
Yet the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Russell Reichelt, dismisses many of the claims that he says “misrepresent the extent and impact of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef.”
Peter Ridd from James Cook University goes further, saying: “We can no longer trust the scientific organisations like the ARC (Australian Research Council) Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. The science is coming out not properly checked, tested or replicated, and this is a great shame.”
Steffen’s work could fit this description. He spends much time pushing eco-catastrophism. “Climate disruption” he says “brings growing risks of large-scale migration and conflict as people, particularly the most vulnerable, are forced to deal with increasingly difficult conditions where they live. Some security analysts warn that climate disruption will dwarf terrorism and other conventional threats if present trends continue or worsen.
“Had enough of climate disruption? Then let’s leave our 20th-century thinking behind and get on with the job of rapidly building innovative, clever, carbon-neutral 21st-century societies.”
But Ridley questions the influence of carbon dioxide. He reminds us that: “In 1895 the Swede, Svante Arrhenius, one of the scientists who first championed the greenhouse theory, suggested that the ice retreated because carbon dioxide levels rose, and advanced because they fell. If this was true, then industrial emissions could head off the next ice age. There is indeed a correlation in the ice cores between temperature and carbon dioxide, but inconveniently it is the wrong way round: carbon dioxide follows rather than leads temperature downward when the ice returns.”
But where would manmade global warming “science” be if it relied on just facts? For decades, climate science has been plagued by scandals, deceit and the confessions of whistleblowers.
Penrith’s hyped recording is not new. Scientist and long-time BOM critic Jennifer Marohasy has been calling for an audit and urging Energy and Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg “to inform the World Meteorological Organisation that the temperatures recorded by our bureau are not consistent with calibration, nor any international standard”, and, to “direct the bureau to desist from announcing new record hot days”.
Still, institutionalised data bias is a handy default for radical-left eco-catastrophists who have a tendency to extract worst-case scenarios from every weather event.
But despite their best efforts, in the public’s eyes their story is wearing thin. There have been too many false predictions and unwarranted alarmism. People are wising up to the reality that climate science has become an unfalsifiable ideology and resent having their moral conscience questioned should they disagree.
If Ridley is right and the earth is slowly slipping back into a proper ice age, it will be literally cold comfort, not to mention lethal, to keep passing it off as climate disruption.
To survive such an event, our successors will need a plentiful supply of cheap, reliable energy, impossible given today’s intelligentsia’s religious objection to low-cost fossil and nuclear fuels.
It’s not carbon dioxide that threatens us with extinction but blind ideology dressed up as science.
THIS “climate loop” graphic delineates precisely the scandalous gravy train and self-perpetuating madness of “Climate Crisis Inc.” Where screaming “SAVE THE PLANET” promises a bounty of backslapping, group approval, and if deceitful enough, free access to trillions of dollars of taxpayers money; unchallenged, unlimited, guaranteed by the bank of virtue-signalling, environmentalism and political correctness.
“BUT…but…without the U.S, how do we fund our climate gabfests in every exotic corner of the world?! Jet travel, 5-star hotels, champagne and caviar cost money you know!” – Signed, concerned UN climate elites and environmental NGO’s.
While the COP23 climate conference is going on in Bon this week, there has been renewed wailing and gnashing of teeth over President Trump’s withdraw from the 2015 Paris Climate Accord this past summer. There are lots of reasons why the US doesn’t need to participate, but looking at this one graph, it becomes clear that other countries aren’t leading the way, not one bit. The USA leads by a large margin.
This is the graph climate alarmists and tax revenue trough feeders don’t want you to see: