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 a must read opinion piece in the The Australian providing further evidence that the “global warming movement is really the triumph of ideology over science”…
You have to hand it to Peter Hannam, The Sydney Morning Herald’s climate change alarmist-in-chief, for his report last month – “ ‘Really extreme’ global weather event leaves scientists aghast”.
Hannam is often the canary in the coalmine (er, wind farm) when there is a sense that public belief in man-made global warming is flagging. With Europe in the grip of a much colder winter than predicted and with the abnormal chill spreading even to Africa, he did his best to hold the line.
Earlier this year, Climate Council councillor Will Steffen also climbed on board — for The Sydney Morning Herald of course. Extreme cold in Britain, Switzerland and Japan, a record-breaking cold snap in Canada and the US and an expansion of the East Antarctic ice sheet coincided with a Bureau of Meteorology tweet (later retracted) that January 7 had set a heat record for the Sydney Basin. Steffen told us these seemingly unrelated events were in fact linked. “Climate disruption” explained both. Whether fire or ice, we’re to blame. No ifs, no buts.
Now a warming Arctic provides the perfect opportunity for Hannam to divert attention from the latest deep freeze. He ominously warns: “Climate scientists are used to seeing the range of weather extremes stretched by global warming, but few episodes appear as remarkable as this week’s unusual heat over the Arctic.”
It’s true, warm air has made its way up to the high Arctic, driving temperatures up to 20C above average. But Anthony Watts, who runs a climate change website, puts things into perspective. He observes: “Warm moist air from the Pacific and Atlantic oceans has warmed the Arctic above the 80th parallel. It should be noted, however, that the Arctic Circle actually starts at 66 degrees north, meaning the record heat is over a much narrower area.”
Cato Institute atmospheric scientist Ryan Maue reviewed high Arctic temperature data going back to 1958 and says: “Data before the satellite era … has some problems, so it’s hard to say the current spike is for sure a record.” He says that if the baseline is 1973, when the polar-orbiting satellites began recording the data, there is not much difference between today’s ice extent and then.
Indeed, we now have satellite confirmation that global air temperatures are back to the same level they were before the 2014-16 super El Nino event and, this January and February, the decline accelerated. Since 2015 satellites also have detected a fall in sea surface temperatures.
Solar expert Piers Corbyn, of British forecasting group WeatherAction and famous for his successful wagers against the British Met Office forecasts, predicts Earth faces another mini ice age with potentially devastating consequences. He notes: “The frequency of sunspots is expected to rapidly decline … reaching a minimum between the years 2019 and 2020.” Indeed, the present decline in solar activity is faster than at any time in the past 9300 years, suggesting an end to the grand solar maximum.
Critics say while “it might be safe to go with (Corbyn’s) forecast for rain next Tuesday, it would be foolish to gamble the world can just go on burning all the coal and oil we want”. That’s the nub of it. The world has bet the shop on CO2 warming and the “science” must be defended at all costs.
But while spinning unfalsifiable “climate disruption” slogans may sway readers of The Sydney Morning Herald and resonate with believers in their centrally heated halls, those in the real world, witnessing hundreds of people dying of the cold and thousands more receiving emergency treatment, will consider they’ve been duped.
Not feeling duped are successive Australian governments that have become committed members of a green-left global warming movement promoted by the UN. On dubious scientific grounds they have agreed to accept meaningless, anti-growth, CO2 emission targets that enrich elites and burden the masses.
And, true to label, a Green Climate Fund supported by Australia and 42 mostly developed countries will redistribute $US100 billion ($128bn) annually to poorer nations as reparation for the unspecified environmental harm the West has allegedly caused them.
Big emitters such as China, India and Russia are conspicuously absent.
Policing Australia’s targets and helping to spread confirmatory propaganda is a network of international and local bureaucracies. The world’s academies and meteorological organisations, frequently found to be unreliable and biased, keep the faith alive. They reject debate and starve nonconforming researchers of funds and information. Students are indoctrinated with unproven climate-change theories that an unquestioning media gladly reinforces. Meanwhile, the country ingenuously surrenders its competitive advantage by refusing to embrace its rich endowment of affordable baseload energy. This it happily exports while lining the pockets of renewable energy rent-seekers with generous taxpayer subsidies.
Should the world enter a period of global cooling, we should expect concerted denial. Too many livelihoods, too many reputations and too much ideology depend on the CO2 narrative. Having ceded sovereignty over our economies’ commanding heights to unelected bureaucrats in Geneva, the West (Donald Trump excluded) repeatedly turns to expensive vanity projects to paper over this folly. If the iceman cometh, there can be no quick fix. Yet we know it takes twice as much energy to heat a home than to cool one. So pity the poor and infirm who respected medical journal The Lancet says are 20 times likelier to die from cold than heat.
While even to mention a mini ice age risks scorn and derision, recent research has shown a close correlation between solar activity and climate on Earth. That possibility alone should cause shivers. But it will take time and experience before we accept the global warming movement is really the triumph of ideology over science. Until then we will continue to commit life’s cardinal sin of putting too many eggs into one questionable basket.
(Climatism links and bolds added)
See also :
- HOTTEST Arctic Ever? Arctic Climate Change Fairytales vs. Reality | Climatism
- 100% Of Climate Models Prove that 97% of Climate Scientists Were Wrong! | Climatism
- THE Climate Change Farce Explained By Two Expert “Scientists” | Climatism
- WORLD Leading Authority : Climate and Sea Level Science Is A “Quasi Religion” Hijacked By An Activist Agenda | Climatism
- THE “97% Consensus” Meme Further Discredited By 97 New Papers Supporting A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm | Climatism
- THE Great Global Warming “Pause” | Climatism
Climate Change Alarmism / Fraud related :
- CLIMATE CHANGE – The Most Massive Scientific Fraud In Human History | Climatism
- “In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming” | Climatism
- Global Warming Is The Greatest And Most Successful Pseudoscientific Fraud In History | Climatism
- EXTREME WEATHER Propaganda – The Pathway To Global Warming Hysteria | Climatism
- NASA “Sea Level Rise” Fraud | Climatism
(Still waiting for that “big oil” cheque to arrive in the mail!)
Click link for more info…TQ, Jamie
“Even the most virulent supporter of renewable energy can, after enough waterboarding, admit the link between more renewables and increased power prices.
“…and bring in diesel-powered generators to stop the lights turning off. It is surely the biggest admission that our renewables experiment has been a failure when you have to call in generators to burn pure fossil fuels.”
EXCELLENT read on the unreliable-energy fiasco that is wreaking havoc on the livelihoods of Victoria and South Australian taxpayers…
South Australians have a Labor government and its deranged, ideological obsession with wind and solar power to thank for their status as an international joke.
Paying the highest retail power prices in the world (with much worse to come – see above), routine load shedding and statewide blackouts, and a grid on the brink of collapse, is all the inevitable consequence of attempting to run an economy on sunshine and breezes.
One of the reasons things got this way (and it happened in a bit over 16 years) is the manner in which the useful idiots in the mainstream press pumped wind power, as if it was a sacred gift delivered by some magical and benevolent deity.
In South Australia, the wind cult kicked off around 2002 when its then Premier, Mike Rann started tilting at…
View original post 1,567 more words
WELCOME to Chairman Dan’s unreliable-energy ‘devolution’! Expect more skyrocketing electricity prices, blackouts and load-shedding as Australia’s virtue-signalling, climate theory-obsessed politicians continue their jihad against what was Australia’s once proud boast – cheap, reliable, efficient baseload power.
LATEST shock report on Australia’s southern states skyrocketing power prices via The Australian (Climatism bolds and links added):
AVERAGE wholesale energy prices in Victoria and South Australia have more than doubled since this time last year, as experts warn that blackouts and supply issues are likely to increase as state governments chase aggressive renewable energy targets.
More than 2000 Victorian households remained without power yesterday after two days of heat triggered equipment failures and blackouts, opening up distributors to compensation claims.
The mass outages affected more than 60,000 residents, some of whom were cut off for more than 28 hours.
The outages struck as new data showed the average wholesale energy price in Victoria climbed to $139 this month, up from $62 in January last year. In South Australia, the wholesale average price for January climbed to almost $170, up from $84 a year ago, whereas prices fell in NSW and Queensland to about $75.
The pricing data has angered energy experts, who say blackouts and supply issues are likely to increase and prices are likely to rise as the Victorian and South Australian governments pursue renewable energy targets without prioritising power sources that can supply baseload power.
Grattan Institute energy director Tony Wood said Sunday’s and Monday’s blackouts and high pricing showed that the state had botched its energy transition program by allowing baseload power sources — such as the Hazelwood power station — to be replaced by renewables, which delivered intermittent power.
“We’re dealing with a complex transition and it hasn’t been managed very well so far,” Mr Wood said. “That’s why we’ve seen local outages and high prices on the weekend, and that’s the reason why wholesale prices are substantially higher this year than last year.
“It’s a reflection of a failed policy. We’re transitioning away from centralised, cheap but dirty power stations, but we’re not replacing these stations with sources that are just as stable.”
The Andrews government last year broke away from other states and territories by instituting its own Victorian Renewable Energy Target, with a plan for renewables to power 40 per cent of the state’s energy needs by 2025.
Mr Wood said the energy supply could get patchier and the state could emerge as a net importer of electricity as the government replaced coal-fired power stations with solar and wind and other intermittent power sources, which did not fire 24 hours a day.
Federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg confirmed that the weekend power outages were the result of distribution rather than supply issues, but said the state government needed to do more to boost reliability.
He urged Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews to rethink the renewable energy target while branding South Australia’s renewables plan an experiment gone “horribly wrong”.
“Reliability standards for networks are set by state governments,” Mr Frydenberg said. “AEMO (Australian Energy Market Operator) have highlighted that supply in Victoria is tight and that is why we have called upon the Andrews government to drop its reckless state-based renewable energy targets and mindless bans on gas.
“Jay Weatherill’s ‘big experiment’ has gone horribly wrong. South Australia has the highest prices and the least stable energy system in the country and, despite the bravado in the lead-up to summer, their energy problems remain. Just a couple of weeks ago, South Australia’s prices reached $14,200 a megawatt hour, while at the same time they were $89 a MWh in NSW and $85 MWh in Queensland.
“The wind turbines, which can produce 100 per cent of energy on one day and zero on another, were not blowing when needed most, providing less than 5 per cent of power and Jay Weatherill’s big battery less than 1 per cent.”
Australian Power Project chief executive Nathan Vass warned that Victoria’s energy supply with a larger proportion of renewables likely would have buckled under conditions such as those of Sunday night.
“Batteries and solar would not have saved Victoria as over 17,000 Victorians had no power throughout the night, when the sun isn’t shining,” Mr Vass said.
“Pairing renewables with battery storage wouldn’t have done much to alleviate the blackout. By way of example, the Tesla battery facility in South Australia only provides power for an hour to 30,000 homes.”
Release of the wholesale pricing data in South Australia — and data showing South Australia still has the highest prices in the National Electricity Market — prompted state opposition energy spokesman Dan van Holst Pellekaan to savage a claim by Mr Weatherill that his $550 million “self-sufficient” energy plan was producing the lowest power prices in the national market.
“South Australians are furious about the outrageous price of electricity they pay and tired of the Weatherill government’s refusal to accept responsibility,” Mr van Holst Pellekaan said.
SA Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis said wholesale power prices were “notoriously volatile”. “Since August, wholesale power prices in South Australia have been consistently cheaper than Victoria, and in September and October, SA had the cheapest wholesale prices of mainland states in the National Electricity Market,” he said.
In Victoria, Mr Andrews blamed the outages on the Coalition’s decision to privatise the state’s energy assets in the 1990s. “Fact is, there was more than enough power being generated to meet the demand yesterday — but the private companies and their distribution systems failed yet again,” he said on Twitter.
Mr Andrews said he would push for distributors to pay compensation to households that were left for long periods without power.
TELLING observations of VIC / SA demand during the peak of the energy meltdown on Sunday 28th at 15:30…
I captured the generation chart at at 15.30 Sunday. Victoria not meeting demand… Note: SA pumping out 199MW of Diesel Gen, Battery useless at 1MW…!
NOTE “Liquid Fuel”. This relates to the $360 million worth of “green” diesel generators imported by Jay Weatherill’s SA government to cover up its renewables debacle…
AS for Elon Musk’s giant toxic battery pack boondoggle…the numbers don’t lie (1MW for another ~$200 million of taxpayer hard-earned!).
MY sympathies to all the South Australians and Victorian’s who didn’t vote for this energy insanity.
VIC Blackout Related :
- TENS Of Thousands Of Homes Across Victoria Without Power As System Buckles Under Heat – Welcome To Your Wind Powered Future! | Climatism
Australia Unreliable-Energy Debacle Related :
- THE Insane Result Of The Mad Switch To Costly, Symbolic, Unreliable Energy – Wind and Solar | Climatism
- CHEAP ENERGY – Australia’s Greatest Economic Advantage Sacrificed At The Altar Of Climate Change | Climatism
- A Totally Idiot Made Electricity Disaster | Climatism
- Australian Summer Forecast: More Blackouts & Rocketing Power Prices | Climatism
- IT’S OFFICIAL : South Australia Has The World’s Highest Power Prices! | Climatism
- POLITICIANS Mad With Global Warming Theory Are Destroying The Economy And Hurting The Poor | Climatism
- DIESEL – Keeping South Australia’s Lights On Til The Next Election! | Climatism
- LIFE In A Fossil-Fuel-Free Utopia | Climatism
- THE Twisted Irony of Deep-Green Energy Policy (RET) | Climatism
- Simon Holmes à Court – Wind Weasel | Climatism
- Survey: South Australians Fed Up with Unreliable Expensive Green Power | Climatism
- STABLE and Reliable Coal-Fired Power Still the Cheapest By a Country Mile | Climatism
- Elon’ll Fix It! | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
Unreliables Related :
- UNRELIABLE Energy – Wind and Solar – A Climate Of Communism | Climatism
- TRULY GREEN? How Germany’s #Energiewende Is Destroying Nature | Climatism
- German Pols Now Demanding Energy Welfare For Its Citizens – 800,000 Have Had Their Electricity Cut Off!
- WIND TURBINES Are Neither Clean Nor Green And They Provide Zero Global Energy | Climatism
- Adding More Solar And Wind Power ‘Doubles’ CO2 Emissions | Climatism
- THE $Trillion Windmill Industry Is The Greatest Scam Of Our Age | Climatism
- Over 100,000 People in Green Energy South Australia Now Receive Food Donations | Climatism
- Green Power is Part Time Power | Climatism
- America’s Top Green – Michael Shellenberger – Pushes Nuclear Future & Calls Wind & Solar ‘The Worst for the Enviroment’ | Climatism
Back In The Real World…
World Coal-Fired Power Surge Related :
- GREEN ENERGY FAIL – World Coal Power Development Up 43% | Climatism
- Japan Infuriating Enviros By Building 45 New Coal Power Plants | Climatism
- $7.5bn worth of coal-fired power plants planned for Vietnam | Climatism
- Coal To Remain India’s Main Energy Source For At Least 30 Years, Govt Confirms | Climatism
- China’s Production Of Electricity From Coal Surges To Record Levels | Climatism
ADDICTED to Other People’s Money: Wind Industry Howls Whenever Its Massive Subsidy Stream ThreatenedPosted: January 29, 2018
“PEEL away a few layers of this little onion and all that’s left is a ‘business’ model wholly dependent upon mandates, renewable energy certificates, production tax credits and fines on retailers for refusing to tolerate the chaos delivered by wind and solar power.
In Australia the direct and immediate cost of subsidies to wind and solar power outfits will exceed $60 billion over the life of the Federal government’s Large-Scale Renewable Energy Target. Largesse that has left Australia with among the highest retail power prices in the world (wind powered South Australia, tops the list).
No other industry in Australia’s history has enjoyed subsidies on that scale, ever.”
TRILLIONS of dollars of other-peoples’-money spent worldwide on unreliables. Wind Turnines and solar panels that are neither clean nor green and provide near zero global energy.
INSANITY on steroids and human growth hormones!
Way back in 1984, wind cultist Christopher Flavin’s told us that “in a few years’ time wind energy will not need to be subsidised.” 34 years on, the subsidies just keep on flowing and, without those subsidies, the so called wind ‘industry’ would disappear like a snowflake in summer.
No matter where they ply their trade, the wind industry, its parasites and spruikers will never be accused of running a consistent theme when it comes to wind power’s (supposed) ability to compete with conventional generation sources.
Whenever the political brains trust start challenging the true and hidden costs of wind power to their constituents, these boys start babbling about the wonders of wind being “free”; their “technology constantly improving”; their costs coming down…
View original post 1,162 more words
ANTHROPOGENIC “climate change” and the control of carbon dioxide, via the supply of energy, has deep roots in a radical yet gravely misguided campaign to reduce the world’s population.
A misanthropic agenda engineered by the environmental movement in the mid 1970’s, who realised that doing something about “global warming” would play to quite a number of its social agendas.
THE goal was advanced, most notably, by The Club Of Rome (Environmental think-tank and 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.
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.“
– Club of Rome 1993,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations
SO, it comes as no surprise that today’s UN is successfully upholding its misanthropic agenda by attempting to
starve control the world’s population through a blatant misallocation of resources, in favour of wanting to control the weather, rather than feed the most needy, for a fraction of the cost.
MEMO to the UN – If you want to reduce the world’s population, provide the third-world with cheap, reliable fossil-fuelled or nuclear power generation to lift them out of abject poverty. Wealthy (fossil-fuel/nuclear powered) nations have predominant negative birth rates. Poverty is the enemy of the environment.
Bjorn Lomborg with more via his column in The Australian…
For more than a decade, annual data showed global hunger to be on the decline. But that has changed. According to the latest data from the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, hunger affected 815 million people in 2016, 38 million more than the year before, and malnutrition is now threatening millions.
Research from my think tank, Copenhagen Consensus, has long helped to focus attention and resources on the most effective responses to malnutrition, both globally and in countries such as Haiti and Bangladesh. Unfortunately, there are worrying signs that the global response may be headed in the wrong direction.
The FAO blames the rise in hunger on a proliferation of violent conflicts and “climate-related shocks”. which means specific, extreme events such as floods and droughts.
But in the FAO’s press release, “climate-related shocks” becomes “climate change”. The report itself links the two without citing evidence, but the FAO’s communique goes further, declaring starkly: “World hunger again on the rise, driven by conflict and climate change.”
It may seem like a tiny step to go from blaming climate-related shocks to blaming climate change. Both terms relate to the weather. But that little difference means a lot, especially when it comes to the most important question: how do we help to better feed the world? Jumping the gun and blaming climate change for today’s crises attracts attention, but it makes us focus on the costliest and least effective responses.
The best evidence comes from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has clearly shown that there has been no overall increase in droughts. While some parts of the world are experiencing more and worse droughts, others are experiencing fewer and lighter droughts.
A comprehensive study in the journal Naturedemonstrates that, since 1982, incidents of all categories of drought, from “abnormally dry” to “exceptional drought”, have decreased slightly. On flooding, the IPCC is even blunter: it has “low confidence” at a global level about whether climate change has caused more or less flooding.
What the IPCC tells us is that by the end of the century, it is likely that worse droughts will affect some parts of the world. And it predicts — albeit with low confidence — that there could be more floods in some places.
Relying on climate policies to fight hunger is doomed. Any realistic carbon cuts will be expensive and have virtually no impact on climate by the end of the century. The Paris climate agreement, even if fully implemented up to 2030, would achieve just 1 per cent of the cuts needed to keep temperature from rising more than 2C, according to the UN.
And it would cost $US 1 trillion a year or more — an incredibly expensive way to make no meaningful difference to a potential increase in flooding and droughts at the end of the century.
In fact, well-intentioned policies to combat global warming could very well be exacerbating hunger. Rich countries have embraced biofuels — energy derived from plants — to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels. But the climate benefit is negligible: according to the International Institute for Sustainable Development, deforestation, fertiliser, and fossil fuels used in producing biofuels offset about 90 per cent of the “saved” carbon dioxide.
In 2013, European biofuels used enough land to feed 100 million people, and the US program even more. Biofuel subsidies contributed to rising food prices, and their swift growth was reined in only when models showed that up to another 135 million people could starve by 2020. But that means that the hunger of around 30 million people today can likely be attributed to these bad policies.
Moreover, climate policies divert resources from measures that directly reduce hunger. Our priorities seem skewed when climate policies promising a minuscule temperature impact will cost $US1 trillion a year, while the World Food Program’s budget is 169 times lower, at $5.9 billion.
There are effective ways to produce more food. One of the best, as Copenhagen Consensus research has shown, is to get serious about investing in research and development to boost agricultural productivity. Through irrigation, fertiliser, pesticides, and plant breeding, the Green Revolution increased world grain production by an astonishing 250 per cent between 1950 and 1984, raising the calorie intake of the world’s poorest people and averting severe famines. We need to build on this progress.
Investing an additional $US88bn in agricultural research and development over the next 32 years would increase yields by an additional 0.4 percentage points every year, which could save 79 million people from hunger and prevent five million cases of child malnourishment. This would be worth almost $US3 trillion in social good, implying an enormous return of $US34 for every dollar spent. By the end of the century, the additional increase in agricultural productivity would be far greater than the damage to agricultural productivity suggested by even the worst-case scenarios of the effects of global warming.
And there would be additional benefits: the World Bank has found that productivity growth in agriculture can be up to four times more effective in reducing poverty than productivity growth in other sectors.
We are at a turning point. After achieving dramatic gains against hunger and famine, we run the risk of backsliding, owing to poorly considered choices. The stakes are far too high for us to pick the wrong policies.
Bjorn Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre and a visiting professor at the Copenhagen Business School.
(Climatism bolds added)
- Bjørn Lomborg: Why Africa Needs Fossil Fuels, Not Wind Power & Wishes | Climatism
- “In Searching For A New Enemy To Unite Us, We Came Up With The Threat Of Global Warming” | Climatism
- OVER-POPULATION : Another non-problem | WND
- Overpopulation: The Fallacy Behind The Fallacy Of Global Warming | Watts Up With That?
- THE Papal Dilemma: Champion Of The Poor or UN Puppet? | Climatism
UN Related :
- UN Climate Chief Says Communism Is Best To Fight Global Warming | Climatism
- Shock news : UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity | Climatism
NOT to mention the shocking admission by the wind industry chief that England is not even windy enough! 🤦♂️
“Sooner or later everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences.” – Robert Louis Stevenson
By Paul Homewood
Wind turbines near the village of Bothel in Cumbria.
Anyone who lives in England knows just how ubiquitous wind farms now are across the countryside.
So it might come as a surprise to learn just how little power they actually produce.
The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy has now published the detailed data for 2016. It shows that onshore wind farms in England produced only 5.7 TWh, out of a total generation in England of 241.8 TWh.
In other words, the princely amount of 2%.
Can anybody say it has been worth all of the bother?