One starving bear is not evidence of climate change, despite gruesome photos

“I’ve called this practice of filming dead or dying bears and splashing the photos across the pages of newspapers and the internet “tragedy porn” — a kind of voyerism that leaves people open to emotional manipulation. The internet laps it up.”

SADLY, so true of the era of “fake news” and the 24/7 media cycle we inhabit today. The gullible lap it up and the so-called “climate change Crisis” perpetuates with the climate-porn propaganda merchants set on turbo, creating truths out of lies.

polarbearscience

We finally have this year’s example of the new fad of claiming every polar bear that died of starvation (or on its way to starving to death) — and caught on film — is a victim of climate change: a young bear on Somerset Island near Baffin Island, Nunavut filmed in August during its last angonizing hours by members of an activist conservation organization called SeaLegacy.

‘I filmed with tears rolling down my cheeks’: Heart-breaking footage shows a starving polar bear on its deathbed struggling to walk on iceless land.” [actual title of article in the DailyMail Online, 8 December 2017]. CBC Radio (8 December 2017) jumped on it as well, as have others. National Geographic ran a similar story, like others, that compliantly emphasized the future man-made global warming threat the photographers were touting.

Baffin Island starving pb headline_GlobalNews_8 Dec 2017

This is no different from Ian Stirling’s“bear that died of…

View original post 986 more words

Advertisements

China’s first all-electric cargo ship will transport coal

CLEVER China! Green-washing their massively expanding fossil fuel powered economy with token gestures like this “electric powered ship”. With the lame-stream media and “green” groups gobbling it up and parroting the blatant symbolism as direct evidence of how China is “leading the way in green technology..” Blah blah blah…

THE only thing China is leading the way in is:

– Record economic growth care of their massive expansion of coal-fired power.
– Selling unreliable (wind/solar) energy tech to the gullible, climate-obsessed West, sending their economies broke and
– Controlling the climate-obsessed mainstream media through token Greenwashing efforts like this electric ship.

CLEVER China. They must be in hysterics at how easy it is to con green groups and the sycophant media through the use of such transparent ‘green’ propaganda!

“Ship of fools” comes to mind. And I’m definitely not directing that at China.

🤦‍♂️

Nuts.

UPDATE:

‪China spoils the launch of world’s first electric cargo ship by using it to haul coal https://thinkprogress.org/china-electric-cargo-ship-coal-b3c6aa90564e/ via @thinkprogress‬ 😅

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Guangzhou, China
If there were prizes for irony, this would have to be a contender. Does the coal generate its electricity?

China, already the world’s biggest electric-vehicle market, is now using battery power to fuel cargo shipping as well, reports Quartz Media.

A Chinese company has built a 2,000 metric-ton (2,204 tons) all-electric cargo ship, which was launched from the southern Chinese city of Guangzhou in mid-November, according to state-run newspaper People’s Daily.

The 70-meter long (229 feet) and 14-meter wide (45 feet) ship is equipped with over 1,000 lithium batteries, with a total capacity of 2,400 kilowatt-hours.

By comparison, Tesla’s Model X is equipped with a 100-kWh battery that allows it to drive nearly 570 kilometers (350 miles).

View original post 174 more words


EU Admits Europeans Not Concerned About Climate Change

“I see two things going on here:

1) Most people are far more intelligent than the elites give them credit for. They can see through the deception they have been fed, and are capable of using their own eyes to see what is really going on.

2) People are growing numb to the incessant propaganda.”

And,

3) Economies, businesses and (non-elite) peoples’ livelihoods are being destroyed by insanely high electricity bills as a direct result of the West’s mad obsession with unreliable-energy, wind and solar.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

From No Tricks:

image

If one were to rate the investment made by governments globally aimed at creating concern for a potential problem, then the huge investment in climate change fear by now would definitely have to be rated as “junk” quality.

Never has so much seen so little return.

Hundreds of billions have been invested so far with the aim of generating mass fear, and by now we would think the global public should be in a state of panic. That’s the least one would expect from such a massive investment in fostering fear.

But it turns out that climate change remains very low on the list of concerns that citizens have.

View original post 238 more words


THE Carbon Dioxide Word Game

shutterstock_556760875

“Carbon dioxide does not affect air quality. It is, in effect, plant food. Those who call it air pollution are trying to present carbon dioxide as something it is not, in order to further a political agenda.” FOSC

***

AN excellent ‘re-education’ piece by Robert Lyman via Friends Of Science Calgary on the politically demonised gas of life – CO2 (Carbon Dioxide).

OUR children are being scandalously indoctrinated in the class-room to believe that colourless, odourless, tasteless trace-gas and plant food CO2 is a “pollutant”.

THE Obama administration via his extremist EPA even declared, by law, CO2 (your own breath) a “pollutant”!

The EPA on April 17 [2009] proposed new regulations to control carbon dioxide (CO2) and five other “greenhouse gases” as “pollutants” under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. While not mentioning what aspects of carbon-dioxide emissions will be regulated, the carbon dioxide emitted from automobiles and power plants is definitely on the regulation block. The first step toward costly and far-reaching regulations is that the EPA establish carbon dioxide as a regulatory “pollutant,” even though all plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis and all animals exhale carbon dioxide.

EPA Declares Human Breath (CO2) a Pollutant

From FOSC :

YOUNG adults in Canada today have grown up during a period when educational standards are significantly different from those of previous generations, and “environmental awareness”, was often included as a formal or informal part of the curriculum. Yet, misconceptions abound. I was reminded of this the other day when a young woman I met expressed concern about how carbon dioxide was harming air quality and people’s health. Even the government, after all, calls carbon dioxide “pollution”.

 

In the interests of clarity, therefore, I thought I would offer some hard information that people might find good to have.

 

In brief, carbon dioxide does not harm air quality.

Carbon-dioxide-3D-vdW

Visualization of carbon dioxide (CO2) molecule

Carbon dioxide is a colourless, odourless, tasteless gas found naturally in the earth’s atmosphere. It is produced by natural sources like volcanoes, hot springs and geysers, people and animals (including fish), decay of organic materials, the combustion (i.e. burning) of fossil fuels, and as a by-product of some industrial processes like baking and brewing. Plants and algae use light to photosynthesize a compound called carbohydrate from carbon dioxide and water. Carbon dioxide is the primary source of carbon life; in other words, without carbon dioxide, there would be no life on earth.

image-170842-web 4 part soot

Image of various particulate matter. “Soot” (upper left hand image) is actually ‘”carbon” – a physical remnant of incomplete combustion of burning wood or fossil fuels. It is scientifically inaccurate to refer to the gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), as “carbon” as they are different things. http://www.chemistryexplained.com/elements/A-C/Carbon.html

 

Carbon dioxide is an essential element in human respiration; people breathe out about 40,000ppm (parts per million) CO2 with every breath.

co2 is not a pollutant supreme court justice

The quality of the air we breathe is sometimes impaired by certain contaminants, and it helps to know what these are. The main ones are:

  • Particulate matter: Particulates are tiny drops of liquid and sold particles, the size of dust or smaller, suspended in the air. They come mainly from agriculture, construction and dust from roads, although various industrial sources play a role. Along with ozone, it is a major component of smog and, at high levels, can harm human health. (Often referred to as PM2.5 or PM10 – meaning Particulate Matter smaller than 2.5 or 10 microns in size.)
  • Airborne-particulate-size-chart

    Chart showing diverse forms of airborne particulate matter according to size range.

    Nitrogen oxide: Nitrogen dioxide is a reddish-brown toxic gas with an irritating smell. Exposure to high levels of nitrogen dioxide can cause breathing problems and reduced lung function, and it is a component of acid rain.

  • Ground-level ozone: Low-level ozone is a colourless gas that is formed through a chemical reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunlight. The major sources of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds are transportation, oil and natural gas production, electricity generation, home heating and even the burning of firewood. At high levels, ground-level ozone can cause breathing problems, lung damage, and asthma attacks in humans and damage to sensitive vegetation.
  • Sulphur dioxide: Sulphur dioxide is a colourless and toxic gas that smells bad. It is caused both by natural sources and by human activity, the most important of which are smelting and refining, electricity generation, heating, and oil and gas production and other industries. Sulphur dioxide in high concentrations can contribute to breathing and heart problems, especially among infants and the elderly.
  • Carbon monoxide: Unlike carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide is a highly toxic gas that is caused by the incomplete burning of oil, natural gas and coal. High levels of carbon monoxide can cause dizziness, unconsciousness, and even death.

 

 

AirPollutantEmissions_Nat_EN envir can 1990 to 2015

Environment Canada chart shows decline in noxious emissions from 1990  https://www.ec.gc.ca/indicateurs-indicators/default.asp?lang=En&n=E79F4C12-1

 

So, carbon dioxide does not affect air quality. It is, in effect, plant food. Those who call it air pollution are trying to present carbon dioxide as something it is not, in order to further a political agenda.

Time lapse of plants with different CO2 concentrations:

Read on…

The Carbon Dioxide Word Game | Friends of Science Calgary

•••

Plant Food CO2 Related :

CO2 – “The Stuff of Life” – Greening The Planet :


1970’s Climate Hysteria : Global Cooling – The Coming Ice Age

Time and GC.jpg

DEEP within human nature there are certain types of people who yearn for catastrophe, they yearn to have significance in their lives believing that theirs is the time when the chickens are coming home to roost and everything is going to go tits up.

THE biggest selling environmental books in history, predict the mass destruction of the planet. Rachel Carson’s 1962 international bestseller “Silent Spring” predicted mass cancer from plant pesticides and DDT. Paul Ehrlich’s “The Population Bomb” 1968, argued on malthusian lines that population explosion would mean mass starvation around the world. People buy this stuff. They lap it up and books like this sell in droves, in a way that more reasonable books that say “hang on, lets look at the facts”, don’t.

THIS short YouTube video via our friends @Carbongate needs no introduction, and is a must watch..

•••

1970’s Global Cooling (Climate Change) Eco-scare related :

MORE 1970′s Global Cooling Scare Related :


THE “97%” Climate Consensus Lie Nailed

97_percent_busted.jpg

ALEX EPSTEIN, author of the New York Times best-selling book “The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels” brilliantly and succinctly lays out why the much touted “97% of climate scientists agree” meme, amounts to nothing more than clever PR and propaganda used by climate alarmists to promote the Left’s pet environmental/political cause – “man-made global warming climate change”…

Before you view Alex’s terrific 4:36min presentation, ask yourself how plausible a 97% consensus of any belief or argument really is, without it having been subject to bogus and deceitful manipulation.

  • How many elections are won by a 97% majority?
  • 100% of doctors believed passive smoking caused cancer until that theory was quashed.
  • 100% of doctors believed cholesterol was deadly until recently.
  • If 97% of Meteorologists can’t predict the weather next week, why do 97% of climate experts alarmists think that they can predict the climate 100 years from now?

Is it true that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real? Where does the 97% figure come from? And if it is true, do they agree on both the severity of and the solution to climate change? New York Times bestselling author Alex Epstein, founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, reveals the origins of the “97%” figure and explains how to think more clearly about climate change.

•••

These 30,000+ “scientists” weren’t sucked in by the “97%” climate consensus hoax…

petition-warming-screenshot.jpg

31,487 Sigs (9,029 PHD’s) Global Warming Petition Project

The “97%” Hoax Related :

consensus-peer-review-climate.gif


7 REASONS Why Activist Orgs Like NatGeo (Sadly) Cannot Be Trusted On Anything “Climate Change”

Nat GEop.jpg

A MUST READ unemotional and clinical scientific rebuttal of National Geographic’s latest climate change hysteria and groupthink propaganda rhetoric…

Yet another example of why – sadly – mainstream media activist outlets like the once respected NatGeo cannot be trusted on anything global warming climate change.

•••

7 part series via our friends over at Paul Homewood’s excellent site – notalotofpeopleknowthat:

1. Seven things to know about climate change–National Geographic

NG1.png

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/04/seven-things-to-know-about-climate-change/

National Geographic has long lost any scientific credibility on climate change issues. It’s new project, “Seven things to know about climate change”, does nothing to restore it.

NG2.png

NG3

In fact, as their graph clearly shows, temperatures have been steadily rising the 19thC, long before CO2 emissions could have made any noticeable difference.

Why is there no mention that the Little Ice Age, culminating in the late 19thC, is known to be probably the coldest period in Earth’s history since the end of the last Ice Age?

They also mention satellite measurements, but strangely forget to state that atmospheric temperatures last year were no higher than in 1998.

Seven things to know about climate change–National Geographic | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

•••

2. Second Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic

PART 2 – Colourless, odourless, trace gas and plant food – carbon dioxide (CO2) hysteria… (Climatism comment)

NATG4.png

NG5.png

They fail to explain why global temperatures fell between 1940 and 1980, at the same time as CO2 emissions were rising rapidly.

They also forget to mention the role that the great ocean cycles played in 20thC warming. The post 1940 cool down coincided with the shift of both PDO and AMO to cold phase.

Similarly post 1980 warming was in large part the result of a return to warm phase for both cycles.

NG6.png

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/gcos_wgsp/tsanalysis.pl?tstype1=91&tstype2=20&year1=1900&year2=2016&itypea=0&axistype=1&anom=0&plotstyle=0&climo1=&climo2=&y1=&y2=&y21=&y22=&length=&lag=&iall=0&iseas=1&mon1=0&mon2=11&Submit=Calculate+Results

•••

3. Third Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic

PART 3 – The fake “97% consensus” revered worldwide by the likes of Barack Obama, cooked up by cartoonist and professional climate activist John Cook. Following on from the bogus Doran/Zimmerman study of 2009: http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/fp-comment/blog.html?b=business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats (Climatism comment)

ng7.png

NG8.png

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/04/seven-things-to-know-about-climate-change/

The main cause of global warming? Err, well no actually.

According to the Cook study quoted, only 65 papers found explicitly found that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming.

I make that 1.6%, not 97%.

Full details are here.

Virtually all scientists accept that man has some effect on climate, even if only through urbanisation. The Cook study is therefore pretty much worthless anyway, as the authors knew before they published it.

But the fact that only 65 papers identified humans as the primary cause is extremely damning to the supposed consensus.

If humans are actually responsible for less than half of recent warming, the whole scare story falls apart.

Prof Mike Hulme of the Tyndall Centre summed up just how meaningless Cook’s study was:

The [Cook et al.] article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in [an earlier study]: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/andrew-montford-the-97/

•••

4. Fourth Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic

PART 4 – Starting your Arctic sea ice extent graph at the century maximum of 1979… (Climatism comment)

NG9

NG10.png

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/04/seven-things-to-know-about-climate-change/

Even their graph of Arctic sea ice extent shows that the ice has stabilised since 2007. They are, of course, hoping that readers will not notice this.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/04/seven-things-to-know-about-climate-change/

They start their graph in 1979, at the end of a period when the Arctic had been getting colder for three decades.

In Climate, History and the Modern World, HH Lamb wrote (in 1982):

The cooling of the Arctic since 1950-60 has been most marked in the very same regions which experienced the strongest warming in the earlier decades of the 20thC, namely the central Arctic and northernmost parts of the two great continents remote from the world’s oceans, but also in the Norwegian-East Greenland Sea….

A greatly increased flow of the cold East Greenland Current has in several years (especially 1968 and 1969, but also 1965, 1975 and 1979) brought more Arctic sea ice to the coasts of Iceland than for fifty years. In April-May 1968 and 1969, the island was half surrounded by ice, as had not occurred since 1888.

Such sea ice years have always been dreaded in Iceland’s history because of the depression of summer temperatures and the effects on farm production….. The 1960’s also saw the abandonment of attempts at grain growing in Iceland, which had been resumed in the warmer decades of this century after a lapse of some hundreds of years…

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/hh-lamb-cooling-in-the-arctic/

And during the earlier decades of warming, which he mentions, we know that temperatures around the Arctic were at similar levels to today.

For instance, Nuuk in Greenland:

Nuuk.png

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/10/17/greenland-temperature-trends-1873-2015/

The warming and cooling cycles in the Arctic have nothing at all to do with global warming, but follow the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, a perfectly natural event, which NOAA says has been occurring for at least the last 1000 years.

NG12

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/gcos_wgsp/tsanalysis.pl?tstype1=91&tstype2=0&year1=1895&year2=&itypea=0&axistype=0&anom=0&plotstyle=0&climo1=&climo2=&y1=&y2=&y21=&y22=&length=&lag=&iall=0&iseas=1&mon1=0&mon2=11&Submit=Calculate+Results

As for the Antarctic, the land ice mass there is actually growing, according to satellite altimeters.

They also mention glaciers, but do not tell their readers that glaciers worldwide grew massively between the Middle Ages and the mid 19thC, in other words during the Little Ice Age. (See here.)

They began retreating around the mid 19thC, and observations show that the rate of recession was greater then and in the early 20thC than it is now.

As glaciers melt, we are finding the remains of forests, carbon dated to the Middle Ages, as far apart as Alaska and Patagonia. Clearly glaciers are simply returning to their natural state prior to the Little Ice Age.

•••

5. Fifth Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic

PART 5 – The Great “Extreme Weather” Climate Change Propaganda Con

“by most metrics, extreme weather events are becoming ‘less’ extreme as CO2 increases.”

https://climatism.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/the-great-extreme-weather-climate-change-propaganda-con/

(Climatism comment)

ng5a

NG5b

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/04/seven-things-to-know-about-climate-change/

There is no doubt that the “extreme weather lie” is one of the most fraudulent aspects of the whole climate scam.

Even the IPCC’s SREX report could not find any evidence that that extreme weather was increasing.

National Geographic’s claim is based on the above graph from Munich Re, showing the number of “global natural disasters”. But how are these defined?

Clearly every single flood, storm and so on is not counted. According to Munich Re themselves:

Taking very small events out of the equation, 750 relevant loss events [in 2016]such as earthquakes, storms, floods, droughts and heatwaves were recorded in the Munich Re NatCatSERVICE database.

So what determines a “relevant event”. The answer of course is heavily weighted to economic cost. While this may have relevance to the insurance industry, it has little bearing on climate trends.

As the European Environment Agency explained in their “Damages from weather and climate-related events” report in 2012:

  • The observed damage increase is primarily due to increases in population, economic wealth and human activities in hazard-prone areas and to better reporting.
  • It is currently difficult to determine accurately the proportion of damage costs that are attributable to climate change.

Roger Pielke Jnr, a leading expert on the cost of disasters, has repeatedly shown claims that extreme weather is getting worse to be worthless. His graph below sums the whole topic up well.

Note that it is based on Munich Re’s own database.

NG5c.png

https://twitter.com/RogerPielkeJr/status/684740869707071488

Of course, Munich Re have a vested interest in pretending that weather disasters are on the increase, as it allows them to push up their insurance premiums.

Despite a supposedly calamitous year for disasters, Munich Re actually made a profit of Eu2.6bn in 2016, well ahead of its target of Eu2.3bn.

Most of this profit came from the reinsurance business, which made Eu2.5bn.

•••

6. The Sixth Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic

PART 6 – “There are many threats facing eco systems, but a barely noticeable increase in temperature is not one of them.”

NG6a1

NG6a2

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/04/seven-things-to-know-about-climate-change/

In 1982, HH Lamb wrote about how the ranges of birds and fishes had moved poleward in the first half of the 20thC.

When the Earth started cooling around 1960, this movement was reversed. All that animal and plant species are doing is returning to where they were a half a century or so ago.

NG6a3

HH Lamb: Climate, History and the Modern World – p264
There are many threats facing eco systems,
but a barely noticeable increase in temperature is not one of them.
•••

7. The Seventh Thing To Know About Climate Change–Nat Geographic

sg7a.png

sg7b.png

It is hard to know where to start with this load of garbage!

1) If climate change was not a serious danger, would 195 countries have signed the Paris Agreement, pledging to keep the warming below 2C?

Clearly National Geographic have failed to read what actually was agreed at Paris.

For a start, the Agreement itself actually states that, under the “pledges” made, emissions will continue to rise. To meet the 2C scenario, they would need to be cut by at least half.

sg7c.png

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/12/12/paris-agreement-will-lead-to-rise-in-ghg-emissions/

sg7d.jpg

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/09/26/why-the-uk-should-not-sign-the-paris-agreement/

Secondly, the vast majority of the 195 countries, including China and India, are designated as “developing” countries. As such, the Paris Agreement places no obligation on them at all to cut emissions, as it does on developed nations.

2) Switch to renewables

sg7e

They claim that we can save the planet by switching to renewable energy. Yet even their own graph shows that, although the use of renewable energy will roughly double by 2040, this will be dwarfed by the increasing use of fossil fuels.

The reason for this is very simple – the demand for cheap, reliable energy is growing fast amongst developing countries, as their economies expand and the expectations of their people for a better standard of living grow.

Renewable energy, such as wind and solar, is utterly incapable of meeting this demand.

The sort of emission cuts needed “to do something” would condemn billions of people to grinding poverty.

3) In the US, solar now employs more people than coal, oil and gas combined.

Given that solar only provides 0.4% of the US’s energy, this fatuous statement shows just how inefficient solar power really is.

sg7f
BP Energy Review 2016

4) We can do something about it!

Who is this WE?

In the last decade or so, emissions have been slowly dropping in the US and EU, and now only account for 27% of global CO2.

Meanwhile, emissions in China and the rest of the world have been rocketing upwards.

sg7g

BP Energy Review 2016

Even if US and EU emissions dropped to zero, it would only take global emissions back to their level in 2002, and make next to no difference to the climate.

This whole series from National Geographic has from start to finish been based on a combination of irrelevant, fake and cherry picked data.

Sadly this seems to sum up the low standards that it has now sunk to.

•••

National Geographic Climate Change Alarmism Related :