Saturday, February 06, 2021

The Supreme arrogance of the Green Left

"People driving their cars and heating their homes? “WE HAVE TO BREAK THEIR WILL.”

Massachusetts Climate Tsar Caught Exposing The Plan

David Ismay, Undersecretary for Climate Change, Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs in a presentation to the Vermont Climate Council meeting held on 1-25-2021.

“So let me say that again, 60% of our emissions that need to be reduced come from you, the person across the street, the senior on fixed income, right… there is no bad guy left, at least in Massachusetts to point the finger at, to turn the screws on, and you know, to break their will, so they stop emitting. That’s you. We have to break your will. Right, I can’t even say that publicly….”

Climate modelers are simpletons

Alan Siddons

This just occurred to me, although it’s been in back of my mind a long time. The blackbody is defined as an object that absorbs all incident thermal radiation. Climate modelers take this LITERALLY, as an absolute fact. Thus they assume that a heated blackbody which raises the temperature of X will absorb X’s radiation as well and can thereby raise its own temperature — since it absorbs ALL incident thermal radiation.

image from

To point out another impossible blackbody property, directing 333 (3.68°C) at a 64 (minus 89.86°C) blackbody cannot raise it to 397 (16°C), because 64 simply absorbs the difference, i.e., 269 W/m², bringing it to 3.68°C as well.

This is confirmed by the Radiation Heat Transfer feature at Engineering Toolbox. Entering 1 for the emissivity, 3.68 for the hot object. -89.86 for the cold, and pressing Calculate yields the answer: a transfer of 269.

There shouldn’t be a need to explain yet it MUST be explained to these dangerous dimwits that the theoretical blackbody absorbs all incident radiation PROVIDED IT’S NOT RADIATING ANYTHING ITSELF.

The Effect does not exist. But the Theory of this Effect is now poised to destroy civilization.

Email from

Court convicts French state for failure to address climate crisis

A Paris court has convicted the French state of failing to address the climate crisis and not keeping its promises to tackle greenhouse gas emissions.

In what has been hailed as a historic ruling, the court found the state guilty of “non-respect of its engagements” aimed at combating global warming.

Billed the “affair of the century”, the legal case was brought by four French environmental groups after a petition signed by 2.3 million people.

“This is an historic win for climate justice. The decision not only takes into consideration what scientists say and what people want from French public policies, but it should also inspire people all over the world to hold their governments accountable for climate change in their courts,” said Jean-François Julliard, the executive director of Greenpeace France, one of the plaintiffs.

He said the judgment would be used to push the French state to act against the climate emergency. “No more blah blah,” he added.

Cécilia Rinaudo, the director of Notre Affaire à Tous (It’s Everyone’s Business), another plaintiff, said it was an “immense victory” for climate activists around the world.

“It’s a victory for all the people who are already facing the devastating impact of the climate crisis that our leaders fail to tackle. The time has come for justice,” Rinaudo said.

“This legal action has brought millions of people together in a common fight: the fight for our future. The judge’s landmark decision proves that France’s climate inaction is no longer tolerable, it is illegal. But the fight is not over. Recognising the state’s inaction is only a first step towards the implementation of concrete and efficient measures to combat climate change.”

The court ruled that compensation for “ecological damage” was admissible, and declared the state “should be held liable for part of this damage if it had failed to meet its commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”.

It did not uphold a claim for symbolic compensation, saying compensation should be made “in kind”, with damages awarded “only if the reparation measures were impossible or insufficient”.

However, the court ruled that the applicants were entitled to seek compensation in kind for the “ecological damage caused by France’s failure to comply with the targets it had set for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It said this needed further investigation and gave the state two months to respond.

It awarded each organisation a symbolic €1 for “moral prejudice”, saying the state’s failure to honour its climate commitments was “detrimental to the collective interest”.

Wednesday’s judgment was hailed as “revolutionary” by the four NGOs – including Greenpeace France and Oxfam France – that lodged the formal complaint with the French prime minister’s office in December 2018. When they received what they considered an inadequate response, they filed a legal case in March 2019.

The Paris agreement signed five years ago aimed to limit global warming to less than 2C above pre-industrial levels. Donald Trump pulled the US out of the deal in 2017, though Joe Biden plans to rejoin. Environmental experts say governments, including the French administration, have failed to meet their commitments.

The French government has pledged to reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030 and reach carbon neutrality by 2050.

NGOs say the state is exceeding its carbon budgets and is not moving quickly enough to renovate buildings to make them energy efficient, or to develop renewable energy. They claim this is having a serious impact on the daily quality of life and health of people in France.

In a report last July, France’s High Council for the Climate severely criticised government policies. “Climate action is not up to the challenges and objectives,” it said.

France’s greenhouse gas emission dropped by 0.9% in 2018-19, when the annual drop needed to reach its targets is 1.5% until 2025 and 3.2% afterwards.

In a written defence, the French government rejected accusations of inaction and asked the court to throw out any claim for compensation. It argued that the state could not be held uniquely responsible for climate change when it was not responsible for all global emissions.

Prominent Australian Greenies lose Federal Court bid to end native forest logging in Tasmania

The Bob Brown Foundation took the Federal and Tasmanian Governments, along with Sustainable Timber Tasmania, to court in what environmentalists billed as "the great forest case".

It argued the state's Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) contradicted federal laws and was therefore invalid. It submitted Tasmania's RFA did not protect endangered species, particularly the swift parrot.

The foundation posted on social media saying the decision was "just a setback" and did not change its campaign to end native forest logging.

Bob Brown said "this will simply invigorate our campaign to protect Tasmania's forest and wildlife". "Tasmania's forests will be free of chainsaws before too long," Mr Brown said.

He said the foundation would now look at options to appeal to the High Court.

The foundation's case came after the Federal Court ruled last year that state-owned timber company VicForests breached environmental laws by logging sections of the Central Highlands inhabited by the critically endangered Leadbeater's possum.

The forest industry and government ministers said the decision was a "win" for forestry workers.

Assistant Minister for Forestry and Fisheries Jonno Duniam said Mr Brown must now accept the judgement. "This is a victory for every hard-working man and woman in forestry across the nation," Senator Duniam said in a statement.

"Bob Brown said himself that 'it's time for a big winner' when it comes to the native forestry industry, and today's decision confirms forestry is that winner."

Tasmanian Forest Products Association chief executive Nick Steel said the outcome was good news "for Tasmanian jobs, the environment, and the Tasmanian community".

"Regional Forest Agreements were set up to provide an appropriate balance between the environment and jobs and to provide certainty to all parties, and the public can now be reassured about this balance by today's decision," Mr Steel said.

Tasmania's forestry industry employees more than 5,000 people, both directly and indirectly.




No comments: