Wednesday, February 09, 2022

Jeopardy’s Great Barrier Reef Gaffe

On Jeopardy January 25, 2022, the final clue in the category of Sea Life was, “In 2018, National Geographic reported that half of this was dead, ‘akin to a forest after a devastating fire.’” All three contestants correctly answered the Great Barrier Reef.

This was day 40 of Amy Schneider’s dominant performance watched by almost ten million people.

The long-running syndicated show sat comfortably as the highest rated non-sports program across broadcast and cable television during her record-run.

So, almost ten million folks heard that the Great Barrier Reef was half dead in 2018.

Shame on Jeopardy researchers for not doing their homework! They totally did not get the facts correct

The best data on the Great Barrier Reef coral cover is provided by the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), who have been measuring over 100 reefs every year since 1986.

AIMS data show that coral cover fluctuates dramatically with time but at present the amount of coral on the reef is at record high levels.

This record high, despite all the doom stories by reef science and management institutions and Jeopardy spreading this falsehood to ten million people.


Bloomberg OpEd: ‘Blot Out The Sun’ To Fight Global Warming

A Bloomberg Opinion editor actually suggested humanity just blot out the sun to fight global warming.

Bloomberg Opinion Editor Michael Newman wrote a senseless blog headlined, “What if We Blotted Out the Sun to Fight Global Warming?”

He probably subconsciously realized the suggestion was insane, as he hedged in his subheadline: “It’s risky, but then again the path we’re on now may be even riskier.”

Newman called “solar geoengineering” one of the “great hopes” to “stop or slow climate change.”

He explained the idea as “an attempt to figure out a way to cool the planet by deflecting some of the sun’s rays before they reach us humans.”

Newman based his argument on an equally absurd article by Bloomberg Opinion columnist Clara Ferreira Marques headlined: “Solar Geoengineering Research Is a Risk Worth Taking.”

As Newman summarized, “Clara argues it’s ‘terrifying and terrible in the way that chemotherapy is: We don’t want it, but can we deny ourselves the possibility?’”

But Newman undercut himself by admitting that “The science isn’t yet there,” and that “a group of scientists argue it should be banned now — and they are not wrong that it is a risky and last-resort proposition.”

Or, perhaps dimming the thing that makes life possible on Earth is just as crazy as it sounds, and Newman pushing it as a solution makes no sense at all.

Climate Depot founder Marc Morano slapped down Newman’s blot “out the sun” as a “last resort” argument in comments emailed to MRC Business.

Morano referenced his book Green Fraud (2021), which pointed to a Newsweek article from April 28, 1975, showing how climate change extremists advocated for “melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot” to stave off global cooling.

According to Morano, Newman’s argument is “a redo of the 1970s. Before fossil fuels caused global warming, fossil fuels caused global cooling and the ice age in the 1970s!”

Morano further analyzed the narrative shift:

They were worried that our fossil fuel pollution was blocking out the sun creating global dimming and the next ice age.

They were trying to geoengineer the climate back in the 1970s and here we have come full circle now trying to do it the other way by essentially cooling the planet instead of trying to warm it.

But as is the case with much of the eco-extremist fearmongering, outrageous proposals like blotting out the sun are just political gibberish to convince politicians to push more meaningless climate regulations.

“Climate activists are using the threat of ‘blotting out the sun’ as a form of lobbying for ‘climate action,’” Morano argued.

“They are saying, ‘We are being forced to do this risky radical experiment on our planet’ unless we reduce our emissions. It’s one level of futile to pass legislation to attempt to regulate the climate and a whole different level to monkey around with the physics and mechanics of the atmosphere.”


Rethink net zero plans, Cabinet urges, as Britain faces biggest cost-of-living crisis in a generation

Senior Cabinet ministers believe there should be a rethink of the Government's net zero plans as the country faces the biggest cost of living crisis in a generation, The Telegraph can disclose.

A number of ministers have expressed concern that the pace of the planned switch to renewable energy is too fast and is increasing costs for consumers. They believe Britain should use more of its own gas in the short-term.

On Thursday, it was announced that energy bills will rise by almost £700 from April – an increase of more than 50 per cent and the largest on record.

Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor, announced a £9billion bailout, which will see rebates of £200 for all bills and a £150 council tax cut for those in less expensive homes, to help households cope with the unprecedented rise.

However, a controversial green energy levy, which will add £153 a year to the average bill from April, has been kept.

The Bank of England also raised interest rates to 0.5 per cent, warning that inflation would hit seven per cent by April amid growing fears over a cost of living crisis.

Andrew Bailey, the Bank’s Governor, said the country was facing the worst crunch to household incomes since its records began in 1990. However, he also urged workers not to ask for big pay rises or they would risk making inflation worse.

Wage growth slowed to just 4.2 per cent at the end of last year, meaning workers will require an 8.7 per cent pay rise for their salaries to keep pace with current levels of inflation.

Cabinet ministers are increasingly uneasy about Downing Street’s focus on its net zero target and have warned that the cost of living crisis should be given more priority in the coming years.

One said the UK “should not be running towards net zero so aggressively”, describing the 2050 pledge as one of the “most aggressive targets in the world”.

“We've stigmatised gas, and that’s wrong,” the minister said. “Gas has to be part of the answer.”

Another Cabinet minister told The Telegraph: “The priority should be the cost of living – 2050 is a long way away, and our own gas is a valuable transition fuel in the meantime.” That view is understood to be shared by at least another two Cabinet ministers.

Mr Sunak indicated that he may share these concerns, and highlighted that North Sea gas “plays an important part of our transition to net zero”.

He told a Downing Street press conference: “I want to make sure that people acknowledge that we should also exploit our domestic resources. We have resources in the North Sea, and we want to encourage investment in that because we're going to need natural gas as part of our transition to getting to net zero.

“And in the process of getting from here to there, if we can get investment in the North Sea that supports British jobs, that's a good thing. So that has to be part of the mix as well.”

The Telegraph can reveal that Mr Sunak has asked Kwasi Kwarteng, the Business Secretary, to fast-track new licences for North Sea gas exploration.

A source close to Mr Kwarteng said he believed the North Sea oil and gas industry should be protected to prevent imported energy becoming a “geopolitical weapon” that can be used against Britain.

“You cannot turn the taps off overnight, because restricting North Sea production doesn’t restrict demand,” a government source added.

This week, the EU announced that it classed gas as a “bridge” to its own net zero target, along with nuclear power.

Mr Sunak said it was “not sustainable” to keep energy bills “artificially low” amid rising prices on global markets, fuelled by concern about Russian aggression on the Ukrainian border.

"Higher energy prices are something that we’re going to have to adjust to in common with other countries around the world and it would be wrong to pretend otherwise,” he said.

In a statement to MPs on the Government’s plans to ease the cost of living crisis, the Chancellor announced a £200 energy rebate in October that must be paid back in installments over the next five years.


As British households worry about keeping warm, Americans remain happy

If Ofgem’s decision yesterday to hike domestic energy bills from April by almost £700 confirmed one thing for us, it should be that now, more than ever, we must rapidly work towards energy security.

Indeed, it doesn’t have to be this way. As British households worry how they are going to keep warm, Americans remain as happy as Larry.

In the US electricity prices currently average $0.15 (11.2p) per kWh (kilowatt-hour) – little more than half the average of $0.28 (20.6p) per kWh in Britain. And that is before you account for Ofgem’s price rise.

So why is it so expensive over here?

The answer is prices are kept affordable for Americans because of an energy policy which prioritises self-sufficiency.

By exploiting vast shale gas reserves, America escapes the whims of international markets. Europe and the UK, on the other hand, now find themselves trapped in a perilous price hike.

For a variety of reasons, international wholesale prices are soaring – not least because of artificially implemented pressure from President Vladimir Putin, who is said to be inflating the price of gas coming out of Russia.

And yet, this mess makes little sense when Britain is sitting on ample gas, oil and coal reserves.

Where did it all go wrong?

Britain’s energy problems can largely be traced back to then Energy Secretary Ed Miliband’s Climate Change Act of 2008, which legally committed Britain to cut carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.

In 2019, then Prime Minister Theresa May upped that target to going net-zero (fully carbon-neutral) by 2050. Boris Johnson has maintained that goal.

Yet as we continue to close coal plants, switch to electric and ramp up inefficient renewables we place ourselves even more in the clutches of those we import from.




No comments: