The global warming scare is being used as a front for wealth redistribution
Politicians of all stripes and in all Western countries have been obediently parroting the official IPCC line that Climate Change science knows best and that we must prepare for the worst. But as COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh (I refer to it as Sham in Chief) comes to an end (November 18), it’s worth noting that it was a cloaking device for the real agenda.
As long ago as November 2010, Ottmar Edenhofer, then co-chair of IPCC Working Group III, openly admitted what that agenda is. He is quoted by the Neue Zürcher Zeitung:
‘Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.’
So was the next … and the next … and the next … and the last.
Delegates are told on the COP27 Sameh Shoukry’s Presidential page that: ‘Globally, the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events is impacting the lives and livelihoods of millions of people. Rising global average temperature and rapid global warming are causing alarming consequences on human beings and all other forms of life on earth.’ All this without evidence.
The ‘Targets’ set out for COP27 in the Presidential Vision includes the following:
‘A transformative adaptation agenda is needed now, one based on science and is responsive to the actual needs of countries and communities in climate vulnerable situations.
‘Action to clarify support for loss and damage, with the increasing impacts of more frequent extreme weather events, and speeding slow onset events. It is time to respond to the calls and needs for effective mechanism that delivers on the needs for action and support, in particular for those who are most vulnerable to the climate change impacts.
‘Providing, mobilising and delivering climate finance for developing countries is an urgent priority.’
It’s worth noting the dubious tactic of regurgitating claims about ‘more frequent extreme weather events’ since the IPCC itself debunked that notion – way back in 2011 – noting that man-made warming effects on climate extremes will be swamped by natural climate variability. But who cares? Who will fact check the COP27 President?
It was always the real agenda of climate activists to change the world for the better by redistributing income from wealthy capitalist nations to impoverished nations of the third-world. Some, like sly old China, are actually first-world powers, but hunger for victim status when it comes to ripping off the West.
This raises a consequential question for politics: given that political campaigns and major policy decisions are regularly made – at considerable social and economic pain viz energy etc – based on the (unproven) scientific assumptions about the dangers of ‘climate change’, are politicians incompetent and ignorant of the facts? Or perhaps are they complicit in the sleight of hand with policies that are not about curbing global temperatures (if it were a true premise) but about making western nations poorer and weaker? In other words, are policy decisions made on false pretences? Did the electorate vote on the redistribution of wealth via climate and energy policies? Or on the (laughably) false belief that we are saving the planet from overheating? The big lie or the big stupid?
I believe that politicians are feeble and incompetent rather than so massively corrupt (dishonest) as to hoist this agenda on an innocently ignorant voting public who never signed up for it. But time’s up and political advisors should begin devising new advice based on the known facts, so voters are not misled so egregiously. ‘Save the planet – vote for wealth distribution.’ ‘Vote to be poor so the world’s poor can get richer.’
Of course, it is not only Australian politicians (of all parties) but the politicians of the whole Western world who have been sucked into this sham. The special irony for Australia, though, is that if it is fossil fuel emissions that are the danger, ours is the least relevant, at around 1 per cent. So even if you were convinced that carbon dioxide (emitted when making energy) is a pollutant and warms the planet, with a just a few years left of life on earth … you can’t seriously believe that our drastic economy-destroying policies can be justified.
Total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 0.04 per cent. Man-made carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is about 0.0012 per cent; Australia’s contribution to that is 0.000012 per cent. You don’t have to be a mathematician or a scientist to realise that our coal has nothing to do with the climate changing.
While 30,000 ‘Climate Change’ activist industry delegates swarmed to Sharm el Sheikh, blinded by faith and hope for change, elsewhere, the real world was hunkering down to cope with energy shortages and inflation, and the coming northern winter.
The false assumption about fossil fuel emissions as the driver of warming has been sold with spectacular if fateful success. And a large dose of dishonesty.
https://spectator.com.au/2022/11/who-voted-for-wealth-redistribution-to-save-the-planet
***************************************************China tell COP27: We need more coal and won't make Europe's mistakes
China’s plans to add to its world-leading fleet of coal power plants are a short-term Band-Aid to address energy security concerns and don’t represent a shift in emissions policies, according to members of the team representing the nation at the COP27 summit.
New plants are being planned to address a spate of high-profile electricity shortages in recent years while providing a buffer to global energy markets that have become more volatile following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, according to interviews with three of China’s delegates at the climate meeting in Egypt.
In the long run, electricity market reforms and massive investments in renewable power and energy storage will eventually curb and curtail coal use, allowing the country to hit its targets of peaking emissions by 2030 and zeroing them out by 2060, they said.
The strategy underscores China’s desire to avoid the kind of energy crisis facing Europe, but it has set off alarm bells for climate scientists who say the fuel needs to be phased out by 2040 to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
“We need an energy transition that’s high-quality and secure so it can be sustained,” said Li Zheng, a climate change and energy professor at Tsinghua University. “We don’t want to be like Europe and transform at the cost of energy security. They are now declaring that they are taking a step back in order to take two steps forward later.”
The climate researchers downplayed the size of the expansion, saying the country’s total coal capacity wouldn’t change much because of simultaneous retirements of older plants. Earlier this year, an executive from China’s top energy engineering firm said he expects the nation to approve 270 gigawatts worth of new plants through 2025, more than the entire fleet in the US.
Coal has long been China’s mainstay fuel and still accounts for about 60% of the country’s power generation. But its role is shifting, with planners increasingly seeing it as backup for the country’s rapidly growing army of wind turbines and solar panels, said Wang Zhongying, a senior energy researcher with the National Development and Reform Commission, the country’s economic planner.
*****************************************************
Journalists blind to facts as climate pantomime rolls on
Journalists who have followed the United Nations torturous path towards a global climate change deal have known for years its real bottom line is wealth transfer from the First World to poorer nations.
Political manipulation of the science by the UN was discussed in this column on October 23. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s AR6 report, released before last year’s Glasgow COP26, actually presented less scary scenarios than AR5 but was sold by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, a former Socialist Party Prime Minister of Portugal from 1995 to 2002, as “code red for the planet”.
This column has long argued forecasts of imminent climate emergency are not supported by the IPCC’s assessment reports and are about using fear to create political and media consensus. It all looks ever more silly as countries are urged at COP each year to make ever earlier commitments to net zero emissions of CO2 and each year the world burns ever more fossil fuels.
It should be obvious to all but the most naive catastrophist journalists that national leaders, presiding over a 6 per cent rise in global emissions this past year, don’t actually believe in an imminent emergency. Nor will many national leaders fall for the reparations line that is being repackaged as “loss and damage” payments at this year’s COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.
Even former Tory PM Boris Johnson, who risked his prime ministership and his country’s economic security in the name of climate action, has said the UK does not have the financial resources to pay reparations to low-income countries affected by climate change, according to a report in the London Financial Times on November 7.
But there’s a better reason for scepticism about “loss and damage”. The Daily Telegraph in London the same day reported: “China has emitted more carbon dioxide over the past eight years than the UK has since the start of the industrial revolution. Between 1750 and 2020 the UK emitted 78 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide … compared with China’s emissions of 80 billion tonnes since 2013.”
This newspaper’s environment editor Graham Lloyd described the real UN climate agenda in 2011 when reporting that year’s COP17 in Durban, South Africa, ignominiously dubbed “Flop 17”. Lloyd wrote that much of the Durban conference looked like “an exercise in extravagant foreplay with a very messy ending”, until the situation was rescued by a commitment from developed countries for a $US100bn a year fund “to finance mitigation and adaptation in the developing world”.
Nothing much has come of that; hence the focus in Egypt. Most journalists, especially those at the ABC and Guardian Australia, refuse to call all this out for the diplomatic pantomime it is. Yet the general public is starting to understand fossil fuels are not being abandoned in most countries and the UN’s preferred power sources – wind and solar power – are not proving cheap or reliable.
RN Breakfast host Patricia Karvelas seemed surprised by the point former Energy Security Board chair Kerry Schott made during an on-air interview last Monday morning. Karvelas wanted to discuss Schott’s proposed appointment by Grok Ventures’ Mike Cannon-Brookes to the board of AGL, which Cannon-Brookes hopes to wean off fossil fuels earlier than present management plans.
Asked by Karvelas to comment on a warning the previous week by AGL chair Patricia McKenzie that closing all the company’s generators early would destroy the reliability of the electricity grid because replacement capacity cannot be built in time, Schott said: “Well I think it may not be possible but I think we’ve got to try.”
This column, looking at Cannon-Brookes’s bid for AGL at the time, interviewed Schott last February. She said intermittent wind and solar could only be firmed by building thousands of kilometres of new poles and wires across the continent so power could be fed to major population centres from wherever the sun was shining and the wind blowing. That network infrastructure would need to be backed up by billions of dollars of new pumped hydro projects because batteries only harmonise the network and cannot yet store power for long periods.
It’s time journalists reported what is really happening. Copenhagen Consensus president Bjorn Lomborg in this newspaper on October 1 wrote: “Even the Biden administration expects the world in 2050 to be dependent on fossil fuels for 70 per cent of energy.
“Rich countries are showcasing the policies to avoid. Germany is on track to spend more than $US500bn ($A770bn) on climate policies (per year) by 2025, yet has managed to reduce fossil fuel dependency from 84 per cent in 2000 to only 77 per cent today.”
Wind and solar account for about 10 per cent of global power supply despite global investment of about $US1 trillion in such renewables every year.
So what does the future hold for the climate and for the business of climate reporting? In the digital age it is a business strategy aimed at securing clicks from vulnerable young media consumers who have not seen and read all the doomsday scenarios for 30 years and understood they never arrive.
For the real climate, warming oceans will increase evaporation and rainfall, but the IPCC is clear no single weather event can be attributed directly to climate change. Tropical storm data shows cyclones and hurricanes are becoming less frequent in the Pacific and Atlantic. Some evidence suggests such storms may be becoming more powerful.
Weather patterns such as this country’s east coast La Nina since 2020 will come occasionally but always have done. The La Nina events from 1954-56 and 2010-12 killed more in floods than this La Nina.
Global temperature sits about 1.2C above the pre-industrial era, which also coincided with a little ice age.
Evidence suggests temperatures were higher during the Medieval Warming and the Roman Warming. Latest research suggests climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought. Media consumers seldom see these facts.
The world will need to build for resilience, but no serious scientist expects a climate emergency by 2030: the IPCC has essentially abandoned the scam RCP8.5 warming scenario upon which that scare campaign was based.
Coal and gas will continue to be burned in advanced countries, we will continue to export both because our fuels are cleaner than those extracted elsewhere but Australia will lose almost all of its domestic manufacturing industry, which will move to countries with lower emissions standards as we drive towards more renewable, less reliable power.
The political right here will be disappointed because Australia will never go down the nuclear path, even though it should.
But Australia will continue to export uranium to countries that see the obvious benefits of clean, emissions-free, baseload power.
Finally, while Australia will most likely pay climate bribes to Pacific Islands, the public will eventually find out what the ABC Fact Check unit confirmed in December 2018: most island nations in the Pacific are growing rather than shrinking. Don’t expect ABC reporters to admit that or to challenge Pacific Island leaders complaining about CO2 but taking Chinese money when China is the biggest contributor to global emissions.
*******************************************************
Solar Firm Collapses, Owing UK Taxpayers £655 Million
A solar energy company has fallen into administration after racking up more than half a billion pounds in debt to a local authority in Essex, southern England.
Toucan Energy Holdings 1 Ltd., which owns 53 solar farms across the country and was owned by the financier Liam Kavanagh, had borrowed £655 million ($773 million) over four years from Thurrock Council to fuel its expansion.
In September, Rob Gledhill, the former leader of the council, resigned after the government appointed a commissioner to take over the Conservative-led authority. At the time of his resignation, Gledhill said in a statement: “As Leader of the Council the political buck stops with me and as such it would only be right, and expected, that I resign as Leader of the Council.”
In July, John Kent, the council’s opposition leader, described the investments as “a scandal of huge proportions.”
Last week, Thurrock Council appointed administrators from Interpath Advisory, which has been tasked with selling off the farms to return cash to the council. While Toucan Energy Holdings 1 is in administration, Interpath said in a statement that the underlying parks were not, and would continue to operate as normal.
Mark Coxshall, leader of Thurrock Council, said in a statement that the move would “maximize recovery” for taxpayers.
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment