After A Trillion Tons Of CO2, The Great Barrier Reef Hits Record Coral Cover Third Year In A Row

Sixty Percent Of All Human CO2 Emissions Have Been Emitted Since 1985 But Today The Corals Are Healthier Than Ever.

In 1985 humans were emitting only 19.6 billion tons of CO2 each year, and now we emit 37 billion tons. In the meantime AIMS have been dragging divers thousands of kilometers over the reefs to inspect the coral cover.

These are the most detailed underwater surveys on the largest reef system in the world, and they show that far from being bleached to hell, the corals are more abundant than we have ever seen them.

As Peter Ridd points out, when the reef was doing badly, AIMS was happy to combine the data on the whole reef, so we could lament its demise.

But lately AIMS splits it into separate sections and if Peter Ridd didn’t check the numbers, who would know it was a record across the full 2,300 kilometer length of the reef?

And that may be exactly the point. As Ridd reminds us, in 2012 the AIMS team predicted the coral cover in the central and southern regions would decline to 5 – 10 percent cover by 2022. Instead the whole reef is thriving at 30 percent.

UNESCO has been threatening to slap an endangered label on the reef for years. They would have looked ridiculous if they had done this whilst corals were at a record high.

But that didn’t stop them demanding tribute and conditions anyway, as if Australia can’t manage the reef by itself. Our Prime Minister should have laughed at them and cut UN funding until they start making sense.

The UNESCO recommendation that the World Heritage Committee not proscribe the reef as “in danger” at its meeting next month no doubt has come as a big relief for government but it still has plenty of strings attached.

To keep favour with UNESCO, governments must ban all gillnet fishing by mid-2027 and more closely supervise land activities stretching hundreds of kilometres inland from the coastline, and further still from the reef itself. It must also keep the billions of dollars flowing for research and reef management.

Who runs the country, is it our elected government or a foreign committee at the service of third world dictators?

The Greens, unfortunately, still struggle with big-numbers, or any numbers at all:

The Greens say the UNESCO decision is a “triumph of lobbying and spin over science”. “The burning of fossil fuels is ­literally cooking our oceans and degrading marine ecosystems across the globe, and nowhere else has this been more politicised than on the Great Barrier Reef,” says Greens spokesman Senator Peter Whish-Wilson.

And who is politicizing The Great Barrier Reef more than The hyperbolic Greens themselves? No wonder Greens voters were the most confused in the AEF survey.

Ten years after our corals hit a record low, our survey showed that half the country didn’t realize the reef has recovered. Only 3% knew the corals were at a record high, and nearly half the Green voters were as wrong as they possibly could be — they thought coral cover was at a record low.

The full AIMS report will be released in August. There have been some bleaching events both before and after the survey, and as is normal, we won’t know for months whether any corals actually died or whether it was just the normal home renovation that corals go through when they get stressed.

It’s common for corals to throw out the zooanthellae as temperatures change and let in newer house-guests that are better acclimatized. Since sea levels near Queensland were 1 -2 meters higher 6,000 years ago, and the world was a lot warmer, corals can clearly look after themselves.

As Peter Ridd says the biggest threats to the reef are cyclones and crown-of-thorns starfish plagues, neither of which appear to be any worse now than they were years ago.

https://principia-scientific.com/after-a-trillion-tons-of-co2-the-great-barrier-reef-hits-record-coral-cover-third-year-in-a-row/

*************************************************

Central England Temperature Record Shows No Unprecedented Warming

The Central England Temperature (CET) record, maintained by the Met Office, is the longest-running continuous temperature record in the world, starting in 1659. It provides an invaluable historical dataset that allows us to analyze long-term temperature trends and variations over centuries

This dataset serves as a critical reference point in the ongoing discourse on ‘climate change’ and the factors influencing global temperatures.

Initially, measurements were taken from various locations, including Birmingham, Oxford, and London.

Over time, the locations have changed slightly, with modern observations coming primarily from rural locations to mitigate urban influences.

The current primary stations include Pershore College in Worcestershire and Rothamsted in Hertfordshire. This careful selection helps ensure that the data remains consistent and representative of the broader region.

Early thermometers were less precise, and methods for recording temperatures have evolved. Errors can arise from several sources, including instrument calibration, changes in measurement locations, and observer differences.

However, modern techniques have significantly improved the accuracy and reliability of temperature measurements. Regular calibration of instruments and the use of standardized methods help reduce errors.

Statistical methods are also applied to adjust for known biases and to homogenize the data across different periods and locations.

The CET record is crucial for understanding natural and anthropogenic climate influences. It provides context for recent temperature changes by showing that significant warming and cooling periods have occurred over the past several centuries.

These historical variations highlight the importance of considering natural climate variability when interpreting modern climate trends.

When examining the CET record, one can observe significant warming periods, notably from 1695 to 1735 and from 1990 onwards.

The warming from 1695 to 1735 is particularly striking; it displays a rapid increase in mean temperature anomalies, much like the warming observed in recent decades. This historical warming occurred during a period when atmospheric CO2 levels were relatively stable and pre-industrial, suggesting that natural variability played a significant role.

The modern warming period, which began around 1990, is frequently attributed to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. However, the magnitude of the warming observed from 1695 to 1735 challenges the narrative that current warming is unprecedented.

If the warming in the early 18th century could occur without significant changes in CO2 levels, it challenges the assumption that current warming is driven exclusively by CO2.

Natural climate variability, driven by factors such as solar radiation, volcanic activity, and oceanic cycles, has historically influenced global temperatures. The significant warming period from 1695 to 1735, evident in the CET record, underscores the role of these natural factors.

Given that similar temperature increases occurred in the past without industrial CO2 emissions, it is plausible that natural variability could be responsible for recent warming trends as well.

Attributing the current warming trend solely to CO2 emissions may be an oversimplification driven by factors other than scientific inquiry.

The CET record demonstrates that significant temperature fluctuations can and have occurred due to natural causes. The mainstream media often portrays modern warming as unprecedented, yet historical data from the CET record suggests otherwise.

This raises critical questions about the models and assumptions used in contemporary climate science.

In conclusion, the CET record offers a valuable long-term perspective on temperature trends, illustrating that substantial warming can occur independently of CO2 levels.

Historical warming periods such as that from 1695 to 1735 suggest that natural variability remains a significant factor.

A more nuanced understanding of both natural and anthropogenic influences is essential for accurately interpreting climate trends and formulating effective policies.

https://principia-scientific.com/central-england-temperature-record-shows-no-unprecedented-warming/

*******************************************

Increased CO2 Caused Big Gains In US Crop Yields

From the US National Bureau of Economic Research: a new study by economists Charles Taylor and Wolfram Schlenker of Columbia University shows that rising atmospheric CO2 levels were better for crops than scientists had suspected up to now.

So more unsettled science… but for once it’s better than scientists thought, not worse. Experts have long known that something good was going on out in the fields. Starting around 1950 US agricultural output started soaring even while the number of workers was shrinking.

Introduction of improved seed and plant varieties helped, as did new equipment and techniques. But by the 1990s it was clear that agricultural productivity was growing much faster than the rest of the economy, and faster than could be accounted for by standard measures of technological improvement.

Using satellite-measurements of changing CO2 levels from 2015 to 2021 matched to county-level crop yields these economists found not only that extra CO2 makes crops grow better, which experts already knew, but the effect is much much better than previously believed.

The usual way of measuring how CO2 affects plants is to grow them in a greenhouse where the CO2 level can be artificially increased.

Taylor and Schlenker note that the effect is so good, so consistently, that commercial greenhouses typically raise the CO2 level to 900 ppm or more, at least double the average outdoor level.

But it’s hard to identify how plants would respond out in the field where other weather conditions can play a role.

One way to try to figure it out is to use little chimneys and pump CO2 into the air along a row of field crops, called the Free Air Carbon Enrichment or “FACE” method.

Those experiments have tended to show only small improvements in yield, but critics have argued the results aren’t very accurate since the CO2 gets blown away so the plants may not benefit from it.

There is another approach: look at the big picture. So Taylor and Schlenker made use of a satellite observatory that was put in space to measure the distribution of CO2 in the atmosphere.

While CO2 eventually mixes to a uniform average in the troposphere, closer to the ground it varies considerably over space because of the variation in sources (such as cars and factories) and sinks (like plants and forests).

It also varies seasonally, dropping in the spring and summer as plants grow then rising again as they die and decompose, and it trends up over time as CO2 emissions happen.

The satellite record yielded point-by-point estimates of the local CO2 level during the 2015-2021 period that the authors could then line up with local temperature, precipitation and air pollution records, then use to explain local variations in the output of corn, soybeans and wheat.

They found that every one-part-per-million increase in local CO2 yielded a gain of between 0.5% and 0.8% in output depending on the crop type. These benefits were far higher than estimates from FACE and other previous methods.

Looking back in time Taylor and Schlenker attribute 10% of the total increase in output of corn since 1940 to CO2, plus 30% of soybeans and 40% of wheat. Which is a remarkably good thing if you dislike hunger and hate deadly famines.

Indeed, if someone invented a machine that boosted crop productivity by that much it would be hailed as a miracle of modern technology. Instead we keep hearing how extra CO2 is going to kill us all. Well at least we’ll be well fed when the apocalypse arrives.

https://principia-scientific.com/increased-co2-caused-big-gains-in-us-crop-yields/

**********************************************

Battery baloney, hydrogen hype, and green fairy tales in Australia

Viv Forbes is his usual incisive self below

How low Australia has fallen… Our once-great BHP now has a ‘Vice President for Sustainability and Climate Change’, the number of Australian students choosing physics at high school is collapsing, and our government opposes nuclear energy while pretending we can build and operate nuclear submarines.

Our Green politicians want: ‘No Coal, No Gas, No Nuclear!’ while Our ABC, Our CSIRO, and Our Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) are telling us that wind and solar energy (plus a bit of standby gas, heaps of batteries, and new power lines) can power our homes, industries and the mass electrification of our vehicle fleet. This sounds like Australia’s very own great leap backwards.

There are two troublesome Green Energy Unions: the Solar Workers down tools every night and cloudy day, and the Turbine Crews stop work if winds are too weak or too strong. And wind droughts can last for days. The reliable Coal and Gas Crews spend sunny days playing cards, but are expected to keep their turbines revving up and down to keep stable power in the lines.

Magical things are also expected from more rooftop solar. But panel-power has four huge problems:

Zero solar energy is generated to meet peak demand at breakfast and dinner times.

Piddling solar power is produced from many poorly oriented roof panels or from the weak sunshine anywhere south of Sydney.

If too much solar energy pours into the network (say at noon on a quiet sunny Sunday), the grid becomes unstable. Our green engineers have the solution – be ready to charge people for unwanted power they export to the grid, or just use ‘smart meters’ to turn them off.

More rooftop solar means less income and more instability for power utilities so they have to raise electricity charges. This cost falls heaviest on those with no solar panels, or no homes.

Magical things are also expected from batteries.

When I was a kid on a dairy farm in Queensland, I saw our kerosene lamps and beeswax candles replaced by electric lights. We had 16 X 2 volt batteries on the verandah and a big thumping diesel generator in the dairy.

It was a huge relief, years later, when power poles bringing reliable electricity marched up the lane to our house. All those batteries disappeared with the introduction of 24/7 coal power.

Batteries are never a net generator of power – they store energy generated elsewhere, incurring losses on charging and discharging.

There has to be sufficient generating capacity to meet current demand while also recharging those batteries. What provides electricity to power homes, lifts, hospitals, and trains and to recharge all those vehicle batteries after sundown on a still winter night? (Hint: Call the reliable coal/gas/nuclear crews.)

The same remorseless equations apply to all the pumped hydro schemes being dreamed up – everyone is a net consumer of power once losses are covered and the water is pumped back up the hill.

Yet AEMO hopes we will install 16 times our current capacity of batteries and pumped hydro by 2050 – sounds like the backyard steel plans of Chairman Mao or the Soviet Gosplan that constipated initiative in USSR for 70 years. Who needs several Snowy 2 fiascos running simultaneously?

Mother Nature has created the perfect solar battery which holds the energy of sunlight for millions of years. When it releases that energy for enterprising humans, it returns CO2 for plants to the atmosphere from whence it came. It is called ‘Coal’.

‘Hydrogen’ gets a lot of hype, but it is an elusive and dangerous gas that is rarely found naturally. To use solar energy to generate hydrogen and to then use that hydrogen as a power source is just another silly scheme to waste water and solar energy. It always takes more energy to produce hydrogen than it gives back. Let green billionaires, not taxpayers, spend their money on this merry-go-round.

Who is counting the energy and capital consumed, and the emissions generated, to manufacture, transport, and install a continent being covered by ugly solar panels, bird slicers, high voltage power lines, access roads, and hydro schemes? Now they want to invade our shallow seas. Who is going to clean up this mess in a few years’ time?

As Jo Nova says:

‘No one wants industrial plants in their backyard, but when we have to build 10,000 km of high voltage towers, 40 million solar panels, and 2,500 bird-killing turbines – it’s in everyone’s backyard.’

With all of this planned and managed by the same people who gave us Pink Batts, Snowy 2 hydro, and the NBN/NDIS fiascoes, what could possibly go wrong?

Another big problem is emerging – country people don’t want power lines across their paddocks, whining wind turbines on their hills, and glittering solar panels smothering their flats. And seaside dwellers don’t want to hear or see wind turbines off their beaches. Even whales are confused.

The solution is obvious – build all wind and solar facilities in electorates that vote Green, Teal, and Labor. Those good citizens can then listen to the turbines turning in the night breezes and look out their windows to see shiny solar panels on every roof. This will make them feel good that they are preventing man-made global warming. Those electorates who oppose this silly green agenda should get their electricity from local coal, gas or nuclear plants.

What about the Net Zero targets?

At the same time as Australia struggles to generate enough reliable power for today, governments keep welcoming more migrants, more tourists, more foreign students and planning yet more stadiums, games, and circuses. None of this is compatible with their demand for Net Zero emissions.

Unlike Europe, the Americas, and Asia, Australia has no extension cords to neighbours with reliable power from nuclear, hydro, coal, or gas – we are on our own.

Australia has abundant resources of coal and uranium – we mine and export these energy minerals but Mr Bowen, our Minister for Blackouts, says we may not use our own coal and uranium to generate future electricity here. Someone needs to tell him that no country in the world relies solely on wind, solar, and pumped hydro. Germany tried but soon found they needed French nuclear, Scandinavian hydro, imported gas, and at least 20 coal-fired German power plants are being resurrected or extended past their closing dates to ensure Germans have enough energy to get through the winter.

Australia is the only G20 country in which nuclear power is illegal (maybe no one has told green regulators that we have had a nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney since 1958). Australia is prepared to lock navy personnel beside nuclear power plants in our new nuclear-powered submarines but our politicians forbid nuclear power stations in our wide open countryside.

More CO2 in the atmosphere brings great benefits to life on Earth. If man adds to it, the oceans dissolve a swag of it, and what stays in the atmosphere is gratefully welcomed by all plant life.

In 2023, Australia added just 0.025 ppm to the 420 ppm in today’s atmosphere. Most of this probably dissolved in the oceans. If we in Australia turned everything off tomorrow, the climate wouldn’t notice, but our plant life would, especially those growing near power stations burning coal or gas and spreading plant food.

Climate has always changed and a warm climate has never been a problem on Earth.

It is cold that kills. Especially during blackouts.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/07/battery-baloney-hydrogen-hype-and-green-fairy-tales/

***************************************

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)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*****************************************

Another problem prosecutor

In the ACT, Shane Drumgold created still ongoing problems for many people by prosecuting Bruce Lehrmann against police advice. He took the feminist "believe the woman" approach instead of a proper judicial stance.

It now seems that NSW has a similar problem with prosecutor Sally Dowling. Launching a prosecution against someone can itself be a form of punishment so launching a prosection against someone on flimsy grounds in an extremeny irresponsible and reprehensible act. No wonder that even female judges are critical of her

NSW District Court judge Penelope Wass has taken the extraordinary step of making a formal complaint against chief prosecutor Sally Dowling SC, after Ms Dowling raised secret grievances about her to the court’s chief judge in the middle of a criminal hearing.

Judge Wass told the Taree District Court on Tuesday morning that she had made the complaint to the Office of the NSW Legal Services Commissioner, telling counsel she was disclosing it in case they thought it was grounds for her to withdraw from any matters before her currently.

The Australian understands the complaint was filed on Friday.

Last month this masthead revealed Ms Dowling made a complaint about Judge Wass during a sexual assault prosecution, alleging the judge was jeopardising the right to a fair trial by directing witnesses to present their phones as evidence, and threatened in correspondence with Chief Judge Sarah Huggett to “take the matter further” if the directions continued. The communications were not disclosed to the defence.

That was interpreted as a “warning” by Judge Wass, who in the past has criticised Ms Dowling’s office for shepherding “incredible and dishonest allegations of sexual assault” through NSW courts amid ongoing tension between Ms Dowling and the state’s judges.

Ms Dowling’s complaint at the time became the latest missile thrown in a war between Ms Dowling and the judiciary, after five judges complained about processes governing rape complaints, with some believing a pattern is emerging in which prosecutors prefer to take a “believe the victim” stance and push a matter before a jury, rather than dropping impossible cases.

Judge Wass disclosed Ms Dowling’s complaint to Judge Huggett the matter in an interlocutory judgment for R v SF, delivered on May 27.

According to the judgment, Ms Dowling emailed Chief Judge Huggett on May 22 “without the knowledge or consent of the other party of the Crown briefed in the trial” to make the complaint about Judge Wass directing witnesses in three separate matters to hand up their phones and, at times, their passcodes.

“The terms of the correspondence, the fact that it came from Ms Dowling who prosecutes on behalf of the Crown, a party to this litigation, the fact that it was sent to the chief judge only days before I was due to give judgment in two of the three cases mentioned, and because it contains an express warning to me, has meant that, at the very least, I am required to disclose it to the parties in those two cases, and I do so now in respect of this case,” she wrote in the interlocutory judgment.

“The content and the timing of the complaint is a relevant matter. The comments made by Ms Dowling were conveyed to me by the chief judge shortly after they were received, as was in my view appropriate. Indeed, the final remarks by Ms Dowling, as they contained a warning to me, made clear that they needed to be conveyed to me forthwith.”

The three matters were R v Chambers in 2021, R v Stenner-Wall in 2023 and R v SF.Judge Wass, in the interlocutory judgment, noted Ms Dowling did not make any complaint or comment in the Chambers or Stenner-Wall cases when the direction was made for a witness to hand up their phone.

Judge Wass, at the time, said she was preparing a sentence for the Stenner-Wall matter.

She said the direction to have a witness hand up their phone “resulted in a proper disclosure being made to both parties (that had not been made to or by the Crown) and the subsequent entry of a plea of guilty to the relevant counts on the indictment”.

In the Chambers matter, she said, the direction stopped a witness taking her phone to the bathroom with her when she sought an unscheduled toilet break during cross-examination.

Judge Wass said Ms Dowling had included a “warning” that she would “consider steps she considers to be properly available to her to seek judicial review should further directions of this nature” be made in the future.“

I regard such a warning of the contemplated judicial review, although delphic as to what form it might take, as extremely serious, particularly as it was delivered during the course of my consideration of two of the three cases at hand and where it sought to have me take that matter into account in my determination of future cases,” she said.

“Had this opinion been conveyed directly to me at any time, but particularly at this time, I would have regarded it as being highly inappropriate, particularly from an experienced Senior Counsel … particularly when I am so obviously part heard. I wish to say no more about that at present.”

The Australian has in recent months revealed Ms Dowling is facing a bitter dispute with sitting judges and members of her own staff, some of whom say her office consistently puts accused rapists on trial for crimes that will never secure a conviction.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/judge-penelope-wass-makes-formal-complaint-against-dpp-sally-dowling/news-story/c851cd31e99226adf5af58d450c2416d

*************************************************

Tax cuts, bill relief and more on offer, but Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers just can’t sell it

Reducing inflation now only to make it worse later on is incredibly stupid and counter-productive but typically Leftist. Our best hope is that the voters suss that out

Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers couldn’t sell water to a dying man in the desert.

From this week, wage rises, tax cuts and energy subsidies are all going to put more money in people’s pockets.

Yet since the budget, Labor’s primary vote has gone only one way – down.

Either voters don’t buy the bull or Labor’s proclivity for political felo-de-se has deafened the electorate to its more boastful claims on the economy.

And hanging over all this is the spectre of what may be coming. Don’t underestimate the electorate’s ability to sift the flour.

Publicly, the Treasurer is on a positive spin over his cost-of-living relief. Privately, however, he will be sweating bricks for the next six weeks, gripped by fear over what the central bank may or may not do in August.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers says the Albanese Labor government’s cost of living relief, which comes out today, is “substantial, it is meaningful, and it is responsible”.
This is now looming as the central test for Chalmers and the government – both economically and politically.

It will be the pivotal moment that will decide the course of the contest until the next election.

If the key selling point is that people are better off thanks to Chalmers, the underlying truth is that nothing has actually changed. The pain has just been rearranged.

The key question now is not whether more pain is to come or whether the current pain is prolonged. And Labor has clearly identified borrowers as the guinea pigs. This says a lot about its strategic posture.

If the RBA keeps rates on hold, as will be its inclination, then the pain can be blamed on the RBA. This is the political upside for Chalmers.

But if all the state and federal government spending does lead to a rate rise, then it will be Chalmers who owns it. He will have inflicted more pain.

More likely than not, the RBA doesn’t hike. But this will be a close-run thing. And if even if it doesn’t, Michelle Bullock is likely to rattle the sabre.

This doesn’t give Chalmers the clear air he will be seeking.

The political stakes couldn’t be higher for Chalmers or Albanese. And this all feeds into election timing.

If rates don’t rise in August Chalmers gets over a crucial hump.

With the energy rebates from the commonwealth and state coffers feeding into the price index, there is every chance the Treasurer meets his promised target of getting headline inflation back within the 2-3 per cent band.

He will have bought himself a cut in headline inflation with the assistance of state Labor mates.

This is where the political narrative and economic reality collide. From a political perspective, it will be a great story to tell.

People will expect that if headline rates look good, why doesn’t the RBA cut rates.

But as we know, the headline rate is not the determining factor. And this is the nuanced debate Chalmers is clearly happy to have.

It won’t be Chalmers that has to make the argument, the talking points to every other Labor minister and backbencher will do the work.

If it hasn’t dawned on Michele Bullock yet, it soon will. Chalmers is setting her up. Bullock has so far given Chalmers rhetorical cover in her public statements about inflation and the budget.

The RBA board’s statement, however, tells a different story.

There is no equivocation about its view that state and federal government spending is adding to the problem.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/tax-cuts-bill-relief-and-more-on-offer-but-anthony-albanese-and-jim-chalmers-just-cant-sell-it/news-story/8b9ef3661d91d43037f239a8c398810a

*****************************************************

Albanese greatly weakened by the Fatima Payman affair

Anthony Albanese is reaping the Fatima Payman whirlwind as he sowed: an initial weak reaction to the junior WA Senator’s defiant crossing of the floor and the snubbing of her ALP colleagues has only been made worse by a late, frustrated penalty that has gifted the two-year senator enhanced power.

Payman can now dictate terms to the Prime Minister on every vote from a ban on live-sheep exports to Palestine and govern the extent of the damage and distraction Labor is suffering.

Labor’s entire economic re-election plan and answer to the supreme political priority of easing the cost-of-living pressure on households is now being publicly sidetracked and downgraded.

Albanese’s authority, already diminished, is captive to Payman and the Greens who can further undermine Labor unity with a cheap trick any hour in the Senate and is also being challenged by union leaders.

Instead of confronting the Payman problem last week when the 28-year old Muslim Senator crossed the Senate floor to vote with the Greens on a motion contradicting Labor policy on Israel and Palestine Albanese let her off with a slap on the wrist only to face a defiant declaration she would do it all again.

Thus, a political dust-up of lesser import would have been finished by the end of last week, instead it has redoubled its momentum and dramatically spread the fallout.

In Albanese’s first media interview on July 1 he was wished “a happy new financial year” on tax Independence Day when everyone gets a tax cut and the cost-of-living pressure is eased.

But, the ABC wellwishing lasted about 20 seconds before the PM was challenged over the indefinite suspension of the rogue Payman, what it meant for Labor’s Muslim vote, what it meant for a young Muslim woman simply following her heart, what was the impact on diversity within the ALP and the power of the Greens.

Albanese, not wanting to put Muslim voters off-side, said the suspension was not about voting against Labor’s two-state policy on Israel-Palestine but the distraction she was creating about tax policy.

“Well, let’s be very clear. It’s not because of her support for a policy position that she’s advocated,” Albanese said.

“It’s because … today is July 1. It’s a day where we want to talk about tax cuts. We want to talk about our economic support for providing that cost of living relief without putting pressure on inflation,” he said.

“What we have is a process where people participate, people respect each other and people don’t engage in indulgence, such as the decision last week,” he said.

There’s no doubt that on this question Albanese is 100 per cent dead right: in his own interview the PM spent more time talking about Payman, Labor rules and his dog Toto, than tax cuts; every minister who appeared in the media was asked about Payman and; as a clearly frustrated Treasurer Jim Chalmers said “my focus is not typically on internal issues like these, as important as they are – I’m focused on cost-of-living and inflation and the economy”.

Chalmers’ Budget partner, Finance Minister Katy Gallagher, expressed the hope Payman would be returned to the Labor fold as others said it was better to work from within and raise concerns in caucus meetings – as Payman hasn’t – than break Labor pledges of loyalty.

Every vote in the Senate gives Payman an opportunity to enhance her authority at the cost of Albanese, further divide Labor’s position over Israel-Palestine, gift the Greens propaganda and detract from the ALP’s entire economic re-election strategy.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/anthony-albanese-to-reap-as-he-sowed-over-fatima-payman-whirlwind/news-story/8aeb54b0418b2223ff842ec4c199b90a

******************************************************

‘Green lawfare’ is now the weapon of choice for Australia's activist class

The anti-industry industry has come a long way from its humble origins in the late 1970s, when Bob Brown went to his local St Vincent de Paul and bought himself a suit. The transition from a gaggle of amateur nature lovers to a professional organisation with salaried staff was a giant evolutionary leap for the environmental movement.

It was the precursor to blocking the Franklin Dam and the first tentative steps into politics and the law. Today, green activism in Australia is a quarter-billion-dollar business that employs hundreds of people. Research published this week by the Menzies Research Centre shows the combined revenue of the top 25 green advocacy groups was $275m last year. The revenue has more than doubled from $113m in 2015. The number of staff on their books has increased from 374 to 880.

Ironically, the report finds that the green activist industry is growing faster than the primary industries and resource sectors it targets. Its goal is not to create wealth but to destroy it. It forms part of the NGO-corporate-industrial complex that has discovered how to profit from the war on carbon, aided and abetted by the government through subsidies and regulation.

The environmental juggernaut of today bears little comparison with the green movement that began in Tasmania almost half a century ago. Its focus has changed from conservation to the ideology of climate change. The movement has become remote and insensitive to the natural environment and developed a narrow-minded obsession with carbon emissions from coal and gas combustion.

The big environmental groups are wholly committed to renewable energy and dogmatically opposed to nuclear power. To the extent that we’re able to trace the source of their funding, much of it flows from investors in the renewables sector whose portfolios would be instantly devalued by the entry of nuclear power.

Activist organisations have become so dependent on green corporatism that they are willing to ignore the destruction of broad acres of natural vegetation for the construction of wind turbines, industrial solar plants, energy storage infrastructure and associated transmission lines.

Climate warriors are more likely to be found in the courts these days rather than tied to the front of a bulldozer in the tropical forests of the Upper Burdekin in far north Queensland. Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek’s approval of the Upper Burdekin/Gawara Baya wind development last month came despite a damning report that warned of “unavoidable significant impacts” on the endangered Sharman’s rock wallaby, the koala, the greater glider, the red goshawk and the masked owl.

Nowadays, lawyers perform much of the heavy lifting for climate activism. The MRC’s research found that Australia is the second-largest forum for environmental lawfare after the US. There are more climate lawsuits per capita in Australia than anywhere else in the world, thanks to a rich array of resource sector targets and an obliging legal system.

The bar for launching court actions in Australia is low for those with funds. Every dollar spent by legal activists is a drain on the profits of businesses forced to defend themselves against adventurous and vexatious claims. The biggest cost to the resource sector is not legal fees, punishing as they are. It is the mounting cost of interest on borrowed money that sits idle while the legal process drags on.

The MRC calculates that in past two years $17.48bn in industrial output has been frozen by legal action. Whether investors will see a return on their capital is at the mercy of the courts. The damage is compounded by the damage to the broader economy.

The MRC calculates 29,784 Australian jobs are at risk in cases before the courts. The loss of taxes and mining royalties will make it harder to fund roads, schools and hospitals and support our health and education systems.

The fiscal impact alone would prompt a clear-thinking government to step in and clean up this mess. The Albanese government, however, is anything but hard-headed about anything related to the environment. It refuses to countenance any reform that might give the Greens party an edge in quinoa-chomping enclaves such as the seat of Grayndler, the fate of which is of more than passing interest to our PM.

It gets worse. In an act of fiscal self-harm, the government is subsidising legal activism that eats into the profits it likes to milk. The 2022 budget included $10m in funding for the Environmental Defenders Office and Environmental Justice Australia, the two bodies responsible for most environmental lawfare in Australia.

In 2015, the EDO had 14 staff and a $3m budget. By 2023, it had grown to a team of 105 staff and a budget of $13.3m. It measures success with a perverse set of metrics. Its 2022 annual report boasts of providing 11,587 legal hours and spending 134 days in court.

In January, the EDO’s tactics were heavily criticised by Federal Court Justice Natalie Charlesworth, who reversed an order preventing Santos from building a pipeline allowing the $5.8bn development of the offshore Barossa gas field. She rejected assertions by three Tiwi Islanders that the pipeline posed a risk to intangible underwater heritage, including Crocodile Man song lines and an area of significance for the rainbow serpent Ampiji, and was not “broadly representative” of the beliefs of Tiwi people who would be affected by the pipeline.

Charlesworth found the EDO had engaged in dishonest “coaching” tactics and the misrepresentation of local Indigenous knowledge. Charlesworth dismissed evidence from the EDO’s expert witness about potential impacts on underwater archaeological sites, finding there was a “negligible chance” of a significant impact on tangible cultural heritage. Charlesworth found a cultural mapping exercise undertaken by an expert witness for the applicants and “the related opinions expressed about it are so lacking in integrity that no weight can be placed on them”.

“I am satisfied that this aspect of the case does indeed involve ‘confection’ or ‘construction’, at least in part, and that it cannot be an adapted account of the kind discussed by the anthropologists,” the judgment states.

Yet despite the loss of the case, the activists are winning. The global demand for liquid natural gas has never been higher, and is forecast to continue to rise until the 2040s. Yet oil and gas exploration activities in Australia have been falling significantly over the past two decades. The number of new offshore wells has fallen from over 50 in 2010 wells to just three in 2023. When your aim is to frustrate and delay, there is no such thing as a wasted day in court.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/green-lawfare-is-now-the-weapon-of-choice-for-activist-class/news-story/fa4824e2369b59e1d751d89a5daac8ab

************************************

The New York Times Is Right, Finally; Climate Change Is Not Threatening Island Nations

The New York Times (NYT) recently posted an article, titled “A Surprising Climate Find,” which explains how island nations like the Maldives and Tuvalu are not, in fact, in danger of sinking under the seas due to climate change. This is true; a fact Climate Realism has repeatedly discussed. Atolls in particular are known to grow with rising water levels, this has been known for years if not decades.

The NYT climate reporter, Raymond Zhong, explains that as “the planet warms and the oceans rise, atoll nations like the Maldives, the Marshall Islands and Tuvalu have seemed doomed to vanish, like the mythical Atlantis, into watery oblivion.”

This is an exceptionally common claim from the climate alarmist media, and some of the nations themselves that are benefitting from massive aid packages and “reparations” from wealthier countries; money not be used to help their people relocate from the “sinking” islands, but rather to build infrastructure and boost tourism. In fact, the NYT promoted this falsehood as late as April 2024, with a story, titled, “Why Time Is Running Out Across the Maldives’ Lovely Little Islands.“

In his most recent piece Zhong writes:

“Of late, though, scientists have begun telling a surprising new story about these islands. By comparing mid-20th century aerial photos with recent satellite images, they’ve been able to see how the islands have evolved over time. What they found is startling: Even though sea levels have risen, many islands haven’t shrunk. Most, in fact, have been stable. Some have even grown.”

It is true that the islands are not sinking, but Zhong is wrong when he says this fact has only been discovered “of late.” His own article references a study published in 2018, which found 89 percent of islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans increased in area or were stable, and only 11 percent showed any sign of contracting. So just three months after the NYT published an article claiming the Maldives were disappearing beneath the waves, the paper is now reversing itself based on research that existed six years before the April article was published. Since, Climate Realism has covered the claim many times, including with regard to Tuvaluan “refugees,” looking at tropical storms, and examining other island refugee claims, one wonders whether the NYT’s fact checkers were asleep on the job when the paper published its false story in April.

The facts about atolls growth and demise are not newly discovered. Scientists have known for decades, if not more than a hundred years, that atoll islands uniquely change with changing sea levels. Charles Darwin was the first to propose that reefs were many thousands of feet thick, and grow upwards towards the light. He was partially correct, though reality is more complicated than his theory.

In 2010, as discussed in the Climate Realism post “No, Rising Seas Are Not Swallowing Island Nations,” studies found that Tuvalu and Kiribati were growing, as well as Micronesia, and some had grown dramatically. Likewise in 2015, the same group of researchers reported that 40 percent of islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans were stable, and another 40 percent had grown.

Zhong correctly says that ocean currents and waves can cause erosion, but also “bring fresh sand ashore from the surrounding coral reefs, where the remains of corals, algae, crustaceans and other organisms are constantly being crushed into new sediment.”

Climate at a Glance: Islands and Sea Level Rise, also confirms the fact that in Tuvalu in particular –often a poster child for islands supposedly threatened by sea level rise—“eight of Tuvalu’s nine large coral atolls have grown in size during recent decades, and 75 percent of Tuvalu’s 101 smaller reef islands have increased as well.”

The only “surprising” discovery in this story is that the climate desk for the New York Times was allegedly not aware of these facts before now. This information is not new. It could be, of course, that the NYT neglected to report the truth about island nations’ status previously simply because it did not conform to the alarming climate narrative they have been trying to push, but as the data has gotten too strong to ignore, they were forced to admit the truth with regard to growing islands in the face of rising seas.

https://climaterealism.com/2024/07/the-new-york-times-is-right-finally-climate-change-is-not-threatening-island-nations/

****************************************************

Mining the Planet for Renewable Energy

By Paul Driessen

This election year, several critical issues dominate voter concerns. Illegal immigration across unsecured borders by migrants, criminals, sex traffickers and terrorists. Anti-police policies, reduced prosecution of criminals and rising crime. Unprecedented prices for food, clothing, housing and other necessities.

Parental roles in education and sex changes for children. Threats to our republic and democracy from unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who use their powers to persecute, prosecute, silence and even imprison opponents, and control our lives.

Also crucial: control over energy – the lifeblood of our civilization, jobs, health and prosperity.

Will America shut down coal, gas and nuclear electricity generation before it has sufficient reliable replacements? Will we have electricity when we need it, or only when it’s available, especially after we’re forced to convert gasoline cars and gas stoves, furnaces and water heaters to electric models?

What will families pay for that electricity and everything we eat, drink, build and use? Where will we get plastics, paints, pharmaceuticals, and thousands of other products made from oil and gas they want to lock in the ground? What will happen to our jobs, health, living standards – and personal choices about where we live, what we eat, what car we can drive and how far, whether we can fly places for vacation?

We’re told a great energy and economic transformation is underway – and is essential to prevent a “climate crisis.” In reality, the crisis exists in computer models, headlines and politicized science, but not in actual temperature and weather records.

In reality, there is no energy transformation. In 2023, wind and solar power generated 2.7% of the world’s primary energy; 81.5% came from fossil fuels. Between 1965 and 2023, North America and Europe cut their fossil fuel consumption almost in half; but over the same period, the rest of the world consumed seven times more than those two regions reduced their use. Emissions went up even more, because China, India and other developing countries require minimal pollution controls on power plants and vehicles.

In reality, a transition to an all-electric economy with no fossil fuels means millions of acres of America’s wild, scenic and agricultural lands would be covered with wind turbines, solar panels, transmission lines, and warehouses filled with batteries that can spontaneously erupt in flames.

In reality, we don’t know whether there are enough accessible metal and mineral deposits on Planet Earth to extract all the raw materials required to manufacture the turbines, panels, batteries, transmission lines, electric vehicles, transformers and other equipment the energy transformation would require – just for the United States, much less for the entire world.

We don’t know how many billions of tons of rock would have to be mined, processed and disposed of; how many millions of acres would be impacted; how many millions of tons of toxic air and water pollution would be emitted; what human rights would be violated to get those metals and minerals.

One of the most basic and vital metals for the energy transformation is copper. Average worldwide ore concentrations (0.04%) mean miners would have to remove some 40,000,000 tons of overlying rock and extract, crush and process nearly 25,000,000 tons of ore to get 110,000 tons of copper – enough for just the first 30,000 megawatts of President Biden’s offshore wind plan.

Worse, mining is essentially banned in the United States – and the Biden Administration has vetoed world-class mines that could have met US needs for copper (and other metals) for decades to come. And the problem isn’t just President Biden or the Biden Administration. It’s governors like Gavin Newsom and Gretchen Whitmer, and countless activists and mostly Democrat politicians who support these policies.

Recent studies question whether mining companies can even produce enough copper just for the electric vehicles people are told they must buy – much less for wind and solar power; to say nothing of a full US (or global) energy transformation. Again, that’s just the copper.

A 2022 International Energy Agency report examines the need for essential metals and minerals in energy transitions. Onshore wind installations, the report says, require nine times more materials than combined-cycle gas generating plants, to produce the same amount of electricity. Offshore wind installations require fourteen times more. (These IEA numbers do not include materials for transmission lines or backup power for windless-sunless periods.)

The IEA says its projections are “highly dependent” on how quickly and stringently the world actually tries to reach zero greenhouse gas emissions in power generation and all energy uses; on which wind, solar, battery and other technologies dominate; and on whether countries also try to utilize low-carbon (natural gas) or no-carbon (batteries) equipment in mining, materials processing, manufacturing and transporting wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, vehicles and other technologies.

However, the IEA calculates, demand for aluminum, copper, cobalt, graphite, iron, nickel, lithium, rare earths, concrete and other “green” energy materials is expected to skyrocket by 5, 20, 40, 50 or more times current global requirements by 2040.

The Agency says numerous “challenges” to actually acquiring those materials include actually finding producible deposits, plus land use, water scarcity and pollution, air pollution, toxic mining waste management, corruption and bribery, worker and nearby resident health and safety, and child labor.

Meeting these challenges, the IEA says, will require “systematic approaches,” the “development of institutions and the rule of law,” “inclusive legal frameworks,” “responsible” and “robust” pollution and waste management frameworks, “sustainable practices,” “international coordination,” “capacity building and knowledge sharing,” greater “transparency” and, ultimately, “international minerals governance.”

These actions will all help foster “sustainable and responsible supply chains that contribute to a low-carbon economy” worldwide, the IEA assures us.

But will these wishful terms survive collisions with the real world? Developing nations view coal, oil and gas as their key to jobs, modernity and prosperity. China, Russia and their allies perceive the West’s fixation on climate change and green energy as opportunities to control US and EU supply chains, geo-political options and military-economic capabilities.

The biggest wind energy project in the USA will soon blanket 1,600 square miles (1.25 times Delaware) of New Mexico, to generate 3,500 MW about 30% of the year. The Palo Verde nuclear plant in Arizona generates 4,200 MW from 6 square miles almost 24/7/365.

A Bloomberg research team says the world will need at least $200 trillion to stop global warming by 2050. Others estimate $275 trillion!

How can we head this economy-and-environment-killing craziness off at the pass?

Wise decisions at the ballot box are essential, of course. But state and local governments should enact laws requiring that utilities explain how they will generate wind and solar replacement power on windless winter nights, before they shut down a single coal, gas or nuclear power plant – or get approval for a single wind or solar project. (Those are just a few of the actions they can take.)

They should also demand full details on where raw materials will come from, and at what dollar, human rights and environmental costs – to state and local communities … and our planet.

America’s jobs, health, living standards, and right to choose our homes, cars and food depend on it.

https://heartland.org/opinion/mining-the-planet-for-renewable-energy/

*************************************************

Yet Another Waste Of Time Climate Conference

The implausible president of COP29, Mukhtar Babayev of Azerbaijan, was at the recently-concluded UN’s Bonn Climate Change Conference in June to try to galvanize the COP29 corpse, and claimed to have “a two-pillared plan to ‘enhance ambition and enable action’.”

To which again we say been there, done that.

Twenty-eight times and counting, in fact… if you’re only counting the main gatherings not the endless intermediate ones.

Given the grandiose rhetoric ambition hardly needs enhancing since everybody has it, in amounts that make it a drug on the market.

The real question is why action needs “enabling” since nothing’s obstructing it, other than nobody wanting to impose disastrous costs on their own people to no purpose.

Nations are able to act. They just aren’t motivated to, and an agenda full of high-falutin’ ambition won’t change that situation.

The Edge (Singapore) explains in vain that lead Azerbaijani climate negotiator Yalchin Rafiyev:

“says the COP29 Presidency also aims to broker a ‘fair and ambitious new climate finance goal, finalise Article 6, strengthen global financial institutions and ensure the private sector commits to climate action’.”

Ensure? That we’d like to see. Well no, we wouldn’t. And we aren’t going to, no matter what was said at the Bonn Show.

Which in fact was yes we failed again let’s um uh well see that is, as Climate Home News lamented in a closeout piece that makes you wonder whether covering the story was worth it:

“Apart from smiles and flowers in an emotional farewell for a longtime UNFCCC staffer, the mood at the closing session of the Bonn climate talks on Thursday night was sombre.

Frustration and finger-pointing dominated interventions by delegates representing both developed and developing nations, as they lamented the collapse of key talks on the Mitigation Work Programme – the main channel for curbing planet-heating emissions.

‘We have failed to show the world that we are responding with the purpose and urgency required to limit warming to 1.5 degrees,’ said Samoan negotiator Anne Rasmussen, speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS).

Disappointment also ran high over minimal progress towards a new post-2025 finance goal due at November’s COP29 summit in Baku, with rich countries refusing to put numbers on the table.

And there were grumblings about the narrow scope and opaque process of work on integrating climate science into the UN talks in Bonn. All of that left UN climate chief Simon Stiell with little option but to give countries a stiff talking-to as he beseeched them not to ‘leave the hardest work to the eleventh hour’ before COP29.

‘Business-as-usual is a recipe for failure, on climate finance, and on many other fronts, in humanity’s climate fight,’ he warned them.”

Um that was business as usual. And the 11th hour. But they can fix the weather, honest. And will in Baku. This time for sure.

https://principia-scientific.com/yet-another-waste-of-time-climate-conference/

******************************************

‘Green lawfare’ is now the weapon of choice for Australia's activist class

The anti-industry industry has come a long way from its humble origins in the late 1970s, when Bob Brown went to his local St Vincent de Paul and bought himself a suit. The transition from a gaggle of amateur nature lovers to a professional organisation with salaried staff was a giant evolutionary leap for the environmental movement.

It was the precursor to blocking the Franklin Dam and the first tentative steps into politics and the law. Today, green activism in Australia is a quarter-billion-dollar business that employs hundreds of people. Research published this week by the Menzies Research Centre shows the combined revenue of the top 25 green advocacy groups was $275m last year. The revenue has more than doubled from $113m in 2015. The number of staff on their books has increased from 374 to 880.

Ironically, the report finds that the green activist industry is growing faster than the primary industries and resource sectors it targets. Its goal is not to create wealth but to destroy it. It forms part of the NGO-corporate-industrial complex that has discovered how to profit from the war on carbon, aided and abetted by the government through subsidies and regulation.

The environmental juggernaut of today bears little comparison with the green movement that began in Tasmania almost half a century ago. Its focus has changed from conservation to the ideology of climate change. The movement has become remote and insensitive to the natural environment and developed a narrow-minded obsession with carbon emissions from coal and gas combustion.

The big environmental groups are wholly committed to renewable energy and dogmatically opposed to nuclear power. To the extent that we’re able to trace the source of their funding, much of it flows from investors in the renewables sector whose portfolios would be instantly devalued by the entry of nuclear power.

Activist organisations have become so dependent on green corporatism that they are willing to ignore the destruction of broad acres of natural vegetation for the construction of wind turbines, industrial solar plants, energy storage infrastructure and associated transmission lines.

Climate warriors are more likely to be found in the courts these days rather than tied to the front of a bulldozer in the tropical forests of the Upper Burdekin in far north Queensland. Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek’s approval of the Upper Burdekin/Gawara Baya wind development last month came despite a damning report that warned of “unavoidable significant impacts” on the endangered Sharman’s rock wallaby, the koala, the greater glider, the red goshawk and the masked owl.

Nowadays, lawyers perform much of the heavy lifting for climate activism. The MRC’s research found that Australia is the second-largest forum for environmental lawfare after the US. There are more climate lawsuits per capita in Australia than anywhere else in the world, thanks to a rich array of resource sector targets and an obliging legal system.

The bar for launching court actions in Australia is low for those with funds. Every dollar spent by legal activists is a drain on the profits of businesses forced to defend themselves against adventurous and vexatious claims. The biggest cost to the resource sector is not legal fees, punishing as they are. It is the mounting cost of interest on borrowed money that sits idle while the legal process drags on.

The MRC calculates that in past two years $17.48bn in industrial output has been frozen by legal action. Whether investors will see a return on their capital is at the mercy of the courts. The damage is compounded by the damage to the broader economy.

The MRC calculates 29,784 Australian jobs are at risk in cases before the courts. The loss of taxes and mining royalties will make it harder to fund roads, schools and hospitals and support our health and education systems.

The fiscal impact alone would prompt a clear-thinking government to step in and clean up this mess. The Albanese government, however, is anything but hard-headed about anything related to the environment. It refuses to countenance any reform that might give the Greens party an edge in quinoa-chomping enclaves such as the seat of Grayndler, the fate of which is of more than passing interest to our PM.

It gets worse. In an act of fiscal self-harm, the government is subsidising legal activism that eats into the profits it likes to milk. The 2022 budget included $10m in funding for the Environmental Defenders Office and Environmental Justice Australia, the two bodies responsible for most environmental lawfare in Australia.

In 2015, the EDO had 14 staff and a $3m budget. By 2023, it had grown to a team of 105 staff and a budget of $13.3m. It measures success with a perverse set of metrics. Its 2022 annual report boasts of providing 11,587 legal hours and spending 134 days in court.

In January, the EDO’s tactics were heavily criticised by Federal Court Justice Natalie Charlesworth, who reversed an order preventing Santos from building a pipeline allowing the $5.8bn development of the offshore Barossa gas field. She rejected assertions by three Tiwi Islanders that the pipeline posed a risk to intangible underwater heritage, including Crocodile Man song lines and an area of significance for the rainbow serpent Ampiji, and was not “broadly representative” of the beliefs of Tiwi people who would be affected by the pipeline.

Charlesworth found the EDO had engaged in dishonest “coaching” tactics and the misrepresentation of local Indigenous knowledge. Charlesworth dismissed evidence from the EDO’s expert witness about potential impacts on underwater archaeological sites, finding there was a “negligible chance” of a significant impact on tangible cultural heritage. Charlesworth found a cultural mapping exercise undertaken by an expert witness for the applicants and “the related opinions expressed about it are so lacking in integrity that no weight can be placed on them”.

“I am satisfied that this aspect of the case does indeed involve ‘confection’ or ‘construction’, at least in part, and that it cannot be an adapted account of the kind discussed by the anthropologists,” the judgment states.

Yet despite the loss of the case, the activists are winning. The global demand for liquid natural gas has never been higher, and is forecast to continue to rise until the 2040s. Yet oil and gas exploration activities in Australia have been falling significantly over the past two decades. The number of new offshore wells has fallen from over 50 in 2010 wells to just three in 2023. When your aim is to frustrate and delay, there is no such thing as a wasted day in court.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/green-lawfare-is-now-the-weapon-of-choice-for-activist-class/news-story/fa4824e2369b59e1d751d89a5daac8ab

***************************************

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)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*****************************************

A bombshell report titled “Climate Control: Exposing the Decarbonization Collusion in ESG Investing” has exposed massive financial and shareholder coercion in climate finance

The climate cartel has declared war on the American way of life. The climate cartel is waging “a Global World War” for net zero against disfavored American companies, including those in the fossil fuel, aviation, and farming industries that allow Americans to drive, fly, and eat.

Issued by The US House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust the “Climate Control” report targets groups like Mark Carney’s GFANZ (Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero) and ClimateAction 100+ among others.

The report states: “The climate cartel has declared war on the American way of life. The climate cartel is waging “a Global World War” for net zero against disfavored American companies, including those in the fossil fuel, aviation, and farming industries that allow Americans to drive, fly, and eat.

It has described Climate Action 100+ as “the global Navy,” and compared Ceres’s efforts to “the Army ground troops” and “an ‘air cover’ strategic and silent bombing campaign by a newly funded division of the Air Force.”

Some 272,294 documents and 2,565,258 pages of non-public information were received and reviewed. Also noted in the report: “Due to their failure to produce responsive material timely and fulsomely, the Committee was forced to issue document subpoenas to GFANZ, Ceres, As You Sow, Arjuna, BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard, ISS, and Glass Lewis.”

The report claims that the “climate cartel imposes these radical policies by weaponizing ever-escalating pressure tactics…” on corporations. One of the tactics is forcing companies to make “immaterial disclosure of carbon emissions,” a tactic being pushed in the US and Canada.

In Canada, Friends of Science Society has issued a number of Open Letters to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, Bank of Canada, and the Canadian Securities Administrator pointing out the folly of forcing corporations to waste time and money on climate risk reporting that is invalidated by the implausible climate scenarios recommended.

Furthermore, they argue, such reporting exposes companies to shareholder liabilities and lawfare by climate activists.

As reported by CBC’s “What on Earth?,” Environment Canada now claims to be able to attribute an extreme weather event to human-caused climate change within 7 days of the event, which CBC says “will help victims sue” as reported in this Western Standard article.

Canada has recently radically altered the framing of the Competition Bureau’s “greenwashing” legislation, within a few sections of legislation slipped into an economic Bill C-59.

In plain language, the actual standards are vague, but the financial penalties for violation are huge. Friends of Science Society says this presents an open invitation for radical climate lawfare.

Further, advertising claims, for instance, about a firm’s product, service, or actions to seek “Net Zero” must be provable according to an undefined international standard. More details are in this summary brief by Norton, Rose, Fulbright.

Much of this relates to the Catherine McKenna-led Nov. 2022 report “Integrity Matters” which demanded mandatory reporting and cracking down on greenwashing, shifting focus from national Paris Agreement reporting to reporting by corporations, cities and financial institutions.

Friends of Science Society issued a rebuttal statement at the time, pointing out that imposing regulations for a goal that cannot be met shows a lack of integrity. According to an in-depth, meticulous mining and minerals study by Prof. Simon Michaux for the Geological Society of Finland, there is no material supply chain for Net Zero 2030 or even 2050.

A recent Friends of Science review of three Canadian Net Zero plans shows the Canadian targets cannot be met without extreme degrowth and poverty, an abomination for a country with one of the richest resource and energy sectors in the world. Video explainer here.

In 2019, The Guardian reported that Mark Carney stated “Firms ignoring the climate crisis will go bankrupt.”

As the CLINTEL international network of 1,931 scientists and scholars have shown, there is no climate crisis or emergency. Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR6 Working Group I Physical Sciences report of August 2019 only mentions ‘climate emergency’ and ‘climate crisis’ once in reference to media coverage.

Thus, one can conclude the people doing the real greenwashing, misleading, and deception – perhaps ideological self-deception – are the climate cartel participants and advisors like Mark Carney and Catherine McKenna.

https://principia-scientific.com/mark-carneys-gfanz-targeted-in-bombshell-climate-cartel-report-by-us-judiciary-committee/

***************************************

International Climate Conference Debunks Science and Policy Consensus Claims

The Heartland Institute partnered with the Germany-based European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) and the U.S.-based Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) to hold a two-day climate conference on June 14-15 in Vienna, Austria. This was the 16th International Conference on Climate Change; Heartland has either hosted or participated in all of them.

As I write, videos of the conference sessions have not been posted; but below, I categorize and note some of the speakers and topics, and Taylor has provided brief descriptions of a few of the talks. On the science front, an international group of scientists, including Nicola Scafetta, Ph.D., Willie Soon, Ph.D., Nir Shaviv, Ph.D., and Henrik Svensmark, Ph.D., discussed the role the sun and cosmic rays play in warming and climate change. William Happer, Ph.D., described the role that clouds play in radiation transfer. Roy Spencer, Ph.D., discussed the idea that temperature extremes are becoming more common. Taylor, Craig Rucker, and Nobel Prize laureate John Clauser, Ph.D., each discussed how climate alarmists and the media are lying, either directly or through omission of key facts, to promote the idea of climate emergency in need of a big government fix—and discussed ways to successfully debate and debunk their claims.

Other researchers discussed the science and politics of energy and climate change, including the potential of different energy sources and how and why climate alarm is being fought in legislatures and the courts. They included such analysts as Marc Morano, Marcel Crok, László Csaba Szarka, Ph.D., Bernhard Strehl, Ph.D., Manfred Haferburg, Douglas Pollack, and Benjamin Zycher, Ph.D.

Below, Taylor briefly describes the content and impact of a few of the presentations, including his own.

To a packed house at the conference hall in Vienna, I (Taylor) set the stage for presentations by some of the world’s most accomplished climate scientists and climate policy experts. I explained how climate alarmism is a Trojan horse for the global left to consolidate money and power in global government institutions while depriving us of our most basic freedoms. After congratulating the audience on sending even more freedom-focused policymakers to the upcoming EU Parliament session, I noted how Heartland is working closely with EIKE and other public policy organizations and policymakers throughout Austria and throughout Europe. I gave a presentation on specific examples of climate change misinformation making the rounds in the establishment media. I then turned the floor over to presentations by participating scientists and policy experts.

“No chance” was the key takeaway from a presentation by Dr. Will Happer. Happer and a colleague, W. A. van Wijngaarden, Ph.D., published a paper in 2020 showing the atmosphere has nearly reached its carbon dioxide saturation point. Carbon dioxide impedes the flow of longwave radiation to space within a specific spectrum range. At current atmospheric CO2 levels of approximately 420 parts per million, atmospheric CO2 is nearly saturated, meaning nearly all potential warmth retention from atmospheric CO2 has already occurred, such that additional CO2 emissions will have almost no impact on global temperatures. During his presentation, Dr. Happer said there is no chance that the saturation effect he documented could be wrong. From the humble and affable Dr. Happer, that is as forceful a statement as you will ever hear. That is good news for people worried about future climate change, and should end the debate about any future climate change crisis.

In a subsequent one-on-one conversation that I had with Danish scientist Dr. Henrik Svensmark, he confirmed Happer’s assessment of the CO2 saturation effect, saying, “Dr. Happer is correct, CO2 saturation as described by Dr. Happer is a well-known and well-understood matter of science.

“Nobody with any basic understanding of atmospheric physics can claim it is wrong,” Svensmark concluded.

Dr. John Clauser, the 2022 Nobel Prize winner for physics, gave a compelling blow-by-blow takedown of climate alarmism. Among other things, Clauser emphasized that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its computer models are spectacularly wrong in their assumptions about clouds.

Clauser pointed out that average cloud cover throughout the planet is approximately 67 percent. IPCC claims clouds have an albedo of 0.34, meaning they reflect approximately 34 percent of sunlight back into space, with 66 percent of the sunlight that strikes cloud tops reaching Earth’s surface. In reality, Clauser emphasized, cloud albedo is approximately 0.80. The sun is a variable star, meaning the output of solar energy varies a significant amount. Compelling scientific evidence shows solar output has increased significantly during the 120-plus years since the beginning of the 20th century. Drastically underestimating cloud albedo allows IPCC to underreport the impact of the recent increase in solar output on global climate and allows IPCC to claim a much greater impact from carbon dioxide emissions than is justified by sound science.

https://heartlanddailynews.com/2024/06/climate-change-weekly-510-international-climate-conference-debunks-science-and-policy-consensus-claims/

*******************************************

Could Courts Be Persuaded To Ban The Use Of ‘Fossil Fuels’?

Despite hundreds of billions of tax dollars spent on ‘green’ energy over the past decade, the world and America used more ‘fossil fuels’ than ever before in history last year.

The electric vehicle movement is stalled out, solar and wind power are both still fringe forms of energy, and the green candidates got crushed in recent elections in Europe because voters are sick of the higher prices associated with ‘green’ policies.

So having struck out with consumers, businesses, and at the ballot box, now the greens are moving on to the courts. The climate industrial complex has now joined forces with trial lawyers to advance their war on ‘fossil fuels’.

One of the more absurd lawsuits happened in Hawaii.

There, a group of 13 teenagers — honest, I’m not making this up — sued Hawaii’s government over its use of ‘fossil fuels’. Environmental law firms Our Children’s Trust and Earthjustice claim that Hawaii’s natural resources are imperiled by CO2 emissions.

Even if that were true, shouldn’t they be suing China?

The settlement will require the state to eliminate ‘fossil fuels’ from its transportation system by 2045, and also formally recognizes the right to file future lawsuits against other parties.

Gov. Josh Green even stood next to the young plaintiffs as he read a statement claiming:

“This settlement informs how we as a state can best move forward to achieve life-sustaining goals.”

There’s so much that’s wrong about this decision. How did a bunch of teenagers possibly have standing to sue? What possible harm have they suffered from ‘fossil fuels’?

The irony is that this island paradise in the Pacific — whose primary industry is tourism — is going to collapse without ‘fossil fuels’. With no jets and cruise ships allowed, will tourists and business travelers have to arrive by sailboat?

This new technique of using lawsuits to advance the anti-‘fossil fuels’ movement has spread to other states. Last August, a judge ruled that GOP-dominated Montana violated its constitution when it approved ‘fossil fuel’ projects without taking ‘climate change’ into account.

After the recent flooding in Vermont, ‘green’ activists sued the state for not abolishing ‘fossil fuels’.

Massachusetts is suing Exxon Mobil for adverse weather conditions.

There are now 32 cases filed by state attorneys general, cities, counties, and tribal nations against companies including Exxon Mobil, BP, and Shell. The lawsuits claim that the industry tried to undermine ‘scientific consensus’ about the ‘crisis’.

Here’s what’s so frightening about these sham lawsuits from trial lawyers who hope to turn oil companies into cash cows similar to the tobacco lawsuits 20 years ago: The end game of lawsuits against states and oil and gas companies for using or producing energy because of alleged damage to the environment could bring about the abolition of ‘fossil fuels’ through the back door of the nation’s courthouses.

But what none of these judges or litigators take into account is the catastrophic economic effects of NOT using ‘fossil fuels’?

As an example, the Left wants to abolish air conditioning, which requires electricity, which mostly comes from ‘fossil fuels’. But air conditioning saves tens of thousands of lives a year.

What about the millions of jobs that would be wiped out with no ‘fossil fuels’? How many thousands of Americans would die in hospitals, assisted living centers, daycare centers, or schools if the lights went out with no ‘fossil fuel’ power plants?

‘Fossil fuels’ have saved millions of lives over the last century. They make Americans much richer, safer, happier, healthier, and more mobile.

Meanwhile, there is no evidence backing up the absurd claim by teenagers that if Hawaii stopped using ‘fossil fuels’, the state’s weather conditions would improve.

Will judges take that into consideration when they try to rob Exxon and coal companies of their profits for the sin of making life on Earth much better?

https://principia-scientific.com/could-courts-be-persuaded-to-ban-the-use-of-fossil-fuels/

**********************************************

Science pushed aside as media backs renewables

How can journalists claim Coalition support for nuclear power is “Trumpian”, or part of a conservative “culture war”, when 32 countries use nuclear energy?

How do media critics of nuclear power explain commitments by more than 20 countries from four continents to treble their nuclear power generation capacity in the wake of warnings at the COP28 climate meeting in Dubai last year that the world is falling behind in its emissions-reduction targets?

It is, of course, incumbent on political reporters to demand details from Opposition Leader Peter Dutton about his nuclear power announcement of June 18. Yet many journalists have for years been incurious about details of the renewables rollout preferred by the government of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the previous Coalition government of Scott Morrison.

Aren’t the actual culture warriors the journalists who refuse to ask questions about problems in the renewables rollout, flagged publicly last August and again in May by the Grattan Institute, a strong renewables backer? Problems with the speed of the rollout were again admitted last week in the Australian Energy Market Operator’s 2024 Integrated System Plan. Yet to read or listen to reporters from the ABC, the Guardian and The New Daily, you would think the entire world was following Australia down the road to 100 per cent renewables, problem free.

The truth is the renewables rollout is in trouble across the northern hemisphere and particularly in Europe. And emissions are rising in China, India, Russia, most of Asia and much of South America.

Countries with higher percentages of renewables than the 82 per cent by 2030 policy target of Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen depend on hydro-electric power generation because of their abundant water resources.

This column has quoted the International Energy Agency saying the technology to reach 100 per cent renewables is not yet available. On November 14, 2022, this column quoted former Energy Security Board chair Kerry Schott telling ABC Radio National’s breakfast program host Patricia Karvelas about the scale of the energy transition and switching off coal. “Well, I think it may not be possible but I think we’ve got to try,” she said.

An ordinary listener might have expected RN to follow up that line. But no.

Critics on the right have often argued environmentalism, and particularly belief in renewables, has become a matter of quasi-religious fervour. Yet there are facts about power generation and grid stability that stubbornly refuse to evaporate in the face of the climate beliefs of left-wing journalists and Greens voters.

Chris Uhlmann, now with The Australian, felt the full fury of the pro-renewables camp when he wrote about the potential for high levels of renewables to destabilise the South Australian electricity grid after a statewide blackout on September 28, 2016. Critics accused Uhlmann of being a closet climate denier and insisting the blackout was entirely down to a storm.

They were – and largely remain – oblivious to Uhlmann’s central point about the engineering parameters needed to provide stability in all electricity grids. This is not just about the intermittent nature of wind and solar power, but about the effects of asynchronous renewables in synchronous power distribution systems.

This column, a fan of contributions by power generation specialists to Professor Judith Curry’s Climate Etc blog, recommends a three-part series by US “planning engineer” Russ Schussler, retired vice-president of system planning for the Georgia Transmission Corporation.

Schussler rates hydro as the best renewable resource for grid stability but also criticises the focus by critics of renewables on the intermittency of wind and solar.

“The major challenges associated with increased penetration of wind and solar … are not caused by intermittency, but rather from how the energy is injected into the grid,” he said. “The electric energy produced by wind and solar is transformed by a power converter using inverters in order to synchronise with the oscillating grid. In terms of reliability, resources that spin in synchronism with the grid as electricity is produced are much better for the grid than those resources which use inverter-based technology to convert for grid injection.”

This is the science: using asynchronous power from wind and solar in a synchronous system is a much bigger problem than environmentalists understand.

Power engineers say that as renewables penetration increases, so does the grid stability problem. This is the big “82 per cent renewables” question.

Add to that the ecological damage done to large areas of mainland Australia by building out 10,000km of new power lines, millions of solar panels and tens of thousands of wind turbines. All this as the rest of the world continues to increase CO2 emissions. Yet Bowen and others believe our comparative advantage in wind and sun will make Australia a green energy superpower.

Much of their optimism flows from predictions about the potential for exports of green hydrogen, a technology yet to be developed economically.

Even Grattan has sounded a warning about hydrogen, suggesting the extent of our comparative advantage might be limited to green steel and green fertiliser. There is another hint in the latest AEMO ISP as to why Labor’s green industry ambitions may falter. Page seven of the AEMO plan says “renewables accounted for almost 40 per cent of the electricity market” in 2023.

“Rooftop solar alone contributed more electricity to the grid in the first quarter of 2024 (13 per cent) than did grid-scale solar, wind, hydro or gas.” That’s right – suburban homes are generating much of our new renewable power. What does this mean for the government’s “future made in Australia” plans?

This column on May 5 analysed the draft ISP, the latest Grattan warnings on the slow pace of the renewables rollout, and a critique by the Centre for Independent Studies. The CIS goes to the heart of the point about rooftop solar.

Why does AEMO acknowledge the importance of rooftop solar as well as the future role for home batteries but not cost their installation? That is, this major cost is not included in the $122bn figure Bowen used to fob off ABC 7.30 host Sarah Ferguson last Monday.

The CIS study said rooftop solar and home batteries would have cost $360bn at today’s prices by 2050. And the latest ISP press material on the AEMO website specifically acknowledges Bowen’s $122bn figure “does NOT include the cost of commissioned, committed or anticipated projects, consumer energy resources, distribution network upgrades”.

This column on March 17 was sceptical the Coalition would actually take a nuclear policy to the next election. Maybe that was wrong. Such a policy would be subject to the mother of all scare campaigns by the Greens and Labor.

All that political risk would be for a generation system that could have no influence on power prices or system reliability until the late 2030s when the first reactor came on stream.

Yet even if Dutton is writing the longest political suicide note since John Hewson’s Fightback, surely journalists owe the public genuine scrutiny of the costs, risks and benefits of both nuclear and renewables.

Especially since AEMO itself acknowledges Bowen’s $122bn figure is not the total cost of the renewables path.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/science-pushed-aside-as-media-backs-renewables/news-story/25ab93577cbc0206ec4fd2b90b5c34ea

***************************************

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)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*****************************************