How the Trump administration's policies have unleashed American energy production

Every president since Richard Nixon has promised energy independence to Americans as a measure of national security. Promises and pledges have come and gone from the White House since the 1970s — but now, the United States of America is an exporter of crude oil as well as natural gas and, yes, Americans can be declared energy independent.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA), “In November 2019, the United States became a net exporter of all oil products, including both refined petroleum products and crude oil.”

For the very reasons eight presidents prior to Donald Trump promised this energy autonomy, it’s now evidenced with the stability of oil prices that no longer wildly fluctuate with every world event.

Middle East policy has become more shaped by those drilling in Pennsylvania, North Dakota, and Texas. Yet leftists still declare, “We just can’t drill our way out of the problem.” Well, that’s exactly what happened.

Despite, not because of, the policies of the Obama administration, exploration, drilling, and fracking for natural gas and oil expanded with no appearance of turning back as the Trump administration approved last week the Keystone Pipeline right of way for a crucial 46-mile stretch controlled by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Keystone was first proposed in 2008, but faced repeated rejections during the Obama years. This approval permits the $8 billion construction project expected to move up to 35 million gallons of crude oil every day from western Canada to terminals on the U.S. Gulf Coast.

What does this mean to average Americans?

According to economist Stephen Moore, “At least $1 trillion of U.S. economic output is related to the shale revolution,” with more than 1.5 million Americans working in the industry. A separate study by the American Petroleum Institute cites at least four million jobs connected to the shale oil and gas energy transformation that include work in construction, engineering, pipe fitting, steel production, trucking, and sales jobs.

Specifically, Michigan and Ohio together have more than 400,000 workers tied to the shale industry, with Pennsylvania home to an additional 320,000 alone. Colorado and Florida each have more than 200,000 oil and gas workers. It’s obvious that these states hold not only precious natural resources but critical voters that serve as the fuel for the engine of 2020 politics.

While these states are the heart of the shale industry, Texas has more than two million employees of gas and oil companies. Add to that the coal workers who showed up in 2016 from Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio supporting Trump. He embraces an all-of-the-above approach to energy that includes fossil fuels, nuclear, solar, and renewables, but without the subsidies propping up the green industry.

It’s obvious that fossil fuels and nuclear energy are not welcomed in the Democrat Party, as evidenced by the lineup of presidential candidates whose policies would stall the American economic engine, killing millions of jobs while massively increasing prices.

As Salena Zito and Brad Todd wrote in their book, The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics, those who are red-blooded and blue-collared are now the GOP — yes, it’s a Growing Opportunity Party. As the elections inch closer, expect effective reminders that Democrats view those who cling to their God and guns as “deplorable,” as well as disdain all who see the value in America being first in energy exploration and production. That might be called #Winning for conservatives.

SOURCE 





Faulty Assumptions Lead to Fake News About Climate Change

Climate change soon will constitute “a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters,” one government study predicted.

By 2020, according to a report on the study in The Guardian, “abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies.”

That was 16 years ago. Now that the year 2020 is upon us, are any of these “doom and gloom” scenarios actually occurring? Far from it.

Indeed, the planet has experienced a bit of lukewarming. However, claims of increases in extreme weather are vastly overstated.

If anything, societies have been able to grow wealthier over time, and, as a result, have been more capable of weathering the extreme events that have come their way.

In fact, here at home, the economy is thriving. Unemployment remains at historical lows. And by achieving energy independence, we have transformed the global energy landscape.

So where did all this alarmist rhetoric come from? Well, faulty computer modeling is a big part of the explanation. Computer models are sometimes based on assumptions that have been beefed up to satisfy a particular regulatory agenda.

This is part of a new study I published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Economics and Policy Studies with Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Ontario, and Pat Michaels of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank.

The study examined some of the assumptions made in one model used to estimate the economic effects of climate change. Called the FUND model, it is used to estimate a construct known as the social cost of carbon, which refers to the economic damages associated with carbon dioxide emissions over a particular time horizon. 

Unlike other models the government has used before, however, the FUND model actually incorporates benefits of carbon dioxide emissions into its modeling.

All of these computer models are based on assumptions. In this study, we focused on assumptions regarding climate sensitivity as well as agricultural benefits. 

Although it long has been understood that carbon dioxide emissions affect temperatures, the question is to what degree (pun intended). We found that updating these assumptions in line with more recent research can have a significant effect on the social cost of carbon. 

In fact, under some realistic scenarios of moderate warming, we found that the social cost of carbon is essentially zero and might even be negative. That’s right: The benefits associated with a moderate amount of warming may outweigh the costs. Typically, such benefits result from longer growing seasons and increased agricultural output. 

Bottom line: The FUND model, under very reasonable assumptions, indicates that a moderate amount of warming has practically no negative impact and might even be a good thing.

This study is just one of many in a stream of research on the social cost of carbon published by The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis. My prior research with colleagues demonstrated that the computer models used to estimate the economic impact of climate change are extremely sensitive to reasonable changes in other assumptions as well.

These assumptions include foolish attempts to make projections 300 years into the future and ignorance of recommendations by the Office of Management and Budget regarding cost-benefit analysis.

In our research, we varied these assumptions by altering the model’s projections in a more reasonable manner, incorporating the OMB’s recommendations for this type of analysis and updating assumptions regarding climate sensitivity.  We found that tweaking these assumptions can reduce the social cost of carbon by as much as 80% or more compared to estimates made by the Obama administration. 

Our conclusion: The Obama administration deliberately beefed up estimates of the social cost of carbon to justify its policy agenda. Ever since, Heritage has advocated that these computer models are so prone to user manipulation that it is not only naïve but dangerous to put them in the hands of lawmakers, regulators, and bureaucrats:

—Heritage’s analysis of the DICE model, also used to estimate the social cost of carbon.

—Heritage’s analysis of the FUND model.

—Heritage’s other peer-reviewed analysis of these computer models.

This work has been recognized by Congress as well as both the Obama and Trump administrations.

Yes, statistical models can be useful for understanding real-world phenomena.

Any model, however, is only as a good as the assumptions from which it is composed. Improperly specified models can deceive the public, misguide policymakers, and result in big costs for ordinary Americans.

SOURCE 





Mad as the sea and wind: Wind power in France: a lie and a swindle?

Bernard Durand

The public’s disenchantment with wind power is growing rapidly: its supporters have become a minority. More and more French people are concerned about the environmental and health damage and the blots on their country’s famous landscapes as a result of its massive development. They are also exasperated by the cavalier methods used to impose it, and the corruption of elected officials that too often accompanies it.

But the French still do not realize, due to the intense campaigns of disinformation on these subjects, how much wind generated electricity will actually cost them, without contributing to combating global warming, or doing away with nuclear reactors. It will destroy more jobs than it creates. This work explains why. It also dismantles the structures of lies and financial scams that allow wind energy promoters to make money from it without worrying about its real efficiency or the human and environmental damage, just for their own financial or electoral benefit.

Wind power spoils the countryside and coastlines, impoverishes the French people, and is of no use to them. It is a weapon of mass destruction on their environment and economy. It compromises their energy security. It must be stopped as a matter of urgency and the money wasted on it must be used to reduce CO2 emissions from housing and transport, which emit considerably more CO2 and are therefore more harmful to the climate than our electricity.

Interview

* Bernard Durand, how can you be both a co-founder of an environmental association and write a book entitled “Un vent de folie: L’éolien en France : mensonge et arnaque?” [ Mad as the sea and wind: Wind power in France: a lie and a swindle?]

It is perfectly compatible, and this book demonstrates the fact: wind power in France is in fact a weapon of massive environmental destruction for rural areas. It will soon be equally the case for the marine environment, if offshore wind power is installed in force as our government wants it to be. What would be incompatible for an ecologist, and therefore profoundly hypocritical, would be to promote wind power on the grounds of a defence of the environment and the climate, as do the well-established NGOs that claim to be “environmental”, such as Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and France Nature Environnement (FNE), among others.

* You claim that disenchantment with wind power is growing amongst public opinion and that its supporters have become a minority. No doubt this is due to the numerous critical works published in recent years. However, your book sets out an original critique, that is still unknown to the general public.

The works you are talking about are in fact mainly concerned with denouncing the effects of wind turbines on the environment and human health, the corruption of elected officials that is far too often part of the process of taking the industry forward, and the absurdity of this development from an economic point of view. They have indeed contributed to a growing public disenchantment, springing from the increased perception by local residents – of whom there are more and more – of the harmful effects of wind power on their immediate environment and their health.

This is currently the only work intended for the general public which demonstrates, with the help of basic physics, that wind power cannot in any way achieve the aims used to justify promoting it.  In particular, it can only increase the price of electricity, and now of fuel, for French households, and as a result increase the energy insecurity of low income households, while it can do nothing to reduce our CO2 emissions and combat climate change. It will do nothing towards the closure of our nuclear reactors. Is it sensible to wreck our environment for something that costs a lot of money and is useless?

Public opinion has not in fact genuinely grasped this, because disinformation on these subjects by the media, under pressure from a large part of the political and financial world but also unfortunately from so-called “environmental” NGOs such as those mentioned above, has provided intense blanket coverage for quite some time.  Fortunately this is changing now.  Hopefully not too late!

* You talk a great deal about the German example, about non-dispatchable electricity provision, about CO2 production remaining high, and about the dramatic rise in electricity prices. What lessons can we learn from this?

The most important lesson to be learned is that we should not follow the example of Germany, which has, impulsively and thoughtlessly, run headlong into an ecological and economic dead end and a lasting dependence on fossil fuels by wanting to develop wind and solar photovoltaics at all costs; apparently quite literally, because the expenditure on this programme is already running into hundreds of billions of euros, for a very poor result.  Due to the intermittency, i.e. the uncontrollable (non-dispatchable) variability of the electrical power generated by their wind power, Germany was forced to retain all its energy from coal-fired dispatchable plants. It had to replace the nuclear reactors it had shut down with gas-fired power plants. It now imports large quantities of coal from the United States, and will soon be importing large quantities of Russian gas to supply its gas-fired power plants via the Northstream 1 and 2 gas pipelines that have just been installed in the Baltic Sea to supply these plants.  As a result Germany is, and will be for a very long time, the main polluter of the European atmosphere, with the climate-lethal CO2 emitted by its power stations, but also with the fumes from these power stations which are harmful to health. The planned replacement of its coal-fired power plants with gas-fired power plants by 2038 will come too late, and while it will reduce its CO2 emissions it will also increase its emissions of methane (CH4), the main component of natural gas, which is much more harmful to the climate than CO2.

* The current government seems to want to put an end to nuclear power generation, as with the Fessenheim power station, and replace it with wind power. Is this desirable for the consumer? Or the climate?

The example of Germany shows just what will happen if we close down our nuclear power plants. Like Germany we would be obliged to replace our lost power with equivalent power from coal and/or gas-fired power stations and, again like Germany, to have considerable CO2  emissions from our electricity production. This would mean reneging to a huge extent on the commitments we made at COP 21 in Paris in 2015. The closure of Fessenheim, which emits practically no CO2, is already an extraordinary aberration!

Of course, we may imagine that one day it will be possible to replace coal and gas-fired power stations with massive wind and solar power storage. But at this point engineers do not even know what this kind of storage would constitute, and so actually building it, if that is ever even possible, will not be happening any time soon.  But the climate will not wait. In addition, their cost is likely to be higher than the plants they would replace. In any case, Germany is obviously not counting on this, since it will be supplying its future gas-fired power stations with Russian gas.

Now if it did one day become possible, our country would be covered with giant wind turbines. And, of course, we would also have to accept a very sharp increase in the price of electricity and fuel for households.

* You talk about a disinformation mechanism and use some very strong expressions such as “lies” and “financial swindles”. How has it come to this?

Yes, I’ve used strong words. Because the disinformation on these subjects is quite extraordinary and must be denounced in the strongest possible terms.  This is due to a convergence of powerful political and financial interests that use modern advertising and marketing techniques to shape public opinion, and most of the media goes along with it.

So, it has become virtually impossible to debate these issues calmly on a scientific basis, and this represents a great danger to our democracy.

I hope that my book will stimulate this kind of debate amongst the public.

SOURCE 





Top Solar Executives Plead Guilty to Participating in a Billion Dollar Ponzi Scheme—the Biggest Criminal Fraud Scheme in the History of the Eastern District of California

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The owners of DC Solar, a Benicia-based company, pleaded guilty today to charges related to a billion dollar Ponzi scheme— the biggest criminal fraud scheme in the history of the Eastern District of California. The government’s investigation has resulted in the largest criminal forfeiture in the history of the District with over $120 million in assets forfeited that will go to victims, and has returned $500 million to the United States Treasury, with more to come, U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott announced.

Jeff Carpoff, 49, of Martinez, pleaded guilty today to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and money laundering. His wife, Paulette Carpoff, 46, pleaded guilty today to conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States and money laundering. According to court documents, between 2011 and 2018, DC Solar manufactured mobile solar generator units (MSG), solar generators that were mounted on trailers that were promoted as able to provide emergency power to cellphone towers and lighting at sporting events. A significant incentive for investors were generous federal tax credits due to the solar nature of the MSGs.

The conspirators pulled off their scheme by selling solar generators that did not exist to investors, making it appear that solar generators existed in locations that they did not, creating false financial statements, and obtaining false lease contracts, among other efforts to conceal the fraud. In reality, at least half of the approximately 17,000 solar generators claimed to have been manufactured by DC Solar did not exist.

U.S. Attorney Scott stated: “This billion dollar Ponzi scheme hurt investors and took money from the United States Treasury. This case represents not only the largest criminal fraud scheme in the history of the District, it also represents the largest criminal forfeiture in the history of the District with over $120 million in assets forfeited. All of this money will be returned to the victims. This scheme also targeted the United States Treasury, and we have returned $500 million to the Treasury to date. Agents, investigators and attorneys from various federal agencies are still working to continue to return money to victims and the United States Treasury. Today’s guilty pleas sends a strong message that fraudsters will get caught and will pay for their crimes. You can run, but you cannot hide.”

The forfeiture included seizing and auctioning 148 of the Carpoffs’ luxury and collector vehicles, including the 1978 Firebird previously owned by actor Burt Reynolds. This historical auction resulted in recouping approximately $8.233 million for victims. In addition to their collection of luxury and collector vehicles, Jeff and Paulette Carpoff used money from the scheme to pay for a minor-league professional baseball team and a NASCAR racecar sponsorship; to purchase luxury real estate in California, Nevada, the Caribbean, Mexico, and elsewhere; a subscription private jet service; a suite at a professional football stadium; and jewelry.

“The Carpoffs and their co-conspirators wove a web of lies and deceit in a massive fraud scheme. Meticulous review and analysis of millions of documents revealed the operation and true intention of the scheme,” said Special Agent in Charge Sean Ragan. “The FBI is committed to our partnerships with the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Office of Inspector General, and U.S. Marshals Service. Together, we seek to uncover fraud that exploits investors and taxpayers, ensuring criminals face justice.”

“By all outer appearances this was a legitimate and successful company,” said Kareem Carter, Special Agent in Charge IRS Criminal Investigation. “But in reality it was all just smoke and mirrors — a Ponzi scheme touting tax benefits to the tune of over $900 million. IRS CI is committed to investigating those who take advantage and impact the financial well-being of others for their own personal gain.”

 “The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of Inspector General (FDIC-OIG) is pleased to join our law enforcement colleagues in announcing these guilty pleas,” stated Special Agent in Charge Wade Walters for the FDIC OIG San Francisco Regional Office. “The defendants conspired with others to create a fraudulent business venture that duped unsuspecting entities, including banks, to invest approximately $1 billion, which the two later used to support a lavish lifestyle. They also knowingly engaged in a money laundering transaction involving criminally derived property. The FDIC-OIG is committed to ensuring that those who use our Nation’s banks to undermine the integrity of the financial system will be held accountable.”

Four defendants have previously pleaded guilty to federal criminal charges related to the fraud scheme since October. Joseph W. Bayliss, 44, of Martinez, and Ronald J. Roach, of Walnut Creek, each pleaded guilty to related charges on Oct. 22, 2019. Robert A. Karmann, 53, of Clayton, pleaded guilty to related charges on Dec. 17, 2019. Ryan Guidry, 53, of Pleasant Hill, pleaded guilty to related charges on Jan. 14, 2020. A seventh co-conspirator is scheduled to plead guilty on Feb. 11. The investigation into the fraud remains ongoing.

This case is the product of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, IRS‑Criminal Investigation, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Office of Inspector General. Assistant U.S. Attorneys André M. Espinosa and Kevin C. Khasigian are prosecuting the case.

Jeff and Paulette Carpoff are scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez on May 19. Jeff Carpoff faces a maximum statutory penalty of 30 years in prison. Paulette Carpoff faces a maximum statutory penalty of 15 years in prison. The actual sentences, however, will be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables.

SOURCE 





Big business ‘killing people’: New Greens leader Adam Bandt’s slams action on climate change

Bandt is a former Trotskyite. He joined the Greens out of convenience.  Trotskyites think even Communists are too Right-wing.  Note that big business is still his chief bugbear

Hours after being elected unopposed, the new leader of the Australian Greens has accused big business of “killing people and endangering people’s safety” and claimed Scott Morrison’s action on climate change will lead to “three times as many deaths” as the 2019-20 bushfire crisis in which 33 people lost their lives.

Declaring he wanted to “turf this government out”, Adam Bandt said Australia under the Prime Minister’s leadership was on track to warm by three degrees and the biggest barrier to climate action was coal.

“Big business that makes its money by killing people and endangering people’s safety should be worried. Anyone who makes a profit by putting people’s lives at risk should be worried because their days are gone,” Mr Bandt said in his first press conference as leader.

“Our message is also there is a role in a manufacturing renaissance in this country for businesses to sell the rest of the world things that are powered by the sun and the wind.

Business model ‘threatens human life’

“If you’re a coal company or a gas company or an oil company then our message to you is very simple – your business model is unsustainable. Your business model is predicated on threatening human life and they have to go. They have to go in a way that looks after workers and that looks after communities but they have to go.”

Mr Bandt, who said he was not unhappy with the description of himself as a “Greens social democrat”, said the country needed a “carbon price plus” to reduce emissions and tackle global warming.

“Scott Morrison has got us on track for three degrees of global warming and that is a catastrophe and you can’t have it both ways, you can’t say you accept the science of climate change but then refuse to accept what the science is that you need to do,” he said.

“These catastrophic bushfires have happened at one degree, Scott Morrison’s plan is for at least three times as much pain, three times as much suffering and three times as many deaths at least because that is what is in store for us if we keep on going the way the government has us going.

“If the government says ‘oh look, we don’t want a price on carbon but we’re prepared to look at a staged, orderly exit of coal-fired power stations’, then of course we’ll look at that but in fact they’re doing the opposite.

They’re saying how can we use public money to prop up coal-fired power stations? They’re doing a feasibility study about a new coal-fired power station.”

The Greens have a plan to phase out thermal coal exports and domestic use by 2030.

Mr Bandt was elected Greens leader at a partyroom meeting on Tuesday unopposed alongside co-deputy leader and Queensland senator Larissa Waters, who will also be Senate leader.

Mr Bandt will be the first Greens leader in the party’s history not to sit in the upper house. He will succeed retiring Victorian senator Richard Di Natale.

SOURCE
 
***************************************

For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here

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

How To Slay The Climate Change Dragon

In our time, as truth corrodes, myths become necessary. As people drift away from truth, they readily agree to intrusive governments – and such invasive governments give consent to supranational entities and conglomerates who then use myths to manufacture political, social and economic consent.

The sales-force that sells these fictive narratives is the vast media-education-entertainment complex which employs, for such purposes, the punditry of experts, the professoriate, globe-trotting zealots, and sanctimonious thespians. Any dissent from these fables is decried, ridiculed, and suppressed.

One such myth is CO2 in the role of the arch-enemy, Hades-bent on heating up the planet, until life becomes impossible; and it is treacherous human activity that has set free this culprit into the hapless atmosphere to work havoc. After much struggle with vile traitors who greedily serve the villain CO2, and their henchmen, the climate change deniers, a few wise politicians and selfless NGOs will finally hurl CO2 into the netherworld of Zero Emissions, from which it will never rise again. Thus, the planet was saved and is now inhabited by fewer but better humans.

People love stories. The more far-fetched the better. The greater the lies, the more believable it is.

The reality is that the monster, the villain is not CO2 and the Greenhouse Effect. The monster is the myth itself, whereby human life – and the very future of humanity – is being asked to conform to the dictates of the lie that is “catastrophic climate change.” An entire complex of anti-human strategies are now justified by way of this lie – carbon taxes, deindustrialization, veganism, fossil fuel divestment,a green economy, population reduction, Gaia worship, green ethics – a brave new world.

It is precisely this global warming, catastrophic climate change myth that The Sky Dragon Slayers. Victory Lap sets out to slay. This book is a follow-up to the earlier work, Slaying the Sky Dragon. Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory, which was published in 2011, and which, as the title suggests, did destroy the pretense to “science” that revilers of CO2 leaned upon.

But in the ensuing decade, the myth of global warming has become more deeply entrenched – a lie that must not be questioned. Why this has happened is an important question, and it points to the success of the mythographers, who have a very clever trick up their sleeve – namely, the denial of truth.

Thus, we are supposed to be living in a “post-truth” world, in which “truth” is nothing more than a social construct, where there is only “your truth” and “my truth.” Such “truth” is personal preference, personal taste. In this way, both purpose and meaning are called into question, which brings about cynicism and gullibility; and, thus, people are the more easily led by “thought-leaders,” who serve many masters.

In such a hollowed-out world, climate change is packaged as piety. As Tim Ball observes in his Foreword to the book, “It is hard to believe that such false information as that created and perpetuated by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) continues to exist. Worse, it goes almost unquestioned and is the prevailing view.”

Ken Coffman in his Publisher’s Note succinctly captures the dynamics of this piety: “We have to give credit to the manipulators – they achieved a lot based on nearly nothing. The human-caused global warming was destructive, wrong and stupid, but masterful use of hyperbole and fear-mongering.”

Earlier, Coffman had noted, “There is no limit to the ways a bad theory can be false.” It soon becomes obvious that the climate change myth is not about science – but about power – and to those who manage the levers of power, truth will always be inconvenient and dangerous, and must, therefore, be suppressed. Truth is the greatest foe of ideology.

The Sky Dragon Slayers. Victory Lap offers this truth which is dangerous to those who sell the climate change myth. Thus, in Chapter 1, the entire premise of climate alarmism, of irreversible, catastrophic natural changes, brought about by human activity, is systematically dismantled and then destroyed.

The weapon which slays this mythic beast is the precise definition of what science really is and what it is not. The first Chapter carefully differentiates between the traditional scientific method and “post-normalism.” The former is empirical, rational, and cumulative, where predictions become laws when they can be repeated and always yield the same results. These results become evidence which leads to conclusions, or laws, about reality.

Here, Karl Popper’s famous paradigm serves as a guiding principle: “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.” In other words, truth is first known by evidence and then truth is known by how it is lied about. In our era, post-truth is the lie about truth.

We have to bear in mind that those in power have persuaded many that biological reality of the two sexes is a lie, while the lie of gender-fluidity, that a person can choose his/her own sex – is the truth. This is precisely what Popper meant by falsifiability. We can know truth, when others feel an urgent need to lie about it.

This lying is post-normalism, which stems from norm criticism and intersectionality; both are now de rigueur in all of academia. This means that, by and large, to be educated nowadays means to believe in and promote lies. In such a topsy-turvy world, post-normalist science serves power, not truth, since “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent,” as per Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome Ravetz.

Such flapdoodle, always uttered with a very serious face, is about managing and controlling the “stakes” and the “decisions,” in which science must be nothing more than another rhetorical device to brainwash people.

This is made rather plain, in case of any doubt, by the academic Mike Hulme: “Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although evidence will gain some insights into the question if it recognizes the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists – and politicians – must trade (normal) truth for influence.” Post-normal “science” is politics by other means.

Thus, climate change is not about the climate – it is not about the environment. Instead, it is an absurd attempt to play God – to change how life exists on the planet. And this existence is to benefit the few, rather than the many, via the Fourth and the Fifth Industrial Revolutions – the point being to cull humanity, so it can pollute less. The shade of Malthus once again raises its head. We are in a death-struggle between two opposing views of humanity. One sees human beings as a harmful virus in the body of noble Gaia, which must be controlled, if not eradicated – and the other which sees great value in human life. It is an epic battle between good and evil.

After Chapter 1, which is the longest of the book, the remaining chapters serve as mop-up operations, in which the various limbs of the dragon that is catastrophic climate change are lopped off and destroyed.

Thus, Chapter 2 tosses the famous Hockey Stick Graph into the dustbin of history. As is well known, this graph, the fabrication of Michael Mann, was the show-piece of the IPCC, and made famous by Al Gore – and it remains to this day the most iconic image of climate alarmists. It purported to “prove” that CO2 trapped heat like a blanket and thus heated up the planet, until life would eventually become impossible.

Things came to a head for Mann when he filed a multi-million-dollar lawsuit against Dr. Tim Ball, who had quipped that Mann was from Penn State but more properly belonged in the state pen, given his many falsifications of data.

Throughout this ordeal, Dr. Ball insisted that he wanted Mann to show his “secret science,” or the R2 Regression Numbers, in court, which Mann claimed he had used to fashion his Hockey Stick Chart, aka the Hokey Schtick. The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed Mann’s lawsuit and awarded the defendant Ball full legal costs. Such is the cunning of reason – Mann was undone by the very mechanism he had devised to destroy Dr. Ball. God indeed works in mysterious ways!

Chapter 3 guts the myth of the Greenhouse Effect, which is still taught as monolithic truth throughout the education system because it is post-normal science. According to the IPCC (whose usefulness would vanish in a trice if it had to rely on truth rather than post-normal science) the Greenhouse Effect is to be described in this way:

The Earth’s surface is warmed by both the Sun and the energy coming back from the atmosphere.
The Earth’s surface in turn radiates all the energy, which is wholly absorbed by the atmosphere.
The atmosphere then radiates half of that energy into space and the other half back to the Earth’s surface.
The result of this continual process is that the Earth’s surface becomes warmer than it would be if it were only warmed by the Sun.

In this model, CO2 becomes a heat-trapping blanket enwrapping the planet. The solution, therefore, is a straightforward one – get rid of the blanket! Hence, all those calls to reduce the “carbon footprint,” to stop using dirty fuels, to save the planet from reaching a “tipping-point,” from which there will be no return. And so forth.

Although this fuels climate alarmism very efficiently, this myth, of course, has nothing to do with scientific facts. The atmosphere is colder than the earth’s surface, so heat cannot bounce back from above, because “colder cannot heat hotter.” Energy is not wholly absorbed by the atmosphere. Some of it escapes into space, the rest is stored in the earth and the oceans and is used to evaporate water.

Any energy that returns to the earth from the atmosphere is always colder, never hotter than the earth’s surface. Therefore, energy returning from the atmosphere can never heat up the planet. All the four points promoted by the IPCC are in fact lies – or, rather, they are post-normal science. It is the sun which heats the planet, while excess heat is radiated out into space.

MORE here





Sanders introduces bill to ban fracking

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) this week introduced a bill that aims to ban hydraulic fracking.

The bill was introduced on Tuesday and is titled "a bill to ban the practice of hydraulic fracturing, and for other purposes," according to the Library of Congress, though the text of the legislation was not available on the site.

Sanders has called for a ban on fracking while campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination, as has Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

Sanders tweeted about the bill, which he said was also worked on by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Darren Soto (D-Fla.) on Thursday. Merkley was listed as a co-sponsor.

The tweet included a video of actor Mark Ruffalo talking about a potential federal ban fracking.

"Mark Ruffalo just spoiled Bernie and AOC's bill to ban fracking," the video said.

However, the announcement of the bill drew criticism from those in the oil industry.

“Banning a safe, successful method of developing energy would erase a generation of American energy progress and in the process destroy millions of U.S. jobs, spike household energy costs and hurt farmers and manufacturers," said Bethany Aronhalt, American Petroleum Institute spokeswoman.

SOURCE





Enviros Rally Around A Podcast Designed To Out Supposed Big Oil Propagandists

A popular podcast purporting to reveal the supposed propaganda propping up the oil industry is part of a journalism project designed to prod major media outlets into painting climate change as a crisis.

“Drilled” is depicted in the media as a podcast pursuing objective journalism that seeks to unmask what its host Amy Westervelt calls the public relations ploy driving big oil. But the podcast is also part of Covering Climate Now (CCN), a project some media outlets believe lacks objectivity.

Westervelt announced Drilled News in January, a reporting project run by her podcast network, Critical Frequency. Drilled News’s about page discloses the site’s participation in CCN while noting that the website brings together reporters who make their work available to news outlets.

The former environmental reporter has contributed work with The Guardian and The Washington Post, among other national newspapers, according to a Jan. 27 report from E&E News. The “Drilled” podcast itself is plowing through its third season, the report notes.

The third season looks “at how the fossil fuels industry leans on two levers to delay action on climate change,” Westervelt told E&E News, referring to what she believes is the oil industry’s layers of propaganda. “The first lever is pro-fossil fuel propaganda, and the second is climate science denial.”

Westervelt said the fossil fuel industry is fine-tuning its “propaganda machine.” Her group’s role in CCN comes as journalists consider making climate advocacy part of their mission.

CCN’s founders kicked off the project in April 2019 and announced in May of that year that they would ask partners to devote a week to climate-related news, starting in September 2019. The project was organized in part by Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), a nonprofit representing professional journalists.

The effort’s target was the lead-up to, and coverage of, the U.N. “Climate Action Summit,” held Sept. 15-23.

The Nation environmental correspondent Mark Hertsgaard co-founded the project under the assumption that modern media were not only underreporting what activists call the climate crisis but are also giving too much air time to the fossil fuel industry.

Most legacy media are unwilling to break away from the idea that journalism should not advocate for a position, according to Hertsgaard.

“The New York Times is not on there, The Wall Street Journal is not on there, The Washington Post is not on there,” Hertsgaard said in a September 2019 podcast with Kyle Pope, editor and publisher of CJR. Hertsgaard was referring to the major outlets that did not contribute content to CCN.

“This has an aroma — in their minds — of activism,” Hertsgaard continued, explaining why the big three legacy outlets preferred not to join. He and Pope noted Covering Climate Now intends on breaking up that perception by wrapping climate coverage in the blanket of science rather than politics.

SOURCE




GREENIE ROUNDUP FROM AUSTRALIA

The big fires seem to have energized them.  Four current stories below

Scientists sign open letter to Australian Government urging action on climate change

We learnt from the replication crisis that up to 60% of scientists are crooked so this tells us nothing.  If they had told us just one of the facts that the government is ignoring that might have been interesting. But they mention no climate facts at all -- just unverifiable speculation about recent weather events

And 270 scientists is insignificant. It is not even the full staff of one of Australia's many universities.  Most academics are Leftists so they could have done a lot better if their letter was seen as important by all its potential signatories


More than 270 scientists have signed an open letter to Australia's leaders calling on them to abandon partisan politics and take action on climate change.

The scientists, who have expertise in climate, fire and meteorology, are calling for urgent action to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions and for Canberra to engage constructively in international agreements.

"The thick, choking smoke haze of this summer is nothing compared to the policy smokescreen that continues in Australia," University of NSW climate scientist Katrin Meissner said in a statement on Monday.

"We need a clear, non-partisan path to reduce Australia's total greenhouse gas emissions in line with what the scientific evidence demands, and the commitment from our leaders to push for meaningful global action to combat climate change."

The scientists warned an increase in bushfires was just one part of a deadly equation that suggested the impacts of climate change were coming faster, stronger and more regularly.

Heatwaves on land and in the oceans were longer, hotter and more frequent, they said.

Australian National University climate scientist Nerilie Abram said the letter was the product of scientists' despair as they witnessed the deadly fire season unfold.

"Scientists have been warning policymakers for decades that climate change would worsen Australia's fire risk and yet these warnings have been ignored," Professor Abram said.

Separately, Oxfam said the Government must demonstrate it had fully grasped the lessons of this "horrific" bushfire season.

"In spite of the scientific evidence and the extreme weather we're living through — bushfires, hailstorms and drought — the Government still hasn't joined the dots and taken action to tackle the root causes of the crisis," Oxfam chief executive Lyn Morgain said in a statement.

She said Australia must dramatically strengthen emissions reduction targets and move beyond fossil fuels.

"The Government's narrow-minded focus on adaptation and resilience simply does not go far enough," she said.

She said Australia could wield great authority and leverage globally if it changed its policies.

"If we led by example and immediately strengthened our own emissions reduction commitments, and if we linked our own crisis with those escalating around the world, we could be a great catalyst for stronger international action," she said.

SOURCE 


We don’t have money to burn on green mania

Bjorn Lomborg

Scenes of devastation from Australia’s fires have been heartbreaking. How do we stop this suffering? For many campaigners and politicians, the answer is clear-cut: drastic climate policies. When we examine the evidence, this simple answer falls short.

Australia is the world’s most fire-prone continent. In 1900, 11 per cent of its surface burned annually. These days, 5 per cent of the country burns every year. By the end of the century, if we do not stop climate change, higher temperatures and an increase in aridity will likely mean a 0.7 percentage point increase in burnt area, an increase from 5.3 per cent of Australia to 6 per cent.

This increase is not trivial and it is an argument for effective climate change action. By far the most practical policy, with the most impact, is a dramatic increase in investment in low and zero-carbon energy innovation.

That’s because, for decades to come, solar and wind energy will be neither cheap enough nor effective enough to replace fossil fuels. Today, they make up only 1.1 per cent of global energy use and the International Energy Agency estimates that even after we spend $US3 trillion ($4.47 trillion) more on subsidies, they will not even reach 5 per cent by 2040. Innovation is needed to bring down the price of green energy. We need to find breakthroughs for batteries, nuclear, carbon capture and a plethora of other promising technologies. Innovation can solve our climate challenge.

Unfortunately, many reports on Australia’s fires have exploited the carnage to push a specific agenda, resting on three ideas: that bushfires are worse than ever, that this is caused by global warming, and that the only solution is for political leaders to make even bigger carbon-cut promises.

Globally, bushfires burn less land than it used to. Since 1900, global burnt area has reduced by more than one-third because of agriculture, fire suppression and forest management. In the satellite era, NASA and other groups document significant decreases.

Surprisingly, this decrease is even true for Australia. Satellites show that from 1997 to 2018 the burnt area declined by one-third. Australia’s current fire season has seen less area burned than in previous years. Up to January 26, bushfires burned 19.4 million hectares in Australia — about half the average burn over the similar timeframe of 37 million hectares in the satellite record. (Actually the satellites show 46 million hectares burnt, but 9 million hectares are likely from prescribed burns.)

When the media suggests Australia’s fires are “unprecedented in scale”, it is wrong. Australia’s burnt area declined by more than a third from 1900 to 2000, and has declined across the satellite period. This fire season, at the time of writing, 2.5 per cent of Australia’s area has burned compared with the past 10 years’ 4.8 per cent average by this point.

What is different this year is that fires have been mostly in NSW and Victoria. These are important states with a little more than half the country’s population — and many of its media outlets.

But suggesting fires are caused by global warming rests on cherrypicking these two regions with more fire and ignoring the remaining 87 per cent of Australia’s landmass, where burned area has declined.

Peer-reviewed estimates of the future of Australia’s fire threat see a long-term increase in burnt area because of global warming. But these estimates show the effect of climate change does not increase Australia’s burnt area until the 2030s or 2040s.

A new review of available data suggests it’s not actually possible to detect a link between global warming and fire for Australia today. An increase will become detectable only in the 2040s. The images coming from Australia are shocking, but images should not trump science. Along with many other campaigners, the Australian Greens argue that preventing fires is about “rapidly transitioning to a renewable energy economy”. Carbon-cutting promises from politicians are not going to do a thing.

Across the Tasman Sea, New Zealand is aiming to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. The government’s own commissioned report shows this will cost 16 per cent of the nation’s annual economy, or $US5 trillion across the century. It will reduce temperatures by only four-thousandths of a degree by 2100.

Replicate those costs across Australian states and around the world; taxpayers are just not going to withstand that kind of pain, regardless of the intention.

The world’s poor countries are never going to be able to afford to follow through. The costs alone make this “solution” to climate change wishful thinking.

Moreover, even if Australia were dramatically to change its climate policy overnight, the impact on fires would be effectively zero. If Australia had completely ended its fossil fuel use way back in 2012, the UN standard climate model shows the impact on fires this year would be literally immeasurable.

Even if Australia could somehow be entirely fossil fuel-free for the entire century, burnt area in 2100 would be 5.997 per cent instead of 6 per cent.

This feeble, flawed response is pathetic. We need to spend far more resources on green energy research and development to develop medium-term solutions to climate change. And we also should focus on the many straightforward measures that would help now.

Bushfire scientists have consistently told us forest fuel levels keep increasing, making extreme bushfires much more likely. Controlled burns cheaply and effectively reduce high-intensity wildfires. Other sensible policies include better building codes, mechanical thinning, safer powerlines, reducing the potential for spread of lightning-caused bushfires, campaigns to reduce deliberate ignitions, and fuel reduction around the perimeter of human settlements.

The compassionate, effective response to Australia’s tragedy is to focus on the policies that could actually help.

SOURCE 


It's time to step on the gas'

SHUTTING down Australia's coal mines will not reduce emissions or global demand for the resource, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said in a speech pitched at regional Australia — and his backbench. He defended his Government's approach to climate change, saying gas reserves would be necessary to any transition to a clean economy, while investing in technology was key to meeting emissions reduction targets.

But Labor took aim at him for failing to take action on "the summer of damage" climate change was causing. Mr Morrison indicated Australia's emissions reductions targets would not be shifting, despite comments earlier this month his Government's climate policies would be evolving.

He said "taxes and increased global bureaucracy" would not lower emissions, but practical change driven by technology would. "You will also not reduce the number of coal-fired stations in the world today by forcing the shutdown of Australian coal mines and Australian jobs that go with them," Mr Morrison said.

"Other countries will just buy the coal from somewhere else, often poorer quality with greater environmental and climate impacts." He said a transition to lower emissions could be done "with-out sending jobs offshore".

In good news for Queensland's $1 billion petroleum and
coal seam gas industry, Mr Morrison said gas reserves would be key to any transition to more renewable energy in the electricity market. "Gas can help us bridge the gap while our investments in batteries, hydrogen and pumped hydro energy storage bring these technologies to economic parity with traditional energy sources. So right now, we've got to get the gas," Mr Morrison said.

"There are plenty of other medium or long-term fuel arrangements and prospects, but they will not be commercially scalable or available for at least a decade is our advice."

As well as taking "practical steps" in lowering emissions, Mr Morrison said adaptation would be necessary to deal with "the new norm" of longer, hotter and drier summers.

From the Brisbane "Courier Mail" of 30 January, 2020

Greenies hate rock climbers

Parks Victoria has vastly overstated the impact of cultural and environmental damage at national park sites amid fresh doubts about the campaign against Australia’s rock climbers.

For months men and women with clipboards, hard hats and hi-vis jackets have been quietly deliberating among the cliffs in the back blocks of the Grampians National Park, low-key participants in what has become Australia’s seminal public land access dispute.

With specialist surveying tools, the groups have been examining the environmental and cultural heritage impacts of well over a century of white Australian influence in a grand bush setting known to Aboriginal tribes for 22,000 years.

It is widely accepted that Parks Victoria and its predecessors have dropped the environmental ball in recent decades in the outer areas of the park, allowing the Grampians to be degraded by vandalism and at times cavalier behaviour that has alarmed indigenous and green groups.

However, just who committed much of the harm is wide open to debate, given the cross-section of people who visit the park every year from local towns, cities and overseas, arriving on foot, motorbikes, four-wheel drives and even from the air.

At the same time, Parks Victoria has picked an unprecedented fight with the Australian rock climbing fraternity, which has broad implications for recreational access to national and state parks across the country.

The impact, while not as symbolically significant as the end of climbing at Uluru, has the potential to snowball across Australia’s parks, ski fields, mountain biking tracks and climbing theatres as greater power is handed to indigenous co-managers.

With workers in the final stages of surveying large tracts of the Grampians land, Parks Victoria and the traditional owners are planning what sort of access climbers and others will have to the area, potentially maintaining or even widening the effective climbing ban on 500sq km of the park.

Within the current ban areas lie some of the world’s best rock climbing sites. Local businesses such as Mount Zero Log Cabins in the northern Grampians are ­reporting dramatic cuts in revenue, in the order of 25 per cent.

“I’ve got to tell you, I was a bit pissed off about the way Parks Victoria went about it,’’ businessman Neil Heaney tells The Weekend Australian. “They are picking on the wrong people … They (the climbers) are deeply respectful people.’’

There is broad acceptance in the climbing community that there is capacity for its members to overhaul some practices and a willingness to help address core ­issues such as the undermining of vegetation and the need to remove chalk remnants in key areas.

‘Smear campaign’

But there is also growing concern that the Parks Victoria narrative has been bolstered by a series of ­legally unverifiable, anti-climbing claims that included the false ­assertion that a climbing bolt had been put through art. In fact, it was past government workers who desecrated the site.

Valid questions are being asked about whether Environment Minister Lily D’Ambrosio has been ­accurately briefed about who is ­responsible for the most serious harm and whether or not climbers are victims of an excessive spin campaign.

Simon Carter, a climbing photographer with a global following, believes climbers are victims of a sophisticated campaign of vilification. “I believe climbers have been scapegoated to distract from far, far more serious impacts that are occurring to the cultural and environmental values of the park, appalling mismanagement and a sneaky move towards the commercialisation and commodification of our national parks,’’ he says.

“The legal determination ­behind it (the climbing bans) is based on observations and research undertaken at other locations, not based on anything that has actually occurred in the Grampians.

“Rock climbers have been wrongly vilified by parks staff or consultants in what I can only ­describe as a smear campaign based on absolute falsehoods.

“For example, rock climbers were accused of placing safety bolts into Aboriginal rock art. Climbers had done no such thing, not even close, but then Parks published a ‘bolt-in-rock-art’ photo on its website as some ‘evidence’ of climbers’ impacts. But the bolt had been placed by land managers, not climbers. It was a fabrication.

“And photos sent by Parks Victoria in briefing papers to the Minister for the Environment show chain-sawing of trees, fireplaces and other impacts that almost certainly had nothing to do with rock climbers.’’

Evidence doubts

Last March D’Ambrosio was sent a series of photographs from Parks Victoria chief executive Matthew Jackson purporting to show evidence of climber damage, except many of the photos Jackson sent to his minister failed to meet any serious legal test. Instead, what D’Ambrosio received was a series of pictures in which environmental harm had occurred, but with no actual proof of who committed the harm.

Yet this was crucial timing, ­occurring when the government had doubled down on the climbing community.

While different scenarios, the incident is similar to the photographs released by the Howard government in 2001 during the children overboard crisis. In this, there were photos showing that something had happened, but no serious evidence that supported the government’s narrative.

Of the eight images sent to D’Ambrosio, only one shows verifiable harm by climbers; this is of persistent use of chalk at one ­location to help people negotiate a climbing route.

No one would doubt this as climber damage; the rest show a fireplace with nobody around it, a log that had been cut with a chainsaw by an unknown person and some stone stacks created by someone who is not in the picture.

Several other images are of damage to vegetation at Venus Baths, near Hall’s Gap, which has become a popular site for the climbing discipline called bouldering.

What should have been articulated to the minister is that Venus Baths also happens to be one of the most visited tourism hot spots in the Grampians, three hours’ drive west of Melbourne. It is an easy walk for parents with young families, who have trampled through the area for many decades because it is in close proximity to the main town in the park.

Without addressing specific questions on the accuracy of the photographs showing climbing damage, Jackson said in an email: “Information and updates are regularly provided to the Minister for Environment as per standard briefing processes.’’

On the question of who is ­responsible for the damage, he said: “Parks Victoria has continually provided updates on direct recreational impacts in the Grampians to members of the rock climbing roundtable, including updates from independent experts of the impacts of rock climbing at sensitive rock art sites.

“Parks Victoria has specifically informed members of the rock climbing roundtable that not all recreational impacts are caused by rock climbers.”

Assault on art

Parks Victoria has been savaged by climbers and some local businesses for the unilateral bans, which were imposed without any meaningful warning, partly on the basis that the Grampians contain as much as 90 per cent of the indigenous rock art in southeastern Australia.

The Grampians’ Mount Arapiles — Australia’s rock climbing mecca — has just had a major outcrop declared out of bounds ­because of unspecified cultural heritage discoveries. Taylor’s Rock is one of the cradles of rock climbing education in Australia and is a key part of the adventure sport economy that underpins the nearby Natimuk community, 330km northwest of Melbourne.

Ben Gunn, an archaeologist and rock art specialist who recently wrote a paper on the effects of climbing in the Grampians, says he has no doubt who causes the most damage in the park. He also acknowledges that much of the ­indigenous art can’t even be seen with the naked eye and damage may be inadvertent.

“With the explosion of rock climbers in recent years, it is they who currently pose the greatest human threat to cultural heritage sites within the Grampians National Park and surrounding sandstone ranges and potentially to other national and state parks elsewhere in Australia,’’ he wrote with several authors including Jake Goodes, brother of football great Adam Goodes.

Gunn has outraged climbers by claiming that some in their midst were behind graffiti in parts of the wider park; again, climbers want to see the proof of this to a legal standard.

“Much of the graffiti in the Greater Gariwerd (Grampians) has not been produced by rock climbers,’’ Gunn wrote.

“In other instances, particularly at Lil-Lil, it is all too apparent that rock climbers are at fault. At Lil-Lil, some graffiti has been deliberately placed over rock art and the damage is permanent.

“Others have been racially offensive or, through the production of pseudo rock art, deprecating to Aboriginal people and the majority of non-Aboriginal Australians.’’

Chalking, he wrote, was classed as damage comparable to graffiti. Whether this claim about chalking as graffiti passes the legal test is questionable, particularly if people do not know there is art where they are climbing.

Australian Climbing Association Victoria president Mike Tomkins is open to overhauling some climbing practices to protect indigenous art, but says accusations of climbers writing over art and carving words into rock walls are false and unverifiable. “You can’t prove it. You cannot pin that on climbers. All the locations have been visited before there were even climbers,’’ Tomkins says.

While the climbing community has been divided about how to deal with the crisis, there is deep angst about the way the pursuit has been characterised. Climbers have congregated for decades at the Grampians and Mount Arapiles has traditionally been strongly green and sympathetic to the indigenous plight.

Others are highly sceptical, also, about figures used by Parks to suggest an unprecedented rise in climber numbers in recent years, arguing that while there is an uplift in interest, Parks Victoria has greatly exaggerated the number of extra climbers by misreading the statistics.

Uncle Ron Marks, a Wotjobaluk elder with close ties to Mount Arapiles and the Grampians, has worked in cultural education for decades, teaching about indigenous history. He wants a pragmatic approach that protects heritage, but enables people to go about their business in the knowledge that at Mount Arapiles, for example, the indigenous connection is long-running.

He warns the “kerfuffle’’ affecting climbing at both locations is having a clear impact. “You look at it from a business point of view, people are suffering,’’ he tells The Weekend Australian.

Meanwhile, climbers are locked in a form of political purgatory, with no clear line of sight to when the ascension to higher ground will be guaranteed.

SOURCE 

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

For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here

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

Climate delusion: Washington Post claims more plant growth is bad



Is it better or worse to have a global climate that benefits plant growth? The obvious answer would be, better. However, now that it is has been shown that global warming benefits plant growth, climate activists and their media allies want us to believe more plant growth is bad.

The Washington Post is the latest to assert that more plant growth is bad, consistent with other ridiculous claims seeking to advance the alarmist Climate Delusion. In a January 25 article, titled, “We can’t recall the planet if we mess up: Climate change is risky business,” the article’s first asserted example of an ongoing climate crisis is, “The [National Climate Assessment] says there is at least a two-thirds chance that your asthma or hay fever will get worse because of climate change.” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/01/25/we-cant-recall-planet-if-we-mess-up-climate-change-is-risky-business/)

Each spring, as plants emerge from winter dormancy and spring to life, the alarmist media publishes articles about how global warming makes allergies worse. For all the benefits of plant life, more plant life means more pollen in the air, so people who suffer through allergies tend to experience more symptoms in the spring. This is a Climate Delusion opportunity the media won’t miss.

While pollen and its effects on people with allergies is unfortunate, few rational people would argue that a more difficult climate for plant life is a good thing. A greening of the Earth is a thing to celebrate. So, too, is more bountiful crop yields. Yet the establishment media ignore these benefits and talk only about allergies, making the argument that when the Earth’s climate benefits plant life, that is a bad thing.

And that is yet another example of the twisted logic of the ongoing Climate Delusion.

SOURCE





Alarmist scientists urge dialing back scares

Two prominent climate scientists who adhere to United Nations climate assessments are scolding the media and alarmist scientists for claiming worst-case scenarios are the most likely climate outcome. In a January 29 commentary (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3) published in the peer-reviewed science journal Nature, Zeke Hausfather of Berkeley Earth and Glen Peters of the Center for International Climate Research explained that worst-case scenarios, typically presented as the default likely future climate, are extremely unlikely.

“Happily — and that’s a word we climatologists rarely get to use — the world imagined in RCP8.5 [the “business as usual” scenario of substantially increasing emissions and negative impacts] is one that, in our view, becomes increasingly implausible with every passing year,” the scientists wrote.

“A sizeable portion of the literature on climate impacts refers to RCP8.5 as business as usual, implying that it is probable in the absence of stringent climate mitigation,” the scientists explained. “The media then often amplifies this message, sometimes without communicating the nuances. This results in further confusion regarding probable emissions outcomes, because many climate researchers are not familiar with the details of these scenarios in the energy-modelling literature.”

The scientists emphasized that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios of weak or modest emissions mitigation – rather than no emissions mitigation or strong mitigation – are most likely. The scientists noted the weak or modest mitigation scenarios project a temperature increase of 2.5-to-3.0 degrees above pre-industrial levels in 2100, versus the worst-case 5.0-degree increase frequently presented by activists and the media.

“We must all — from physical scientists and climate-impact modelers to communicators and policymakers — stop presenting the worst-case scenario as the most likely one,” the scientists wrote. “Overstating the likelihood of extreme climate impacts can make mitigation seem harder than it actually is.”

With a general belief existing that temperatures are currently about 1 degree Celsius warmer than was the case during the depths of the Little Ice Age prior to the Industrial Revolution, the two scientists believe the Earth is on pace for approximately 1.5 to 2.0 degrees Celsius warming during the next 80 years. Temperature measurements from NASA satellites (http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/) show warming of merely at a pace of 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade during the past 40 years, suggesting that unless something changes, we can expect merely 1.0 degrees warming as the most likely scenario during the next 80 years.

Interestingly, Scientific American published an article about the two scientists’ findings and titled it, “The Worst Climate Scenarios May No Longer Be the Most Likely.” As if the worst climate scenario ever was the most likely….

SOURCE





Eco-extremists attack crucial pesticides, punish the poorest in Kenya

One has to wonder why Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that are funded by Left-wing financiers attempt to thwart the poorest in our world from achieving an adequate diet and sufficient income to climb above poverty. Yet, without a convincing positive reason for their actions, they do it around the world. We frequently see villages in Africa, for example, deprived of conventional power from coal and natural gas in favor of expensive and undependable wind and solar power favored by the anti-fossil fuel community.

Now in Kenya a story is shaping up that takes an even more ugly turn. There some ill-informed and deceitful Green groups are asking the Kenyan government to outlaw the use of important chemical pesticides that protect its crops from the ravages of pest infestations. The numbers are difficult to assimilate.

Two of these NGOs — the Biodiversity and Biosafety Association of Kenya and the Kenya Organic Agriculture Network — tip off their goals in their titles. The third is too vague and obtuse to bother naming. They have collectively asked that 262 useful pesticides be outlawed by the Kenyan Parliament. For the moment the Parliament is not in session, so there may be time to educate them about the lies and innuendos being spread against pesticide use by the environmental extremists.

Many of the targeted pesticides by these activist groups have been tested and approved by foreign governments, and others have not been because they aren’t useful against the native pests in other countries. Of greatest concern to Kenyan agriculture would be the end of the use of effective chemicals that kill the locusts ravaging Kenya on a regular basis.

Every successful killing of a locust swarm, which is how they attack, saves gigantic quantities of food for a nation like Kenya without abundance. At the risk of causing your eyes to glaze over, I will define “gigantic” with the use of some simple arithmetic. Stay with me and you will well understand why I often use the word evil for those who finance such radical environmental fearmongering.

Locusts swarm at densities of 40 to 60 million thick over an acre of crop land. Obviously, it is impossible to spray the entire agricultural acreage of Kenya, but let’s see what we could accomplish if we spray half a square mile of farmland or 320 acres. I will give you the simple cumulative numbers, and if you wish you too can do all the arithmetic to be sure I am not exaggerating.

From birth to full maturity a locus will lay an average of 80 eggs. Each locus eats about 2.5 grams a day for a life span averaging 4 months which is 300 grams per locust. Then their 80 progeny eat about 150 grams while alive during the last two months of the mother’s life, and half of them have laid 60 eggs by the end of that time. Without a calculator you can figure out that every locust will account for 744 kilograms, or about three quarters of a ton, of food per month by a single locust and its offspring over 4 months of its life cycle. In four months the total is 3 tons of food. Now assume an average of 50 million locusts per acre and you will find spraying 320 acres saves, wait for it, 480,000 tons of food! That feeds a lot of folks and earns a lot of money.

The NGOs lobbying the Kenyan government hope to eliminate the opportunities to grow this food by allowing the locusts to run free and unhindered by the pesticides that can eliminate them. They have thrown up a smoke screen of complaints on chemicals not substantiated by research investigations. It is quite easy to scare the public by listing strange sounding chemicals of which the people have no understanding. They do this all over the world, but due to Kenya’s severe problem with locusts the damage that can occur as a result of their despicable actions, this could have a catastrophic impact on that nation’s food supply and economy.

SOURCE






Students demanded divestment from fossil fuels, a professor offered to turn off the gas heating

Professor Andrew Parker of St John’s College at Oxford University is my new favorite person. The Times of London reports that a group of students wrote to Professor Parker to discuss demands being made by student protesters about fossil fuel divestment. His response wasn’t what they were expecting:

Two students at St John’s College wrote to Andrew Parker, the principal bursar, this week requesting a meeting to discuss the protesters’ demands, which are that the college “declares a climate emergency and immediately divests from fossil fuels”. They say that the college, the richest in Oxford, has £8 million of its £551 million endowment fund invested in BP and Shell.

Professor Parker responded with a provocative offer. “I am not able to arrange any divestment at short notice,” he wrote. “But I can arrange for the gas central heating in college to be switched off with immediate effect. Please let me know if you support this proposal.”

One of the students wrote back and said he would present the proposal but he didn’t think Parker was being appropriately serious. Professor Parker responded to that note saying, “You are right that I am being provocative but I am provoking some clear thinking, I hope. It is all too easy to request others to do things that carry no personal cost to yourself. The question is whether you and others are prepared to make personal sacrifices to achieve the goals of environmental improvement (which I support as a goal).” The best part of the story is the response from the organizer of the protest:

Fergus Green, the organiser of the wider protest, who is studying for a master’s degree in physics and philosophy at Balliol College, said: “This is an inappropriate and flippant response by the bursar to what we were hoping would be a mature discussion. It’s January and it would be borderline dangerous to switch off the central heating.”

Yes, it would be rash and “borderline dangerous” to do something like that.

Now step back and take notice how closely this small debate at one college is a microcosm of the larger debate taking place around the globe. The teenage face of the anti-fossil fuel movement, Greta Thunberg, recently demanded “real zero” emissions starting right now. Following her advice would be the equivalent of cutting off the gas that heats the campus in the middle of winter. It wouldn’t just be “borderline dangerous” it would almost certainly be catastrophic for millions of people. Despite this, I bet protest organizer Fergus Green thinks she’s part of a “mature discussion.” In any case, a lot of people like him seem to think so.

Professor Parker’s response focuses the mind on the fact that this isn’t a game. There are significant costs to real people associated with eliminating fossil fuels. Natural gas, for instance, isn’t something we can simply cease using overnight or even in ten years. If we’re not careful about how we proceed, a lot of people could get hurt. So a fair response to people demanding an end to the use of fossil fuels is the one the professor put to these protesters: You first.

SOURCE





Melbourne will RUN OUT of fresh water by 2050 if nothing is done about global warming

Another prime example of how a total lack of thinking on the part of Greenies gets things backwards  Global warming would HELP Melbourne's water supply.

I don't know how much longer I will have the heart to repeat it but we have known at least since the ancient Greeks that warming water gives off water vapour (steam). And two thirds of the "planet" (to use the Greenie term) is covered by water. So global warming would warm that water and increase its tendency to give off water vapour.  And what happens to that water once it is evaporated off?  It comes down again.  We call it "rain".  So a warmer world would be a rainier world.

Why do Warmists keep ignoring something they should have known since Grade school?  It shows that they are not thinking at all.  They just pump out propaganda according to a simple recipe: "Warming bad".  They are not honest debaters


Melbourne will be at risk of running dry by 2050 if no measures are taken to slow global warming and improve water security, a study has found.

The city ranked fifth in a list of global cities that will be most affected by climate change in 30 years' time. The list - which measures sea-level rising, water shortages and weather changes - was compiled by accommodation website Nestpick based on existing climate data.

Perth ranked 56th and Sydney was 66th but no other Australian cities were in the top 100.

Melbourne was ranked so high because its demand for water is predicted to vastly outweigh current supply as its population soars.

In 2018, the Australian Bureau of Statistics predicted that Melbourne will become the largest city in Australia by 2031 - and will have a population of 12.2million by 2066.

Jono La Nauze, CEO of Environment Victoria, said Nestpick's results are roughly accurate - but that drought in Melbourne can be avoided by sensible policies.

'It certainly stacks up with what the climate science is showing will happen, if you don't do anything about it,' he told radio 3AW on Thursday.

'But the key messages is that these are risks we can manage - both in terms of stopping the planet getting any hotter but also by making sure we have secure drinking water supplies whatever happens.'

Melbourne's water is supplied from ten reservoirs which are topped up by rain and a desalination plant that removes salt from seawater.

The Victorian Desalination Plant at Dalyston on the Bass Coast in southern Victoria opened in 2012 after the Millennium Drought and now supplies one third of the city's water.

For the 2019-20 financial year, the Minister for Water ordered 125 billion litres from the Desalination Plant, the largest order that has been made to date.

At the moment, Melbourne is not in danger of drought.

The city's total storage capacity is at 62.6 per cent and its largest reservoir, the Thomson Dam which can hold 1,069 megalitres of water, is 55.8 per cent full.

But experts are generally agreed that the city will need to shore up its water security as its population expands.

There are three main ways to do this: by building more dams, creating more desalination plants, and by recycling water for drinking purposes.

Recycling water for drinking is already done in Namibia, South Africa and the US but the only Australian city that currently follows suit is Perth. Melbourne has two recycling plants but the recycled water is not used for drinking.

State ministers could follow Brisbane's lead after the city in 2010 designed the Western Corridor Recycled Water Scheme to recycle almost all of its water.

The scheme has not been needed but if stores drop below 40 per cent it could be recommissioned.

In September federal Water Resources Minister David Littleproud said more dams should be built - but Victorian ministers rejected the idea.

He said the federal government has offered $1.3bn for new infrastructure projects but state governments are too reluctant to build dams due to cost and environmental issues.

'They're just not keeping up with their growing populations,' he told The Australian.

But Victorian Water Minister Lisa Neville hit back, saying there was no point building new dams because there is very rarely enough rain to fill them.

'The dams we have already are in the best places to collect a high yield of water - any new dams would be unlikely to capture enough water to be worth it,' she told the newspaper.

'For Minister Littleproud to suggest otherwise demonstrates a complete lack of understanding when it comes to water and climate change, especially in Victoria.'

Ms Neville pointed out that Victoria's Thomson Dam has only filled three times since it was built in 1984, most recently in 1996.

She said a better alternative is to expand the state's desalination plant even though this would increase water bills by at least $10 per household because desalination uses lots of electricity.

SOURCE 

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

For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here

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

Climate change is causing the Arctic to become GREENER as warmer temperatures cause trees and plants to flourish in the frozen world

Most of the Arctic is water, with ice floating on top of it.  So this article is referring to peripheral regions of the Arctic, which vary greatly in climate.

The largest land mass is Greenland, which is known to have substantial subsurface vulcanism.  And even the oceanic parts of Arctica have extensive vulcanism -- along the Gakkel ridge, for instance.  So Arctica commonly warms out of synchrony with the rest of the globe. It warms and cools in response to fluctuations in volcanic activity.   Its temperature is determined only partly by global influences. A lot of its warming is due to the greater volcanic activity at the poles.

The earth is not a perfect globe.  It is flattened at the poles.  So that is where volcanic activity is most likely to break through.  And it does, at both poles

So the findings below are attributed to global warming in defiance of the fact that Arctic warming is NOT synchronous with global warming.

And the greening observed is easily explained not by temperatures but by CO2 levels -- which have undoubtedly risen.  Higher CO encourages plant growth and enables plants to survive with less water. Terrestrial Arctica is essentially a desert so that latter fact is crucial.  In the results below we may simply be seeing the normal fertilizing effect of increased CO2.


Ecologists are on 'red alert' as warmer temperatures caused by climate change causes the Arctic to become greener. The Arctic is normally a vast and barren expanse of frozen land but higher temperatures are now allowing foliage to thrive.

Trees and plants are being found in areas that were once perennially frozen, according to a new study.

The worrying phenomenon - branded 'Arctic greening' - is being studied by researchers using drones and satellites.

A group of 40 scientists from 36 institutions, led by two National Geographic Explorers, are behind the huge project.

As Arctic summer temperatures warm, snow is melting earlier and plants are coming into leaf sooner in spring.

Tundra vegetation is spreading into new areas and in the areas where plants have always survived, they are now flourishing.

Study lead author Dr Isla Myers-Smith, of the University of Edinburgh's School of GeoSciences, said: 'New technologies including sensors on drones, planes and satellites, are enabling scientists to track emerging patterns of greening found within satellite pixels that cover the size of football fields.'

Changes in vegetation alter how carbon is captured and released into the atmosphere.

Small changes to this balance could significantly impact efforts to keep warming below 1.5°C – a key target of the Paris Agreement.

But researchers in Europe and North America also found Arctic greening, which can be seen from space, is caused by various factors.

Ground warming is important, researchers found, but so are changes to the timing of snow melt and the wetness of landscapes.

The new study was published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

The team behind it say it is vital for understanding global climate change because tundra plants act as a barrier between the warming atmosphere and huge stocks of carbon stored in frozen ground.

Co-lead author Dr Jeffrey Kerby, who was a Neukom Fellow at Dartmouth College while conducting the research, said: 'Besides collecting new imagery, advances in how we process and analyse these data - even imagery that is decades old - are revolutionising how we understand the past, present, and future of the Arctic.'

Alex Moen, Vice President of Explorer Programmes at the National Geographic Society, added: 'We look forward to the impact that this work will have on our collective understanding of the Arctic for generations to come.'

SOURCE





Groundbreaking footage of Antarctica's large Thwaites glacier captured by an underwater robot shows warm water under the glacier

Notice the dog that didn't bark?  They do not mention global warming. As with all Green/Left writing, you are given only half the story.  They COULD NOT attribute the warming observed to global warming because  the warming was UNDER the glacier whereas atmospheric warming would affect the SURFACE of the glacier!

And note that the Thwaites glacier is in the middle of West Antarctica, which is well known for it extensive vulcanism.  The warming observed could only have come from volcanic activity, making this just another confirmation of West Antarctic vulcanism

Given the sporadic nature of volcanic activity, it is puerile to extrapolate the observations below into the distant future


First ever footage of the underside of the 'doomsday' Thwaites glacier has been sent back by a robotic yellow submarine dubbed Icefin.

Glaciologists have likened the groundbreaking images and video to the first steps on the moon taken by Neil Armstrong in 1969.

Early analysis reveals that turbulent warm waters underneath the ice sheet, which is the same size as Britain, are causing an 'unstoppable retreat'.

Experts have previously predicted that if Thwaites was to melt completely, it would lead to a significant increase in worldwide sea levels of around two feet (65cm).

Preliminary data from Icefin was analysed by a team of researchers at New York University and found, for the first time, the presence of warm water underneath the glacier at its grounding line — where the glacier rests on the ocean bed.

David Holland, director of New York University's Environmental Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, said: 'If these waters are causing glacier melt in Antarctica, resulting changes in sea level would be felt in more inhabited parts of the world.'

'The fact that such warm water was just now recorded by our team along a section of Thwaites grounding zone where we have known the glacier is melting suggests that it may be undergoing an unstoppable retreat that has huge implications for global sea level rise,' notes Holland, a professor at NYU's Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences.

Icefin was deployed five times and covered a distance of more than nine miles (15km) after being released through a borehole 2,000ft (600-meter) deep and 12 inches (35cm) wide earlier this month.

Two of the missions involved travelling as close as possible to the grounding line.

It was recently announced that in mid-January scientists conducted the first fieldwork on Thwaites.

One of the projects from a vast UK-US joint task force involved drilling holes through the glacier near its grounding line.

Some experts call it a grounding line, and some call it a grounding zone, as its exact shape is unknown and  the glacier's base may come into contact with the seabed at various locations.

At this grounding zone, the ice shelf is 1,900 feet (580m) thick.

The submersible yellow submarine-like robot Icefin is capable of navigating the sub-zero waters and was fed through one borehole to study how the glacier is melting.

Icefin is designed to take several measurements, including tracking the turbulence of the water as well as its temperature.

Turbulence causes fresh meltwater from the glacier to mix with salty water from the ocean.

Icefin swam more nine miles (15 km) during five missions, including two to the grounding site — where most melting is thought to be occurring.

Dr Britney Schmidt, a glaciologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, said: 'We saw amazing ice interactions driven by sediments at the [grounding] line and from the rapid melting from warm ocean water.'

Icefin measured, imaged and mapped the process causing melting at this critical part of the glacier.

The icy 'ceiling' seen in the video is the bottom of the glacier's ice shelf. This section floats in the water as opposed to being nestled on the seafloor.

The observations made by Icefin capture sediment that was on the sea floor just hours previously, as the glacier drifts constantly, exposing new sections of the ice.

Britney Schmidt, a glaciologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, told The Athletic: 'We can definitely see it melting.

'There are a few places where you can see streams of particles coming off the glaciers, textures and particles that tell us it's melting pretty quickly and irregularly.'

Melting of Thwaites is cause for global concern as its sheer enormity means that it contains enough ice that, if it was to melt, there would be worldwide implications.

Sea level rise would be drastic, up to around 25 inches (63.5cm), and the reach of the ripple-effect would be vast.

SOURCE





Doctor Who and the Deadly Wokeness Peril

On 12 January 2020 the BBC aired Episode 3 of their latest season of Doctor Who, starring Jodie Whittaker as the eponymous Doctor. The episode was called Orphan 55, it was about climate change and was, it seems, not generally well-received by the viewers.

The story starts with the Doctor and her companions being teleported to a mysterious holiday resort. Various mishaps occur and it turns out that this luxury resort exists in a kind of bubble, outside of which lies a barren, toxic wasteland inhabited by vicious (and rather rubbery) monsters called “dregs”. We find out eventually that the planet is in fact a future Earth which has been ruined by catastrophic man-made climate change, and the unfriendly “dregs” are the CO2-breathing descendants of humans who have adapted to the horrible conditions on Earth by becoming pretty horrible themselves.

Much has been said by various reviewers about the lame story, sub-par costumes, leaden script and uninspired acting, But what stood out for me was the fact that there wasn’t really much in the way of science fiction at all in this episode, despite all the SF trappings. It basically amounted to being a sermon about the evils of man-made climate change.

“How did Earth end up like this?” asks one character.

“You had warnings, from every scientist alive”, says the Doctor. “The food chain collapses – mass migration and war.”

And a sermon is what Jodie Whittaker actually delivers at the end, with all the subtlety of a ball peen hammer to the head.

“You want me to tell you that Earth’s going to be okay. ‘Cos I can’t. In your time, humanity is busy arguing over the washing up, while the house burns down. Unless people face facts and change, catastrophe is coming. But it’s not decided. You know that. The future is not fixed, it depends on billions of decisions and actions, and people stepping up. Humans… I think you forget how powerful you are. Lives change worlds. People can save planets or wreck them – that’s the choice. Be the best of humanity, or…” [scene cuts to a roaring “dreg”.]

Well, some people liked it. Rotten Tomatoes currently gives this episode a score of 50%, with an average rating of 5.8/10. And on IMDb there are a handful of 10-star reviews. However, Season 12 as a whole currently gets an audience score of only 14% on Rotten Tomatoes. And the majority of reviews of Orphan 55 on IMDb fall into the 1-3 star bracket and are somewhat scathing!

1. Amongst the negative reviewers there were some who were fine with the climate change message but nevertheless hated the unsubtle and preachy way that it was delivered at the expense of the story. And this goes to the heart of the matter, really. People watch Doctor Who to be entertained, rather than be hit over the head with a sandwich board.

2. An environmental message can be woven into a story without this kind of preachy overkill. When Jon Pertwee was the Doctor in 1973 there was an adventure called The Green Death – it featured industrial pollution, a sinister mega-corporation and toxic green slime that infected and slowly killed anyone who touched it. The environmental message was definitely there – but it did not get in the way of what was an enjoyable, thoughtful and very creepy tale from Doctor Who’s heyday.

3. The show’s ratings now seem to be falling steeply – and the previous season’s ratings were on the bumpy side, too. Back in 2018, my impression was that viewers were already being turned off by the tedious and excessive wokeness, once the wow factor of having a female Doctor began to wear off. The BBC had a chance then to step back and reflect on why their customers were voting with their feet (or their remote controls, rather) and going elsewhere for their entertainment. Maybe lay off a bit on the sermonising and focus on creating some great stories? They managed it in 1973, why not now?

But no. And that’s what ties this in with the “culture war” being played out elsewhere in 2020. The BBC (and the establishment in general) still don’t seem to get it, that outside their bubble, there are a lot of people – voters, customers, viewers, ordinary folk – who are beginning to get tired of being preached at and told that they are bad people for having opinions that deviate even slightly from the approved, progressive, bien-pensant vision of the world. Even people who consider themselves to be basically on-message are getting tired of it.

How will all of this end? I don’t know. But (unlike Doctor Who, in its current form) whatever happens next should at least be interesting to watch.


SOURCE




GREENIE ROUNDUP FROM AUSTRALIA

Three current articles below

Gas investment will drive more extreme weather

So says the self-appointed Climate Council below.  Natural gas gives off much less CO2 when burnt than coal does so you would think the climate council would welcome it.  But like all Greenies, they know no compromise. They want it all now.

Their claim that renewables are cheaper is misleading.  It is cheap in some ways only because it receives large subsidies.  It is tax powered.

And the claim that CO2 drives extreme weather is just an assertion.  The U.N., among others, says there is no proof of that

The bushfires are the result of negligent forest management, nothing more


SCOTT MORRISON, just days after addressing the nation with ‘climate action now’, has today announced a significant investment in new fossil fuels, with the New South Wales Government.

“Fossil fuels are the problem. Burning coal, oil, and gas is driving climate change, which is making Australia’s extremes, more extreme,” said the Climate Council’s CEO, Amanda McKenzie. “Every dollar toward fossil fuel projects is a dollar toward making heatwaves worse and fires more damaging. It is just crazy, given everything we have lost this summer to even suggest opening new fossil fuel reserves,” said McKenzie.

“More gas isn’t a climate policy it is a pollution policy. While fires are still threatening lives and properties - why is the Government investing in making the problem worse,” she said.

“You don’t reduce emissions by increasing investment in fossil fuels,” said Climate Councillor and energy expert, Greg Bourne. “The idea that gas will reduce prices is nonsensical. Gas is the reason power prices are so high along the east coast of Australia. Renewables are the cheapest form of new generation. Cheaper than coal, oil and gas,” said Climate Councillor and energy expert, Greg Bourne.

“Investing in gas will ensure power prices keep rising, and Australia spews out even more greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to pushing climate change to new and terrifying extremes,” said Bourne.

 “We have just witnessed an unprecedented bushfire crisis. Lives, homes, wildlife and millions of hectares of Australia simply burnt and gone. The Prime Ministers’ job is to protect Australians but he's making the problem worse,” said McKenzie.

Via email. Contact Communications Advisor, Brianna Hudson on 0455 238 875.


Struggling public hospital REFUSES to accept a $15M donation - because it was made by a coal mining company

Destructive Greenie fanaticism again

A struggling hospital has been accused of 'ideological grandstanding' after turning down a $15million cash injection - because it came from a coal mining company.

Wyong Hospital, on the New South Wales Central Coast, has been dogged by complaints over low nurse numbers and emergency wait times - and last October sent a one-year-old home with a fractured neck without staff ordering scans.

But the hospital board has refused Wallarah 2 Coal Project's offer to donate $14.8million over the mine's 28-year life span because of 'community sentiment' and 'public health effects'.

The project, due to begin in 2022, has been approved by the state ­government and the ­independent planning commission, which takes into consideration pollution and health impacts.

Wyong Coal Wallarah 2 general manager Peter ­Allonby and site manager Kenny Barry claimed a board member said hospital board members compared the handout to 'taking money from a tobacco company', The Daily Telegraph reported.

Central Coast Local Health District boss Andrew Montague released a statement this week stating the offer was not appropriate 'to accept at this stage'.

'[This is] due to current community sentiment and potential public health effects, particularly in relation to air quality and noise pollution,' he said.

It is common for mining companies to pour money into local community infrastructure, and the state government alone rakes in $2billion from industry royalties annually.

The contribution would be an average of $528,000 a year - or the wages of at least six nurses.

According to the Department of Planning and Environment, the $800million mine is expected to create more than 1,700 direct and indirect jobs.

The hospital board's decision to reject the funds has been criticised by officials, but many within the community have launched online petition to stop the mine.

Deputy Premier John Barilaro said the decision would impact the Wyong community.

'For them to reject what is a very generous donation from a company wanting to be a good corporate citizen is a slap in the face for that community,' he said.

The father of the one-year-old sent home with a fractured neck last year also described the refusal to accept the offer as a 'slap in the face'.

SOURCE 


Federal Government chooses Kimba farm on the Eyre Peninsula for nuclear dump

The Federal Government has selected a farm on South Australia's Eyre Peninsula as the site of a controversial nuclear waste dump.

The decision to use the 160-hectare area for what the Government calls a "disposal and storage facility" was made after four years of consultation.

Nearly 62 per cent of people voted in favour of the site being used in November, while a site near Hawker in the Flinders Ranges was opposed by Aboriginal traditional owners and residents.

The Federal Government said the $200 million facility would boost the region's economy and create about 45 jobs during construction.

It comes with a $31 million community development package to give local businesses and workers skills to build and run the dump. "I am satisfied a facility at Napandee will safely and securely manage radioactive waste and that the local community has shown broad community support for the project and economic benefits it will bring," Resources Minister Matt Canavan said.

Dump to consolidate nuclear waste

Local federal Liberal MP Rowan Ramsey said waste would come in from more than 100 sites around Australia, such as hospitals and universities, and the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in Sydney.

Processed medium-level nuclear fuel rods from Lucas Heights will be temporarily stored at Kimba while a permanent site is found for them, he said.

Mr Ramsey, who tried to nominate his own property near Kimba for the dump but was barred as a federal MP, said there would be no fly-in, fly-out workers at the facility. "All of those things should provide a long-term economic benefit to the community," he said.

SOURCE 

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

For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here

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