https://www.theaustralian.com.au/op...s/news-story/4e0e240820468ead27974e02822c7c65 If climate disaster is nigh, at least we’ll be spared IPCC reports Emissions are seen from a factory at Broadwater in far northern New South Wales. Picture: AAP JUDITH SLOAN 2 HOURS AGO OCTOBER 8, 2018 Facebook Twitter Email Here we go again — a group of like-minded, henny-penny scientists telling us the world is about to be transformed in a bad way unless we act. Yes, we’ve heard it many times before. The good thing this time is that this group of credulous scientists who are part of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is telling us that we are so close to a tipping point that there will be no point issuing any more warnings. That will be a relief. Evidently, the difference between the world temperature rising by 2C and 1.5C is huge. More people being inundated, more floods/droughts, greater destruction of biodiversity, hardly any coral reefs left. You know, the normal catastrophic stuff. And “actions that can reduce emissions include: phasing out coal in the energy sector, increasing the amount of energy produced from renewable sources, electrifying transport and reducing the carbon footprint of the food we consume”. That is, all the favourites of the far-Left. Mind you, the content of the IPCC report released yesterday ain’t science. It doesn’t set out refutable hypotheses and test them. In fact, we don’t even have reliable data on global temperatures. Using climate models to support predictions of future disasters is actually not that far from making astrological prophecies. And, of course, scientists make truly appalling economists. They don’t understand the first thing about cost-benefit analysis. Check out this piece of guff: “Limiting global warming to 1.5C compared to 2C could go hand-in-hand with ensuring a more sustainable and equitable society.” To suggest that all coal-fired power stations will need to be closed by 2050 is not just silly, it is also completely naive. According to German environmental group Urgewald, “1600 coal plants are planned or currently under construction in 62 countries … The new plants will expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 per cent”. And bear in mind, most of these plants will last at least 50 years. Luckily, our own Prime Minister recognises the essentially fraudulent nature of these international reports. Scott Morrison said yesterday that “we’re not throwing money into some global climate fund and getting pulled around by the nose by all these international agencies when it comes to these other reports. I mean the same report that (came out yesterday) said a year ago that the policies were fine”. He may be weak for refusing to consider Australia pulling out of the Paris climate agreement, but at least he’s not being fooled by some of its various appendages. For anyone who wants to spend time on yet another IPCC report predicting future climate cataclysms, I recommend you read Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s latest book, Skin in the Game. He makes the distinction between science and scientism. The IPCC report is a clear example of the latter, with all its fancy concocted charts and tables pretending to be based on real science undertaken by disinterested scientists when it is nothing of the sort. According to this insightful author, “one can see that these academic-bureaucrats wanting to run our lives aren’t even rigorous. They can’t tell science from scientism — in fact, in their eyes scientism looks more scientific than real science”. In sum, “scientism is to science what a Ponzi scheme is to an investment”. We should all bear this in mind next time we see a report from the IPCC. JUDITH SLOAN CONTRIBUTING ECONOMICS EDITOR Judith Sloan is an economist and company director. She holds degrees from the University of Melbourne and the London School of Economics. She has held a number of government appointments, including Commissioner.
Where is the great barrier reef again? Or is that dying off only due to suncream Only thing not idiot bullshit to come out of Oz recently has been Mr Inbetween.
It's not like the multi-billion dollar coal industry of Australia has lobbied for this non-sense ever.
As a once avid scuba diver (now occasional) and still and avid snorkel diver, I sometimes go to lectures on this subject. I caught one that touched on this subject last week. Its not just sun screen but for instance Honduras has a great reef for diving. The reef is part of a very large reef system which stretches into mexico. This scientist told us that overall the reef is suffering because a virus has wiped out 80 percent of a an important algea eating fish. Other science publications tell us reefs are sensitive to ocean warming. Most of our ocean warming is happening in the Indian Ocean. The Indian ocean has a lot of volcanoes and vents warming it. If you would like to explain how man made co2 is causing ocean warming I am interested in reading any real science you can link.
The Australian Zero at the equator? The so-called climate experts have gone troppo The world’s “leading climate scientists” have confirmed we had only 12 years left to keep global warming to a maximum of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. By MAURICE NEWMAN 12:00AM NOVEMBER 9, 2018 458 Facebook Twitter Email Last September the usual media suspects got wind of yet another Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. To those familiar, it was obvious from the “fire and brimstone” headlines. No matter how inconsequential, no heatwave, drought, hurricane or flood was missed. This is the customary softening-up period, intended to ensure that when a scary IPCC report lands, politicians will be pushed into taking even more drastic action on “climate change”. And so it came to pass. Last month, the world’s “leading climate scientists” confirmed we had only 12 years left to keep global warming to a maximum of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. Debra Roberts, a co-chairwoman of the working group on impacts, says: “It’s a line in the sand and what it says to our species is that this is the moment and we must act now.” Even half a degree more would significantly worsen the risk of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people. Crikey! It’s only three years since Paris, when we were assured 2C could save the planet. What’s next? At least it’s 10 years longer than Prince Charles gave us. He warned in 2008 that “the world faces a series of natural disasters within 18 months, unless urgent action is taken to save the rainforests”. A decade later, in testimony before the US congress, Roger Pielke Jr, professor of environmental studies in the Centre for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado, contradicted Charles, saying it was “misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales”. But then in 2011 the International Energy Agency, after “the most thorough analysis yet”, warned that five more years of conventional development would make it impossible to hold global warming to safe levels. The prospects of combating dangerous climate change would be “lost forever”. Well now, in the tradition of ever-receding horizons, the IPCC gives us another 12 years to act. Catastrophic scenarios aren’t new. In the 1960s and 70s, man-made global cooling was the fashion. In 1971, Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich predicted: “By the year 2000, the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people.” Ehrlich is now a warmist. Whom or what to believe? After 50 years of failed predictions, people are reasoning that something other than science is behind this alarmism. And that something is the UN. What else? Its global reach, back corridors and duplicity have allowed it to build an unchallenged, mutually reinforcing $1.5 trillion industry of captive politicians, scientists, journalists, crony capitalists and non-governmental organisation activists bent on globalism through anti-Western sentiment and wealth transfer. The IPCC’s corrupt hand in this is unmistakeable. Its peer reviewed science turned out to be nothing but veneer. The reviewer of a report on retreating Himalayan glaciers said he was “well aware” it was not peer-reviewed but thought it would encourage policymakers to take action. We now know Greenpeace and WWF opinion papers have formed the basis of some IPCC reports. A retiring Greenpeace leader confessed to “emotionalising issues” to “bring the public around”. The Climategate dump of emails, which revealed scientists actively colluding to falsify and hide data, demonstrates scientific integrity is arbitrary. Similarly, US whistleblowers have admitted to agencies inventing “warming” trends and confess that “unapproved data sets” were used to sensationalise headlines ahead of the Paris climate conference. Australian John McLean is the latest climate scientist to shine a light. His audit found the main global temperature set used by climate models exaggerated warming and was not fit for global studies. Fahrenheit temperatures were recorded as Celsius, longitudes and latitudes were in error, crude adjustments were unexplained and place names were misspelled. Tropical islands recorded a monthly average of zero degrees, a place in Romania averaged minus 45C for a month and a site in Colombia for three months recorded an impossible 82C. For two years the southern hemisphere temperature was estimated from one land-based site in Indonesia and some ship data. Britain’s Met Office politely responded: “The HadCRUT data set, on which the audit was based, stretches back to 1850 and contains over seven million points of data from in excess of 7500 observation stations on land around the globe together with millions of measurements of sea surface temperature.” Clearly, if science is not the primary focus, near enough is good enough. The truth will out and, for all the virtue signalling in Paris, a review conducted by the Grantham Research Institute reveals only 16 countries “have reproduced their nationally determined contribution commitments as targets in national laws and policies”. This lack of urgency likely reflects the difference between UN bully pulpit rhetoric and public opinion. Still, UN globalists will not surrender. From the outset, the purpose of the IPCC was clear. It was to effect a massive wealth transfer on the premise that “climate change and environmental crises are the result of vastly unequal levels of development in the last few centuries” and that the burden of climate change “falls most heavily on poor countries”. The IPCC charter directs it “to understand the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”. No possible other cause can be considered. So, as there is little empirical evidence to support the anthropogenic thesis, causation must be invented to prevent the UN’s case collapsing. If that fails, there’s always coercion. Bill Nye, US TV’s “science guy”, is already open to climate sceptics being prosecuted as war criminals. Why not? If jail’s an option, no need to fabricate science
Just for sake of entertainment, imagine what happens if the oceans rise only 50 meters, use this tool to visualize: http://www.floodmap.net/ Most of the east and west coast will be flooded. that means all of the liberals (coastal people) will be moving inland and they will be bringing books, knowledge, science, empathy, healthcare, women's rights, gun control, gay rights, kale, weed, atheists, affirmative action, Hollywood elites, wall street crooks, globalists, sanctuary city immigrants and many other things that conservatives don't like. forget the science since it's not your cup of tea, believe in climate change, so you can keep the liberals and leftists out. don't let them win.
We’re right about climate change, say the BBC – and let the facts go hang By David Keighley - October 16, 2018 How idiotic has the advocacy of climate alarmism by the BBC become? Last month, as TCW reported, BBC news director Fran Unsworth issued a formal directive stating, in effect, that alarmism is proven and may not be challenged on the BBC airwaves. Now one of her key minions, James Stephenson, the BBC’s overall editor of news and current affairs, has appeared on the latest edition of BBC Radio 4’s Feedback to ram home the message. Full reading of the transcript is recommended to appreciate the jaw-dropping scale of the bias involved, but in essence Stephenson declared that, despite viewer concerns that the Corporation was adopting a partisan approach, ‘the science’ is beyond doubt and the IPCC’s word on the subject must be considered gospel. His stance amounts to a total junking by the Corporation of basic scientific empiricism, which since Roger Bacon’s Opus Majus in 1267 has been based on the premise that one new set of verifiable data can sweep away any theory. In that context, the alleged existence of ‘consensus’ between climate scientists on which Stephenson relies for justifying his propaganda position matters not one jot. In fact – despite all the IPCC’s posturing, politicking and blustering – the study of the workings of the globe’s climate is in its infancy, not least because measurement of variables is so unreliable and incomplete. A leading anti-alarmist scientist (and true empiricist), the Australian Jo Nova, excoriatingly reports that the world’s major climate ‘record’ – on which are anchored many of the IPCC’s alarmist predictions – is riddled with massive errors, gaps and assumptions. So extreme was Stephenson’s partisanship in favour of the climate alarmist stance on Feedback that he bloody-mindedly defended a major mistake in the Corporation’s IPCC-related coverage. Today presenters John Humphrys and Sarah Montague both wrongly said the IPCC report was warning about a 1.5 per cent rise in global temperatures when actually it referred to 1.5 degrees. Whoops, but in the BBC’s manual of climate change reporting, who cares? Stephenson accepted that this was inaccurate, but claimed it did not matter because ‘audiences would have recognised it was a slip’. Eh? In other words, in the BBC’s climate change universe, never let the facts get in the way of a good scare story. Ironically, perhaps, the BBC position on alarmism can be compared to that of the Catholic Church as imagined in Bertolt Brecht’s 1938 play The Life of Galileo. In the 1960s this was a ‘must see’ drama for all those on the Left. They wanted to ridicule the play’s projection of the unreason and unbending conservatism of Catholicism, then one of the biggest targets of every Left-winger. Ultra-Marxist Brecht represented Galileo as the voice of ‘reason’ against the Church’s defence of bigoted religious orthodoxy. The BBC, of course, would love to see themselves as Galileo in the climate change debate. In reality, they are not. The BBC, the IPCC and other bodies such as the EU, politicians and governments who have swallowed the IPCC agenda, the multi-national companies benefiting from ‘green’ energy, and academia are now all vested interests defending the ‘warmist’ status quo at any and every cost – including the rejection of reason itself. Every man (and woman and non-binary) jack of them, like the Catholic Church in Brecht’s projection, is pitched against true scientific inquiry. Those who question alarmism are not ‘deniers’, as the BBC so insultingly calls them. Rather, it is they, the ‘deniers’, the anti-alarmists, who are heroes and heroines fighting to smash the deeply corrupt alarmist scam, which, on some estimates, is costing taxpayers trillions of dollars a year.
POLITICS Climate Change Alarmism Is The World’s Leading Cause Of Hot Gas How long can fearmongering work? By David Harsanyi Even as anti-gas tax riots raged in France this week, the naturalist David Attenborough warned a crowd at a United Nations climate change summit in Poland that the “collapse of our civilizations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.” UN General Assembly President Maria Espinosa told the media that “mankind” was “in danger of disappearing” if climate change is allowed to progress at its current rate. Speakers, who flew in to swap doomsday stories and partake of the meat-heavy menu, advocated for radical changes to avoid this imminent environmental apocalypse. These days, “the point of no return” is almost always in view, yet always just out of reach. Sorry, but by now, this rhetoric is familiar. You can go back to 1970, when Harvard biologist George Wald, riding a wave of popular environmental panic during the decade, estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” Or you can go back to 1977, when President Barack Obama’s future science “tsar” John Holdren co-authored a book with Paul R. Ehrlich predicting that global warming could lead to the deaths of 1 billion starving people by 2020. (The authors theorized that “population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution.”) Or you can go back to 2006, when Al Gore warned in his Oscar-winning documentary that sea levels would rise by 20 feet “in the near future.” The producers even offered chilling depictions of cities underwater. Gore was only off by around 20 feet, or so. Anyway, South Beach is still with us. The problem for alarmists is that warming is now here—allegedly, the cause of an untold number of disasters, small and large—yet somehow humanity slogs onward, living longer, safer, richer lives. People internalize this reality, no matter what they tell pollsters. At a big 2005 conference of concerned climate scientists and politicians in London, attendees warned that the world had as little as 10 years before it reached “the point of no return on global warming.” They warned that humans would soon be grappling with “widespread agricultural failure,” “major droughts,” “increased disease,” “the death of forests,” and the “switching-off of the North Atlantic Gulf Stream,” among many other terrible calamities. Who knows, maybe one day humanity will be ravaged by new diseases due to a rise in temperature. Right now, though, we are on the cusp of eradicated diseases like “polio, Guinea worm, yaws, Carrion’s disease, hookworm, lymphatic filariasis, measles, ovine rinderpest, pork tape worm, river blindness, rubella, syphilis.” There is new hope that all mosquito-borne diseases might be one day be eradicated, that a cure for AIDS might be within reach, and, perhaps, a vaccine might cut Alzheimer’s disease cases in half. Cancer survival rates have soared. So perhaps in some far-flung era, humans will be toiling in a dystopian world of “widespread agricultural failure,” as alarmists have been warning for many decades, but trends do not look promising for the Chicken Littles. Since 2005, humans have seen a spike in the use of genetically modified crops, as well as advances in heat-resistant crops, which has led to booming yields in agriculture. According to the UN, there are 200 million fewer hungry people in 2015 than there were in 1990. Although not as big as the massive spike in climate-change hysterics since 2005, there also been a spike in fossil fuel consumption among nations that are slowly embracing the most effective poverty-killing program ever invented by man. And capitalism, even its worst iterations, runs best on cheap energy. This reality has produced a giant reduction of poverty, the extreme variety being cut in half around the world, according to the World Bank. The less poverty there is, the more cars we will see, and the less the US or Europe can do about it. Fortunately, Attenborough, Gore, and the 22,000 delegates attending the 24th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention can’t begin to contemplate the staggering number of advancements in productivity and science that await humans. Of course, simply because Malthusians have been completely wrong about human ingenuity and adaptability for more than 100 years doesn’t necessarily mean they are wrong now. On the other hand, at no point in history has a massive top-down social engineering project ever worked as intended. It’s worth noting, for example, that the 10 worst famines of the 20th century weren’t caused by the excesses of capitalism or by environmental disasters but by collectivists trying to control human nature (or to thin out the population). It’s unsurprising that a recent studypublished in Nature Climate Change found that environmentalists would likely cause more hunger than climate change itself—which neatly sums up the problem with most of the climate change agenda (hat tip, Bjorn Lomborg.) Tradeoffs: Ignored by doomsdayers since the beginning of history. No matter what they tell pollsters, on an intuitive level, people understand them. Just ask former president Barack Obama. During a recent forum, he argued that the United States could use “off-the-shelf existing technologies” and “reduce carbon emissions by, let’s say, 30 percent” and “it’s not like we’d have to go back to caves and live off fire.” Yet, in the midst of all this wishful thinking, Obama bragged about his record on fossil fuel expansion. “And by the way, American energy production,” he added, “you wouldn’t always know it, but it went up every year I was president. And you know that whole suddenly America’s like the biggest oil producer … that was me, people.” It’s true that a large part of the economic growth experienced under the Obama administration was propelled by affordable fossil fuel energy — certainly not his clean energy subsides. If Democrats had their way, Americans would be living under a cap-and-trade policy scheme — a program designed to increase the cost of energy by creating false demand in a fabricated market. It’s never really been about believing man-made global warming exists. It’s about believing that climate change will do more harm than a bunch of technocrats with coercive power trying to mitigate it. The United States, which exited the deal Obama entered without congressional approval, has already matched the carbon emission reductions of the European Union since 2005. Europeans already have to deal with many of these schemes. But if we’re really living in an age of populism and nationalism, what makes the left believe that its climate-change agenda, perhaps the most technocratic and global project ever conceived, is viable? What in the trajectory of contemporary European or American politics leads anyone to believe that the average Westerner will be interested in footing the bill for China’s or India’s complete transition into modernity over the next, at least, 30 years? How long can fearmongering keep people in check? “Protesters,” the Associated Press reported this week, “angry about rising taxes and the high cost of living clashed with French riot police.” Although they’ve done their best, the media couldn’t conceal the fact that the violent unrest was initially sparked by people angered by Emmanuel Macron’s hike of gas taxes that were aimed to “minimize France’s reliance on fossil fuels.” Since then, various angry groups may have joined the riots, but the violence didn’t really abate until Macron lifted the gas tax (which seems like a way to incentivize people to riot in the future, but that’s another story). At the same time this was going on, delegates are meeting in Poland—a nation where more than 85 percent of electricity is generated in coal-fired power plants—so that signees of the Paris Agreement could iron out how they would reach their own emissions-reducing pledges. The United States, which exited the deal Obama entered without congressional approval, has already matched the carbon emission reductions of the European Union since 2005. Most of it is attributable to increased natural gas use for electricity generation, not another giant gas tax or carbon scheme or any radical top-down technocracy that controls the lives of average men and women, purposefully stifles economic growth, and destroys wealth. We didn’t even have to riot
I like how all these opinion writers for right wing media say one thing, and the actual experts, the climate scientists, say another. So of course, the tribal righties choose the opinion writer. American Geophysical Union "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5 https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/