GREENIE WATCH -- by Dr. John Ray

There is an "ascetic instinct" (or perhaps a "survivalist instinct") in many people that causes them to delight in going without material comforts. Monasteries and nunneries were once full of such people -- with the Byzantine stylites perhaps the most striking example. Many Greenies (other than Al Gore and his Hollywood pals) have that instinct too but in the absence of strong orthodox religious committments they have to convince themselves that the world NEEDS them to live in an ascetic way. So their personal emotional needs lead them to press on us all a delusional belief that the planet needs "saving".

This document is part of an archive of postings on Greenie Watch, a blog hosted by Blogspot who are in turn owned by Google. The index to the archive is available here or here. Indexes to my other blogs can be located here or here. Archives do accompany my original postings but, given the animus towards conservative writing on Google and other internet institutions, their permanence is uncertain. These alternative archives help ensure a more permanent record of what I have written. My Home Page. My Recipes. My alternative Wikipedia. My Blogroll. Email me (John Ray) here. NOTE: The short comments that I have in the side column of the primary site for this blog are now given at the foot of this document.

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

31 January, 2020

5 Ways to Reduce Wildfire Risk in California

Data from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection show that 2019 was another year of wildfire disaster. As of November 25, 7,860 fires had burned 259,823 acres, destroyed 732 structures, claimed three lives, and dangerously reduced air quality.

A U.S. Geological Survey researcher reported that: “Since the year 2000 there’ve been a half-million acres burned due to powerline-ignited fires, which is five times more than we saw in the previous 20 years.” Many of the most devastating fires were ignited by power lines, but arson and negligence played a major role.

California’s primary strategy to prevent fire damage has been to cut off electricity. During a period of near-freezing temperatures, California residents went days without light and electricity for appliances. Spoiled food, silent cell phones, dead water pumps, and intermittent internet service disrupted daily life. That’s no strategy at all. People’s essential needs must be met.

As the ash settles on the latest tragedy, what can be done to reduce the impact of future fires? Scientific evidence suggests five ways to do this. All five must be pursued aggressively. This is an emergency – treat it as such.

* First, broaden tree trimming around power lines, waiving regulations if needed, and clear out ground fuels under them. Pacific Gas & Electric has a huge backlog of needed maintenance on lines and towers, and underbrush clearance. Some lines could be buried in vulnerable places, at a cost of about one million dollars per mile. Compared to 2018 fire losses of $11.4 billion, released by state officials, that’s a bargain.

* Second, get serious about prescribed burns. Every locality in fire country needs to work promptly and aggressively to reduce fuel loads that increase fire intensity. The current method of fire suppression has increased ground fuels and promoted over-crowding.

Mechanical thinning and selective harvesting can also play important roles. Preemptive burns and thoughtful forest management would greatly reduce these problems.

* Third, replace invasive vegetation with fire-resistant native species. This is especially useful and would significantly reduce accident-related ignitions along highways. Wildfires leave gaps within vegetation that create an environment leading to higher susceptibility to invasive species.

Sparks rarely ignite trees, but a single spark readily ignites dead grass. Dead grasses are classified as a 1-hour fine fuel, meaning they become highly flammable in just one hour of warm dry conditions, setting the stage for an explosive fire.

Historically, due to scant surface fuels, sagebrush habitat burned about every 60 to 100 years. However, invading annual grasses, like cheatgrass, now extend the fire season and promote large fires every three to five years.

Targeted holistic grazing is another strategic and profitable approach to wildfires, in which cows, sheep, or goats can reduce those easily ignited fuels.

* Fourth, improve regulations for building and zoning in fire prone areas. Increased development in the urban-wildland interface virtually guarantees wildfire problems. Smarter home building through local and statewide regulations on building codes that require the use of fire-resistant materials, creating defensible spaces and disclosure of fire risk during a sale would considerably reduce the risk of destruction related to wildfires.

Current homes in “ignition zones” should be required to follow best practices on clearing surrounding vegetation.

Finally, reduce human ignitions by arson and negligence. People ignite 84% of all fires in America’s lower 48 states, accounting for 44% of all burned areas. The U.S. Fire Administration estimates that arson accounts for 20% of California’s fires, 55% of Kentucky’s and is the leading cause of Florida’s fires.

More resources are needed to address arson as well as to increase public education programs to reduce careless fires. Educational programs combined with aggressive patrolling, prosecution, and fines would reduce both arson and negligence.

Readers may notice that one popular remedy is missing from our list: reducing emissions of the warming gas CO2. Warming plays virtually no role in California’s fires, which occur across a broad range of temperature and moisture. The only human-caused “climate change” connection to the wildfires is the CO2 -phobia that has raised the price of electricity by 50 percent and reduced the power companies’ available personnel for maintenance.

The Manhattan Institute’s Steven Malanga, writing in the Wall Street Journal, cites a Credit Suisse report that California has required PG&E to spend $2 billion on wind and solar, “at five times the going rate” of fossil fuels. These mandates should be suspended so that more funds are available for the true task at hand, reducing California wildfires.

SOURCE

CLINTEL Manifesto blasts climate scaremongering

There is NO climate emergency. Preaching doom and gloom is a crime against the young generation. These are the key points of a new manifesto from the Climate Intelligence Group or CLINTEL.

CLINTEL is a rapidly growing international group, led by prominent scientists, that opposes the ill-founded attempts to scare people into hasty climate policy actions. They also oppose the terrorizing of children as part of the false climate alarm. CLINTEL recently issued a World Climate Declaration denouncing scaremongering and this new manifesto provides detailed scientific backup for the WCD for a wide public. The manifesto is authored by Professor Guus Berkhout, the President of CLINTEL.

The focus of the Berkhout manifesto is on climate related modeling, which it says is “unfit for purpose.” The purpose in this case is predicting future climate change. Modeling dominates climate science. It also provides the scary scenarios that drive hugely expensive and disruptive climate emergency action policies. That the models are faulty is a very important finding.

The manifesto says there are at least four strong reasons why today’s models are no good.

First, the model makers have not properly included the many factors that are known to be important, especially natural variability. In fact the major models simply assume that (almost) all climate change is due to human activity, an unproven hypothesis.

Second, the predictions to date are dramatically too warm compared to actual satellite measurements. There has been relatively little warming in the last 20 years and much of that looks to be natural. In stark contrast the models have predicted dramatic warming that has not occurred. The models are far too hot to be trusted. Not the climate but the model makers are the source of the panic.

Third, the models lack consideration of historical climate data. There is a growing list of observational studies finding that the global temperature is nowhere near as sensitive to human-generated CO2 as the models assume. Ironically the latest generation of models is even more sensitive than their predecessors, so they are getting even further from observation. The models are getting worse, not better.

Nor can these models explain past periods of warming and cooling, such as the medieval warm period (MWP) and the recently ended little ice age (LIA). If we cannot even explain past climate change, exclusively caused by natural variability, then we certainly cannot understand the present and predict the future. A great deal more data and research is needed in this area. We simply have insufficient insight in the complex nature of climate change. Climate science is far from settled!

All of these glaring problems with models are well explained in the Berkhout manifesto. It follows that present model projections of dangerous future warming and subsequent natural disasters are not to be trusted. They are certainly no basis for inflicting damaging climate policies on the world. The manifesto puts it succinctly: “Stop using Misleading Computer Models.”

CLINTEL is also focused on children being demoralized by climate alarmism. Young people are easy to influence by activists because they have not had enough science to defend themselves. In addition, climate change and environmental pollution are hopelessly confused. To explain why there is NO climate emergency, the manifesto closes with “a message to our grandchildren.” Here is the gist of the message:

“Don’t behave like a parrot. Be critical against the many false prophets who try to misuse you and try to turn you against your parents. The information they tell you is one-sided and misleading. Please, deepen your climate knowledge. By doing so, you will find out that there is NO empirical evidence that points at any climate crisis.”

The World Climate Declaration basically says that the climate policies, being called for in the false name of emergency, not only dangerously undermine the global economic system but they also put lives at risk in countries where large-scale access to reliable and affordable electricity is made unfeasible. This CLINTEL manifesto provides the science showing that there is no such emergency.

CLINTEL recently sent a letter of protest to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The basic message is clearly stated here: “Despite heated political rhetoric, we urge all world leaders to accept the reality that there is no climate emergency. There is ample time to use scientific advances to continue improving our understanding of climate change. Meanwhile, we should go for ADAPTATION; adaptation works whatever the causes are.”

For more information see https://clintel.org and look at:

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/63030622/there-is-no-climate-emergency

SOURCE

Hypocrites preaching Green

If you don’t know who Tom Steyer is, you should. He’s the guy riding in the internal combustion powered limousine that drops Al Gore off at his speaking engagements.

Mr. Steyer, a billionaire former hedge fund manager, who has become the most influential environmentalist in American politics, made his billions from the coal-related projects his firm bankrolled that have and will generate tens of millions of tons of carbon pollution for years, if not decades, to come.

His former firm Farallon, was appropriately named after a shark-infested shoal on the California coast, and it quickly earned a reputation for take-no-prisoners investing, raking in millions, and eventually billions. For more than 15 years, Mr. Steyer’s fund, Farallon Capital Management, pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into companies that operate coal mines and coal-fired power plants from Indonesia to China:

Farallon invested in a subsidiary of Indiabulls, an Indian financial conglomerate, in 2008, just as the subsidiary began expanding into coal-fired power. Two years later, Indiabulls began construction on two massive coal-fired power plants: the 2,700-megawatt Amravati plant in central India and the 1,350-megawatt Nasik plant outside Mumbai. When completed, Amravati is expected to be one of the largest coal-fired power plants in India locking in decades of carbon pollution.

In 2007, Farallon provided funds for the sale of Meiya Power, an electric utility that operates four large coal-fired power plants, which collectively produce about 7,000 megawatts of power. Combined, the completed Indiabulls and Meiya plants will produce about 60 million tons of carbon pollution a year.

The expected life span of those facilities, some of which may run through 2030, could cloud the credibility of Mr. Steyer’s clean-energy stance.

Today, it is appalling that Steyer is using his emissions profits to fund his image as the “environmental savior” to combat climate change. It is basically hypocritical to claim oneself a great environmentalist while investing in the very same technologies you rail against. Steyer’s shark instincts are now securing a wealth of investor funds from those who believe and support his green messages.

For electricity generation, green is good, but Steyer and his buddies Bernie Sanders and Mike Bloomberg are tight lipped about the extensive land required for the intermittent electricity from wind turbines and solar panel farms and where to place them for maximum exposure to sun and wind year- round. The land acquisitions necessary to pull that off are nightmares waiting to happen. T

hen, its only intermittent electricity when the sun is shining, and the wind is blowing.

Steyer and his buddies are shockingly unaware that oil and gas is not just an American business with its 135 refineries in the U.S., but an international industry with more than 700 refineries worldwide that supply oil products and fuels to the world. Without the U.S refineries our country would become a national security risk being dependent on foreign countries for our existence.

With the winter weather most of the country has endured this year, going green would have resulted in a very dark America with numerous weather-related deaths from exposure to the elements because of no electricity.

Green is good, but Steyer and his followers have yet to propose replacements for the products from deep earth fuels that contribute to ALL medications, electronic components, air travel, shipping, transportation, and commerce.

Steyer, Bernie Sanders and Mike Bloomberg have yet to provide substitutes for the economies around the world that are directly connected to the prosperity of energy dense deep earth minerals and fuels that support the following infrastructures that benefit from the thousands of products that move things around the world.

Medications, vaccines, antibiotics, and medical equipment that are all made with the derivatives from petroleum.

Electronics that are all made with the derivatives from petroleum.

Commercial aviation, with 23,000 commercial airplanes worldwide that has been accommodating 4 billion passenger annually.

Cruise liners, each of which consumes 80,000 gallons of fuels daily, that have been accommodating more than 25 million passengers annually worldwide.

The USA has 98 operating nuclear power reactors in 30 states providing 20% of carbon free electricity in the USA.

The 52,000 merchant ships burning more than 120 million gallons a day of high sulfur bunker fuel (soon to be converted to diesel fuel to reduce sulfur emissions) moving products worldwide worth billions of dollars daily.

The military presence that protects each country from each other, is increasing each year to save the world.

Usage of fertilizers that accommodates growth of much of the food that feeds billions annually.

More than 8,000 coal power plants in America providing continuous electricity to citizens.

Vehicle manufacturing as all parts are based on the chemical and by-products from fossil fuels.

The usage of asphalt for road construction.

Again, green electricity is a good idea, but the inefficiencies of those renewables, and the huge subsidies required to move in that direction negatively affect the consumer. Like Germany, America’s renewables are becoming an increasing share in electricity generation, but at a HIGH COST. In California alone, intermittent electricity from low power density renewables has contributed to California household users paying more than 50% and industrial users paying more than 100% above the national average for electricity and may be very contributory to America’s growing homelessness and poverty populations.

Despite the debut of 45 pure electric and plug-in hybrids in the United States last year, only 325,000 plug-in passenger vehicles were sold, down 6.8% from 349,000 in 2018, according to Edmunds. That is just 2% of the 17 million vehicles of all types sold in the United States in 2019. Tom Steyer’s advocating that electric vehicles will replace every other vehicle on the road is far-fetched.

Until they figure out how to power a 4500 pound Maybach with bulletproof windows and panels all around that can cold start on a dime and get out of harm’s way when a diplomat needs to exit a venue post haste, the intermittent electricity and lithium powered vehicle market will always only be a niche market.

SOURCE

The Thunberg fallacies

Ever since she splashed into view I have wondered about Greta Thunberg’s reasoning. Her quoted statements, blasting the world for not doing the impossible, have given no clue where she is coming from.

Now, thanks to some detailed published statements of hers, from the World Economic Forum in Davos, I have my answer. It turns out she is hotly embracing not one, but two, howling fallacies. No wonder she sounds nuts.

To begin with, she cites the IPCC report on climate change from 2018, which claims we have only a few years left to act if there’s a 67% chance of keeping the global temperature rise from now to below 0.5 degrees C. (She, like everyone else, talks about a rise of 1.5 degrees, but the IPCC says that 1.0 degrees has already happened, which she knows.) If she said a half a degree people might laugh.

She says this is “not an opinion”, that it is THE science. Which is the first fallacy. What the IPCC writes is of course just an opinion and a highly contested one at that. It is nothing but model-based speculation, which is contradicted by real evidence.

But hey, lots of alarmists buy the IPCC stuff and they are not yelling that our planetary house is on fire. Getting to that point is Thunberg’s second, and far bigger, fallacy. She has decided that another half degree of global warming is the threshold to catastrophe.

Mind you she gives no actual reasons here. It appears to be a pure leap of faith. She mentions in passing some apparently dreadful things like tipping points and unknown feedbacks, but nothing specific. The IPCC certainly does not suggest any such hidden cataclysmic triggers.

She even says, “Either we prevent temperatures from rising above 1.5 degrees (Celsius), or we don’t. Either we avoid chain reaction of unravelling ecosystems, or we don’t.” It sounds like one follows from the other but it doesn’t.

This is the first I have heard of a chain reaction of unraveling ecosystems, especially one triggered by tiny warming (just half of what we supposedly have already seen.) I am sure the IPCC has never mentioned this demon or we would all have heard of it.

So there it is. She starts with the questionable IPCC and then simply leaps into the abyss but she calls it, “THE science”. There is no science here. In fact, there is no reasoning that I can see. In logic this is called argument by assertion.

The IPCC report merely addressed the relatively mundane question “What is the difference between 1.5 degrees of total warming (0.5 to come) and 2.0 degrees?” This question arises because the Paris Accord includes both targets. It says we want to hit 2.0 but get below it toward 1.5 if possible. In no case is 1.5 a target.

Given that 2.0 is the basic target, it is perfectly clear that 1.5 is not the threshold to catastrophe. In fact the report says that while holding to 1.5 is better, the difference is small. This is why the UN has not proposed dropping the 2.0 degree target. All of which contradicts Greta Thunberg’s claims. The report she cites simply does not support her outlandish position. No wonder the CLINTEL people say there is NO emergency.

To recap, there are two fallacies in her reasoning. Let’s call them the IPCC fallacy and the Thunberg fallacy. The IPCC fallacy is thinking that humans control global temperature. The Thunberg fallacy is thinking that a mere half degree of future warming is the threshold to catastrophe, to the point of threatening human existence. Unfortunately her followers have embraced her delusion.

The IPCC fallacy is well established and widespread, including among many scientists. It is the basis for the Paris Accord. It is moderate in its way. The Thunberg fallacy is new and nuts. In fact it is tearing the alarmist community apart, which is fine by me. Although like all forms of madness, the Thunberg fallacy bears watching, lest it get out if control.

Greta Thunberg and her followers are calling for rapidly rebuilding the global energy system, while also completely restructuring the world’s economic, social and political systems. All this turmoil in the name of limiting future global warming to one half a degree. It does not get any crazier than that.

SOURCE

Politicized charities

Don't give them a cent

Four of Australia’s leading international aid organisations have urged the Morrison Government to take major climate change action amid the country’s bushfire crisis.

World Vision Australia, Oxfam Australia, Plan International Australia and Save the Children Australia have joined forces to issue a plea for stronger climate measures.

The group wants more ambitious emission reduction targets to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5C, warning many countries will face unmanageable suffering and devastation if more isn’t done.

“The time for debate about climate change is over, it is now time for action. We cannot afford to waste any more time,” it said in a statement on Tuesday.

The organisations have called on Australia to demonstrate strong leadership on climate action and transition to a low-emissions global economy, support reforestation programs and build the capacity of vulnerable communities in Australia and overseas to deal with the ravages of climate change.

The four charities have called for the Coalition government to sign the Intergovernmental Declaration on Children, Youth and Climate Action.

“Our organisations acknowledge that this issue is so pressing, we must advocate in alliance to amplify the voices of the world’s most vulnerable people,” the joint statement says.

The Australian arms of World Vision, Oxfam, Plan and Save the Children describe climate change as a human rights issue impacting on health and an adequate standard of living.

“Every day, our aid workers see the very real and devastating impact of climate change on the world’s most vulnerable people,” the aid alliance says.

The group pointed to a food crisis in southern African, severe floods in Indonesia and a 2018 deadly cyclone in Mozambique.

“Now the climate emergency has well and truly arrived at home, too,” the alliance continued.

“Australians are suffering through the devastating ongoing fallout from our worst fire season on record, with dozens of lives, thousands of homes and more than a billion creatures lost.

“Fires continue to rage and millions are breathing in hazardous air across three states.” Climate action has been brought into sharp focus by Australia’s deadly bushfires with the issue sparking tensions within the coalition.

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

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

30 January, 2020

The Left’s Opposition to Mining Threatens Its Green Dream

Environmental activists who oppose mining minerals in the United States are threatening the same green agenda they claim to embrace. Among those leading the attack is Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts Democrat, who proposes banning mining on public lands.

Though environmentalists may not realize it, increased domestic production of “critical” minerals would benefit the environment. But existing restrictions on recovering these elements are forcing U.S. firms to purchase these resources overseas.

This can be problematic if our trading partners are unstable, unreliable or unfriendly, as was the case before the fracking revolution when the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) dominated the global market for crude oil. Now the United States is a net exporter of oil and natural gas. But we continue to be dependent on imported minerals, not because domestic supplies don’t exist, but because restrictive regulatory policies prevent their recovery.

As a result, the United States today imports 100 percent of the minerals considered critical by the Interior and Defense Departments. We also obtain at least half of many other minerals, ranging from copper, zinc and chromium to lithium, from overseas suppliers; these are the very same minerals needed to produce batteries for electric vehicles, large-scale power storage units and other clean energy technologies.

At the top of the pyramid are the so-called rare earths, a group of 14 elements with names like promethium, neodymium and yttrium, which are found in computer hard drives, electric vehicle batteries, cancer drugs, solar panels, wind turbines, lithium-ion batteries, magnets and smartphones. China dominates global rare earth production; it supplies 80 percent of the rare earth elements imported into the United States.

In fact, China is the primary supplier of more than half of the strategically important minerals on which scores of modern products and processes depend. Among the minerals at greatest risk is cobalt, which is used in the production of electric vehicle batteries. Much of the world’s cobalt supply comes from Chinese-owned mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

America’s dependence on imported minerals has doubled in the past 10 years and it’s expected to rise over the next two decades, along with global demands. The World Bank warns that by 2050 the demand for lithium will grow by 965 percent, graphite by 383 percent and nickel by 108 percent. as the production of electric vehicles and other green technologies increases.

As part of its ongoing trade dispute with the United States, China threatened to restrict shipments of rare earths last summer. The newly signed phase one trade deal isn’t going to change that.

The best way to protect our economy and environment from sudden rises in the prices of critical minerals, caused by geopolitical tensions, trade wars or any other OPEC-like supply shock, is by reopening domestic mines and taking advantage of the estimated $6.2 trillion in U.S. mineral resources.

But U.S. mining faces an uncertain future.

Most of the domestic reserves of critical minerals are located in the Mountain West: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. But new mining operations are either restricted or banned on more than half of all federal lands—and Ms. Warren and others want to shut the door completely.

A deal negotiated between the United States and Australia will help offset the risk of China’s weaponization of rare earths, but the surest way to avoid future supply shocks is by utilizing our own mineral deposits.

The difficulty of winning support in Congress for mining reforms cannot be underestimated, but neither can the positive consequences. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, Alaska Republican and head of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is pushing for changes in the mine-permitting process that would enable domestic companies to open new mines in half the time it now takes.

The mining of critical minerals is not without environmental risks, but if environmentalists want to continue to promote green energy solutions, they must recognize that domestic mineral resources, whether found on private or federal lands, are essential to their green dream.

SOURCE

Trump Administration deep-sixes Obama WOTUS rule

Putting an end to decades of uncertainty over how much regulatory power the federal government has over bodies of water – from ponds to oceans — the Trump administration has overturned and replaced an Obama-era rule that would have imposed federal zoning on millions of acres of private land throughout the country.

Unveiled Jan. 23, the Navigable Waters Protection Rule is the Trump’s administration’s response to the 2015 Obama “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule. Presented as an effort to “clarify” Washington’s regulatory jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, the Obama rule would have forced landowners to seek permits from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and/or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to undertake any activity on their property that might affect a nearby body of water, be it a drainage ditch, stock pond, or puddle.

Under the Trump rule, federal jurisdiction over “navigable waters of the United States,” as provided in the Clean Water Act, stays in place. But the Obama-era attempt to extend that jurisdiction to other bodies of water not specifically identified in the 1973 Clean Water Act has been blocked.

Obama’s WOTUS rule was the biggest power grab in EPA’s nearly 50-year history. Now it is gone.

Farmers No Longer Forced to Go to Lawyers and Consultants

“Today, thanks to our new rule, farmers, ranchers, developers, manufacturers, and other landowners can finally focus on providing the food, shelter, and other commodities that Americans rely on every day, instead of spending tens of thousands of dollars on attorneys and consultants to determine whether waters on their land fall under the control of the federal government,” said EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler.

Wheeler’s point about “attorneys and consultants” is well taken. So confusing is the language of the Clean Water Act that landowners were constantly under threat of being hauled into court either by the feds or by environmentalists for the slightest violation of a statute loaded with imprecise and undefined terms. By design, the Obama WOTUS made things even more confusing, and strengthened EPA’s hand in the process.

Delivering on candidate Trump’s 2016 campaign promise, the administration has brought clarity to the statute and relief to landowners. In Step One, announced in September, the White House repealed the Obama WOTUS rule in total. Federal courts had already struck down large sections of the rule, and now the whole monstrosity has been scrapped. Now, in Step Two, the administration is actually defining key waters-related terms of the law whose lack of definition have bedeviled farmers, ranchers, and others rural landowners for decades.

Providing Definitions

The new rule, which will go into effect on March 24, defines four types of hydrological features that will fall under federal regulatory jurisdiction – territorial seas and navigable waters, tributaries, lakes and ponds, and adjacent wetlands – and lists 12 types of waters that are excluded from the rule, including groundwater, ephemeral pools, and stormwater runoff. Prior converted cropland has been exempted from federal regulation. Yet because there has been no definition of prior converted cropland, farmers often found themselves subject to regulation and litigation anyway. With its new rule, the Trump administration had provided a clear definition of prior converted cropland. Similar definitions have been provided for such terms as “ephemeral,” “Intermittent,” and “adjacent and non-adjacent wetlands.”

The administration’s move was welcomed by such organizations as the American Farm Bureau, National Homebuilders Association, and National Association of Manufacturers, as well as by hundreds of elected officials, ranging from county commissioners to governors and members of Congress.

Deprived of a tool to harasses farmers, ranchers, and other rural landowners, environmental groups blasted the administration.

“With the Dirty Water Rule, the administration has put the interests of polluters over those of the public and our drinking water,” fumed John Rumpler, program director of Environment America (Washington Times, Jan. 24).

The new rule has nothing to do with drinking water, which is regulated under an entirely different statute, the Safe Drinking Water Act.

SOURCE

California files lawsuit to remain a national security risk

California has chosen to be the only state in America that imports most of its oil needs from foreign countries and relies on the U.S. Navy. This to pay a steep price keeping an aircraft carrier with escorts on station to deter attacks on oil tanker traffic operating in and around the Persian Gulf.

The state of California is suing President Donald Trump’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in an attempt to block the opening of more than 1 million acres of public land to oil and gas drilling, including hydraulic fracturing or fracking.

Conservation groups sued BLM over a California fracking plan that would allow drilling and fracking on public lands across eight counties in California’s Central Valley and Central Coast: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tulare and Ventura.

Regarding the crude oil demands for the state, there are scary similarities between Governor Newsom’s goals for California and Vladimir Putin’s objectives. Both support California being more and more dependent on imported foreign oil and both support anti-fracking in California. Obviously, any successful fracking enterprise would lessen the states’ dependency on that foreign oil. Does the Governor know his actions are supportive of California’s 5th largest economy in the world being a National Security risk to America?

California and Hawaii are the only two states who cannot participate in the sharing of excess oil the U.S. is producing and being enjoyed by the other 48 states. Hawaii is a true island, but California is an energy island, as the Sierra Mountains are a natural barrier that prevents the state from pipeline access to any of that excess oil. Hawaii is a different story altogether so let’s focus on California.

The Golden State’s position on crude oil production fits right in with Putin’s goal to control energy. Russia is adamantly against U.S. fracking efforts and very supportive of any environmentalist group or wealthy individual efforts to slow or stop crude oil and natural gas exploration and production within the U.S. and European borders. Recently a Russian funded environmental group gave millions to anti-fracking groups to stop, curtail or severely weaken US fracking of crude oil and natural gas in states like Texas, North Dakota, Colorado, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Pennsylvania.

California’s love of foreign crude oil is obvious. According to the Energy Information Administration, except for California which remains as the only state that imports most of its crude oil from foreign countries, the nation reduced imports and is now a net exporter of crude oil. In 1992 CA and AK accounted for 95% of the state’s demand for crude oil, today CA and AK account for a lowly 43% with the balance of 57% from foreign countries. California increased imports from foreign countries from 5 percent to 57 percent of total consumption. The imported crude oil cost California more than $60 million dollars a day being paid to oil-rich foreign countries, depriving Californians of jobs and business opportunities.

In addition to the anti-fracking position of the state, they are seriously considering Assembly Bill AB-345 (Muratsuchi), “Oil and gas: operations: location restrictions,” which would require, commencing January 1, 2020, all new oil and gas development outside federal land, to be located at least 2,500 feet (nearly half a mile) from any residence, school, childcare facility, playground, hospital, or health clinic. The bill would define re-drilling of a previously plugged and abandoned well, or other rework operations, as a new development.

There are more than 8,000 active or newly permitted oil and gas wells located within a 2,500’ buffer of sensitive sites, that represents about 30% of the 30,000 active wells in California. These setbacks would further reduce California crude oil production to the point that the foreign imports needed to make up for the in-state reduction would drive up the monthly cost to more than $80 million dollars a day being sent to oil rich foreign countries, at current crude oil pricing.

In pursuit of going green at any cost, like Germany, California continues to decease its in-state crude oil production and its in-state electricity generation. The states’ dependency of foreign countries for crude oil and dependency on other states for electricity is accelerating.

Obviously, our California leaders have limited knowledge that electricity cannot exist without fossil fuels as all the parts for wind and solar renewables are made with fossil fuels. Noticeable by their absence from turbines and solar panels, are those crude oil chemicals and by-products that account for everything in our society and supports the militaries, aviation, merchant ships, and all the transportation infrastructures needed by commerce around the world.

SOURCE

Any climate policy change is going to be slow burn

Comment from Australia

Climate politics is global. This is the ultimate message from the worldwide reaction to Australia’s bushfire tragedy. The backdrop to the demands that Australia do more on climate change is that the world is not doing enough and that the Paris Agreement is in serious trouble and may fail.

The global story is stark: the scientists intensify their alarm but governments are not responding. The gulf between the scientific consensus from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the pledges made by the governments of the major emitters grows only larger and soon will verge on gargantuan.

The US, following President Donald Trump’s decision, withdraws from the Paris Agreement on November 4, at the time of the presidential election. If Trump is re-elected it means no American return and that will cast an ominous shadow over the agreement’s structure and credibility. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres says “we are still losing the climate race” but then feels obliged to sound an optimistic note: “But we can choose another path.”

The idea that nations will choose another path seems remote. Below the surface you sense the desperation from the architects and champions of a global model that isn’t working and was always a third-best solution. It is now more than 20 years since the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated with its binding targets only on rich, industrialised nations. It is almost 10 years since the failure of the Copenhagen conference to secure a legally binding global agreement, and almost five since the patch-up job in Paris — a weak fallback — asking nations to submit voluntary targets as nationally determined contributions.

Last year’s UN Emissions Gap Report, along with other UN documents, finds a “bleak” picture. Greenhouse gas emissions are rising. There is “no sign” they will peak in the next few years. By 2030 emissions will need to be 25 per cent and 55 per cent lower than in 2018 to limit warming to below 2C and 1.5C, the Paris requirements. The gulf between country pledges and what is needed remains “large” and growing, with countries needing to increase their pledges “threefold” to achieve the temperature goals.

The UN analysis says: “Essentially there has been no real change in the global emissions pathway in the last decade. The effects of climate policies have been too small to offset the impact of key drivers of emissions such as economic growth and population growth.” Understand what this means: the already “baked in” absence of progress means the steeper scale of adjustment needed in coming years will be so great it “risks seriously damaging the global economy” — decoded that warns about a global recession.

Paris is not a legally binding agreement; it has no compliance mechanism and no penalties for noncompliance. How does such a system work? By political pressure, public, media, peer group pressure and moral suasion. Invoke the Pope or Prince Charles or Greta Thunberg or the better angels of our nature. Pivotal to the political pressure is the fear of extinction or Armageddon. Guterres has bet his UN leadership on climate change action. Operating as a global politician, he told the General Assembly that unless big emitters act “we are doomed”. Big emitters will determine the fate of the Paris Agreement and our trajectory points to failure.

In this situation, the Australian bushfires become a test case, at home and globally. Guterres slotted the fires into “an existential climate crisis” where “our planet is burning” while governments “fiddle” as the globe “is edging closer to the point of no return”.

The raging bushfires, deaths, property destruction and terrifying pictures naturally prompted demands for action. Climate change constitutes a moral challenge for Australia and all nations to take stronger action. But media demands that Australia must now become a world leader on climate action or that more ambition on Australia’s part is a solution in its own right to our bushfire challenge are unrealistic, irrational and misleading.

The contradiction at the heart of the Paris deal now reverberates through the politics of the democracies. National pledges under Paris are utterly insufficient, as judged by the science. Every analysis shows this. In country after country the climate change champions demand greater action but national governments — essentially the big emitters — refuse to act with the urgency the scientists and the UN demand with doomsday scenarios.

The political battle is waged at the national and global level in constant interaction with each other. Guterres, like the activists, says the people are demanding “much stronger ambition”. Are they? Maybe, but global results don’t show it. At home Anthony Albanese backs coal exports and says Labor’s 45 per cent emissions target was a mistake.

For progressives, the bushfires are decisive. They show the climate is changing; that the threat is here, not just in the future. With quasi-religious belief they depict the fires as a “game changer” — the event that shifts public opinion towards greater action. These are declarations of faith. Do they pronounce too much? In reality, it will take many months to determine whether the fires are a game changer. The politics of climate change in Australia has fluctuated wildly over 15 years and fluctuations are likely to recur.

The human brain isn’t good at responding to a predicted catastrophe some time in the future. The domestic test is whether the bushfires have repudiated the May 2019 election settlement and made Scott Morrison’s modest 26 per cent emission reduction stance untenable with the public. The international test is whether Australia, having experienced fires of such notoriety, remains unmoved in its Paris Agreement pledges or concedes the growing threat by declaring more ambitious targets.

There is one certainty. Morrison will take his time on this judgment. He does not subscribe — at least so far — to the “game changer” conclusion of the commentators who demand he change his policy. His caution is understandable. What would be the political consequences for Morrison if, acting on the fires, he now announced a more ambitious emission reduction target?

First, he would never satisfy his opponents, who would pocket the concession, demand more and renew their attacks on his government. Second, he would inflame and alienate many of his own supporters, who would attack him for cracking under pressure, surrendering to his opponents, betraying his election mandate and dividing, perhaps fatally, his own side of politics.

In short, it would be meagre gain for truckloads of pain — that’s the political equation. At this stage it doesn’t make sense. Morrison’s aim is to hold his government and his voting base together. That may mean policy change at some point. But that will come only down the track after intense internal management and will surely involve targets beyond 2030.

In the interim, Morrison will make clear he accepts the reality of climate change, that he wants Australia to exceed the 26 per cent 2030 emission reduction target, that he prefers this be achieved without carry-over of credits and that he wants a new national framework for combating fires with greater emphasis on adaptation and resilience building.

Every sign is that Morrison will stick by his stance saying he wants power prices cut and won’t take further action on climate change if it hurts the economy and means higher power prices. But that is exactly what it means. The UN is talking about “transforming” policy change. That’s what the science requires. Wealthy Liberal electorates might accept this in principle but there is scant evidence most of the country will.

There is no escape from the fact that on climate Australia is a 1.3 per cent nation. This is our contribution to global emissions. It is wrong to say we don’t matter and don’t have obligations. But it is equally wrong to pretend that action by Australia makes any meaningful difference to global greenhouse gas emissions. Yet nothing seems to agitate climate activists as much as this truth.

It doesn’t negate the case for Australia doing more — in moral, diplomatic and self-interested terms. It is vital to avoid any trade or financial retaliation that singles us out from other rich commodity-based exporters (think Canada and New Zealand) by trying to claim we were doing less and should be penalised.

The climate change lobby demands, after the bushfires, a transformational policy change. That won’t happen because neither the policy nor political argument for such transformation exists. That may change. For the present, climate change policy will reflect a series of Morrison-judged compromises amid shifting reassessments involving the economy, energy, emissions reduction and prices, the bushfire legacy and how public opinion evolves, particularly within the Coalition vote.

SOURCE

Greyhound cuts ties with Adani coal mine after backlash from climate Nazis

The bus company Greyhound Australia has ruled out any extension of work on the controversial Adani coal project after a backlash from climate change campaigners.

On Sunday the SchoolStrike4Climate group launched a campaign to boycott travel with the company until it publicly ruled out working on the mine.

Guardian Australia revealed last week that Greyhound had written to staff warning they could be caught “in the crossfire” of anti-Adani campaigners after the company took a three-month contract at the coal project, with an option to extend.

The Indian-owned Adani mine and railway project is the first to begin work to extract the vast coal reserves of Queensland’s Galilee basin.

Greyhound is providing transport to workers for the construction company BMD, which is building the railway to take the coal to Adani’s Abbot Point port.

In a statement, Greyhound Australia said it had “received numerous messages, emails and phone calls from people expressing their thoughts both for and against the Carmichael Rail Network and Adani Carmichael project”.

It said: “Following considered deliberation, and in the best interests of our staff, customers, and partners, Greyhound Australia has decided to not enter into a contractual agreement with BMD to service construction of the Carmichael Rail Network beyond our preliminary 31 March 2020 commitment.”

The company declined to comment further.

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

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

29 January, 2020

Al Shabaab terror group bans single-use plastic bags

There's an old saying that you can know a man by the company he keeps

The Somali militant Islamist group, which has links to al Qaeda, has long had an interest in environmental issues. It made the official announcement on Radio Andalus, which is operated by al Shabaab.

Jubaland regional leader Mohammad Abu Abdullah said the group had come to the decision due to the "serious" threat posed by plastic bags to both humans and livestock. He added that pollution caused by plastic was damaging to the environment.

In the same announcement, the group said it has banned the logging of rare trees.

Details of how the eco-friendly bans would be enforced were not shared with listeners.

Last year, Taliban leader Hibatullah Akhundzada claimed Afghans should plant more trees because of their "important role in environmental protection, economic development and beautification of the Earth".

In 2016, a magazine published by the Yemeni branch of al Shabaab criticised former US president Barack Obama for failing to adequately combat climate change during his presidency.

The group, whose troops were estimated at 7,000 to 9,000 militants in 2014, retreated from major cities in 2015 but still controls large parts of rural areas.

Al Shabaab was responsible for a deadly terror attack at the Westgate shopping mall [Kenya] which killed 67 people in 2013.

Last October, twin bombings by the terror group in Mogadishu killed more than 500 people.

SOURCE

David Attenborough Accused Of Misleading Public About Polar Bears, Again

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has today filed a complaint to the BBC, accusing Sir David Attenborough of misleading the public about the state of polar bear populations in Canada.

In last night’s wildlife TV series Seven Worlds, One Planet David Attenborough and the BBC once again misled the public in a most egregious way.

In the programme, Sir David made false claims, used emotionally manipulative language and blatantly misrepresented several natural biological processes and habitat conditions as the effects of human-caused climate change.

Contrary to David Attenborough’s claim, summers are not a time of starvation for polar bears. The bears shown hunting beluga whales from the shore of Hudson Bay were neither starving nor desperate: they were already fat and healthy after feeding on young seal in spring.

Contrary to Attenborough’s claim, the behaviour shown of polar bears hunting belugas from shore in summer is not extraordinary, is not confined to this area of the Canadian Arctic and has not ‘only been reported in recent years.’ In fact, similar hunting strategies by polar bears have been reported at least since the 1980s.

Rather than a new behaviour born of climate-change induced desperation, this is a relatively rare but not unheard-of hunting strategy by healthy polar bears.

The GWPF has previously pointed out serious misrepresentations about walruses and climate change in Attenborough’s Our Planet series on Netflix.

SOURCE

The U.S. government will give your state money to fight climate change. But you have to call it something else

Or so says The New York Times

The Trump administration is about to distribute billions of dollars to coastal states mainly in the South to help steel them against natural disasters worsened by climate change.

But states that qualify must first explain why they need the money. That has triggered linguistic acrobatics as some conservative states submit lengthy, detailed proposals on how they will use the money, while mostly not mentioning climate change.

A 306-page draft proposal from Texas doesn’t use the terms “climate change” or “global warming,” nor does South Carolina’s proposal. Instead, Texas refers to “changing coastal conditions” and South Carolina talks about the “destabilizing effects and unpredictability” of being hit by three major storms in four years, while being barely missed by three other hurricanes.

Louisiana, a state that is taking some of the most aggressive steps in the nation to prepare for climate change, does include the phrase “climate change” in its proposal in just one place, an appendix on the final page.

The federal funding program, devised after the devastating hurricanes and wildfires of 2017, reflects the complicated politics of global warming in the United States, even as the toll of that warming has become difficult to ignore. While officials from both political parties are increasingly forced to confront the effects of climate change, including worsening floods, more powerful storms and greater economic damage, many remain reluctant to talk about the cause.

The $16 billion program, created by Congress and overseen by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, is meant to help states better prepare for future natural disasters. It is the first time such funds have been used to prepare for disasters like these that haven’t yet happened, rather than responding to or repairing damage that has already occurred.

The money is distributed according to a formula benefiting states most affected by disasters in 2015, 2016 and 2017. That formula favors Republican-leaning states along the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts, which were hit particularly hard during that period.

Texas is in line for more than $4 billion, the most of any state. The next largest sums go to Louisiana ($1.2 billion), Florida ($633 million), North Carolina ($168 million) and South Carolina ($158 million), all of which voted Republican in the 2016 presidential election.

The other states getting funding are West Virginia, Missouri, Georgia and California, the only state getting money that voted Democratic in the 2016 presidential race.

California hasn’t yet submitted its proposal, but in the past the state has spoken forcefully about the threat of climate change, in addition to fighting with the Trump administration to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars.

Half of the money, $8.3 billion, was set aside for Puerto Rico, as well as $774 million for the United States Virgin Islands. The Trump administration has delayed that funding, citing concerns over corruption and fiscal management.

Not every state has felt compelled to tiptoe around climate change. Florida’s proposal calls it “a key overarching challenge,” while North Carolina pledges to anticipate “how a changing climate, extreme events, ecological degradation and their cascading effects” will affect state residents.

The housing department has itself been careful about how it described the program’s goals. When HUD in August released the rules governing the money, it didn’t use the terms “climate change” and “global warming” but referred to “changing environmental conditions.” Still, the rule required states that received money to describe their “current and future risks.” And when those risks included flooding — the most costly type of disaster nationwide — states were instructed to account for “continued sea level rise,” which is one consequence of global warming.

A spokeswoman for the housing department did not respond to requests for comment.

Stan Gimont, who as deputy assistant secretary for grant programs at HUD was responsible for the program until he left the department last summer, said the decision not to cite climate change was “a case of picking your battles.” “When you go out and talk to local officials, there are some who will very actively discuss climate change and sea-level rise, and then there are those who will not,” Mr. Gimont said. “You’ve got to work with both ends of the spectrum.

And I think in a lot of ways it’s best to draw a middle road on these things.” Texas released a draft version of its plan in November. That draft said the state faced “changing coastal conditions,” as well as a future in which both wildfires and extreme heat were expected to increase.

In response, the state proposes better flood control, buying and demolishing homes in highrisk areas and giving counties money for their own projects.

But state officials in Texas, where Republicans control the governor’s mansion and both chambers of the Legislature, were silent on what is causing the changes. The report does not cite climate change or global warming, though “climate change” pops up in footnotes citing articles and papers with that phrase in their titles.

Brittany Eck, a spokeswoman for the Texas General Land Office, which produced the proposal, did not respond to questions about the choice of language or the role of climate change in making disasters worse. In an email, she said Texas would distribute the funding based on “accepted scientific research, evidence and historical data to determine projects that provide the greatest value to benefit ratio to protect affected communities from future events.” Some local politicians in hardhit areas of Texas are outspoken.

Lina Hidalgo, a Democrat and the top elected official in Harris County, which includes Houston and which suffered some of the worst effects of Hurricane Harvey in 2017, said that addressing the effects of climate change was a top issue for her constituents.

“Harris County is Exhibit A for how the climate crisis is impacting the daily lives of residents in Texas,” Ms. Hidalgo said in a statement.

“If we’re serious about breaking the cycle of flooding and recovery we have to shift the paradigm on how we do things, and that means putting science above politics.”

Citing ‘changing coastal conditions’ in a funding request.

In South Carolina, which like Texas is controlled by Republicans in both legislative chambers and the governor’s office, the state’s proposal likewise makes no mention of climate change. It cites sealevel rise once, and only to say that it won’t be addressed.

The state’s flood-reduction efforts “will only address riverine and surface flooding, not storm surge or sea-level rise issues,” according to its proposal.

That is despite the fact that sea levels and storm surges are increasing across the coastal southeastern United States because of climate change, federal scientists wrote in a sweeping 2018 report.

The authors noted that Charleston, S.C., broke its record for flooding in 2016, at 50 days, and that “this increase in high-tide flooding is directly tied to sea-level rise.” Megan Moore, a spokeswoman for South Carolina’s Department of Administration, said by email that the proposal “is designed to increase resilience to and reduce or eliminate long-term risk of loss of life or property based on the repetitive losses sustained in this state.” She did not respond to questions about why the proposal did not address climate change.

One of the states acknowledged that weather conditions were changing and seas were rising, but still mostly avoided the term climate change. Louisiana, whose location at the mouth of the Mississippi River makes it one of the states most threatened by climate change, intends to use the $1.2 billion it will receive to better map and prepare for future flooding — a major peril for countless low-lying areas, said Pat Forbes, executive director of the state’s Office of Community Development, which is managing the money.

“We realize we’ve got to get better, because it’s going to get worse,” Mr. Forbes said.

The state, where both the House and Senate are controlled by Republicans but the governor is a Democrat, submitted a proposal that makes references to climate change, noting that the risks of flooding “will continue to escalate in a warming world.” Still, the 91-page report uses the phrase “climate change” only once, at the end of an appendix on its final page.

Mr. Forbes called climate change “not that important a thing for an action plan,” and said that mostly leaving the phrase out of the document was not intentional.

He said the purpose of the proposal was to demonstrate to the federal government that Louisiana knows what it wants to do with the money.

“Our governor has acknowledged on multiple occasions that we expect the flooding to be more frequent and worse in the future, not better,” Mr. Forbes said. “So we’ve got to have an adaptive process here that constantly makes us safer.” Other states used their proposals to emphasize the centrality of climate change to the risks they face. “Climate change is a key overarching challenge which threatens to compound the extent and effects of hazards,” wrote officials in Florida, where Republicans control both legislative chambers and the governor’s office.

In North Carolina, which has a Democratic governor and a Republican-controlled Legislature, the proposal argued that the state was trying to anticipate “how a changing climate, extreme events, ecological degradation and their cascading effects will impact the needs of North Carolina’s vulnerable populations.” Shana Udvardy, a climate resilience analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the failure to confront global warming made it more important for governments to at least call the problem by its name.

“We really need every single state, local and federal official to speak clearly,” Ms. Udvardy said.

“The polls indicate that the majority of Americans understand that climate change is happening here and now.” Others were more sympathetic.

Marion McFadden, who preceded Mr. Gimont as head of disaster-recovery grants at HUD during the Obama administration, said the department was responding to the political realities in conservative states. She described the $16 billion grant program as “all about climate change,” but said some states would sooner refuse the money than admit that global warming is real.

“HUD is requiring them to be explicit about everything other than the concept that climate change is responsible,” said Ms. McFadden, who is now senior vice president for public policy at Enterprise Community Partners, which worked with states to meet the program’s requirements. Insistence on saying the words raises the risk “that they may walk away.”

SOURCE

Critics Face Harsh Climate When It Comes To Expressing Dissent – Especially When It Comes To Science

The climate issue now dominates almost all areas of life. This makes it all the more important that the arguments of the critics of the climate alarm are finally heard seriously. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

On the contrary, those who do not support the alarmist line will be publicly scolded, possibly obstructing their career and future. An almost perfectly controlled opinion system has been established.

Has something like this existed before? Have there been cases where good arguments were ignored for far too long, where critics had to fear reprisals, to the point where they were finally proved right and public opinion suddenly turned? Yes, there have been such cases. It seems to be a basic psychological pattern in human society to regard one side as the only valid truth in controversial debates and to present competing opinions as the misguided misconceptions of some madmen. The following three examples illustrate this:

1. The case of Claas Relotius

I’m sure you know the case. A Spiegel editor (Claas Relotius), who was highly respected at the time and showered with prizes, had incorporated years of invented facts into his reports. When another reporter (Juan Moreno) found out about his colleague, his superiors did not believe him at first, although he provided good evidence. This went so far that he was threatened with termination of his contract.

Moreno fought for his professional survival and was able to convict Relotius in the end. You can read in Moreno’s exciting book “Thousand Lines of Lies: The Relotius System and German Journalism“.

2. Doping in cycling

For many years, professional doping was used in cycling, and it is probably still the case today. Whoever wanted to make the manipulations public was done in the cycling scene. The best example was the multiple Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong, who defended himself against all accusations legally and otherwise with great effort. In the end, everything was discovered.

In January 2013 Armstrong confessed his doping past in an interview with Oprah Winfrey. Read the book “The Cycling Mafia and its dirty business” by Tyler Hamilton and Daniel Coyle.

3. The rejection of continental drift

Today we know that the continents are moving. When Alfred Wegener proposed this at the beginning of the 20th century, he was laughed at and ridiculed. Long after his death it turned out that he was right. We had reported about it here in the blog (“Plate tectonics is catching on: Lessons for the Climate Debate” and “Continental Shift and Climate Change: The Miraculous Repetition of the History of Science“). A comprehensive treatise on the subject was published by Naomi Oreskes in her book “The Rejection of Continental Drift: Theory and Method in American Earth Science“.

4. Alzheimer’s cabal

Another example of rampant dogmatism in science to add here is: “The maddening saga of how an Alzheimer’s ‘cabal’ thwarted progress toward a cure for decades” by Sharon Begley.

Her report exposes how a “cabal” of “influential researchers have long believed so dogmatically in one theory of Alzheimer’s that they systematically thwarted alternative approaches.” Had it not been for this dogmatism, “we would be 10 or 15 years ahead of where we are now,” said Dr. Daniel Alkon, a longtime NIH neuroscientist who started a company to develop an Alzheimer’s treatment.

SOURCE

A truth about climate change that Warmists continue to dodge

Higher levels of CO2 are beneficial

Andrew Bolt on Australia's wild fires:

ACTIVISTS are exploiting these terrible bushfires to whip up an astonishing fear of man-made global warming and hatred of sceptics like me.

But know what makes me sure, even after this fiery devastation, that the global warming menace is exaggerated? It's warmist scientist Andy Pitman, who has once again confirmed exactly what I've been saying. How horrified he'll be to hear it

You may remember Professor Pitman, the director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes. He last year was recorded admitting to fellow warmists that droughts — like this severe one that's fed the fires — are NOT caused by global warming. "As far as the climate scientists know there is no link between climate change and drought," he said. "There is no reason a priori why climate change should make the landscape more arid."

Indeed, despite the drought, Australia's rainfall over the century as increased, not fallen.

Pitman and the ABC were naturaily mortified when I and others started to quote him. Pitman is now furious that former rime Minister Tony Abbott last week quoted his admission, too, in he Australian.

But in his anger, Pitman let slip a fact that sceptics like me have tried for years to point out. Pitman complained that "Abbott quotes me on drought ... when in fact for 15 years I have been warning that the risk of fires is increasing as a consequence of climate change".

That's because, he said, the extra carbon dioxide we emit is actually plant food that causes "greening", meaning we get more leaves and even trees to burn in a drought. But Pitman has been too honest. Most warmists have dodged this truth, because it undermines their fear campaign.

You see, it's actually sceptics like me who have for years argued that global warming is greening the planet, and that this is, overall, a good thing. As renowned physicist Freeman Dyson says: "The whole Earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide, so it's increasing agricultural yields, it's increasing the forests and it's increasing growth in the biological world."

NASA has found that an area about twice the size of the continental United States got greener between 1982 and 2009. This helps to explain why world grain crops keep setting new records.

But wait! A greener planet Bigger crops. Fewer cyclones, too. Is this really something we want to stop? This goes to the key question that sceptics like me keep asking. We don't deny the planet has warmed. We instead question whether the warming we're seeing — less than predicted — is all bad. We particularly question whether it's smart to spend billions or even trillions to cut emissions in a largely symbolic attempt to "stop" all this.

Of course, some warmists will say: look at these deadly fires! Don't they prove global warming is deadly? In fact, tragic as they've been, they are far from our worst, measured either by deaths or area burned.

What's more, our bush this summer was dried out by a drought that was caused primarily not by global warming but by a natural and regular change in ocean patterns called the Indian Ocean Dipole. When that dipole pushes warmer water in the Indian Ocean east to Australia, we get rain; when it replaces that with cooler water, we get drought

Last December the Bureau of Meteorology warned the dipole had pushed so much cool water our way that we get no real rain until April. We'd get no rain to stop the fires. Well, the bureau was wrong. The dipole suddenly decayed a couple of weeks ago, and we've since had lots of rain over eastern Australia, with more to come this week.

So, thanks to Pitman, the sceptics' case is even clearer. Do we really want to spend a fortune to slash our emissions in a largely futile attempt to "stop" a warming that isn't anything as dangerous as we're told? Or would it be far cheaper and infinitely more effective to finally do all the fuel reduction burns needed to keep down the fuel loads in our forests?

After all, even Pitman is blaming extra fuel loads for the intensity of the flames. Yet Victoria, for one, has over the past five years burned only half the area recommended by the royal commission into the shocking 2009 fires that killed 172 people -- four times more than died in this summer's fires. But that's one more topic warmists hate. Reason is their enemy, and only fear is their friend.

From the Brisbane "Courier Mail" of 27 January, 2020

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

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

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

28 January, 2020

Greta Thunberg: A Living Explanation Of The Left

It is not easy to understand what the Left — as opposed to liberals — stands for. If you ask a Christian what to read to learn the basics of Christianity, you will be told the Bible. If you ask a (religious) Jew, you will be told the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud. If you ask a Mormon, you will be told the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Ask a Muslim, and you will be told the Quran.

But if you ask a leftist what one or two books you should read to understand leftism, every leftist will give you a different answer — or need some time to think it over. Few, if any, will suggest Marx’s “Das Kapital” because almost no leftists have read it and because you will either not finish the book or reject it as incoherent.

So, then, how is one to understand what leftism stands for?

The truth is it is almost impossible. What leftist in history would have ever imagined that to be a leftist, one would have to believe that men give birth or men have periods, or that it is fair to women to have to compete in sports with biological males who identify as females?

There are two primary reasons it is so difficult, if not impossible, to define leftism. One is that it ultimately stands for chaos:

— Open borders.

— “Nonbinary” genders.

— Nonsensical and scatological “art.”

— “Music” without tonality, melody or harmony.

— Drag Queen Story Hour for 5-year-olds.

— Rejection of the concept of better or worse civilizations.

— Rejection of the concept of better or worse art.

— Removal of Shakespeare’s picture from a university English department because he was a white male.

— The end of all use of fossil fuels — even in transportation (as per the recent recommendation by the head of the U.N. World Meteorological Organization).

— The dismantling of capitalism, the economic engine that has lifted billions of people out of abject poverty.

And much more.

The other major reason it is impossible to define leftism is that it is emotion-based. Leftism consists of causes that give those who otherwise lack meaning something to cling to for meaning.

Two things about Greta Thunberg, Time Magazine’s 2019 person of the year, embody these explanations.

With regard to chaos, here is what Greta Thunberg wrote at the beginning of the month: “The climate crisis is not just about the environment. It is a crisis of human rights, of justice and of political will. Colonial, racist and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fuelled it. We need to dismantle them all.”

Greta Thunberg, like all leftists, seeks to dismantle just about everything. As former President Barack Obama said five days before the 2008 election, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

As regards emotion and meaning, the Guardian reports, this is what Thunberg’s father just told the BBC: “Greta Thunberg’s father has opened up about how activism helped his daughter out of depression … how activism had changed the outlook of the teenager, who suffered from depression for ‘three or four years’ before she began her school strike protest outside the Swedish parliament. She was now ‘very happy’, he said … ‘She stopped talking … she stopped going to school,’ he said of her illness.”

The post-Judeo-Christian world the Left has created has left a vast number of the West’s citizens, especially more and more young people, with no meaning. This Grand-Canyon-sized hole is filled by leftist causes.

The fact is life is better, safer and more affluent, and offers more opportunities for more people, than ever before in history. Just about all emotionally stable, mature people should be walking around the West almost delirious at their good fortune. Americans in particular should feel this way. But leftists (again, as opposed to many liberals) are not usually emotionally stable and are certainly not mature. That is why depression among young Americans (and perhaps Swedes) is at the highest levels ever recorded. So, like Greta, they look to left-wing causes to find meaning and emotional fulfillment. Until she embraced climate crisis activism — a chance, as she sees it, to literally save the world — Greta Thunberg was so depressed “she stopped talking.” But thanks to climate activism and other left-wing activism, she is now “very happy” (an assessment I suspect many observers find hard to believe).

Feminism and “fighting patriarchy” (in an age when American women have more opportunities than ever before and more opportunities than women almost anywhere else in the world), fighting racism (in the least racist multiracial society in history), fighting white supremacy (which has almost disappeared from American life) and fighting on behalf of myriad other leftist causes — in other words, fundamentally transforming society — gives meaning to people with no meaning.

None of that is morally or rationally coherent. But it is very emotionally satisfying. Just ask Greta Thunberg’s dad.

SOURCE

Denim’s toll on the planet has long been fashion’s guilty secret. Not anymore: How BLUE jeans went green

Whiskering. I always had my doubts about this term used to describe a denim distressing technique. For a start, it sounded more like a pet’s pampering treatment.

Secondly, I always found the results themselves pretty distressing on the style front. Those pale streaks, meant to recreate vintage wear and tear, always looked far too white. I spent vast sums on distressed boot-cuts in an effort to find the perfect, elegantly aged pair. But no matter which brand I tried, I would realise too late that I looked like a Britney Spears backing dancer from the Bad Bleached Denim years.

I would always find that the wretched whiskers seemed to splay almost purposefully across the parts to which I least wanted to draw attention.

But never mind my style credentials, what I didn’t know back then was the harm they were doing to the environment.

Now the scary truth is out: traditional denim production is one of the worst polluters in fashion.

Creating that aged look in denim involves repeated washing, water wastage, and toxic dyes. Conventional (as opposed to organic) cotton is a water-intensive crop, requiring roughly 50 litres to grow enough for a single pair of jeans, as well as the heavy use of pesticides.

The good news, however, is that denim brands — from Levi’s to supermarket fashion ranges such as F&F at Tesco — are finally getting with the green programme.

The industry is seeking out new, non-toxic dyes, cutting water waste, investing in technology to recycle the water used and — crucially — trying to switch to organic cotton.

Passionate eco-pioneer Stella McCartney is launching the world’s first fully biodegradable stretch jeans. Lee is also a step ahead with its biodegradable jacket, above, with removable buttons as they’re the only part that will not decompose.

Now, I’m off to try on a pair of mid-blue Frame flares. Not a whisker in sight . . .

SOURCE

As ‘flight shame’ movement grows, more airlines and travelers seek to offset carbon footprint

You don’t need to speak Swedish to understand the idea behind “flygskam.” Its English translation is flight shame, and a growing number of travelers are feeling that shame and rethinking their mode of vacation transportation. The belief is that reducing air travel will help fight global warming.

Spurred on by teenage activist Greta Thunberg, flight shame is an environmental movement that highlights the aviation industry’s growing carbon footprint, putting pressure on carriers to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The “Greta effect” has stirred up a new sense of urgency over airlines and climate change. Thunberg brought attention to the issue when she took a racing yacht to a climate summit in New York to avoid flying.

One immediate sign of the Greta effect is fewer passengers at Swedish airports, where the movement was born in 2017. Earlier this month, Swedavia, which owns 10 airports in Sweden, announced that it had seen a 4 percent drop in the number of passengers last year. In 2019, there were around 40 million passengers flying to and from all Swedavia airports, down from 42 million in 2018. The biggest drop was seen in the Stockholm airport, with numbers down 8 percent.

The flight shame movement isn’t confined to Sweden. A survey of more than 6,000 people in the United States, Germany, France, and the UK by the Swiss Bank UBS found that 21 percent had reduced the number of flights they took over the past year out of concern for the environment.

“With the pace of the climate change debate, we think it is fair to assume that these trends are likely to continue in developed markets,” the UBS analysts said in the report.

In England, more than 100,000 people have pledged to be flight free in 2020.

The CEO of SAS, one of Scandinavia’s largest carriers, has attributed his airline’s declining passenger numbers to flight shame (along with a weak krona). In Germany, where passenger counts are also in decline, one political party said improving the rail system could help make domestic flights obsolete. It’s reached the point where the CEO of Dutch carrier KLM wrote an open letter asking passengers not to fly unless necessary.

“Over the past 10 years, it’s gone from a trend to a lifestyle,” said Adriana Lynch, chief marketing officer at Office Outsiders. Lynch works with brands in the hospitality industry. “Consumers are no longer saying that it’s cute to be socially responsible. They’re looking for alternatives. In 2020 it’s an actual movement.”

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle were confronted with an overwhelming amount of flight shame and finger wagging after taking four private jet trips in 11 days. Soon after, the prince announced that he was launching an initiative called Travalyst, an effort to bring greater awareness to sustainability and travel. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are now flying commercial carriers.

The erstwhile prince isn’t the only one trying to make travel more sustainable. Last week JetBlue announced that it will go carbon neutral this year, offsetting its estimated 15 billion to 17 billion pounds of CO2 — equivalent to more than 1.5 million automobiles — by funding programs such as reforestation, supporting wind and solar projects, and exploring the use of biofuels. It comes on the heels of similar programs from EasyJet and British Airways.

"Though none of the larger US airlines have yet matched JetBlue, I won’t be surprised if at least one decides to do so,” said Henry Harteveldt, a travel industry analyst.

Air travel accounts for about 2.5 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, a much smaller percentage than automobiles, but according to projections from researchers at Manchester Metropolitan University in England, emissions from the sector could more than double by 2050, even if planes become substantially more fuel-efficient.

While airlines grapple with solutions, travelers now have ways to check on how they may or may not be contributing to the problem. One of the shame-iest websites is called Shame Plane. It offers an estimate of how much Arctic ice will melt based on your trip. (Bon voyage!) There are also slightly less shame-based carbon emissions calculators, such as the Carbon Foot Print Calculator. The International Civil Aviation Organization also has a helpful calculator.

If you’d like to shrink your footprint and diminish your flight shame, you can donate to organizations that work specifically to fund earth-friendly, carbon-offsetting programs. Cool Effect funds reforestation projects and nature preserves. Green-e specializes in renewable energy projects, and Gold Standard focuses on reforestation and renewable energy. There are hundreds of choices of projects you can fund through organizations.

Many major airlines work with similar organizations and give travelers the opportunity to offset carbon emissions by making donations based on the length of their flight. Those airlines include: Alaska Airlines, Delta, JetBlue, United, Air Canada, Air New Zealand, Austrian, Brussels Airlines, Cathay Pacific, China Airlines, EVA, Japan Airlines, Lufthansa, and Qantas.

This week, the travel app TripIt announced it was adding a feature that not only shows a flight’s carbon emissions, but provides practical ideas on how to offset them. Also this week, the airline and hotel booking app Hopper announced it will donate four trees for every flight booked and two trees for every hotel booked through its app in partnership with Eden Reforestation Projects.

The International Council on Clean Travel regularly ranks the most fuel-efficient airlines. Choosing a fuel-efficient airline is another way to help reduce emissions. In the United States, the most fuel-efficient airline in 2017 and 2018 was Frontier, followed by Spirit and Southwest. The least efficient was JetBlue, because it operates its planes with a lower load factor and fewer seats per plane. Fewer seats means fewer passengers. It’s akin to driving with fewer passengers in a car. The ICCT reported Frontier ranked high because it has a newer fleet and more direct flights than competitors. Internationally, Norwegian Air was the most fuel-efficient airline. British Airways was ranked worst.

One key difference between the flight shame movement in Europe versus the United States is that European travelers have many more rail options, both domestically and continentally. If a vacationer wants to travel from Switzerland to Germany or Italy to France, there are ways to do so that don’t require additional hours, or days. In the United States, large swaths of the country are not connected by rail, or if they are, routes are limited or simply impractical.

“In the US, if you’re going to tell someone not to fly on environmental grounds, you’re often telling them not to travel,” said Seth Kaplan, an author and airline analyst. “Oftentimes there isn’t a greener option, or an option that anyone is going to put up with in terms of travel time. But generally no greener option at all.”

The lack of options is frustrating to Eva Martinez of Quincy. She said she wants to do the right thing and reduce the number of flights she takes each year, but not at the expense of missing time with her family in New Mexico. She said she has friends in the same boat, or, in this case, plane. Giving up flying means less time with family, or fewer vacations outside the United States.

So while travelers are more focused on the environment, Harteveldt said he doesn’t see flight shame taking hold in the United States, especially as airfares continue to drop and more routes open.

Even in continental Europe, where the growth of air travel slowed in 2019, it’s impossible to clearly ascribe the change to flight shame. David Tarsh, managing director of Tarsh Consulting, which represents a number of companies within the travel industry, said reasons could run the gamut, from riots in Chile, to strife in Hong Kong, or terrorism in Sri Lanka.

“Even if [travelers] tell you the reason for not flying was flight shaming, it is possible that other factors were dominant,” Tarsh said. "For example: higher air fares, slightly inconvenient dates, or corporate cost cutting. One needs to investigate very carefully before being able to assert definitively that flight shaming is having a significant impact.”

There is one easy way to eliminate flight shame, and that’s to stay grounded, but keep in mind that long car trips, particularly solo trips in heavy traffic, will not help the environment. But if staying on land is not an option, an easy way to reduce your footprint is by flying economy instead of business or first class. According to a study from the World Bank, the emissions associated with flying in business class are about three times as great as flying in coach, because more passengers per plane means fewer flights.

At last, cramped economy passengers have something to be happy about: smaller carbon footprints.

SOURCE

Facts blurred in climate coverage

Sobriety and perspective were once two of the valued qualities of serious media who considered themselves above the exaggeration and inflammation — commonly referred to as beat-ups — that they view as the domain of the tabloid or shock media.

Climate change has flipped that around. Nowadays media that would assign themselves the “quality” label while rejecting the accurate “green-left” tag are all about hysteria and twisting facts. Let me start with CNN, whose reporter Will Ripley spent a week or so in Australia reporting mainly on bushfires and weather, including a climate protest.

“They (the protesters) say the planet is dying,” Ripley reported. “And Australia is right on the frontline of this climate crisis: you have the unprecedented bushfires, you have the Great Barrier Reef drying up because of the ozone levels in the atmosphere.”

Oh, dear. Fact-checking goes missing when pushing the alarmist perspective. Only sceptical views tend to be treated with any, well, scepticism, by most media.

The word “unprecedented” has been invoked time and again in order to pretend terrifying events, the likes of which have scarred this nation forever, were something brought newly upon us by climate change.

Early in the season NSW had more emergency level fires on one day than ever before (due to arson, natural events and weather conditions), and on two other days the Sydney area recorded its worst fire conditions, and it has been the worst bushfire season in that state. But it is wrong to claim this is the worst season by any measure for any other state or the nation as a whole.

We could fill pages with such hype. Given the essential facts have been so drastic it seems implausible that anyone would want to embellish the story — but the sensationalism has been, well, perhaps unprecedented.

US ABC news headed a story “Wildfire Apocalypse” and chief meteorologist Ginger Zee said “unprecedented” fires were “consuming” Australia.

Maps on US and UK media had flames all over our continent; we were ablaze coast to coast.

At the BBC, TV host Ros Atkins bought into the sensationalism and Twitter-level political debate full-on: quoting people like Lara (Bingle) Worthington on social media, describing us as the “hottest place in the world” (as, of course, we often are in summer) and showing pictures of Scott Morrison holding a lump of coal.

Atkins along with most journalists in Australia adopted the word “megablaze” or “megafire” to describe the main Blue Mountains fire. This is of a piece with the climate change-induced language tweaks to make weather events sound different to all that preceded them. Storms are now “storm events” and heatwaves “extreme heat events” and so it goes. (The concocted word “megafire” even passed my lips as I read a breaking news update scripted elsewhere and presented live on air.)

But worse than the beat-ups has been the politicisation. Green-left politicians and climate protesters, led by former NSW fire commissioner and global warming activist Greg Mullins, were sowing the seeds before the fire season even began and have used every blaze and even every death to push their policies.

The basis of their concern is not seriously disputed in public debate: that global warming will make bad fire conditions more common in many parts of Australia. But the thrust of their arguments, amplified by compliant media, is based on untruths: claims this fire season is our worst, accusations our government is not acting on climate, inferences our policies can alter global climate and, perhaps worst of all, implicit and false promises that climate policies can ameliorate the annual threat of bushfires.

To avoid sensible arguments about historical context, policy options and global impacts, the green-left media deliberately creates a false dichotomy.

They characterise the argument in Australia as one between climate change reality and climate change denial.

This jaundiced falsification is social media click-bait. On the BBC Atkins used some of my commentary to this end, running a clip of me saying the activists and politicians were using bushfires to advocate policies that “can and will do nothing ever to prevent horror bushfire conditions” in Australia.

Instead of making an argument against this incontestable statement — perhaps by trying to explain how Australia’s policies can change a climate that has produced bushfires for millennia — Atkins falsely insinuated I didn’t accept the science and gave us the intellectually lazy climate science versus denial and inaction case.

He then falsely suggested Australia was not involved in global efforts to lower emissions. This is the inane “white hats versus black hats” level at which media conduct this complex debate.

In another segment Atkins asked London-based Sydney Morning Herald journalist Latika Bourke whether it was “fair to say the very existence of climate change is still an active debate in Australia?”

“Yes,” replied Bourke, “it’s been a very ferocious debate in Australia for about the last decade.” She claimed this debate has split the two major parties; one side accepting science and backing emissions reduction, and the other arguing “climate change, if it is happening at all, is not the fault of human activity”.

This is a mischaracterisation of our political debate where the choice at the last election was between a Coalition promising to meet our Paris climate agreement targets of 26-28 per cent by 2030 and a Labor opposition promising to increase that target to 45 per cent. Neither the science nor the need for multilateral action are in dispute between our major parties, but rather the targets and methods of achieving them.

Bourke then went on to say there was no resolution to the debate, “except what we’re seeing this summer and that is a catastrophic weather event.” Atkins aired another interview with Bourke in which she said: “Australia’s well used to bushfires but this extremity, this intensity, this degree, Australia has not seen before.” Plain wrong.

She went on to say, perhaps second-guessing her own hyperbole: “And these are the worst in living memory.” But, again, this is just wrong. It is only 11 years since the fierce firestorms of Black Saturday in Victoria where hotter temperatures and stronger winds saw 173 lives and thousands of properties lost and, of course, anyone involved in 1983’s Ash Wednesday will not have forgotten those hellish conditions or their toll. If we study the historical reports we know maelstroms descended in 1967, 1939, 1851 and many other times in between.

It is unpleasant to do these comparisons between horrible events. But it is sadly necessary to counter a loose conspiracy of misinformation designed to convince everyone that we have created something new, something more horrible than anyone else has experienced before.

It is of a piece with official edicts by news organisations such as The Guardian to inflame climate coverage by talking of “crisis” and “emergency” instead of climate change. It smacks of fake news generated to pursue green- left political goals. And it is as much of a worry as the climate.

SOURCE

Reducing Fire, and Cutting Carbon Emissions, the Aboriginal Way

The article from the NYT below gives a good sense of Aboriginal burning practices but does not give enough emphasis to the fact that Aboriginal burning practices -- very frequent small fires -- would not be tolerated for a moment in most of Australia. They would rightly be seen as dangerous.

The Aborigines described below can get away with it for two main reasons:

1). They live in Kakadu national park, which is only very lightly populated -- so they have few neighbours to bother them with criticisms

2). The NT has predicable monsoons, which enables safer detection of risky/non-risky times to burn. Rainfall in the rest of Australia is much less predictable, if it is predictable at all. So choosing safe times to burn is very approximate.

Adequate burns can only be done safely in most of Australia if plans for burning cover many areas -- so that a burn can start somewhere as soon as there is a good day for it. Burns have to exploit ALL good burning days

COOINDA, NT. — At a time when vast tracts of Australia are burning, Violet Lawson is never far from a match.

In the woodlands surrounding her home in the far north of the country, she lights hundreds of small fires a year — literally fighting fire with fire. These traditional Aboriginal practices, which reduce the undergrowth that can fuel bigger blazes, are attracting new attention as Australia endures disaster and confronts a fiery future.

Over the past decade, fire-prevention programs, mainly on Aboriginal lands in northern Australia, have cut destructive wildfires in half. While the efforts draw on ancient ways, they also have a thoroughly modern benefit: Organizations that practice defensive burning have earned $80 million under the country’s cap-and-trade system as they have reduced greenhouse-gas emissions from wildfires in the north by 40 percent.

These programs, which are generating important scientific data, are being held up as a model that could be adapted to save lives and homes in other regions of Australia, as well as fire-prone parts of the world as different as California and Botswana.

“Fire is our main tool,” Ms. Lawson said as she inspected a freshly burned patch where grasses had become ash but the trees around them were undamaged. “It’s part of protecting the land.”

The fire-prevention programs, which were first given government licenses in 2013, now cover an area three times the size of Portugal. Even as towns in the south burned in recent months and smoke haze blanketed Sydney and Melbourne, wildfires in northern Australia were much less severe.

“The Australian government is now starting to see the benefits of having Indigenous people look after their lands,” said Joe Morrison, one of the pioneers of the project. “Aboriginal people who have been through very difficult times are seeing their language, customs and traditional knowledge being reinvigorated and celebrated using Western science.”

In some ways, the Aboriginal methods resemble Western ones practiced around the world: One of the main goals is to reduce underbrush and other fuel that accelerates hot, damaging fires.

But the ancient approach tends to be more comprehensive. Indigenous people, using precisely timed, low-intensity fires, burn their properties the way a suburban homeowner might use a lawn mower.

Aboriginal practices have been so successful in part because of a greater cultural tolerance of fire and the smoke it generates. The country’s thinly populated north, where Aboriginal influence and traditions are much stronger than in the south, is not as hamstrung by political debates and residents’ concerns about the health effects of smoke.

The landscape and climate of northern Australia also make it more amenable to preventive burning. The wide open spaces, and the distinctive seasons — a hot dry season is followed by monsoon rains — make burning more predictable.

Yet despite these regional differences, those who have studied the Aboriginal techniques say they could be adapted in the more populated parts of the country.

“We most certainly should learn to burn Aboriginal-style,” said Bill Gammage, a professor at the Australian National University in Canberra. “Our firefighters have quite good skills in fighting fires. But for preventing them, they are well short of what Aboriginal people could do.”

Last week, Victor Cooper, a former forest ranger in northern Australia, lit a wad of shaggy bark to demonstrate the type of fire that burns at temperatures low enough to avoid damage to sensitive plants that are crucial food for animals.

The preventive fires, he said, should trickle, not rage. They must be timed according to air temperature, wind conditions and humidity, as well as the life cycles of plants. Northern Aboriginal traditions revolve around the monsoon, with land burned patch by patch as the wet season gives way to the dry.

“We don’t have a fear of fire,” said Mr. Cooper, who burns regularly around his stilt house nestled in woodlands. “We know the earlier we burn, the more protection we have.”

This year, he will become certified to join the carbon credits program. Money earned through that system has incentivized stewardship of the land and provided hundreds of jobs in Aboriginal communities, where unemployment rates are high. The funds have also financed the building of schools in underserved areas.

NASA satellite data is used to quantify the reduction in carbon emissions and do computer modeling to track fires. Modern technology also supplements the defensive burning itself: Helicopters drop thousands of incendiary devices the size of Ping-Pong balls over huge patches of territory at times of the year when the land is still damp and fires are unlikely to rage out of control.

Those taking part in the program say they are frustrated that other parts of the country have been reluctant to embrace the same types of preventive burning. The inaction is longstanding: A major federal inquiry after deadly fires more than a decade ago recommended wider adoption of Aboriginal methods.

“I have many friends in other parts of Australia who can’t get their heads around that fire is a useful tool, that not all fire is the same and that you can manage it,” said Andrew Edwards, a fire expert at Charles Darwin University in northern Australia. “It’s hard to get across to people that fire is not a bad thing.”

Nine years ago, Mr. Gammage published a book that changed the way many in Australia thought about the Australian countryside and how it has been managed since the arrival of Europeans in the late 18th century.

The book, “The Biggest Estate on Earth,” uses documents from the earliest settlers and explorers to show how the landscape had been systematically shaped by Aboriginal fire techniques.

Many forests were thinner than those that exist now and were more resistant to hot-burning fires. Early explorers described the landscape as a series of gardens, and they reported seeing near constant trails of smoke from small fires across the landscape.

As Europeans took control of the country, they banned burning. Jeremy Russell-Smith, a bushfire expert at Charles Darwin University, said this quashing of traditional fire techniques happened not only in Australia, but also in North and South America, Asia and Africa.

“The European mind-set was to be totally scared of fire,” Mr. Russell-Smith said.

As the fires rage in the south, Aboriginal people in northern Australia say they are deeply saddened at the loss of life — about 25 people have been killed and more than 2,000 homes destroyed. But they also express bewilderment that forests were allowed to grow to become so combustible.

Margaret Rawlinson, the daughter of Ms. Lawson, who does preventive burning on her property in the far north, remembers traveling a decade ago to the countryside south of Sydney and being alarmed at fields of long, desiccated grass.

“I was terrified,” Ms. Rawlinson said. “I couldn’t sleep. I said, ‘We need to go home. This place is going to go up, and it’s going to be a catastrophe.’”

The area that she visited, around the town of Nowra, has been a focal point for fires over the past few weeks.

The pioneering defensive burning programs in northern Australia came together in the 1980s and ’90s when Aboriginal groups moved back onto their native lands after having lived in settlements under the encouragement, or in some cases the order, of the government.

Depopulated for decades, the land had suffered. Huge fires were decimating species and damaging rock paintings.

“The land was out of control,” said Dean Yibarbuk, a park ranger whose Indigenous elders encouraged him to seek solutions.

The Aboriginal groups ultimately teamed up with scientists, the government of the Northern Territory and the Houston-based oil company ConocoPhillips, which was building a natural gas facility and was required to find a project that would offset its carbon emissions.

According to calculations by Mr. Edwards, wildfires in northern Australia burned 57 percent fewer acres last year than they did on average in the years from 2000 to 2010, the decade before the program started.

Mr. Yibarbuk, who is now chairman of Warddeken Land Management, one of the largest of the participating organizations, employs 150 Aboriginal rangers, part time and full time.

“We are very lucky in the north to be able to keep our traditional practices,” Mr. Yibarbuk said. “There’s a pride in going back to the country, managing it and making a difference.”

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

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

27 January, 2020

The science behind climate change and its impact on bushfires (?)

I rather enjoyed this article, long-winded though it is. Prof. Karoly is an old global warming warrior from way back so he has had a long time to perfect his arguments for global warming and, in the version of his talk below, he does present a much more detailed case than one usually encounters.

All of the assertions below are however unreferenced and most have been challenged many times. And as is normal in Leftist writing, there is no mention of any of the facts which are contrary to his case. The article leaves out almost all of the many facts which tend to contradict the global warming hypothesis. Such argumentation is of course completely unscholarly and identifies the article as propaganda only.

Prof Karoly's scientific background does however show in a number of useful ways so it is a pity that such a long article will remain mostly unread -- as there are a number of basic scientific points below that Warmists would do well to note.

The one that stands out most below is his perfectly correct and perfectly basic point that global warming CANNOT explain Australia' drought or any other drought. Anybody who has watched a kettle boil will know that heating water causes it to give off water vapour so warming the oceans will also give off more water vapour -- and that comes down again as rain. So a warmer world would be a wetter world. So, if anything, drought proves that global warming is NOT going on.

So in his words on the drought, Prof. Karoly contradicts the claims made by almost all Warmists. There will be much reaching for indigestion remedies by almost all Warmists who read those of his words.

What Prof. Karoly leaves out:

It's hard to believe but in an article that is allegedly about bushfires, there is no mention of the biggest influence on the fires: Fuel accumulation in the form of fallen branches and leaves. Without fuel, there would be no fires. If it's not about global warming he doesn't want to know about it, apparently.

If only for the sake of argument, most climate skeptics are prepared to concede that atmospheric CO2 has SOME warming effect. The dispute is about its magnitude. Is the warming effect large or is it utterly trivial? The Warmists have little more than assertions for their claim that it is large. There are, on the other hand, both theoretical and empirical reasons to say that the effect is trivial.

On the theoretical side, the fact that CO2 forms much less than one percent of the atmosphere should indicate that any effect from it will be trivial. More importantly, however, a heated atmospheric molecule will radiate heat in ALL directions, not just downwards towards the earth. And the higher up the molecule is, the less heat from it will hit the earth. Rather than seeing heated CO2 molecules as a blanket or a greenhouse roof, a better analogy for their effect would be a bucket with a small hole in it. Only what gets through the hole hits the earth.

But all theories must be tested against the facts so what are the facts? The most basic fact is that over the last 150 years or so we have experienced only about one degree Celsius of warming. Is that trivial? If you walked from one room into another where the temperatures in the two rooms differed by only one degree you would not normally notice anything. You would need an instrument to detect the difference. So I think "trivial" is an excellent word for that difference.

But a much less impressionistic piece of evidence for the triviality of CO2 induced warming is also available. If CO2 has the effect hypothesized and the effect is large, we should notice increased warming every time the CO2 levels rise. But that is not remotely true. Increases in CO2 mostly have no noticeable warming effect. CO2 levels can shoot up with absolutely no discernable effect on global temperatures.

Perhaps the most striking example of that is the "grand hiatus". For 30 years between 1945 and 1975, CO2 levels leapt but global temperatures remained flat. See here. How come? CO2 molecules don't have a little computer inside them telling them to take a holiday from emitting heat. They emit heat all the time. So if they were emitting heat from 1945 to 1975, that heat must have been tiny in amount, so tiny as to be undetectable.

30 years of no effect would be notable in itself but 1945 is supposed to be the year in which anthropogenic global warming began -- with all the postwar reconstruction. The 1945 to 1975 period is a critical test of the global warming theory -- and it fails that test utterly.

So it takes only a few basic facts to show that Prof. Karoly's pontifications are a castle built on sand

Charis Chang reports:

When considering the science around climate change, one expert believes it’s useful to compare it to another famous hypothesis – the theory of gravity.

Not many people would think to cast doubt on the theory of gravity, and according to Professor David Karoly, who leads the Earth Systems and Climate Change Hub in the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program at CSIRO, the evidence that human activity is causing global warming is so strong it is equal to this theory.

“The theory on the human impact on climate change is just as strong, or stronger, than the scientific basis for the theory of gravity,” Prof Karoly told news.com.au.

Prof Karoly said that there was also evidence climate change was a factor in recent devastating bushfires in Australia.

Prof Karoly will explain the science at a free public lecture as part of the Australian Mathematical Sciences Institute 2020 Summer School public lecture in Melbourne on Wednesday, January 29. His speech will also be streamed online.

When we talk about science, Prof Karoly believes it’s helpful to remember we are not talking about “beliefs”.

Science is in fact a process that tests a hypothesis to provide conclusions about the way nature works.

Not convinced? Here’s the science.

Some say the world’s climate has always changed and in the past there have been ice ages and warmer glacial periods, which is true.

The difference is whether humans have caused the changes.

We know that humans could not have had any influence on the past ice ages for example, because there were no humans on the planet.

So how do we know that the climate changes now are due to human activity?

Prof Karoly said there were two approaches.

The first approach involves examining “observational data”. If we want to identify long-term trends we need to look at data collected over a wide area and across at least 30 years.

To figure out why the Earth is warming, there are some logical factors to look at first.

The main things that impact the Earth’s climate are sunlight from the sun, how it is absorbed in the atmosphere and how energy is lost from Earth and sent into space.

One thing that can impact the amount of sunlight we get includes the amount of clouds, ice and snow because they all reflect sunlight, making it cooler.

However, greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere can also affect temperatures. These gases make the planet hotter because they absorb heat radiation from the Earth and prevent this from being released into space as quickly.

Greenhouse gases can include carbon dioxide, methane and water vapour. “When greenhouse gases increase, the surface temperature of the Earth increases,” Prof Karoly said.

So what does the data tell us about these factors?

‘SOMETHING WEIRD IS HAPPENING’

Analysis of air bubbles from ice cores trapped in ice in Greenland and Antarctica showed that over the last 10,000 years, carbon dioxide varied a small amount, hovering around 280 and 290 parts per million.

But if you look at the last 150 years, it’s a different story. Carbon dioxide now sits at 400 parts per million.

“This has increased by more than 40 per cent,” Prof Karoly said.

“It is higher than at any time in the last 10,000 years. In fact, it’s higher than any time in the last million years.”

“So that suggests … something weird is happening.”

Prof Karoly said you had to go back more than three million years to find a time when carbon dioxide was around 400 parts per million.

“Three million years ago when carbon dioxide was higher, temperatures were more than two degrees warmer and sea levels were more than 10 metres higher,” he said.

Humans were not around three million years ago so they can’t be blamed for the high amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

So what was cause of these higher levels of carbon dioxide?

Some experts have suggested the carbon dioxide was actually being released from the ocean.

“A warmer ocean can’t absorb as much carbon dioxide,” Prof Karoly said. “As it heats up, it can’t hold as much carbon and this is released into the atmosphere.”

However, the type of carbon dioxide the ocean releases is different to that released by burning fossil fuels and land clearing.

Prof Karoly said the carbon dioxide has a different chemical composition so scientists are able to distinguish between the two.

“Carbon dioxide released from the ocean doesn’t use up oxygen,” Prof Karoly said.

Over the last 40 years, scientists have been able to monitor the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere and the fall in oxygen has exactly matched the increase in carbon dioxide that you would expect if it was coming from the burning of fossil fuels and decomposition of vegetation from land clearing.

“What we now know, is that the increase to carbon is not natural, it’s due to human activity, from the burning of fossil fuels and land clearing,” Prof Karoly said.

This is not just a theory, it is based on “observational evidence”, that is, scientists have data that shows the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is coming from fossil fuels and land clearing.

AND NIGHTS ARE GETTING HOTTER

We can also look at other observational data to help strengthen the theory.

If the Earth was warming up because of increasing sunlight, then you would expect temperatures during the day to increase and for it to be cooler at night (because there is no sun at night!).

However, what scientists found is that nights were actually warming up more so than days.

This points to greenhouse gases playing a role.

As noted above, greenhouse gases trap heat radiation from the Earth and stop it from being released into space as quickly.

This effect can be seen for example, on nights with more clouds, which don’t cool down as much as there is more water vapour in the atmosphere.

In contrast, deserts are more cool at night because there is not as much water vapour over these areas, and it’s a similar story in coastal areas.

So if nights are warming up more than days, it’s unlikely that the sun is playing a role in this, it’s more likely that greenhouse gases are trapping heat on Earth and pushing up temperatures.

Scientists have also looked at temperatures in the Earth’s stratosphere, which is the layer of the atmosphere from about 10km up.

The stratosphere warms because the ozone layer it contains absorbs the sun’s ultraviolent radiation.

If there was more sunlight, you would expect the upper atmosphere to warm up because it was absorbing more ultraviolet rays.

But if there was an increase in greenhouse gases then you would expect the stratosphere to be cooler because carbon dioxide is efficient, not only at absorbing heat radiation but also at releasing it into space, cooling it down.

“Observations have shown that the surface and lower atmosphere have warmed, and the upper atmosphere has cooled in the last 50 years — the entire time we’ve been monitoring it through balloons and other satellites,” Prof Karoly said.

“This pattern of temperature change has happened everywhere and cannot be explained by increasing sunlight,” he said. “And it’s been getting stronger, which is exactly what you would expect from increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”

NOW ADD COMPUTERS TO THE EQUATION

The first approach to looking at climate change is “observational data” but you can also use complex mathematical models of the climate system.

Around the world, Prof Karoly said more than 50 complex climate models had been developed to test climate theories on a larger scale.

While some may question how scientists could simulate the climate when they can’t forecast the weather over long periods of time, Prof Karoly said it was because the climate models looked at levels of radiation, which determine long-term climate.

“Models solve physical equations for the absorption and transmission of radiation in the atmosphere, and for the motion of the air, and for the motions of the ocean,” he said.

These simulations have shown that without human influences there would not be any long-term warming trend.

Temperatures would have stayed pretty much the same with only two-tenths of a degree of warming.

Instead the world has warmed by 1.1 degrees and the warming over Australia has been even higher than the global average, at 1.5 degrees.

This is because land warms up faster than the ocean.

WHAT ABOUT THE BUSHFIRES?

So how does this relate to the catastrophic bushfires that have raged across Australia in recent months?

Higher mean temperatures give rise to a greater chance of heatwaves and hot extremes, Prof Karoly said.

“We have good observational data of the current summer and the last 50 years,” he said.

“There have been marked increases in heatwaves and hot days in all parts of Australia.”

Australia experienced its hottest and driest year on record in 2019 and December 2019 had a number of Australia’s hottest days ever recorded.

“We have also seen increases in sea levels, exactly what you would expect from climate change and the warming of ocean waters and melting of ice sheets and glaciers on land.”

When it comes to the intensity of bushfires, Prof Karoly said there are certain factors that were known to be important.

The McArthur Forest Fire Danger Index was developed to measure the degree of fire danger in Australian forests and the likelihood they will occur.

It combines factors including the temperature of air, wind speed, the dryness of the air (measured by relative humidity) and the dryness of the fuel and the ground (measured by rainfall over the previous month).

“So the combination of high temperatures, strong winds, low humidity and no rainfall leads to extreme fire danger,” Prof Karoly said.

These were exactly the conditions experienced in NSW and southern Queensland in September and October where there were record high temperatures and low humidity.

These conditions were also experienced in Canberra, coastal NSW and particularly East Gippsland in Victoria, which was why there was extreme fire danger in these areas.

The next question is whether climate change caused these conditions.

Prof Karoly says climate change has led to higher temperatures, as discussed above, but it’s unlikely it had a major role in the drought conditions.

He said if the rainfall in 2019 was related to climate change you would expect wetter conditions in northern Australia, not the record dry year experienced in 2019.

Climate change has also been linked with the long-term rainfall in the cool season in south-east Australia.

Prof Karoly believes the drought in 2019 may actually be due to “natural variations” and the “Indian Ocean Dipole”.

The IOD refers to the seesawing temperatures in the Indian Ocean, with colder waters closer to northern Australia and hotter waters closer to Africa.

There were also changes in wind patterns in the south of Australia and over Victoria and NSW, which led to stronger westerly winds that reduced the rainfall over the NSW coast and East Gippsland, where the worst fires and conditions have been.

Prof Karoly believes it was the stronger westerly winds and the Indian Ocean Dipole that ramped up the fire intensity, however, this was combined with the extreme temperatures caused by climate change, sparking Australia’s deadly fire season.

“So it was a combination of natural climate variability and climate change,” he said.

SOURCE

Minnesota Had More Wind and Solar in 2018 than Ever Before But CO2 Emissions Went Up

Minnesota had more wind turbines and solar panels in 2018 than in any year prior, but carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity generation sector increased compared to 2017 and 2016 levels, according to the most recent data released by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

According to EIA, Minnesota power plants emitted 29.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2018, compared to 28.3 million in 2017, and 29.6 million in 2016. This means our carbon dioxide emissions were about half a percent higher in 2018 than 2016, when we had much fewer wind turbines and solar panels installed in the Land of 10,000 Lakes.

The graph below shows the total installed capacity for wind and solar from 2005 to 2018. You’ll see that the amount of wind and solar on the grid has increased by 871 megawatts (approximately 24 percent) since 2016, yet carbon dioxide emissions increased during this time frame.

But why? One reason is that Minnesota generated less electricity from wind in 2018 than in 2017.

As you can see in the graph below, the amount of installed wind capacity in Minnesota reached a new all-time high in 2018 (so did electric bills), but wind generation was about four percent lower in 2018 than in 2017. There could be multiple reasons why the wind was less useful in 2018 than 2017, including lower wind speeds or mechanical failure, but regardless of the reason, the take away from the data should be the same: more wind turbines does not necessarily mean more electricity generation from wind.

This data presents an inconvenient reality for liberal politicians who claim human carbon dioxide emissions are causing an existential climate crisis.

How in the world can these politicians credibly claim that climate change is an existential crisis, while saying that we can only build impossibly expensive wind, solar, and battery storage when emissions have increased even though we have 24 percent more renewable capacity on the grid than we did in 2016?

Despite all of the sanctimonious platitudes wind and solar supporters spout about creating a better world for the children, they are not the adults in the room. If they were, they would seek to reduce emissions as cost effectively and efficiently as possible using a suite of technologies like new nuclear power, large hydro, and carbon capture and sequestration. Instead, they seem to always advocate for the opposite.

Minnesota’s renewable energy mandate is already harming every person in our state by increasing electricity prices. Xcel Energy’s recent bid to increase prices by $52 per year through the Renewable Energy Standard rider acts as one more regressive wind and solar tax, hurting low-income families and seniors the most. If we are going to build a stronger Minnesota for everyone, the foundation of our state should be lower energy prices, not higher ones.

SOURCE

Climate Expert Shreds Claims Made By Ocasio-Cortez, Thunberg In Congressional Testimony

Michael D. Shellenberger, President of Environmental Progress, ripped the far-left extremist rhetoric parroted by fringe activist Greta Thunberg and socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) during his testimony in front of the House Committee On Science, Space, and Technology on the science of climate change.

Without using their names, Shellenberger — who is a regular contributor in some of America’s largest publications like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Forbes — ripped apart many of the extreme claims made by Ocasio-Cortez and Thunberg.

Shellenberger began by highlighting his background, telling the Committee: “I am an energy analyst and environmentalist dedicated to the goals of universal prosperity, peace, and environmental protection. Between 2003 and 2009 I advocated for a large federal investment in renewables, many of which were made as part of the 2009 stimulus. And since 2013 I have advocated for the continued operation of nuclear plants around the world and thus helped prevent emissions from increasing the equivalent of adding 24 million cars to the road.”

“I also care about getting the facts and science right. I believe that scientists, journalists, and advocates have an obligation to represent climate science accurately, even if doing so reduces the saliency of our concerns,” Shellenberger continued.

“No credible scientific body has claimed climate change threatens the collapse of civilization much less the extinction of the human species. And yet some activists, scientists, and journalists make such apocalyptic assertions, which I believe contribute to rising levels of anxiety, including among adolescents, and worsening political polarization.”

Shellenberger’s remarks are an apparent shot at Thunberg’s claim that “we are in the beginning of a mass extinction” and Ocasio-Cortez’ claim that “we have 10 years left to plan and implement a Green New Deal before cataclysmic climate disaster.”

“My colleagues and I have carefully reviewed the science, interviewed the individuals who make such claims, and written a series of articles debunking them,” Shellenberger continued. “In response, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change invited me to review its next Assessment Report, and Harper Collins will publish our research findings this June.”

“While climate change may make some natural disasters more frequent and extreme, the death toll from extreme events could and should continue to decline, as it did over the last century by over 90 percent, even as the global population quadrupled,” Shellenberger continued. “Does that mean we shouldn’t worry about climate change? Of course not. Policymakers routinely take action on non-apocalyptic problems. And the risk of crossing unknown tipping points rises with higher temperatures.”

It’s important to note that Shellenberger is not a climate change denier, rather, he looks at what the science says and does not over-exaggerate scientific findings to advance a political agenda.

Shellenberger noted that the most important measure that governments need to undertake in order to reduce climate change “is the expanded use of nuclear energy.”

“Thanks in part to decades of public and private investment in fracking, natural gas is today cheap and abundant and thus needs little in terms of new public policy,” Shellenberger continued. “Solar and wind energy are popular but their inherent unreliability, large land use requirements, and large materials requirements mean they make electricity expensive, have large environmental impacts, and are inherently limited in their capacity to replace fossil fuels.”

“The U.S. invented nuclear energy for civilian use in the 1950s and yet over three-quarters of new nuclear reactors globally are being built by the Chinese or Russians,” Shellenberger continued. “Everyone recognizes that for the US to compete in building nuclear plants abroad we must build them at home and yet electric utilities may close half of America’s nuclear plants over the next two decades.”

Shellenberger noted the following must happen to implement a “Green Nuclear Deal,” which Shellenberger noted is important national security, the economy, and the environment:

First, there must be a significant program of domestic nuclear power plant construction to give US firms the experience they need to compete abroad.

Second, the president must be directly involved in selling foreign leader on US technology, just as President Eisenhower did in the 1950s, and Presidents Xi and Putin are doing today.

Third, the US must offer competitive financing for such foreign plant construction.

And fourth, the construction of nuclear plants abroad must be centralized under one or two entities at most, as the US did with General Electric and Westinghouse in the 1950s, and as China and Russia are doing with their state-owned firms today.

SOURCE

Thank God for tide gauges

Climate activists are spruiking phony sea level rise data

Between 1764 and 1767 William Hutchison, a mariner who was then Harbour Master at Liverpool in England, carefully recorded the times and heights of high tide at the Liverpool Old Dock. In the 19th Century the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, that was to become the Liverpool Observatory, established state-of-the-art tidal stations along the nearby Mersey Estuary. In 1929 this Observatory merged with the Tidal Institute at the Liverpool University and this was to become a world-famous centre for sea level research. Today the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) maintains a database of tide gauge data from all over the world.

After the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change was formed in 1988 successive IPCC technical committees carefully examined the PSMSL tide gauge data as the computer climate models were predicting the acceleration of sea level rise. After all, a discovery of sea level acceleration would provide additional evidence of increased global warming due to rising carbon dioxide levels and proof of anthropogenic climate change.

Alas! Alas! There was almost a level of disappointment in the early IPCC reports. Despite all their efforts the committees in 1990 (13 experts), 1995 (24 experts) and 2001 (36 experts) stated that they could find no acceleration of sea level rise in the 20th century despite the rise of CO2 during that time. ‘There is no firm evidence of acceleration in sea level rise during this century’, said the IPCC Report of 1990 (Chapter 9, p.262).

All of this was to change in 2007 and the scientific mess left by that 2007 IPCC sea level committee is still with us today. The panel now numbered 70 scientists. The Head Coordinators were Dr Bindoff (University of Tasmania) and Dr Jurgen Willebrand (Leibnitz Institute of Marine Science).This was the first IPCC meeting when satellite-based sea level rise data were available. The first sea level satellite (Topex – Poseidon) was launched in 1992 and replaced by the Jason 1 satellite in 2001. The satellites were showing sea level rise around 30 cm per 100 years while the tide gauges examined at earlier IPCC meetings showed a much lower sea level rise of 15-18 cm per 100 years.

Without any detailed analysis of the discrepancy between tide gauge data and satellite data, this IPCC committee concluded the satellite data was more reliable. This was a false ‘eureka’ moment with a spurious conclusion that the higher readings of the satellite were proof that sea level rise throughout the 20th Century had suddenly changed from a steady rate of 15-18 cm/100 years to a rate of 30 cm/100 years in the 1990s. This interpretation was made without any detailed review of the reliability of tide gauge data from all over the Earth and technical altimetry problems in a satellite system; a system where a one millimetre of error in its 1,366 km orbital distance from the Earth’s surface translated to a sea level rise error of 10 cm in 100 years!

The sea level debate became an even larger can of worms in 2018. The University of Colorado, which manages the Jason satellites on contract to NASA, reported that not only had there been no acceleration of sea level rise in the satellite data there had been a deceleration in the last decade (2008-2018); so even the satellite data had not been able to detect acceleration of sea level! It was proposed that a cooling event due to the 1991 volcanic eruption of Mt Pinatubo in the Philippines had delayed the sea level acceleration that would have eventuated by 2018 but would still emerge from the noise of internal climate variability in the coming decade barring another major volcanic eruption.

This lack of sea level rise acceleration was consistent with a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association report in 2016 on 200 tide gauges from the east and west coasts of the USA and from some Atlantic and Pacific islands. The US report showed there was no acceleration of sea level in these records. So two methods with vastly different results still showed no sea level acceleration! It was now crystal clear that the reports of no sea level acceleration (IPCC reports of 1900, 1995 and 2001) were correct and that the reports of sea level acceleration (IPCC reports of 2007 and 2014) were based on false logic; the spurious by-product of differences between two measuring systems.

The technical altimetry problems with the satellite system were eventually exposed in 2012 when NASA reported that there was a level of error that contaminated climatological data records, such as measurements of sea level height from altimetry missions. Consequently, NASA proposed to ditch the flawed Jason satellite system in favour of a new system called GRASP, or Geodetic Reference Antennae in Space. Unfortunately, its budget has never been approved.

So where are we today? The higher sea level rise estimates of the flawed satellite system are those most frequently quoted and fit with the many catastrophic climate scenarios. The United Nations’ climate Conference of the Parties in Madrid in December 2019, for example, quoted these higher sea level rise measurements and ignored the more reliable lower sea level rise estimates based on thousands of tide gauges. In Australia some scientists and engineers are still using the higher and dodgy satellite sea level rise data as a ‘prudential’ benchmark for coastal policies and have even adjusted tide gauge data upwards to the satellite data.

In 2014, for example, an engineering report for two NSW councils, Shoalhaven City and Eurobodalla, adjusted the Sydney Fort Denison tide gauge data, which showed a sea level rise less than 10 cm per 100 years, to the satellite measurements of 30 cm per 100 years. This absurd 300+ per cent upward adjustment of real tide gauge data was called a ‘linear fit’ (whatever that means!).

How can recent scientific articles published in ‘peer-reviewed’ literature stridently announce to the scientific community and the world media accelerated ice loss into the ocean from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets when there is no corresponding acceleration of sea level rise due to that ‘extra ice’. These articles tinged with panic do not make sense. The lack of any evidence of sea level acceleration in the PSMSL tide gauge data, the NOAA tide gauge data or even in the flawed NASA satellite data shows that these articles are either biased or based on insufficient data derived from flawed ice mass measurement methodologies. In contrast, the data from thousands of tide gauges clearly show no acceleration of sea level rise in the last 120 years.

SOURCE

Australia: Vital hazard reduction burns were stopped before Australia's deadly bushfire crisis due to residents complaining about poor air quality

Firefighters have revealed they were forced to cancel or delay hazard reduction burns in critical areas due to residents complaining about the smoke.

During the winter and autumn months the NSW Rural Fire Service deliberately burns parts of the bush to reduce the fuel load ahead of summer.

But several burns were stopped or cut short to keep air quality levels from deteriorating.

The elderly, infants and those with asthma often struggle with the thick smoke from the fires.

NSW RFS spokesman Inspector Ben Shepherd told the Daily Telegraph that public health was an important consideration.

'We speak with National Parks weekly during the hazard reduction season about the burns planned and the impact of smoke,' Mr Shepherd said.

'We look to see if we can change the lighting pattern to reduce the smoke impact.

Mr Shepherd said unpredictable weather can make directing the smoke very challenging.

Air quality issues played a key role in reducing the size of a burnoff in Bowen Mountain, an hour west of Sydney, which later lost several homes to the roaring Grose Valley fire.

More burns were reduced for air quality reasons in Putty, an area near Gospers Mountain which was consumed by a 'mega blaze' that went on to burn an area seven times the size of Singapore.

Other burns at Wiseman's Ferry, Ku-ring-gai Chase, Dural, Pennant Hills and Hawkesbury were postponed.

It comes after revelations that a Independent Hazard Reduction Audit Panel report recommended the government increase hazard reduction burning in 2013.

The report said that while it was not a solution, hazard reduction would be an critical tool in fighting bushfires going forward.

'Increases in fuel reduction will be required to counteract increasing risk that is likely to arise from climate change,' it 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

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

26 January, 2020

Oil companies going Green

They're scared of CO2 regulation. But, regardless of "renewable" fancies, the demand for oil and natural gas will still be there -- and there will still be a buck in it. And if governments legislate harshly enough to cause public inconvenience, they will be thrown out

The threat that financial institutions will refuse to lend for fossil fuel projects is a real one but China is always looking for good overseas investment opportunities so that alone will put a big hole in the bucket. China is very hard to bully, as Mr Trump has found

Occidental Petroleum has a compelling riposte to Greta Thunberg’s signature rebuke in Davos, that “nothing is being done” about climate change.

It also has a grim warning for those of its peers in the fossil industry (a minority) that persist in thinking that business can go on as usual with just a few tweaks here and there: a slew of major oil and gas companies will disappear in the Great Disruption of the coming decade, and it says they will deserve their fate.

“We’re fighting for our industry’s life,” said Vicki Hollub, Occidental’s chief executive, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos.

The political landscape has suddenly changed beyond recognition and the world’s governments are about to clamp down drastically on carbon emissions, led by Europe. She said the laggards will be punished mercilessly.

Her emblematic Houston-based fossil company aims to achieve the impossible: to become net carbon negative on all its operations and the oil it sells in order to insulate itself against the enveloping climate backlash. Her premise is that financial markets will simply ‘disfund’ those companies that refuse to do likewise.

The imperative for Big Oil is to confound the critics by offering Negative Oil. “The ones that don’t get on board will be the ones that don’t survive, and I am convinced that markets will make that happen,” she said.

Lord Greg Barker, chairman of EN+ Group, has an equally surprising story to tell. He heads the biggest aluminium producer outside China, leader of a smelting industry deemed to be beyond the pale by climate activists.

Yet it is going to roll out its first sheets of carbon-free aluminium as soon as 2021. Over 95pc of the group’s base power already comes from green hydro.

The Russian-owned EN+ has developed an ‘inert anode’ technology that cuts CO2 emissions from the smelting process itself to zero, and will ultimately lead to net “negative aluminium”.

The task is to make it fully workable on a large scale. A carbon price would make that much easier by setting the global rules and drawing in billions of green funding.

Epoch change

“The 2020s are going to be very different to the last decade. People who think that is going to be just a slow continuation, of gradually getting used to the climate agenda, are in for a big shock,” he told a Davos forum.

Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, said the $110 trillion alliance of global asset managers and investors now demanding decarbonisation – or at least a proper audit of carbon risk – had just grown to nearer $120 trillion with the Damascene conversion of BlackRock’s Larry Fink. When the world’s biggest fund manager speaks, markets listen.

"We are seeing a fundamental reshaping of the financial system. What the market will do is to pull forward the adjustment," he said in Davos.

Companies that fail to take climate change seriously will go bankrupt and it could happen sooner than widely supposed. The Governor fears a Lehmanesque “Minsky Moment” for the international system if this is not handled in an orderly fashion.

Occidental says it is already injecting 20m tonnes of CO2 each year into rock formations within the Permian Basin in Texas. “This is equivalent to taking four million cars off the road,” she said.

It is the start of a massive expansion of carbon capture and storage. Ultimately this brings into view the Holy Grail of negative emissions.

Mrs Hollub said more CO2 is sequestered in the process of enhanced oil recovery than is later burned by cars and aircraft in transport fuel. For the world as a whole it is akin to a closed loop.

“A lot of people don’t understand how you can put CO2 into an oil reservoir and generate lower carbon oil, but you can have net negative reservoirs. The challenge we face is getting people to understand the good things that we are doing,” she said.

“The Permian Basin has the capacity to store 150 gigatonnes of CO2. That would be 28 years of US emissions. That’s the prize,” she said.

Occidental’s ‘green’ strategy will not convince those who have lost all trust in the fossil industry and wish to shut it down entirely but it does show the moral complexity of the energy debate.

The more far-sighted oil and gas companies are an integral part of the net-zero transition. They bring the world’s best engineers to the task.

Environmental Schumpeterism

Lord Barker, who used to run the UK’s climate policy as a minister, said there are going to be spectacular winners and losers over the 2020s. Climate science has raised the stakes abruptly and political patience has snapped.

“This is where the rubber really hits the road. There are going to be stranded assets; there are going to price shocks, and I think we’re going to see carbon pricing. Those companies that don’t recognise the carbon intensity of their business are going to be left on the sidelines,” he said.

Lord Barker said the old debate about whether poorer countries should be given a free pass on coal power and rising emissions had been overtaken by market forces. New renewable power is in any case cheaper in most places than new coal plants.

“We have to have an honest conversation with developing economies like India and China: you can’t keep a manufacturing model and supply world markets if it is based on coal. Either you need CCUS (carbon capture) or you accept that it will shrink.”

“Investors now thinking about where to put their money in the 2020s won’t put it in carbon-intensive in economic models that rely on coal, that is the reality of investment flows. There isn’t a future for carbon intensive industries.”

Rachel Kyte, the World Bank’s former climate chief, was brutally clear: “the 2020s are going to be disruptive. You either capture carbon or you don’t put carbon molecules up there at all. You will be regulated on that basis.”

“The current incumbents won’t be the incumbents in 2030 unless they are very smart. Some are going to make it. Some aren’t,” she said.

SOURCE

Peer-reviewed Study: Recent data on plant growth shows a net benefit, not a "social cost" of carbon dioxide emissions

The latest peer-reviewed studies show that carbon dioxide emissions are twice as powerful a plant food as previously assumed in the Cost-Benefit analysis of CO2 used by the U.S. Government. As a result, for the next 30 years, the Social Cost of Carbon under reasonable assumptions about CO2-based warming will be negative ... meaning that CO2 is a benefit to the economy, not a cost.

That's the conclusion of a just-published peer-reviewed journal article by CO2 Coalition and Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Patrick Michaels and co-authors Kevin Dayaratna of the Heritage Foundation and Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Ontario.

The paper, titled Climate sensitivity, agricultural productivity and the social cost of carbon in FUND, was published in Environmental Economics and Policy Studies January 18, 2020.

Via email from info@co2coalition.org

Treasury Secretary Just Stated Obvious About Teen Environmental Oracle Greta Thunberg & the Left Is Melting Down

You'd think Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin had pulled a Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, or Bill Clinton, judging by the reaction by the Left.

But no.

Reporters and other Leftists were scandalized – How Dare You! –that Mnuchin stated what all the world can see but fails to say out loud: Greta Thunberg is a kid who needs a little more seasoning before lecturing the world on economic theory.

He did it with one joke about the leftist teenage environmental oracle who went to Davos to demand the world function without fossil fuels.

Here's what Mnuchin had the temerity to say in answer to this question: "Does Greta Thunberg's call for an end to fossil fuel investment threaten U.S. economic growth?"

Stand back for the answer, the flames might singe your eyebrows or calve a glacier or something. CNBC reports Mnuchin told a scrum of reporters:

“Is she the chief economist or who is she? I’m confused,” Mnuchin said, before adding this was “a joke. That was funny.”
“After she goes and studies economics in college she can come back and explain that to us,” Mnuchin said.

Greta huffed – or was it her father? He and climate activist Adarsh Prathap ghostwrite some of her social media – that she's in her gap year before college, thank-you-very-much:

"In June, Bloomberg reported that Thunberg had graduated from secondary education with 14 As and three Bs. Thunberg reportedly took home Bs in Swedish, physical education, and home economics, according to Bloomberg. While those are solid grades for anyone, let alone a student repeatedly missing school to protest in front of Swedish Parliament, Thunberg reportedly told the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter that she likely would have pulled off straight As had it not been for her weekly climate strikes."
I mean, after looking at those credentials. A 'B' in Home Ec?

Mnuchin later said that "our environmental policies are misunderstood." He said the president is in support of clean air and clean water and he got out of the Paris Accord because it was bad for the U.S. economy.

SOURCE

Why the capitalist class has gone green

Our rulers promote eco-austerity to disguise their own failure to improve living standards.

It has become something of a running joke that every year, the international political and business elites hop in their private jets to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland to discuss… climate change. Last year, some 1,500 jets were taken to the usually sleepy Swiss ski village. At the same event, broadcaster Sir David Attenborough was interviewed by His Royal Highness Prince William.

Donald Trump may have put a fly in the ointment by using his Davos address to denounce the ‘prophets of doom’ of the environmental movement, rejecting their ‘predictions of the apocalypse’. But climate change nevertheless remained at the top of the agenda, and this time the world’s super-rich and powerful were given a stern telling-off by Greta Thunberg. The organisers at Davos have asked all delegates to go carbon-neutral by 2050.

Trump was essentially correct to say the gloomsters have got it wrong in the past when predicting ‘overpopulation’, ‘mass starvation’ and the ‘end of oil’. But one thing he got very wrong – and he is far from alone in this – was his assertion that the climate agitators who want to ‘destroy the economy’ are somehow ‘radical socialists’. A cursory glance at the super-rich delegates around the room should have put paid to any notion that there is something radical or socialist about the environmental movement. Environmental activists were not only protesting outside the World Economic Forum, but many were also invited inside, including delegates from Extinction Rebellion.

And this is nothing new. The World Economic Forum began in 1971, but has been discussing the ‘climate emergency’ since only its third annual meeting in 1973. Aurelio Pecci was an Italian industrialist who founded the influential Club of Rome think-tank, which includes among its members businessmen, heads of state and former heads of state from every continent, high-ranking civil servants, scientists and economists. Pecci was invited to Davos to deliver a speech on the Club of Rome’s report, The Limits to Growth, which argued that global economic growth would soon become environmentally unsustainable. The Limits to Growth later became the best-selling book on environmentalism ever printed.

Companies have long been keen to brand themselves as sustainable and eco-friendly, even those which sell fossil fuels. BP Amoco rebranded as Beyond Petroleum in the year 2000. Canadian research firm Corporate Knights – the self-professed ‘voice of clean capitalism’ – recently produced its 16th annual ranking of the 100 most sustainable companies with over $1 billion in revenue. In first and third place were former oil companies Ørsted and Neste respectively.

In recent weeks, Goldman Sachs has announced that it will no longer invest in Arctic oil or coal-power stations. Larry Fink, head of BlackRock, the world’s largest money manager with $7 trillion worth of holdings, recently defined climate change as the world’s biggest threat to profit. BlackRock says it will invest in more sustainable companies. These moves are partly a result of pressure from some institutional investors who are more sensitive to politics than most bankers. The Government Pension Investment Fund of Japan – the world’s largest pool of retirement savings – pulled $1.5 trillion out of BlackRock, citing environmental and social concerns. It is estimated that around $12 trillion worth of institutional investment has been ‘divested’ from coal.

But the reason the capitalist class has embraced environmentalism goes far beyond branding. Even the potential of some money drying up (and pots of state money appearing for clean energy) are not the biggest factors. Most significant is the capitalist class’s loss of faith in itself and in its ability to grow the economy and raise living standards. It has been clear for the past 40 years that while global growth has transformed the lives of billions in the global South, growth in the West has been depressed. Low productivity growth, low investment and low wage growth, especially when compared with the postwar boom, have become depressing features of all the major Western economies. These problems were exacerbated by the 2008 crash. The capitalist class has not been delivering the goods for a very long time – and they know it. As Politico reported from Davos last year, ‘the global winners here in Switzerland aren’t so sure they’re up to the task of running the world anymore’.

Environmentalism, however, offers a way out. As George Monbiot memorably described it, environmentalism is a ‘campaign for austerity’. Environmentalists urge us to think of less as more and of ‘small as beautiful’. In short, to lower our expectations and our collective horizons. Environmentalism denigrates progressive aspirations for a world of abundance as ‘unsustainable’. To be well-fed, well-travelled and even to have children invites condemnation in the topsy-turvy world of environmentalism.

Climate-change activists have made carbon dioxide public enemy No1. But CO2 emissions are really just a proxy for industrial development. The fact that African countries produce less CO2 is indicative of their lower levels of development than the West – and the dreadful poverty this entails for many of their inhabitants. In Britain, the Conservative government celebrates a 38 per cent reduction in carbon emissions since 1990. But while energy efficiency has improved enormously, a still significant amount of emissions reductions is down to deindustrialisation. While Britain’s economy has grown overall, you don’t need to be a Ken Loach aficionado to understand the destructiveness that the closure of factories and mines has had on certain communities.

Overall, the ‘climate emergency’ bolsters the business elite who can no longer justify its elevated position in society by pointing to better living standards.

SOURCE

Australia: Land-clearing laws blamed for Kangaroo Island bushfires:

Native vegetation laws that prevent farmers from clearing land and the extent and adequacy of controlled winter burns will form a key part of a major South Australian government inquiry into the summer bushfire crisis.

Premier Steven Marshall’s commitment comes as the mayor of fire-ravaged Kangaroo Island, former Liberal MP Michael Pengilly, lashed out at the “idiocy” of the state’s Native Vegetation Act, saying the destruction of more than half the island this month “proves the old adage ‘burn or be burned’”.

“We used to be able to burn to protect ourselves and regenerate the native vegetation, and that’s what has gone,” Mr Pengilly said.

“That’s the ridiculous part. We have to have common sense across the country. What has been put in place, particularly in SA through the Native Vegetation Act, has just allowed everything to get out of control.

“We have massive loads of fuel that haven’t been touched. It is an offence for a farmer to burn off a little patch of scrub and try to keep something in the back pocket for when there is a proper fire.

“And now it’s gone, the whole bloody lot. It’s like we have been sitting on dynamite. I am not saying anything would have stopped that fire but the fuel load made it worse. The idiocy of the Native Vegetation Act is that it has stopped any serious kind of control for four decades. And today, well, here we are.”

The Weekend Australian travelled to Kangaroo Island this week and also visited the fire-affected Adelaide Hills wine region with Mr Marshall, who confirmed that issues relating to land clearing and burn-offs had been raised with him by many affected landowners.

“There obviously has to be a huge review into every aspect of the bushfires,” Mr Marshall said.

“We will be reviewing not only all of our fires here in SA but taking note of the reviews that are done interstate. If we can learn to be more resilient in the face of bushfires that’s precisely what we will do. There is plenty of time for that review and it will be done fully.

“All of the prescribed burns and cold burns that were in the schedule on Kangaroo Island were completed ahead of the fires.

“Whether they were adequate is something that will be part of the report. We will go back and look at whether the regime we had in place was enough.”

Mr Marshall said he understood the anxieties of farmers over land clearing but also noted that the January fire that emerged from the Flinders Chase National Park and tore east across the island was of a magnitude the island had never experienced.

He said he had been told by the Country Fire Service that in some cases the fire was spotting 2km to 5km ahead of the front, meaning even a radical increase in land clearing may not have stopped the inferno from spreading.

“This was different from the 2007 fires on KI which were a slow burn,” he said. “I’m not sure what would have helped on January 3. It was absolutely catastrophic.”

The Premier appointed himself Tourism Minister this month to elevate the status of the portfolio as it is battered by cancellations and in some areas closures of attractions and the loss of infrastructure.

This week he launched the #bookthemout campaign urging Australians to visit Kangaroo Island and the Adelaide Hills.

“We are really proud that we were the first to get on the front foot with this type of campaign,” he said. “Tourism operators have been doing it extraordinarily tough as a result of cancellations and it is important that we tell the story … that places like Kangaroo Island and the Adelaide Hills need all the support they can get.”

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

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

24 January, 2020

My palm oil problem: how can I save orangutans?

Orangs are gorgeous and I would like to save them too -- but there seem to be no good options -- JR

Watching a documentary about orangutans is like seeing a simian snuff movie. In the most recent one I saw with my family, we watched as a baby was orphaned, her mother starved after their forests were burnt down for palm oil. The baby turned her sweet Yoda eyes on the camera. My children, genuinely distressed, turned their eyes on me for moral guidance. It’s at that point that I thought to look at the list of ingredients on the packet of chocolate biscuits we had just eaten. Oh. They had palm oil in them. We were growing fat on baby orangutan tears.

Modern life is complicated. On the one hand we like orangutans. On the other we like chocolate biscuits, possibly, in my case, even more. It’s not that I want my chocolate biscuits to kill orangutans. It’s just that I’m not really doing much to stop it. And I’m not the only one.

So I thought I’d spend a week without palm oil. It feels, if not simple — palm oil is estimated to be in half of all packaged goods sold by UK supermarkets — at least clear and righteous. I palm off my palm oil-filled Nutella and go on a mega shopping expedition to Sainsbury’s and Tesco, accompanied by one of Britain’s leading palm oil experts, Jane Hill, a professor of biology at the University of York.

One of the first things that you need to give up palm oil is super-strong eyesight. That afternoon we make our way around the aisles of the supermarkets squinting at ingredients in micro fonts. Hill takes her glasses on and off, twisting a box of Oreo cookies to the light. I’m yo-yoing the Mr Kiplings in front of my face like a Where’s Wally? of ingredients panels, straining for “palm oil” to come into focus. “Oi, Jane!” I call from the shampoo aisle, “what about sodium palm kernelate?” Together we look like the most neurotic shoppers in north London, and that’s saying something.

The second thing you need, to do the right thing on palm oil, is a strong stomach for complexity and compromise. Hill tells me that she has been visiting Borneo every year or so for the past 15 years, drawn to catalogue its ancient forests. The way she talks, they sound like Eden. But we’re burning down paradise for oil palm, arguably the most destructive crop in the world. Every year she went back, 1.3 million more hectares of Bornean forest were gone. Orangutans are on a fast track to extinction, probably within decades. I nod, my face grave. And that’s why, Hill tells me, I should be eating more palm oil. More nodding.

Wait, what?

“Yes, that’s correct,” she says. “Boycotting palm oil could have the opposite effect to that intended, resulting in forests still being lost and more decline for wildlife.”

It turns out that, confusingly, oil palm is a kind of environmental wonder crop. It needs a fraction of the fertiliser and pesticide of oil crop rivals, and most importantly it requires up to ten times less land. To switch to soya or coconut oil could put more habitat at risk. “Sustainable” palm oil is one way forward, via certificates from the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). Palm-boycotting — which critics call “palm-phobia” — is the other approach. Some big British shops, such as Selfridges and Iceland, are trying to remove all palm from their own-brand products. They subscribe to the hard line taken by Greenpeace, that sustainable palm is just not achievable.

I’m only on aisle one when Hill hits me with this dilemma and I’m tempted to dump my basket with exhaustion. I’ve taken three granola bars in and out of my basket, for having palm, not having palm and finally the wrong type of palm. The thing I’ve learnt about palm oil: it’s slippery.

I need a moment to understand how we have got into this mess. Oil palm is native to west Africa. Chinua Achebe, in his finest novel, Things Fall Apart, wrote of Nigeria that “proverbs are the palm oil with which words are eaten”. As demand for soap in Europe boomed with the Industrial Revolution, William Lever sought out more west African forest to cultivate for palm, using cruel “forced labour” practices to boot. Now Unilever is considered one of the world’s largest users of palm oil and, in recent years, a leader in RSPO palm.

Palm can only thrive in proximity to the Equator: a few Dutch and French fortune-hunters had been drawn to bring African palm to Indonesia and Malaysia at the end of the 19th century, but the Brits were especially successful. Now Indonesia and Malaysia account for more than 80 per cent of global production.

Palm, under a dizzying range of names, is a staple of our bathroom cabinet, from toothpaste to lipstick. But up until the 1990s the preferred fat of choice in the food industry was animal, high in saturated fat, or margarine, riddled with trans fats. The industry was looking for something better, and palm oil was perfect. Unlike runny sunflower oil, it’s sticky and rich, like delicious thick cream (with a rather symbolic blood-red colour).

Unilever’s European food factories began going heavy on palm oil in 1995 and the rest of the food industry followed suit. Now two thirds of palm is used for food, from ice cream to bread, and our appetite is only whetted. When McVitie’s swapped palm oil out of its digestives in 2010, a public outcry over “dunkability” had the palm oil — RSPO-certified — returned. At present rates, the land used for palm oil, so often competing with virgin forest, is forecast to double by 2050.

“When we talk about palm, two things always come up,” Hill says. “Orangutans and Nutella.”

Ah yes, Nutella, the first product I dumped and public enemy of the palm-phobes. About two thirds of the reviews of Nutella on Ocado are spitting with middle-class fury about palm: “Stop using palm oil!” and “Won’t buy until palm oil goes.” Hill disagrees.

“Is Nutella sustainable? The answer is yes. Unilever has been driving the sustainability agenda for years.”

At this point I drag Hill over to the Nutella jar on the supermarket shelf. Nowhere does it mention its palm is sustainable. She sighs. She has worked with the RSPO for years, as well as researching how trustworthy it is. It’s far from perfect. “RSPO standards are a work-in-progress,” she says. “Commitment to zero deforestation only came in last year.”

Hmm. Is it just me, or is hacking down forests stretching the definition of sustainable? Last week, in its latest review of the impact of palm oil manufacture, the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) found big food retailers to be falling short on their commitment to eliminate the environmental damage being caused by the supply chain. Still, Ferrero, the maker of Nutella, scored 21.5 out of 22 on the WWF Palm Oil Buyers Scorecard, and M&S and the Co-operative Group featured among the top 10 per cent of those rated, so at least that’s progress.

Hill says that if I want to do right by the orangutans, I need to consume more RSPO palm because “it produces a lot of food very quickly and efficiently”. It is better to eat sustainable palm oil, Hill says, than to switch to less sustainable fats.

Yet almost no manufacturers, that of Nutella included, label their RSPO products. Normally companies shout about every tiny “eco” gesture, however trivial, but in the world of palm there is a reverse twist. When companies attempt to do the right thing, they make it hard for the consumer to find out. When does that ever happen? It is a perplexing economic case study.

This means that hunting for “good palm” requires not only laser focus to spot it on the packet, but also a phone at the ready, possibly using the array of new palm-oil shopping phone apps to cross-reference parent companies. For example, Cadbury’s Dairy Milk uses RSPO palm in Europe and no palm oil in the US recipe. Most of the big UK supermarkets have committed to RSPO palm oil in their own-brand products, but we search in vain for any sign of this on their products.

Packaging is littered with logos: packets of Maltesers have the Fairtrade symbol and Tesco own-brand chocolate is stamped with the Rainforest Alliance logo. Sainsbury’s does use RSPO palm oil, but its own-brand chocolate cake would rather advertise its cardboard “comes from a sustainable source” than mention its sustainable palm. After examining dozens of products, we come across our first RSPO logo on a packet of Jordans Country Crisp, and even there it’s muted; the one for the Wildlife Trusts is far more prominent.

Why is such a confusing area made even more confusing by a lack of labelling? The RSPO logo is a palm frond, nicknamed “the green spider”. Some joke that it looks too much like a cannabis leaf — you may think that breakfast cereal will give you a mellow start to the day. An investigation last year by the website Eco-Business found that 70 companies in the UK were licensed to use the RSPO logo (the second highest in Europe, after Germany), but few did. Their inquiries to these companies got no answers as to why, but palm experts suspect that these brands are so aware of palm negativity, they want even responsible palm use to slip by unnoticed. The RSPO logo only alarms when it should reassure.

“The public are cynical about trusting big organisations to do the right thing,” Hill says.

I go home. My conversations with Greenpeace have me convinced that the RSPO has a long way to go, but my conversations with Hill have me convinced that sustainable palm is worth fighting for, especially in the context of feeding the world’s booming population in the most efficient way.

I speak to Bhavani Shankar, a professor of economics at the School of Oriental and African Studies (Soas), University of London, who has been studying palm oil for years. He believes that we should get real about palm: few, after all, get freaked out by soya bean oil as an ingredient, yet it’s the second most popular edible oil in the world, just behind palm, but with the same, or worse, deforestation issues. Instead of a world dominated by cheap palm and soya oils, or “unrealistic” bans, Shankar says that we should aim for a diversity of more local oils. In other words, demand olive oil in your food, the way you would free-range eggs.

“The unsustainability is the dominance of a single oil,” Shankar says.

The Nutella comes back on to our shelf after I give my children the, er, gold-standard reassurance that it’s “probably OK”. Every other product has me tapping at my laptop, doing the kind of deep research on multinationals that is far from “sustainable” alongside the packed-lunch rush. It’s just about possible for food, but checking for palm oil derivatives in washing powder and shampoo requires a scientific thesaurus. It’s an eye-straining if not eye-popping week.

If the “green spider” RSPO logo isn’t being used, I wish the government would legislate to label harmful palm. Similar to cigarettes, dirty palm products could display an orphan monkey or similar. And why stop at palm, for that matter, when meat fed on cheap, deforesting palm and soya crops are part of the issue? I finally check out with Hill. What feels wrong, I tell her, is that I am allowed to kill orangutans with my chocolate biscuits. It feels wrong to put the fate of these precious forests in the hands of us consumers who can’t read all the small print.

“Yes,” Hill says. “But that’s the same with so many decisions that are left up to us: cheap flights, cheap meat, fast fashion.”

SOURCE

Climate policies harm black and brown communities

Presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren at the most recent candidates’ debate in Iowa repeated the canard that climate change “particularly hits black and brown communities.” On this Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, it should be alerted that it is climate change policies promoted by her and fellow alarmists that would particularly hit black and brown communities by raising their cost of living and eliminating many of their jobs.

The several proposals for a “Green New Deal” for America have the common central feature of replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy on the assumption that such energy is feasible in the near-term, and that carbon emissions will decline to lower the Earth’s temperature.

Carbon emissions and temperature data, in fact, have risen far more slowly in recent decades than what is claimed by the climate models posited by the alarmist camp of scientists, as CFACT recently explained. Accordingly, the Earth and its inhabitants do not face an “existential threat,” nor are we sooner facing the “point of no return.”

If America is to turn away from fossil fuels and transform to more carbon-free renewable energy sources, there is plenty of time for further research and development to make it practical. This would allow a far more seamless transition over decades as technological advances continue apace.

Instead, the current political effort to rapidly destroy America’s fossil fuel and gasoline auto industries through premature government mandates for non-fossil fuel use is reckless and harmful – particularly to black and brown communities. Upper income households can afford the resulting rise in energy and utility costs for heating our homes or driving our cars. By contrast, lower income households will struggle making financial ends meet.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 12 percent of Americans lived below the poverty line in 2017. Disaggregated by race, the poverty rate for black and brown Americans is substantially higher, at 21 percent of blacks and 18 percent of non-white Hispanic Americans.

The laws of mathematics are simple: poor people have less disposable income than wealthy people to absorb inexorable higher energy costs resulting from climate policies. For people living in poverty this will exacerbate their condition, especially for black and brown Americans since greater percentages of them already are poor.

Then there is the baleful effect of climate policies on jobs, particularly in fossil fuel and related manufacturing and transportation industries, which are heavily cost-sensitive to energy. Curtailing fossil fuels would result in less extraction and increased transportation costs, resulting in fewer jobs overall, which would particularly hit black and brown Americans.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 5.4 percent of Americans work in construction and extraction industries (mining, drilling, etc.) and 6.4 percent work in transportation and material moving industries.

For Hispanics, 11.4 percent of them work in construction and extraction industries, more than double the overall percentage of Americans, while 8.2 percent work in transportation and material moving jobs, nearly one-third higher than the overall percentage of Americans. For blacks, 10 percent work in transportation and material moving occupations, nearly double the overall percentage of workers.

For black and brown males, the percentages that work in these energy sensitive industries are even higher. Accordingly, they will suffer greater harm from climate policies that target these job sectors.

Another way to examine the economic and societal harm of climate alarmist policies on minority workers is to understand their disproportionate representation in those affected industries. For example, a BLS study of 2014 industry data showed that Hispanics comprise more than 43 percent of farming, fishing and forestry employment, the latter category of which is particularly vulnerable to climate policy restrictions on logging. Hispanics also comprise nearly one-fifth of the workers employed in mining, quarrying and oil and gas extraction.

Industry and job sector transformation in America is not a new phenomenon. It is part of our history and the natural outcome of technological advances. Agriculture employs a much smaller percentage of Americans than a century ago, and manufacturing employment, while having increased in recent years, has declined in recent decades as a share of the workforce.

Still, the climate policies that prematurely force the declination and destruction of fossil fuels will unnecessarily raise costs and accelerate thousands of job losses, especially for blue collar workers, as former Vice President Joe Biden recently acknowledged. As the data shows, greater economic harm will result in more vulnerable black and brown communities by worsening their poverty and employment opportunities.

SOURCE

In State of the Commonwealth speech, Baker presses for more aggressive climate action

[Massachusetts] Governor Charlie Baker on Tuesday pledged more aggressive action in tackling climate change and the region’s transportation woes, using his State of the Commonwealth address to press for increased MBTA funding, quicker cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, and stronger support for a hotly debated carbon pact.

Addressing lawmakers and a television audience, the second-term Republican laced his 35-minute speech with new initiatives and attempts to rally the Democratic-led Legislature behind many of his biggest priorities.

Baker vowed to move the state toward net-zero emissions by 2050, effectively accelerating the goals already laid out in law. His pledge won early plaudits from advocates who’ve pushed for more ambitious action on climate change.

Baker, who has generally opposed calls to raise taxes to funnel more money into the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, proposed $135 million in additional funding in the coming fiscal year for the beleaguered agency.

And he previewed a new $15 million partnership with vocational schools that he said would “turbocharge” the training provided to both adults and teens, changes he estimates will better prepare tens of thousands of would-be trade workers.

Without invoking President Trump by name, Baker leaned into his trademark calls for pragmatism as the country barrels into a divisive campaign to elect a president in November.

“People who deal with much greater troubles than ours will rightly question us if we waste our time, and theirs, on the politics of personal destruction,” Baker told a packed House chamber. “They want us to be better than the yelling they see on TV and across social media.

“We all know campaigns are contests, and the siren call of sloganeering and cheap shots will be everywhere this year. Let’s rise above it,” he added to a lengthy standing ovation, one of 15 he received during the night.

In many cases, Baker’s address cited his administration’s accomplishments as much as it posed new arguments for proposals. He framed his push for a long-stalled bill to help ease the housing crunch in terms of equity, saying the status quo “has been hurting families for years.”

“Our current zoning laws aren’t working. They’re a wall between the well-off and the up-and-coming,” Baker said, adding: “Let’s find the common ground on housing policy that must be in here somewhere.”

He also refocused his argument for complex health care legislation that he said would put a greater emphasis on primary care and behavioral health services. He said the system should reward clinicians who “invest in time and connection with patients and their families,” but it does not. “And this is a major problem,” he said.

It was transportation and climate change, however, that made up large parts of his address.

The state’s Global Warming Solutions Act, signed in 2008, includes a target of 80 percent emissions reduction by 2050. Baker’s commitment to net-zero emissions by then was immediately hailed by environmental groups, many of which have been critical of him in the past. The pledge is a “crucial directive [that] puts Massachusetts in the vanguard of states and nations combating climate change,” said Brad Campbell, president of the Conservation Law Foundation.

The Senate is preparing to unveil on Thursday its own bill addressing climate change, which Senate President Karen E. Spilka said Tuesday will include the accelerated 2050 goal. House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo indicated he, too, supports the new target.

In a thinly veiled shot at the Trump administration, Baker said there have been “significant steps backward in Washington” in addressing climate change. He also trumpeted a stalled proposal he called critical to helping fund climate-resiliency projects through a tax hike on real estate transfers.

He devoted part of his speech to pitching lawmakers on a regional pact known as the Transportation and Climate Initiative, or TCI. It’s designed to curb carbon emissions but would probably raise gas prices. Without action, he said, the state won’t meet its objectives on reducing all greenhouse gas emissions.

SOURCE

Obama's crooked EPA administrator still spouting off

She's obsessed. I guess it gives her life meaning

Recently, as meteorologists from around the country assembled in Boston for their annual convention, Gina McCarthy took center stage, carrying an even darker forecast than those of epic storms like the Blizzard of ’78, which she keenly remembers.

It’s nothing less than an urgent bulletin. Our planet is warming. It’s not an opinion. It’s real.

And the consequences are more dire than canceled school classes or thousands of cars stranded on highways from Marshfield to Marblehead.

“The big deal is that global warming is changing the entire system of the way energy is distributed in the planet,’’ McCarthy told me the other day at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, where she is a professor.

“Our climate is temperate. It’s not going to be anymore. The climate isn’t tomorrow. Or five years from now. The climate is forever. It’s a system of change over 30 to 40 years. So you are literally going to see places that flourish as farmlands today that will be deserts tomorrow. This is an entire shift in how the globe’s going to look if we don’t do something about it.’’

Gina McCarthy intends to do something about it.

And those who know her track record — her long and well-earned reputation for no-nonsense, plain-spoken advocacy, her tenacity in the face of nay-sayers or climate-change deniers — say she is a formidable weather system all her own. Inexorable. Relentless. Blunt.

“Gina is a rock star,’’ said Jenni L. Evans, president of the American Meteorological Society. “We see climate change. It’s there. She will talk about how to think about it. How do we give people a sense of self-determination and not a sense that they should slit their wrists?’’

There is nothing academic or hypothetical about this. Evans grew up in Australia, parts of which have been blackened by historic wildfires.

Last year, record temperatures were broken in France and Germany. Greenland’s ice sheet saw historic melting. Average global temperatures were the second highest on record, less than one-tenth of a degree cooler than 2016.

So Evans knows what hangs in the balance. And so does McCarthy, who has made this work the centerpiece of her professional life.

As a young woman, she was the health agent for Canton’s Board of Health. Governor Michael Dukakis named her to a hazardous waste facility site safety council. After that, she served four Republican governors in Massachusetts and one in Connecticut, Jodi Rell.

In March 2013, President Obama nominated McCarthy as the nation’s 13th administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, which she led until 2017, becoming the chief architect of Obama’s plan to combat climate change.

And now, the Natural Resources Defense Council has named McCarthy as its president and chief executive, calling her one of the most effective environmental champions of the modern era.

The challenges, particularly in the age of Donald Trump, are daunting. According to a recent New York Times analysis, Trump has rolled back more than 90 environmental rules and regulations, raising the prospects for a significant increase in greenhouse gases. That means dirtier air. It means weaker auto pollution standards. It means looser rules governing toxic industrial emissions.

“We haven’t reached the point of no return, but we don’t have as much time as we thought we had,’’ said Mitch Bernard, NRDC’s chief counsel. “The next 10 years will be critical in terms of trying to avert the most severe catastrophes from the changing climate.

“Gina is going to try to mobilize the energy and enthusiasm that is out there, especially among young people, for appropriate and vigorous action on climate. Climate change is not out there on the horizon. It’s creating misery and huge health problems.’’

Still, amid all those storm clouds, McCarthy finds a way to be optimistic. For one thing, she’s shut off the endless cable TV chatter, a limitless electronic feedback loop of bad news, an echo chamber that serves only to reinforce embedded political views on the right and the left.

And then she looks for silver linings. “The environment has had tremendous improvement,’’ said McCarthy, who, at age 65, is old enough to remember wiping oily residue off her legs after taking a dip in a polluted Boston Harbor. “But it didn’t improve by people saying, ‘We can’t do it.’ It improved by saying, ‘OK, we’ve got to do it.’ That’s my attitude. I’m not going to give up. I’m not going to claim defeat.

“I’m not going to focus on President Trump and his nonsense, which I know I can’t fix right now. We can fight it. And one of the reasons to go to NRDC is because that’s what they do. They fight it every day so we can get into the courts. And in most cases, we’re winning.”

During the Trump presidency, the NRDC has sued the federal government 96 times, fighting his administration on issues ranging from efficiency standards for lightbulbs to endangered species. Its track record? The NRDC says it has emerged victorious in 54 of the 59 cases so far resolved.

“Those are pretty good odds,’’ McCarthy told me. “I’m optimistic because they don’t govern well. So even on the stuff they’re rolling back in the courts they think they’ve stacked, we can win.’’

What does McCarthy want? More electric cars and buses. Energy efficient lightbulbs and toilets. More trees and playgrounds. Public transportation systems that work. Farms that don’t contaminate drinking water supplies. “I need people to be motivated to act,’’ she said. “Not to be hiding out in their closets.’’

There are no closets in her future. No sandy beaches either. Retirement, she told me, will have to wait. “I can’t let it go,’’ she said. “How do I do that? I don’t just have three kids, I have two grandchildren. And I listen to the young people now. And they’re all debating, and many of them deciding not to have children. That breaks my heart. They don’t see a future.’’

From across the table, she shook her head slowly and sadly. And then, with resolve, added this: “So somehow the energy they’re generating needs to be channeled into something more meaningful than giving up. I just think we have to figure out where the positive energy is. It’s out there. We’ve got to nurture that and at some point you’re going to see people who, like this president, prey on people’s most negative thoughts and amplify those as if that’s a path to the future. “And I’m not going to buy that. And I’m never going to buy that. And I’m never going to stop fighting it.’’

SOURCE

Australia: How a tiny group of Greenie protesters managed to stop backburning in East Gippsland over worries baby birds would die - before fires ravaged the area killing four people and forcing mass evacuations from the beach

Greenies fighting to save baby birds blocked vital hazard reduction burns in a tiny Victorian town two months before residents had to be evacuated as a deadly bushfire closed in.

Holding placards that read 'be firefighters not firelighters' and 'spring burns kill baby birds', the protesters refused to leave the planned burn area in Nowa Nowa, Victoria in September.

Firefighters were forced to abandon what they considered a necessary step in bushfire mitigation before the government reduced the planned burn area by more than 97 per cent to appease activists.

The backdown has played out in similar scenes across the country with devastating consequences as hazard reduction burning drops to dangerous levels.

'Burning in spring is the worst time because the animals are breeding and trees are flowering and it is still so dry,' Mary from Nowa Nowa told her local ABC outlet during the protest.

'The Department of Environment, Land and Water and Planning (DELWP) is dividing the community because they are telling us this has to be done to save our lives but in fact they're just destroying the environment.'

The department scaled back the planned burn from 370 hectares to just nine in what would prove a disastrous move as Australia entered a summer of disaster.

Just two months later, the town's 200 residents would have to be urgently evacuated as the East Gippsland bushfire - which killed four people, destroyed 340 homes and burnt 1 million hectares - raged. The insurance bill from the Gippsland area alone is expected to surpass $100 million.

The ABC has since blurred the faces of the activists to protect their identities, having become a target for trolls in the wake of the East Gippsland fires.

But also coming under fire online was the Victorian government and its agencies for bowing to the wishes of Greens and reducing its planned burns in the Nowa Nowa area by roughly 97.5 per cent.

A Royal Commission into the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires found that 385,000 hectares of hazard reduction needed to be carried out annually across the state.

But DELWP's annual reports reveal only one-third of that goal was accomplished in 2018/19, with 130,000ha burned.

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

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

23 January, 2020

Green? 50,000 Tons Of Non-Recyclable Wind Turbine Blades Dumped In The Landfill

Funny, no one seemed to consider what to do with the massive amount of wind turbine blades once they reached the end of their lifespan. Thus, the irony of the present-day Green Energy Movement is the dumping of thousands of tons of “non-recyclable” supposedly renewable wind turbine blades in the country’s landfills.

Who would have thought? What’s even worse, is that the amount of wind turbine blades slated for waste disposal is forecasted to quadruple over the next fifteen years as a great deal more blades reach their 15-20 year lifespan. Furthermore, the size and length of the newly installed wind turbine blades are now twice as large as they were 20-30 years ago.

Honestly, I hadn’t considered the tremendous amount of waste generated by the so-called “Renewable” wind power industry until a long-term reader sent me the link to the following article, Landfill begins burying non-recyclable Wind Turbine Blades:

Hundreds of giant windmill blades are being shipped to a landfill in Wyoming to be buried because they simply can’t be recycled. Local media reports several wind farms in the state are sending over 900 un-reusable blades to the Casper Regional Landfill to be buried. While nearly 90 percent of old or decommissioned wind turbines, like the motor housing, can be refurbished or at least crushed, fiberglass windmill blades present a problem due to their size and strength.

“Our crushing equipment is not big enough to crush them,” a landfill representative told NPR.

Prior to burying the cumbersome, sometimes nearly 300-foot long blades, the landfill has to cut them up into smaller pieces onsite and stack them in order to save space during transportation.

Wyoming isn’t the only landfill accepting worn-out wind turbine blades. They are also being dumped in IOWA and SOUTH DAKOTA. Although, there’s probably a lot more landfills across the country, especially in Texas, that are accepting old wind turbine blades. Texas has the largest amount of wind-generated energy in the United States at 27,036 MegaWatts, followed by Iowa (8,965 MW), Oklahoma (8,072 MW), Kansas (6,128 MW), and California (5,842 MW). (source: Wikipedia)

So, with Texas powering more wind energy than the next three states combined, they will be discarding an enormous amount of wind turbine blades in the state’s landfills over the next 10-20 years.

Now, why is the Wind Power Industry discarding its blades in landfills? Unfortunately, due to the way the blades are manufactured, it isn’t economical or practical to recycle them even though some small-scale recycling has been done.

The wind turbine blades are a toxic amalgam of unique composites, fiberglass, epoxy, polyvinyl chloride foam, polyethylene terephthalate foam, balsa wood, and polyurethane coatings.   So, basically, there is just too much plastic-composite-epoxy crapola that isn’t worth recycling. Again, even though there are a few small recycling centers for wind turbine blades, it isn’t economical to do on a large scale.

As I mentioned, the wind power units built today are getting much taller and larger. Check out the 83.5 meter (274 feet) long wind turbine blade being transported for a 7 MegaWatt system:

This picture was taken in 2016. So, in about 15-20 years, this blade will need to be replaced. Just think of the cost to remove three massive blades this size, cut them up, transport them to the landfill and cover them with tons of soil. Now, multiply that by tens of thousands of blades. According to the data from Hochschule Bremerhaven & Ahlstrom-Munksjo, the wind industry will generate 50,000 tons of blade waste in 2020, but that will quadruple to 225,000 tons by 2034. I have read that some estimates show an even higher amount of blade waste over the next 10-20 years.

I don’t believe the public realizes what a horrible waste of resources that wind energy is when you start to look at the entire operation from beginning to end. Wind energy is definitely not RENEWABLE. And, even worse… the wind turbines are not lasting as long as the 20-25 years forecasted by the industry. A study that came out in 2012 by Gordon Hughes, researching the relatively mature Dutch and U.K. Wind Industry, suggested that only a few of the wind farms would be operating for more than 12-15 years.

SOURCE

EPA’s Science Blowout: Air pollution revisited

A unique event in regulatory science just happened. One that could only have occurred in the rock ’em, sock ’em Trump era.

An Environmental Protection Agency science advisory panel informed the EPA administrator that 25 years and $600 million worth of the science underpinning the agency’s flagship air quality regulatory program is essentially worthless. Many of these problems are discussed in a new report from the Texas Public Policy Foundation, “The EPA’s Pretense of Science: Regulating Phantom Risks.”

Though this is a huge victory for those of us who have been critical of the EPA “science” for decades, it has come almost too late. The Clinton, Bush and Obama EPAs used this “science” to inflict trillions of dollars’ worth of compliance costs on Americans, not to mention incalculable lost economic opportunities.

The EPA’s Clean Air Act Science Advisory Board wrote to Administrator Andrew Wheeler on December 16 that the agency’s most recent assessment of the health effects of particulate matter like soot and dust (PM) in outdoor air is not comprehensive, systematic or adequate for determining that PM caused health effects.

The immediate regulatory implication of the letter is to inform Wheeler that there is no scientific basis for further tightening of the national air quality standard for PM, consideration of which EPA is undertaking as required by the Clean Air Act.

PM in outdoor air was first weaponized by the Clinton administration in 1997 as part of its controversial bid to tighten the air-quality standard for ozone (ground-level smog), then estimated to impose as much as $100 billion worth of compliance costs per year. EPA tried to offset these costs by claiming that its new standards would prevent 20,000 premature deaths per year. When valued at $5 million per prevented death, the ozone regulation was magically paid for.

When EPA’s outside science advisers and Congress separately challenged the EPA’s claim that PM killed by asking for the supporting scientific data, EPA ignored the science advisers and the brusquely told Congress that the agency saw no useful purpose in providing the data.

Reluctant to challenge anything environmental, the Bush administration failed to get a grip on the EPA and the agency staff proceeded to strengthen its PM case not with better science but rather with more science. Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent to get thousands of papers published claiming that PM killed.

The stage was then set for the Obama administration, which launched the war on coal behind the claim that reducing coal plant emissions via regulation would prevent tens of thousands of premature deaths every year. Obama EPA administrator Lisa Jackson even testified to Congress that PM “doesn’t make you sick … it just kills you,” and that if PM was adequately regulated, as many as 570,000 lives could be saved every year.

Not only did the Obama EPA continue to ignore congressional requests for the underlying scientific data but it also ignored a House subpoena for the data.

To manage the problem of overly inquisitive outside science advisers, EPA replaced its largely independent outside air-quality science advisers with panels of almost entirely EPA-funded university researchers.

By stiff-arming Congress and rigging the statutorily mandated scientific review process, EPA successfully prosecuted the war on coal, driving the largest coal companies into bankruptcy and erasing 94 percent of the market value of the coal industry.

Then came the Trump administration.

The first thing to go was the EPA’s system of “pal review” from its outside science advisers. With new conflict-of-interest rules, Trump EPA administrator Scott Pruitt banned agency grantees from serving as reviewers. Pruitt then proposed to ban reliance by the agency on scientific data that wasn’t made publicly available upon request, setting off a furious response ginned up by those hiding their research data. Pruitt’s successor, Wheeler, then dissolved the extant panel of Obama administration-chosen PM science advisers.

And after available science advisory panel slots were filled with Trump administration picks, a more balanced board of science advisers has now, by majority vote, returned the panel back to where it was in 1996, when it first advised Clinton EPA administrator Carol Browner that the EPA had no evidence that PM caused premature death.

The claims, actions and consequences of this EPA saga have been extraordinary. Massive funding of university researchers to make dubious claims of mass death, arrogant hiding of taxpayer-funded scientific data, agency disregard for congressional oversight, rigged peer-review, destruction of the coal industry, huge ongoing compliance costs and much more.

And the drama is far from over. Wheeler will in 2020 make the final decision on the air-quality standards and the science transparency rule. Meanwhile the other side is furiously working to undermine both efforts while doubling down on their claims that PM kills. But their data remains secret.

SOURCE

UK: Wind farms built to tackle climate change could be final nail in coffin for seabirds, RSPB warns

Wind farms built to tackle climate change could be the "final nail in the coffin" for sea birds, the RSPB has warned as it publishes a new report into their feeding hotspots.

The UK is a globally crucial place for these birds, as it contains 8 million breeding pairs. They are in fast decline - seabirds have faced a 70 per cent drop worldwide since the 1970s, and numbers continue to fall.

When the birds feed, they fly out to sea to find food sources such as sandeels. The RSPB has tracked over 1,000 of Britain's four most threatened bird species — kittiwakes, guillemots, razorbills and shags — and found they feed at certain "hotspots". Many of these are sandbanks where small fish are found - which happen to be the places developers find it easier to build offshore wind turbines.

The new research, published in the journal Biological Conservation, found that the hotspots are bigger than all the Special Protection Areas in the UK, where human activity on bird life is curbed.

It has also identified areas in which the building of infrastructure including wind farms should be banned, the RSPB said.

Gareth Cunningham, the bird charity's chief marine policy officer, told The Telegraph: "We are in the middle of the climate emergency and one of the methods for addressing that is offshore wind. Currently there's very little monitoring done on offshore wind farms.

"Wind farms need to be built where the sea is fairly shallow, sometimes this means they are built on areas which are meant for foraging.

"The new data shows where birds go so we need to not put offshore wind in these hotspots. We need environmentally sensible installations. We have a biodiversity emergency — we don't want to make this worse while tackling climate emergency. We need to deal with climate change but we need to make sure the measures we take to address climate change aren't the final nail in the coffin for seabirds."

Wind farms can harm these little birds because collision with the blades can cause death as they try to fly to their feeding spots. Even the birds which wisely dodge the structures are harmed; they are forced to take large detours, putting chicks at risk of starvation as they wait for their parents to return.

Dr Ian Cleasby, lead author of the research, said: “The sight and sound of hundreds of thousands of seabirds flocking to our shores is an amazing natural spectacle and something that we must help protect for future generations to enjoy. The results from this research provides better evidence that allows us to identify important areas of sea that should be part of protected areas and help to improve how we plan for development at sea to reduce conflicts between the needs of our seabirds and human activities at sea”

This comes as the government commits to a Seabird Conservation Strategy, to be published in December 2020, and has designated new Special Protection Areas for terns in the Solent and near Middlesbrough .

These new areas will protect the birds from human activity, such as fishing or outdoor recreation. The new and extended locations join 47 existing sites in English waters.

Environment Minister Rebecca Pow said: "As the devastating impacts of climate change are only too visible, it is vital that we take decisive steps now that make a real difference to help protect our wildlife and allow vulnerable species to recover.

"We have already protected important nesting sites for seabirds, such as the little tern, and these new and additional protections to their feeding grounds, together with the development of a new strategy to protect our seabirds, will help the coastal environment recover, develop and, importantly, thrive."

Tony Juniper, Natural England Chair, added: "Many of Britain’s sea and shorebird populations are globally important and for that reason we have a particular responsibility to protect and enhance them. I am delighted that, following an extensive evidence-based assessment by Natural England, these new areas, confirmed today by Government, will help to do that. They will ensure that species of conservation concern, such as terns and waders, have access to secure food sources, including during their critical annual breeding seasons."

SOURCE

Regulatory Action Center Supports EPA's Cost-Saving Methane De-Regulation

FreedomWorks Foundation's Regulatory Action Center (RAC) is driving comments in support of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) reform on methane. This new rule would remove regulatory barriers erected by the Obama administration. It would save the American taxpayer tens of millions of dollars and help lower energy costs for U.S. households. You can make your voice heard HERE to support this crucial reform.

Existing Obama-era regulations on methane impose stringent regulations for the transmission and storage of methane. This means that even though the mere storage of methane did not contribute significantly to air pollution, the Obama administration counted it against organizations that store and transmit methane as if it had polluted the environment. This is predatory regulatory overreach at its finest.

The Trump Administration, under the leadership of Administrator Wheeler, has ruled that the Obama EPA erred in its judgment. In order to be regulated under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, the agency must determine that there is a significant impact on air pollution. Otherwise, any regulation is unlawful. The EPA also expects minimal environmental impact by this de-regulation, because of its allowance for modifications and the aforementioned issue of methane storage not contributing to air pollution.

EPA’s regulatory impact analysis estimates that the proposed amendments would save the oil and natural gas industry $17-$19 million a year, for a total of $97-$123 million from 2019 through 2025. This is cost-saving to the American taxpayer and is an important step towards lowering the energy bills for all Americans.

SOURCE

Tony Abbott says 'every extreme weather event' in Australia is being used as 'proof of climate change' by eco fanatics who have become 'religious' in their beliefs

He is clearly still aware that global warming is hokum

Tony Abbott says climate change zealots are wrongly using 'every extreme weather event' as undeniable proof of global warming, with the former prime minister denying it was the main cause of Australia's unprecedented bushfire crisis.

Mr Abbott launched a stinging rebuke of eco warriors at an event for the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank, in Washington D.C. on Tuesday - where he also lauded US President Donald Trump's first term in office.

The former Liberal Party leader and volunteer firefighter said deadly bushfires were inevitable in Australia and pointed to the century-old Dorothea Mackeller poem 'My Country' which describes the country as a land 'of droughts and flooding rains'.

Mr Abbott said climate change activists were almost 'religious' in their beliefs that global warming was to blame for the ongoing fires, which have devastated a record amount of land.

'I'm not one of those people who sees the current bushfires as confirmation of all we have feared about the changing climate,' he told The Sydney Morning Herald.

'I see the current bushfires as the sort of thing we are always going to be prone to in a country such as ours.'

Mr Abbott said those who believe climate change is the most important factor in extreme weather events use it as the reason for fires, floods and Hurricane Sandy - which devastated the Carribean in 2012.

'If you think climate change is the most important thing, everything can be turned to proof. I think that to many it has almost a religious aspect to it,' he said.

Mr Abbott, Australia's 28th prime minister, led the country between 2013 and 2015 while served 19 years as a volunteer firefighter for the Rural Fire Service.

He supported Prime Minister Scott Morrison's stance that climate change had some role in causing bushfires, and praised his response to the state of emergency caused by the fires.

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

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

22 January, 2020

Banks warned to ‘mobilise all forces' to save the economy from climate change-induced disaster

Another stupid prophecy. Global warming prophecies NEVER come true

The world’s most powerful banks have issued a warning that climate change could trigger the next global financial crisis.

In an expansive new report, the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) told its members they had to start including climate change in their thinking about the stability of the economy.

During the global financial crisis some central banks intervened to save private banks and insurance firms as part of a program to protect the economy.

The BIS said this could be the template used in the case of climate change.

“In the worst-case scenario, central banks may have to confront a situation where they are called upon by their local constituencies to intervene as climate rescuers of last resort,” it said.

The BIS warned that economic models mapping out possible climate change scenarios were “inherently incapable” of dealing with the many overlapping forces that would lead to a lower-emissions economy.

“Fundamentally, climate-related risks will remain largely uninsurable or unable to be hedged as long as system-wide action is not taken,” the BIS said.

It urged central bankers to “be more proactive” in pushing governments on the transition to a greener economy, while also urging governments to steer financial institutions and businesses towards accounting for climate-related risks in their investment decisions.

SOURCE



What Doomsayers Won’t Tell You About Earth’s Climate History

Absent historical context, extreme weather can be overhyped in ways that lead uninformed voters to conclude that acts of God such as severe droughts and floods never happened before humans began using fossil fuels.

In fact, extreme weather has occurred with monotonous regularity for millions of years.

Below is an infinitesimal sampling of the endless multitude of catastrophic weather events in Earth’s past, many of which occurred long before the Industrial Revolution.

* The Great Hurricane of 1780 killed 30,000 people in the Caribbean.

* Epic dust storms in the 1930s caused catastrophic ecological damage to the Central Plains of the U.S. and Canada.

* Massive flooding that hit Tokyo, Japan, in 1910 destroyed more than 400,000 homes.

* Consecutive years of extreme weather took the lives of one-third of the population during the Russian Famine of 1601-1603.

* In 1927, weeks of heavy rains in Mississippi caused flooding that covered 27,000 square miles, leaving entire towns and surrounding countryside submerged up to a depth of 30 feet.

* A catastrophic hurricane that hit sparsely populated Sea Island, Georgia in 1893 killed 2,000 people.

* The Blizzard of 1888 was so extreme that snow and ice covered the entire northeastern U.S., from Maine to the Chesapeake Bay.

* On Sept. 8, 1900, a Cat-4 hurricane obliterated the island of Galveston, Texas, killing an estimated 10,000 residents.

* In 1889, heavy rains that lasted for days caused massive flooding in Jamestown, PA, killing 2,200.

* Caused by a protracted drought, the Bengal Famine of 1770 killed 10 million people in South Asia.

* And, for those who believe in the Bible, Genesis 7:12 reports that rain fell upon the earth for 40 days and 40 nights, an extreme weather event by any definition.

What you’ve just read is a tiny slice of Earth’s turbulent climate history that global warming doomsayers hope voters will never know.

And, because there’s an agenda behind climate hysteria that has nothing to do with “saving the planet” – I wrote about that agenda here – there’s not much they won’t do to trick voters to believe that global warming is causing the environment to fall apart at the seams.

They even changed the name of the alleged threat.

Switching gears: Why “global warming” came to be called “climate change”

When the accelerated warming trend that began in the 1980s ran out of steam in 1997, an extended leveling-off period set in.

Instead of acknowledging their dire predictions of unstoppable rising temperatures were embarrassingly wrong, climate doomsayers came up with a new tag for the alleged threat.

What was once referred to almost exclusively as “global warming” was quietly given an alter ego: “climate change.”

Since global temperatures were in a virtual flatline, claims of cataclysmic warming were no longer believable.

Rather than admitting they were wrong and looking for another way to destroy capitalism, the doomsayers simply switched gears and invented a clever new trick to frighten voters with terrifying scenarios of imminent environmental calamity.

Since runaway warming wasn’t happening, they concocted the specious narrative that extreme weather events, every one of them, are caused by, you guessed it: climate change.

Almost overnight, climate change was made the scapegoat for every severe hurricane, drought, flood, heatwave, and blizzard that appeared, as if such unpleasant things had never before occurred.

MORE here

The Green assault on home ownership

With millennials postponing or wholly ignoring marriage while dealing with heavy student loan debt and greater mobility, home ownership for many Americans under 35 may not be as important a goal as it has been for the entirety of the American experiment. Higher prices even for entry-level homes may also be a contributor.

This shying away from home ownership has created an environment in which those who want to destroy the right to private property can find an audience. Thus it should be no surprise that UCLA urban planning professor Kian Goh, in an op ed in far-left magazine The Nation, wrote that, “If we want to keep cities safe in the face of climate change, we need to seriously question the ideal of private homeownership.”

Like wolves sensing weakness, some politicians have also jumped at the opportunity to propose a future without single-family homeowners. Maryland state legislator Vaughn Stewart wants to eliminate zoning regulations that protect single-family neighborhoods and instead mandate construction of tenements that will destroy property values in those “high-opportunity” neighborhoods.

Then Stewart, a white millennial who lives in ?ber-rich Montgomery County, throws in the race card, ignoring well-enforced legislation that prohibits discrimination in housing. These property-value destroying steps, including ending “weaponized zoning codes” that push people of color and the working class “to the crumbling margins of cities and towns.”

Yup! Just as some far leftists want to take away private health insurance from 150 million Americans, others now want to take away the private property rights exercised by 83 million households!

Fortunately, current U.S. housing policy has a different idea. It’s called “Homeownership: The American Dream.”

That’s the title of an article by Rachelle Levitt, Director of the Research Utilization Division of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Policy Development and Research. Levitt pledged that increasing the rate of home ownership and the economic benefits that home ownership confers, continues to be a government and societal goal. This, so HUD will continue to ensure that the opportunity to seize this part of the American Dream is available to as many Americans as possible.

According to Levitt, “For many Americans, owning a home is an essential part of the American dream that conveys a number of economic benefits. Such as the ability to accumulate wealth and access credit by building home equity. Also to reduce housing costs through the mortgage interest deduction and gain long-term savings over the cost of renting.”

Now, while this may not be true for those who frequently relocated from city to city or for single adults not willing to rent out unused rooms in the typical three-bedroom bungalow, home ownership indeed makes all the difference in net worth.

Evidence is ample, but the fact that U.S. minority home ownership rates are just 46.3 percent (compared to 73 percent for whites) is a major reason that, according to Federal Reserve estimates, the median net worth of white families is nearly 10 times that of black families. Similarly, minority homeowners were twice as likely to face foreclosures than white homeowners in the wake of the 2008 big banks bailout.

This makes good fodder for those playing the race card. But then there are the millennials, who are facing a collective student loan debt [thanks to government and academia conspiring, perhaps unintentionally, to enslave even the brightest and best] of about $1.5 trillion. This is the primary reason even well-salaraied millennials are delaying home ownership, as reported by Casey Bond in the Huffington Post.

Bond cited a survey by the National Association of Realtors found that 83 percent of millennials ages 22 to 35 who have delayed home ownership, said they did so because of student loan debt. Bond quotes millennial certified financial planner Brian Face to illustrate the idea that many millennials are choosing to rent because it affords them better personal and financial opportunities. Face says:“Our generation is more about experiences,” and “the bottom line is you have to give up something in order to be a homeowner.”

With socialism, as taught in America’s public schools, gaining in popularity among the younger generation and a declining belief in (or even hatred of) the relationship between home ownership and the American Dream, it is not surprising that academics like Professor Goh are blaming climate change in part on home ownership itself.

Goh opines: “Cheap energy—both the monetary price of subsidized gasoline and the hidden costs of fossil fuels—and the idealization of individual homeownership have created the scorching landscapes we face today. Cheap energy is untenable in the face of climate emergency. And individual homeownership should be seriously questioned.”

In the face of ever-increasing, and ever more radical, socialist propaganda, is it possible that private property rights may go the way of freedom of speech and the right to bear arms? The social engineers of the Left surely hope so – but even Goh admits that, “Even with the threats of climate change and rampant fire looming, the ideals of the American Dream that have been instilled for more than 150 years [and which have blinded us to other possibilities (sic)] will be difficult to dispel.”

SOURCE

CLIMATE CHANGE ROUNDUP FROM AUSTRALIA

Three current articles below

Amusingly empty-headed Leftism

Leftists run as if from the plague if they encounter conservative discourse. They have to. So much of what they believe is contrary to the facts that they have a desperate need not to be proved wrong. Conservatives have no such fears. Conservatives just want to know what the facts are. Conservatism is built around the facts. Mr Gradgrind was probably a conservative.

So I read Leftist articles almost daily. They can have useful facts in them but never the whole facts. So I had a look at the current article below from the far-Left "New Matilda" site. It is written by Rosie Latimer, who is a medical student. I feel sorry for any patients she may one day have. The heading on her article reads "Climate Change Is Science Not Politics. So Can We Talk About It Yet?"

Yet she mentions NOT ONE scientific fact in her article. She probably knows none. She uses "science" as a sort of magic word that opens all doors. She relies on a fictitious "consensus" among scientists to "prove" the reality of global warming. Has no-one ever told her that once there was a consensus among all good men that the earth was flat? Science relies on facts, not opinions.

I reproduce just her opening paragraphs below. I give the link for you to read the whole article if you are interested in any more "ad hominem" fallacies

Australia is under attack from unprecedented bushfires, which are decimating our country, leaving a trail of physical, mental, and emotional destruction. Many have lost loved ones, homes, and some of our native plants and animals are facing extinction.

People are suffering under the toxic smoke that is billowing throughout Australia and the Pacific.

Yet in the face of this, our government and the Murdoch media contend this is not the time to discuss climate change, because the discussion of climate change is a political issue.

Climate change is not a political issue.

There is overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is occurring, caused by humans emitting greenhouse gases. The world has drawn links between Australia’s love affair with a coal-based economy and the bushfires ravaging our great nation.

This should be a bi-partisan issue, an issue that unites us all. So why is it a Liberal calling card to deny climate change, and a Labor calling card to let them?

SOURCE

Climate change rally turns ugly in Melbourne as angry demonstrators clash with police and Extinction Rebellion protesters bury their heads in the sand at a popular beach

They are just attention-seekers getting high on their own righteousness

Thousands of protesters have marched through Melbourne calling for immediate climate change action and for Prime Minister Scott Morrison to be sacked.

There was a heightened police presence as the activists gathered at the State Library and walked through the city on Saturday afternoon.

One impassioned activist decided to target the on-duty officers by screaming in their direction and leaning uncomfortably close.

A police officer was forced to warn the angry protester to 'back off' and push him away.

The rally, organised by Uni Students for Climate Justice, is part of rolling January demonstrations for the city 'to demand real action on climate change and justice for the communities devastated by the fires'.

'These fires are the result of decades of climate destruction at the hands of fossil fuel industry and their mates in Canberra,' the event description said.

Activists are fighting for a levy on fossil fuel companies, the removal of Mr Morrison from office and firefighters to be paid for their work, among other demands.

Organisers estimated about 2,000 people took part in Saturday's event.

The march came one-day after Extinction Rebellion activists buried their heads in the sand to demand the government declare a climate emergency.

About 300 people descended on Inverloch Beach, about two hours south-east of Melbourne, for the 'peaceful' protest on Friday.

The demonstration comes amid a catastrophic and fatal bushfire season, which has ripped through the state's East Gippsland region.

The protest saw activists dig holes in the sand to bury their heads and lie on the side of the shore, Nine News reported.

Protester Nicky Miller described the protest as 'symbolism' for Australia's lack of action in reducing emissions.

A number of protesters displayed signs slamming the government for its reliance on fossil fuels.

The colourful demonstrators sung there was a 'climate crisis' with the assistance of ukuleles and other instruments.

Leticia Liang referred to the bushfires when explaining why she took part in the protest.

'I don't want my children to adapt to hazy days, I don't want me children to adapt to smoke and fires,' she said.

Lynn Atkinson from Extinction Rebellion said the location of the protest - Inverloch Beach - was eroding 'rapidly'.

Jessica Harrison, also from the activist group, said: 'We want our lovely beach to be preserved, this beach has eroded more than 30 metres in the last four to five years.'

Extinction Rebellion said they expected 100 protesters to attend the demonstration but the 300-strong crowd represented the local community are 'concerned' and 'need action'.

SOURCE

Government is not even trying to reduce fuel for fires

A FIRE fighter has savaged the Queensland Government's hazard reduction burning process, claiming there was state-owned land that wasn't being monitored for fuel loads. Will Wilson, who is stationed in Mt Alma, West of Gladstone, said the local brigade had also stopped telling authorities about "intense fuel loads" building up because there were too many hoops to jump through.

"There's no one that drives along the highway that says 'There's a massive fuel load'," he said "There's no one checking fuel loads at those locations apart from landholders who don't own the land."

The first officer, who's been with the brigade for about 25 years, said the land which runs parallel to a highway was a big instigator for fires. "We've never been notified by main roads that we need to do some fuel reduction on their land," he said

Mr Wilson said it was not the volunteers' job to monitor areas such as rail corridors and main roads and called for financial incentives to better protect the community.

A Government spokesman said government agencies conducted hazard reduction burns on state-owned land only when it was safe to do so. "Activities include hazard reduction bums, fireline maintenance, mechanical clearing and targeted community education," he said. "More than one million hectares of national parks were treated by planned burns last year. That is the most hectares treated in eight years."

Frank McKee, a fire warden for the Boyne Valley, said it was "all but impossible" to get all government departments to agree to hazard reduction burns on state-owned land. "You have to jump through hoops so high it's ridiculous," he said.

Asked why he thought it was hard to get approvals, Mr McKee said it was due to concerns about risk. "They (authorities) think 'Well what if it (fire) gets away'," he said.

Mr McKee also said officers were required to tell the Government whether there were endangered trees on land needing burning.

"They should be able to have land with no more than a seven-year build up (of fuel load)," he said. "Anything over seven years is uncontrollable."

From the Brisbane "Courier Mail" of 18 January, 2020

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

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

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

21 January, 2020

Trump’s EPA is said to cut scientists out of new water policy

With the Trump administration poised to roll back key protections for much of the nation’s wetlands, scientists at the US Environmental Protection Agency are accusing the agency’s political appointees of ignoring their advice and barring them from shaping sweeping new guidelines, violating the agency’s longstanding policies.

One scientist was so distraught that the agency veteran started to cry while explaining how EPA administrators have cut specialists out of the process of crafting rules that prevent development and pollution near streams, tidal waters, and ponds.

“This has been a very painful time to work for the agency,” the scientist said in a recent interview, speaking on condition of anonymity because of fear of reprisal. “We’re being asked to do things that most of us feel is the antithesis of what we’ve been trying to do, and, in some cases, undo things that we’ve worked very hard to accomplish.” Then, the scientist broke down.

As soon as this weekend, after three years of attempting to scale back a raft of other environmental regulations, President Trump is expected to announce a far-reaching new policy that could drastically curb protections of the nation’s streams and wetlands and impact critical headwaters across New England.

In late 2018, the Trump administration released a draft of its plan to alter the nation’s water policy, which aims to overturn protections introduced three years earlier during the Obama administration. The changes, according to the agency’s own data, would eliminate environmental protections from about half the country’s wetlands and millions of miles of streams.

In New England, despite state protections that could limit the impact of such federal moves, changes to the so-called Waters of the United States rule could affect thousands of vernal pools, bodies of water in forests that provide habitat to many species; isolated wetlands; and a range of streams that flow after heavy rains or during specific seasons.

That means in communities without specific bylaws that prevent pollution or development in those areas, a developer wouldn’t need a permit to fill those wetlands, or a company could legally dump chemicals on that property.

Elsewhere in the nation, particularly in the Southwest, the vast majority of streams could lose federal protections against pollution and development.

Proponents, including groups representing farmers and home builders, have hailed the new regulations as overdue. When announcing the draft rules a year ago, EPA officials said the changes would increase economic growth, reduce barriers to business development, and clear up nebulous language that has sparked litigation.

“Our simpler and clearer definition would help landowners understand whether a project on their property will require a federal permit or not, without spending thousands of dollars on engineering and legal professionals,” EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said at the time.

Miners, developers, and other industries have pushed for the change. Speaking last year at the annual convention of the American Farm Bureau Federation, one of the leading advocates for the new rules, Trump said the changes would save farmers from “one of the most ridiculous regulations ever imposed on anybody in our nation.”

But even the agency’s own board of scientific advisers — many of whom were appointed by the Trump administration — have dissented. In a letter to Wheeler late last year, the advisers wrote that the proposed rule was “in conflict with established science . . . and the objectives of the Clean Water Act.”

As the administration has worked on completing the final rules, more than 40 current and former scientists, career employees, and political appointees are voicing their concerns.

In a letter submitted this weekend to the agency’s inspector general requesting an investigation, members of the group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility alleged that political appointees in the agency have “suppressed” and “dismissed” the scientific opinions of career employees.

“There was no honest investigation, no commitment to the evidence, no culture of robust scientific inquiry and discussion, and no transparency,” they wrote in the complaint, which was signed by former EPA regional administrators and senior water specialists. “These headquarters employees have suppressed evidence, misrepresented data, exaggerated uncertainties, and let perceived policy implications improperly override undisputed scientific conclusions.”

They added, “This case is not one of a difference of personal views: the overwhelming number of former and current agency personnel, together with the [Science Advisory Board] and independent scientists, all agree that the headquarters employees improperly rejected science.”

Among those who signed the letter was Curt Spalding, the EPA regional administrator in New England during the Obama administration. He said there was a clear difference in how the Trump and Obama administrations approached changes to the nation’s water protections.

Before the Obama administration announced new rules in 2015, which expanded protections throughout the country, scientists and other specialists met repeatedly to help shape the rules and provided guidance that shaped the ultimate rules, he said.

“It’s clear that they’re not paying attention to the science about protecting water quality,” said Spalding, a professor at Brown University. “We tried to build a rule grounded in science; what they’re doing will mean a lot less protection for very important wetlands throughout New England that are vital to our ecosystems and drinking water.”

Another signatory of the letter , Matt Schweisberg, a former chief of wetlands protection at EPA in New England, told the Globe he worries that the agency’s final rules will be even worse than the draft version.

The proposed changes would mean that a vast number of streams and ponds won’t be protected by the Clean Water Act, a landmark law passed in 1972 that led to the cleanup and preservation of many of the nation’s waterways, he said.

“I have not seen such a wholesale abandonment of environmental protection in the 40 years I’ve been at this, and I went through the changes during the Reagan administration,” said Schweisberg, now an environmental consultant in Merrimac. “I think it’s certain that the impacts of this are going to be extremely harmful.”

In response to the allegations, EPA officials said in a statement that the agency “takes science integrity seriously” and that the “career professionals” at the EPA and US Army Corps of Engineers have been “actively involved” in the development of the new rules.

“Assertions that the Trump administration’s revised definition . . . will leave thousands of stream miles and millions of acres of wetlands unprotected are categorically false,” said Michael Abboud, an EPA spokesman.

He said previous federal definition of the waters subject to the new rules have proven “too speculative to be meaningful for regulatory purposes.” The final rule, he said, “will be grounded in the law, informed by science.”

He added, “A reputable newspaper like The Boston Globe should know better than to run a baseless story.”

Among the groups that have supported the EPA’s efforts to change the water rules is the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, a trade group representing 25,000 beef producers around the country.

They said the rules implemented during the Obama administration meant that nearly every cattle producer with more than 20 acres of land would have been forced to wade through a sometimes-expensive, bureaucratic process to do basic things such as build a feedlot. A federal judge blocked the Obama rule from taking effect in many states.

“We think the new rule is going to be a step in the right direction,” said Scott Yager, chief environmental counsel to the association. “The 2015 rule expanded the federal government reach beyond what we have ever experienced in history.”

But environmental advocates said the arguments supporting the administration’s changes are misleading.

“The EPA’s own graphs and numbers show how much will be lost,” said Kyla Bennett, a former wetlands scientist at the EPA who now serves as science policy director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. “The fact that so many current and former federal employees have spoken out against this flawed rulemaking process speaks volumes.”

SOURCE

Fight fires with facts – not fake science

Eliminate fuel, prevent ignition, stop arson, end irresponsible land management policies

Paul Driessen & Duggan Flanakin

“We are all born ignorant,” Benjamin Franklin once said, “but one must work very hard to remain stupid.”

Greens are incensed over suggestions that anything but fossil fuels and climate change might be turning green California and Australian ecosystems into black wastelands, incinerating wildlife, destroying homes and killing people. The notion that they and their policies might be a major factor in these fires gets them so hot under the collar that they could ignite another inferno. But the facts are there for all to see.

PG&E certainly failed to maintain, upgrade and repair its transmission lines and towers, leading to sparks that caused multiple fiery cataclysms. However, California now has over 129 million dead trees in its forests – and a long history of refusing to thin them out, clear brush or permit others to do so. Fuel levels in Aussie forest, brush and grasslands areas have likewise climbed to near-historic levels in recent years.

The total area burned in New South Wales and Victoria is now approaching the area burnt in Victoria back in 1851, Australian scientist Dr. Jennifer Marohasy notes. 2020 summer temperatures in Australia may get as hot as they did back in 1938-1939. US climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer agrees.

In both California and Australia, people bemoan the loss of eucalyptus trees in fires. But many don’t want them removed or even thinned out. They don’t know (or won’t accept the fact) that fallen eucalypt leaves and bark create vast expanses of flammable material, while their spicy-smelling oil is highly flammable. A spark can ignite an explosive firestorm in air laden with gasoline-like vapors, followed by horrific crown fires among the trees and ground fires in the dead leaves and bark.

Rainy winters in both places cause rapid, lush plant growth that is aided by rising levels of atmospheric plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide. Long, hot, dry summers – or prolonged droughts – can follow, drying out the trees, brush and grass, and setting the stage for catastrophic wildfires.

Environmentalists, politicians, regulators and judges say removing trees and brush will damage habitats. But when the inevitable conflagrations hit, habitats are cremated and obliterated, down to soil organisms and organic matter. Subsequent downpours and snowmelts wash the remaining soil away. What habitats?

Some recent fires could be called “historic” or “unprecedented” – especially if monster fires of a century or more ago are left out of the calculation; or if conflagrations elsewhere are not included. Few people know about the Great Peshtigo, Wisconsin Fire of October 8, 1871, even though it killed 1,200-2,500 people, many of them turned into little piles of ash. The Peshtigo debacle was overshadowed by another big fire that day: the Great Chicago Fire, which burned 98% less land and killed far fewer people.

Yet another fact demolishes the all-too-typical claim that recent Australian fires are due to manmade climate change. Many (perhaps most) of those fires were caused by humans – some accidentally, but many deliberately. More than 180 alleged arsonists have been arrested since the start of the 2020 bushfire season, with 29 blazes deliberately lit in part of southeast New South Wales in just three months!

At least two dozen people have died in Australia’s fires, along with thousands of sheep and cattle, over 2,000 koala bears, and several hundred million other animals. US wildfires have likewise exacted horrific death tolls. A few years ago, Duggan hosted a benefit concert for the families of the Fallen Nineteen, the 19 City of Prescott firefighters who died battling the 2013 lightning-ignited Yarnell Hill Fire in Arizona.

Now, the Washington Free Beacon reports, “a media outlet affiliated with ISIS has been instructing the group's radical adherents to set forest fires in the United States and Europe to cause mass ecological disasters, according to posts on an internet forum dedicated to the terror group.” The Middle East Media Research Institute has flagged four posters published in the pro-ISIS Quraysh media outlet. The first said (English translation): “Oh monotheists [followers of ISIS], ignite fires in the forests and fields, and we are addressing especially those who live in Europe and America, for the fires are painful to them.” The fourth poster got more specific: “Ignite fires in the forests of America, France, Britain and Germany, for they are painful to them." Might some ISIS follower have viewed Australia as equally deserving of ecotage?

A recent report by Pulitzer Prize winning Los Angeles Times reporter Bettina Boxall may make greens even hotter under the collar: “Human-caused ignitions spark California’s worst wildfires but get little state focus,” the headline reads. Her key point is damning: “It doesn’t matter how dry the vegetation, how fierce the winds or how high the temperature; if there is no ignition, there is no wildfire.”

Noting that the 2019 California fire season was far less deadly than that in 2018, when the notorious “Camp Fire” destroyed the town of Paradise and killed 86 people, Ms. Boxall attributes the comparatively mind 2019 fire season to actions PG&E took to shut down power to many Californians, often for days. She quotes Stanford University researcher Michael Wara, who testified before a Congressional committee that Pacific Gas & Electric’s inspections of wind damage to its lines and equipment made it clear that, without preventive shutdowns, “we would have had a significant number of utility-caused fires” in 2019.

Boxall found that all of California’s 20 most destructive wildfires were human-related, with half due to power line or electrical problems. She also noted that a study of US records from 1992 to 2012 found that human activity (power lines, carelessness and arson) was responsible for 84% of wildfires and 44% of acreage burned nationwide. That’s the ignition factor. Two other factors are equally important.

Even if there is ignition, if there is insufficient fuel, there will still be no wildfire – at least not monstrous, deadly conflagrations. Thin the forests, remove dead trees, control brush and grass levels, especially in dry seasons and arid regions. It’s basic, intelligent land management; the Boy Scout motto: Be prepared.

Preparation also means maintaining fire breaks and access roads into forest, brush and grass lands; building and maintaining sufficient escape routes and warning systems, and making people aware of them; ensuring that each family and community has an escape plan; and having enough trucks, airplanes, helicopters, other equipment and personnel to respond to average fires and worst-case scenarios. It means educating children and adults about how to prevent fires, put them out, and get out of their path.

(California public schools offer multiple courses on climate change. Cool California lists even more. But as long as politicians and even industry leaders keep spreading the false gospel of climate change as the principal cause of wildfires, the need for personal and political responsibility will be ignored.)

Third, actual response to a fire means ensuring the political, social, financial and institutional support to get sufficient personnel, equipment and water to a fire before it turns into an uncontrollable inferno.

Do all that, and the recovery phase – rebuilding homes, businesses, habitats, wildlife numbers and shattered human lives – will be far less extensive, costly and traumatic. Difficult recoveries will also be minimized by not wasting scarce time and money on fashionable, politically correct, “woke” issues like how many fire fighters are of a specific ethnic or sexual identity group. People and animals in the path of a roaring inferno care only that first responders are prepared, equipped and on time. So should politicians.

Every one of these vital matters is within our power to control – if we can muster the political willpower to take appropriate action. None of them involves climate change.

It doesn’t matter if Earth’s or California’s or Australia’s average annual or summer temperature is 0.1 or even 1.0 degrees warmer. Or that a drought is a day, month or year longer than X. Or whether the climate and weather fluctuations are driven by human or natural forces. Or that America, Australia, Britain, China, India or Indonesia is “not doing enough” to curb fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions.

Climate change did not cause 129 million trees to die in California – or prevent the state and feds from removing the dead trees, thinning the forests, and clearing overgrown brush and grass. Ditto for Australia.

We must play the hand we have been dealt. That means acting responsibly and intelligently to prevent and respond to wildfires under whatever climate, drought, diseased and dead trees, or other conditions exist, wherever and whenever we live. Ben Franklin would be proud of us.

Via email

>

Don’t blame climate change for Australian wildfires

If all you read was the liberal press, you'd think the Australian bush fires are Mother Earth’s punishment for the heresy of allowing global warming. Reality is a little different — actually, entirely different. The current wave of wildfires running rampant across the Australian countryside certainly isn't aided by dry weather and heat, but it's actually the result of environmentalists’ naivete, not climate change.

The problem is the same one the United States has with forest fires: people simply not understanding how the environment works. In both cases, the countryside has evolved to deal with and prosper from frequent and low-level fires. But if these are suppressed, then the large and hot fires, taking out the canopy, for example, will eventually happen and entirely devastate the flora and the fauna.

It’s been environmentalists insisting we suppress all examples and incidences of wildfires. Therefore, blame for the current damage should be laid at their door.

The evidence is all around us. When Europeans first came to North America, they were astonished at the glades and meadows found in the land’s forests. These were created by the Native Americans’ use of fire to clear the land. This was done on a regular basis, and fires only ever touched the underbrush. Because of these frequent fires, there was never enough fuel to spark a massive fire that would damage the adult trees and devastate the whole ecosystem.

Exactly the same is true of Australia, just even more so.

Australia’s native Aborigines got there some 50,000 years ago, so 40,000-odd years before Homo sapiens crossed the Bering Strait to inhabit North America for the first time. They've been using fire as a land management tool ever since — and 50 millennia trains an ecosystem rather well, it turns out. The land is not just adapted to fire, it depends on frequent and low-level fires to continue existing.

The move away from this approach is more than just some people doing the wrong thing. It is an example of hubris, which always is followed by disaster. Here, that end state is a wall of flames devouring towns, people, and every other living thing in its path.

The hubris is in environmentalists insisting on the management of their surrounding world without actually understanding it, to claim, as so many have for decades now, that we must suppress all fire simply because fire is bad. Disaster arrives when reality turns up to tell us different. Without that low-level burning, the fuel stock builds up — and, eventually, there will be that lightning strike, that cigarette end, that sets the entire area ablaze.

This is, of course, just Friedrich Hayek all over again and his insistence that politicians just never have enough information and knowledge to be able to plan societal matters for us. The plans that are laid go wrong when they meet the facts.

Just as one recent example, the Crescent Dunes solar plant was out of date before it was even completed. Yet the Nobel laureate, Steven Chu, happily left taxpayers on the hook for $737 million in government loan guarantees. And let's be honest about it, the Nobel only goes to really clever people, and Chu was supported by the entire information-gathering apparatus of the federal government. And, still, even he, with that backing, got it so woefully wrong.

So it will be with the Green New Deal, Elizabeth Warren's insistence that she can change capitalism, and all the rest. We will only see more smoke burning from any idea rooted in central government’s competence.

SOURCE

2015 prophecy: Bushfire scientist David Packham warns of huge blaze threat, urges increase in fuel reduction burns

He was ignored

Forest fuel levels have worsened over the past 30 years because of "misguided green ideology", vested interests, political failure and mismanagement, creating a massive bushfire threat, a former CSIRO bushfire scientist has warned.

Victoria's "failed fire management policy" is an increasing threat to human life, water supplies, property and the forest environment, David Packham said in a submission to the state's Inspector-General for Emergency Management.

And he argued that unless the annual fuel reduction burning target, currently at a minimum of 5 per cent of public land, "is doubled or preferably tripled, a massive bushfire disaster will occur. The forest and alpine environment will decay and be damaged possibly beyond repair and homes and people [will be] incinerated."

He said forest fuel levels had climbed to their most dangerous level in thousands of years.

Mr Packham produced his submission in response to a review of bushfire fuel management announced last month by the state government and to be conducted by the Inspector-General for Emergency Management.

In an interview with Fairfax Media, Mr Packham said a comprehensive fuel reduction burning regime reduced fuel loads, and consequently reduced the intensity of bushfires, cutting the speed at which they spread. This gave people more time to find safety and fire services more time to respond, he said.

Some people believe the Andrews government will dump the minimum 5 per cent burning target in response to the Inspector-General's report. Five years ago, both major parties backed the "minimum of 5 per cent" target, a key recommendation of the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission held after Black Saturday.

The Black Saturday fires killed 173 Victorians, while hospital emergency care was delivered to more than 800 others. The fires destroyed 2133 houses and burnt hundreds of thousands of hectares.

The royal commission examined the role of fuel reduction burning and in its final report recommended a prescribed burning program with "an annual rolling target of a minimum of 5 per cent of public land each year, and that the state be held accountable for meeting this target".

It also criticised what it described as the state's "minimalist approach to prescribed burning", and warned that the state had "allowed the forests to continue accumulating excessive fuel loads".

The commission investigated fuel reduction burning and the Black Saturday fires. It found that the rate of spread and size of the Beechworth-Mudgeegonga fire, which killed two people, "were significantly moderated by previous prescribed burning". And it said that in some places the rate of spread of the Kilmore East fire, which killed 119 people, was "appreciably slowed by previous prescribed burning".

But the commission also heard that no large-scale fuel reduction burns had been conducted in areas where the two most deadly Black Saturday fires, the Kilmore East and Murrindindi bushfires, gathered force in the first hours after they ignited.

Several weeks before Black Saturday, the Whittlesea fire captain noted excessive fuel loads and dryness around Strathewen (which was smashed by fire on Black Saturday) and Mount Disappointment. He attributed the "conditions to a lack of fuel reduction and drought".

Mr Packham said if the government scrapped the planned burning target it would have to be prepared to accept the consequences. "If they do decide that, and it's a democratic country, they can decide that, but I want them to stand up and take responsibility when the outcome falls apart," he said.

Mr Packham estimated that if Victoria had had a consistent 5 per cent planned burning regime on public land in the years leading up to Black Saturday, scores of lives lost in the devastating blazes would have been saved.

Submissions to the bushfire fuel management review will be accepted until 5pm on Friday. The Inspector-General for Emergency Management has been directed by the state government to deliver his report by the end of this month.

SOURCE

Platypuses said to be on the 'brink of extinction'

This just about "fears" and what "could happen". There is nothing factual below. The journal article is "A stitch in time – Synergistic impacts to platypus metapopulation extinction risk". It is pure armchair modelling based on extensive guesses. There was no actual research involved. No feet were muddied.

And the assumptions are all one-sided. What if some features of modern environments are actually helpful to the platypus? There are plenty of examples of modernity helping a species. The "bin chickens" (Ibises) are known to most Brisbane people

It seems to me that dams might actually be helpful to the platypus. They give it a big choice of what water level they want to feed and breed at. But that would never have occurred to our modellers.

And the major scare the modelling was based on was global warming. What if there is no global warming? There has certainly been very little warming for the last century or so

This whole article is just a tawdry attempt to get something into the journals by using conventional scares. The journal editors were negligent in publishing something so insubstantial

Australia's beloved platypus is now feared to be on the 'brink of extinction'. Researchers at the University of New South Wales say the number of platypuses in the wild could fall by 66 per cent by 2070 because of climate change and other threats.

Researchers said soaring temperatures across the country, the intense drought and land clearing are all contributing to the species' decline.

Richard Kingsford, director for UNSW's Centre for Ecosystem Science said the future for the animal was 'grim'.

'This is impacting their ability to survive during these extended dry periods and increased demand for water,' Mr Kingsford said in the journal article, Biological Conservation, The Age reported.

'If we lost the platypus from Australian rivers, you would say, 'What sort of government policies or care allow that to happen?''

Gilad Bino, the study's lead author said the threat of climate change could affect the platypus's ability to repopulate, noting they could face 'extinction'.

'We are not monitoring what we assume to be a common species. And then we may wake up and realise it's too late,' Dr Bino said.

The platypus is listed as 'near-threatened' under the IUCN Red List of threatened species but Dr Bino says the government needs to assess how much the animal is at risk.

The study's researchers said in order to prevent total extinction the platypus' habitat would need to be managed.

The Victorian Environment Department said they were working with the federal government over whether the platypus' status needed to be changed to 'threatened'.

NSW said they recognised issues such as the drought could be placing the platypus 'at risk'.

Platypuses live in freshwater areas and are found along the east coast and southeast coast of Australia.

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

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

20 January, 2020

Californians Turn a Cold Shoulder on Bill Requiring Climate-Change Education

A bill introduced in the California Assembly January 13 would require students to study the causes and effects of climate change in grades 1-6. It would also make the subject a requirement for high-school graduation.

When I read the news, I first thought, “What’s surprising? Climate alarmists have long since taken over California.”

But it looks like ordinary Californians aren’t going to be so easily led. Comments on the news story at CBS Sacramento were overwhelmingly negative.

Early on, someone calling himself simply “Time” wrote:

I guess it will then be my duty to teach them to unlearn or ignore what the climate religion is teaching, using actual facts and data, and pointing out the long list of alarmist predictions that have never come true. Fortunately my kids go to a public school that is in a district that is actually very good. We don’t have to put up with too many crazies. But the lunacy in California also allows me to teach my kids a very valuable lesson early in life: that the education system is not made up of all-knowing gods. Just because it’s taught doesn’t mean you have to believe it. Learn it for the test, pick the desired answer to get a grade, and move on.

Others wrote more briefly, but with similar sentiments. Indeed, of 77 comments (excluding my own and three responses to others’ comments) posted by 2 p.m. Central Time on January 16, 76 were unmistakably negative.

Many mocked. Some presented reasoned arguments. As I read repeatedly through them, I thought of seven categories into which they fell — and some could have gone into more than one.

Thirteen alleged that the bill’s goal was to substitute propaganda, brainwashing, or indoctrination for real education. Eight used it as an occasion to reflect on the proper role of education and the comparative importance of climate-change education with more basic subjects. Nineteen challenged the scientific case for dangerous man-made global warming.

One chalked up the idea to irresponsible government leaders. Five spoke of it as simply a hoax or scam. Thirteen more said it was a scam specifically driven by a political ideology — socialism, communism, fascism, or the Democratic Party. Fifteen simply mocked the idea. Three others — including the only one that seemed to support the bill — fit no category.

“DearLC” combined suspicions over brainwashing with concerns about educational priorities: “Another attempt at brain washing to achieve a desired result. Teaching of reading, writing and arithmetic is so old fashioned.”

“whostolemycog” echoed the thought:

Government mandated indoctrination has been going on since the at least the 80's…it gave us cultural relativism, political correctness, and then started in on promoting racial/cultural identity as being the most relevant part of any person. Promoting the fraud of climate change is hardly surprising. The goal of today’s left is to gain absolute power and then destroy their opposition. Their mentors are people like Josef Stalin, Mao, and Pol-Pot. Bernie’s folks are already promoting re-education camps for those engaging in wrong-think.

Ed Martin quoted Marshall Fritz, H.L. Mencken, Francisco Ferrer, and Benjamin Disraeli, all warning against the dangers state-run education poses to liberty.

Lawrence Hall turned the tables a bit, asking, “Did any of you vote in YOUR last school board elections, or do you just complain? YOU are the schools. Don’t blame others for your own passivity; self-government is not a spectator sport.”

The comments challenging the science referred to wide swings of climate throughout geologic history; difficulty proving cause and effect in such a climate system; neglected benefits of warming; lack of empirical proof of the theories underlying climate alarmist predictions; the negligible impact of reducing CO2 emissions; the fact that alarmists have falsified some of their evidences; and financial incentives driving some scientist advocates of climate alarm.

“Requiring them to teach about climate change might be a good thing, if only they would teach the truth,” wrote Robert Canine, tying scientific, political, and economic issues together. “That is, the fact that global warming ‘research’ is the biggest fraud in the history of science, and it’s nothing more than a politically-motivated attempt to seize wealth from the wealthier nations (mainly the U.S.) and send it to the rest of the world (while lining the pockets of the those doing the seizing).”

Oliver Clozoff asked, “Are they going to be allowed to teach that it’s a complete hoax perpetrated by liberals who just want an excuse to boss people around and take their stuff?”

Mockery often combined with blaming political ideology.

Teddy Novak wrote, “Leftists, whether they call themselves socialists, fascists, progressives, communists, Democrats, Greens, Antifa, Nazis, Black Lives Matter, or whatever, are a cancer.”

“Get ‘em while they’re young, and you’ll have the next batch of jackbooted greenies controlling what we do and say, voting for taxes to go to the carbon exchange where a few will get trillions in exchange for saving the Earth from carbon dioxide, a life gas,” wrote someone calling himself simply Mark.

Other mockery was simpler. “Climate Comedian” wrote, “It’s funny because all of these comments are critical of the policy… not one comment to support it. I wonder if something is happening out there beyond the hysteria. I guess we will find out in 12 years when all of this is supposed to come crashing down on us!”

“They also need to include the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. Everyone likes a good story,” wrote “Jay.”

And “matismf” said simply, “Putrid stench of tribe in action.”

So maybe there’s hope for California after all. Though climate alarmism seems to dominate the political class and entertainers, the rank and file aren’t marching lockstep.

SOURCE

Court Smacks Down Children's Attempt to Force Climate Policy by Lawsuit

In a key victory for the rule of law, a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a lawsuit filed by children against the U.S. government, claiming that the federal government had violated the children's rights by failing to act against climate change. The lawsuit asked the court to unilaterally force the government to adopt broad climate policies, circumventing Congress and the executive branch entirely.

"The plaintiffs claim that the government has violated their constitutional rights, including a claimed right under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to a 'climate system capable of sustaining human life.' The central issue before us is whether, even assuming such a broad constitutional right exists, an Article III court can provide the plaintiffs the redress they seek—an order requiring the government to develop a plan to 'phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric CO2,'" Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote in the opinion on the case Juliana v. United States (2020).

He ruled that the courts cannot unilaterally make law in this fashion, even if they wanted to.

"Reluctantly, we conclude that such relief is beyond our constitutional power. Rather, the plaintiffs’ impressive case for redress must be presented to the political branches of government," Hurwitz wrote.

According to a summary of the opinion, "the panel held that it was beyond the power of an Article III court to order, design, supervise, or implement the plaintiffs’ requested remedial plan where any effective plan would necessarily require a host of complex policy decisions entrusted to the wisdom and discretion of the executive and legislative branches."

Free-market organizations rightly praised the decision.

"We applaud the majority’s dismissal of this case. The court correctly understood that a lawsuit aimed at imposing a national plan to eliminate fossil fuel emissions and reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide would push the court far beyond its constitutional powers," Sam Kazman, general counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), said in a statement. "It would require the court to substitute its judgment for that of Congress and the Administration on an unprecedented scale."

"However, it is unfortunate that, in coming to this conclusion, the court summarized the scientific evidence on climate change in such apocalyptic terms," Kazman added. "The Department of Justice should have made clear that its failure to contest this evidence did not mean that the evidence was incontestable. Hopefully, future litigation on this issue will involve a more measured assessment of climate reality."

CEI has pressured NASA to retract the horrendously false claim that 97 percent of climate scientists accept the idea of catastrophic man-made climate change.

Anthony Watts, senior fellow at The Heartland Institute, compared Juliana v. United States to the New York State lawsuit against Exxon-Mobil claiming the gas company committed climate change fraud — a case that was dismissed last December.

"Just like the recent case against Exxon-Mobil in New York that was dismissed, this case by 'climate concerned children; was prompted and powered by climate activist interests. In both cases, huge amounts of money, time, and legal expertise were thrown at these claims in an attempt to make a legal case that climate change has been harmful," Watts said. "Both cases were dismissed."

"The bottom line is that while yes, we’ve seen some changes in our climate over the past century, with improved crop yields, better health, reduced deaths from weather disasters, and increasingly less impoverishment worldwide, it is hard to argue that an increase of about 1 degree Centigrade has been detrimental to humanity," he concluded.

Indeed, repeated prophecies of climate disaster have proven false, while human ingenuity has enabled an explosion in crop yields that helps sustain the earth's burgeoning population. In fact, humanity grew both richer and more sustainable in the last decade. Contrary to the alarmism, the world is not about to end, and children do not need the courts to trample on the Constitution to force complex climate policy.

SOURCE

The Green Party won’t save Germany

The Greens have excited the commentariat but they are not trusted by voters.

Forty years ago this week, the German Green Party was founded. This year’s anniversary celebrations coincide with a much-hyped ‘green wave’. ‘The stars have aligned for Germany’s Greens. The next election may put them in government’, says The Economist. Deutsche Welle claims that a Green chancellor is no longer inconceivable.

It is true that the Green Party has come a long way since its founding days. Founder member Petra Kelly described it as an ‘anti-party party’ which would sweep away the old mainstream. Many members of the German establishment at the time viewed it as nothing more than a collection of dreamers or dangerous freaks. ‘Do we want to continue down the path of rationality, reason and bourgeois values, or are we heading for a colourful fools’ ship named Utopia?’, asked the CSU (Christian Social Union) minister-president of Bavaria, Franz Josef Strauss, in 1986.

Back then, few would have believed how much the Greens would go on to shape political debate. ‘Ecology and sustainability have become new benchmarks for politics – far beyond the party’, said German president Frank-Walter Steinmeier (of the SPD) in his enthusiastic speech at the anniversary celebration. He’s right. The late Franz Josef Strauss would be very surprised to see his own successors in today’s CSU advocating for policies such as bans on plastic bags, the phasing out of coal before 2030, and the enshrining of climate protection in Germany’s constitution.

Yet, some things have also remained surprisingly consistent. From the beginning, the Greens have been a thoroughly middle-class party whose supporters come, almost entirely, from the well-to-do sections of society. ‘Green ideas do not flourish in the workers’ quarters. They thrive in the luxury villas of the rich and beautiful’, was another phrase coined by the populist Strauss.

In 2012, a year before the AfD arrived, Manfred Güllner, one of Germany’s leading pollsters, wrote: ‘The Greens were and are a party for the minority of the well-educated, and, increasingly also the upper-income groups… The adoption of numerous green ideas by the other parties means that large sections of the population no longer see themselves represented in politics.’

This is why the party’s much-lauded ‘green wave’ must be put into perspective. The Greens’ ideological influence is strong, but their electoral success has, at best, been mediocre. Only once since 1980 has the party managed to win more than 10 per cent of the vote in a General Election. In 2009 it received 10.7 per cent; its second best result was in 2017, when it got 8.9 per cent. It was during last year’s EU elections, in May, that talk of a green wave gained momentum — the party came third in those elections, winning 20.5 per cent of the vote. But EU elections with their low voter turnout (61 per cent in 2019) are untypical.

Less than five months later, the party did unexpectedly badly in the three important regional elections in the eastern states of Brandenburg, Saxony and Thuringia – coming only in fourth and fifth place. (In Thuringia and Saxony, the party gained less than a third of the number of votes won by the AfD.) ‘Even the Greens can’t do magic. Their high-flying seems to have come to a halt for the time being’, wrote a disappointed commentator in Der Spiegel.

In the past few months, the Green leadership has been given near celebrity status by some in the press. Leader Robert Habeck embodies the ‘perfect mixture of future optimism, devotion and nonchalance that could tear the country out of years of Merkel lethargy’, says the green-leaning Taz. He can speak to practically everyone, raves Jana Hensel in Die Zeit.

Hyping up the Greens has become part of a political strategy for those who hope that this once anti-mainstream party can channel today’s widespread voter dissatisfaction. But in truth, the Greens have more problems connecting with normal people than ever. Green Party politicians generally come across as authoritarian and arrogant, especially since Greens have been at the forefront of calls for all sorts of bans and restrictions on everyday life. In 2013, the Greens infamously demanded a compulsory weekly ‘veggie day’ in all public canteens. They have been crusading against junk food, cheap meat, public smoking, low-cost flights, and most recently against private firework displays on New Year’s Eve.

Before last year’s election in Thuringia, Habeck tweeted that he was trying to do everything to make the region become ‘open, free, liberal, democratic and ecological’. The tweet helped to cement the image of the Greens as condescending – Thuringia is already liberal and democratic, many critics rightly countered.

Since it was founded, the Green Party has had a deeply conservative, elitist and anti-growth core. Today, the party’s claims to be anti-establishment and socially liberal no longer ring true.

Anyone who doubts the true nature of the party should look back at its 2019 programme. It promised to make Germany a pioneer in climate protection, calling for ‘environmental costs’ to be ‘added to the prices of goods and services’. Poorer Germans are already shouldering the burden of the huge hike in electricity costs since the Energiewende (the transition to renewable energy sources). Electricity prices have risen by 118 per cent since 2000. The average price per kw/h in 2019 was nearly 33 cents – a record high. Increasing the cost of living even further is unlikely to be a vote winner.

After more than 40 years in politics, and despite the deep crisis of the other mainstream parties, the Greens are further away than ever from winning ordinary people’s hearts and minds.

In February, there will be elections in Hamburg. Some are predicting that the party will win. In this relatively wealthy city there is indeed a fairly strong Green voter base. But even if the polls are right this time, and the party manages to get 29 per cent, this is hardly indicative of a new green wave. Winning a true majority is not the same as flooding politics with green ideas.

SOURCE

Greener Power Reduces Emissions, But It Also Can Heighten The Risk Of Bushfire

Geoff Russell, writing from Australia

Power lines are a significant cause of bushfire in Australia. In my state of SA, Wikipedia has details on 10 major bush fire events, power lines were implicated in three of them.

In Australia’s most deadly bushfires, Black Saturday, power lines were the cause of the Kilmore East fire that killed 119 people and injured another 232.

In the US, one power company caused 1,500 fires in California over a period of six years including the 2018 Camp Fire which killed 85 people.

Just before Christmas a class action was settled over the Terang bush fires of 2018, allegedly started by arcing power lines. The Company at the centre of that dispute recently rolled out in the Ararat region what is rather like a very big safety switch to reduce fire risks from arcing power lines in future.

But will those switches be rolled out across Australia? Who knows. Certainly PowerCor are rolling them out in its network. A class action payout does tend to concentrate the mind.

How do power lines cause fires?

There are two major ways. First, wild weather can cause arcing directly by forcing wires together, or can act via trees or tree-limbs and knock them onto power lines causing sparks or arcing. Not clearing a big enough buffer zone around your power lines can see trees simply grow into them.

Second, electrical faults may also cause sparks or arcing. Things just wear out and break. Arcing is like lightning, electrical energy finding a path through the air to a distant point.

Of course, power lines are much more commonly damaged by fires than they are a causal factor in starting them. But fire and even smoke near a transmission line can cause arcing and a subsequent tripping of power switches; meaning that power is cut from the line and people served by the line will lose power.

Air around a power line is normally a great insulator so there is no arcing, but fill that air with heavy smoke and fire and the insulation properties drop and arcing can result.

The word “tripping” makes it sound like you can just flip a switch to turn it on, but it isn’t always that simple. The devices which handle such problems will recognise temporary issues and reconnect the power when the problem clears.

If, for example, a tree limb falls on the line, causes an arc and then falls down, reconnecting the power on the line will typically be automatic. But the tripping could cause significant damage that needs actual fixing by real people; easier said than done in the middle of a fire.

Four methods of risk reduction

There are four ways of reducing the likelihood of a power line causing a fire; just turn it off when there is a big fire risk, clear a bigger area around it, bury it or simply don’t have it at all.

The first option isn’t popular, the third is really expensive, and the fourth is often ignored. So the second option, coupled with better switches is the default option. We’ll come back to option four later.

Our electrical grid is typically thought of in two parts; the big high voltage transmission lines and the smaller lower voltage distribution lines. The transmission lines are high voltage and connect power stations with areas needing power. The distribution grid then fans out to the individual businesses and households.

New land developments are often done with underground power distribution, but undergrounding distribution in existing areas is expensive; $30,000 to $100,000 per residential block.

The total cost to underground the power distribution in SA alone has been estimated at $25 billion. Multiply that up and you’d be looking at something like $400 billion for the whole of Australia.

Putting just your big transmission lines underground costs 10-15 times more than putting them overhead, and the lines only last about 40 years instead of 80. It also takes three to six times longer to actually lay the cables. All of these figures are heavily dependent on terrain and local conditions.

Distributed systems need more transmission lines

Renewable energy systems are highly distributed; meaning they need far longer transmission lines. You put wind farms where the wind is and solar farms where the land is cheap, and where you have road or rail access to deliver the vast tonnages of panels and posts and concrete required.

This makes for a geographic mismatch between where you have electricity and where you need it.

On the 4th of January this year, the transmission lines in the Snowy went down and Victoria and NSW were disconnected; the blackout risks in NSW rose, as did the wholesale price of electricity… hitting over $14,700/MWh.

Events like bushfires need local and reliable power with the shortest possible transmission lines, which isn’t usually wind or solar farms, or hydro.

The mismatch between the location of supply and demand has been evident in SA for some time. South Australia sometimes has more wind power than it can use, so it is building another big transmission interconnector so it can sell that excess power to the eastern states.

In Germany, they need to build about 7,500 kms of new transmission lines over the next few years to move their wind power from the north where their offshore wind farms are, to the south, where their heavy industry is.

Germany doesn’t have our fire regime, but in Australia, every additional kilometre of above ground transmission line through bush, crop or pasture creates additional fire risks that we really don’t need.

Reduce or eliminate transmission lines

The option of minimising transmission lines is something that needs to be part of power system design. How many fires should a transmission line cause before people think about eliminating it in favour of local power generation?

There is only one technology that meets all the requirements for being clean, dispatchable, and reliable. There is an international race between China and the US to be the first to produce small nuclear reactors in factories. A few small power reactors (in addition to a couple of hundred research reactors) are already operating in China, India and Russia; more are under construction in China, Russia and Argentina.

The IEA has added it’s authority to making the obvious perfectly clear; that we can’t beat climate change without nuclear. So it’s time Australia’s Greens got with the science and abandoned their ignorant fear mongering.

SOURCE

'They are incinerators from hell': Biologist blames GUM TREES for Australia's brutal bushfire season - and says they should be banned anywhere near human settlements

I really like our native gum trees and would oppose any attack on them but there is undoubtedly some truth in the colorful claim below. They do burn easily.

It is irrelevant, however. Fuel reduction will prevent the fires regardless of which trees the fuel comes from. Fuel reduction is the Holy Grail. With it, there CAN be no big fires. Anything else is passing the buck

A prominent Australian biologist has blamed the country's bushfires on gum trees, labelling them 'incinerators from hell dressed up as trees'.

Also known as eucalyptus trees, gum trees are native to every Australian state and their leaves make up most of the diet of koalas and some possum species.

Despite being a source of food for iconic native animals, biologist Jeremy Griffith attributed Australia's current bushfire crisis to the widespread tree on Saturday.

The biologist, who is also an author, even went as far to say that people should be banned from growing eucalyptus trees anywhere near human settlements.

'Humans can't live near them, and they are an extremely dangerous habitat for wildlife,' Mr Griffith wrote in The Spectator.

Australia's current bushfire season has claimed the lives of 28 people and an estimated one billion animals so far.

Mr Griffith explained eucalyptus trees actively encourage bushfires as their waxy and oily leaves are very flammable.

In addition, he said gum trees have epicormic buds hidden under their bark that are protected from flames and allow them quickly sprout back after bushfires.

'Eucalypts can survive an intense fire when few other species can; and since they can survive fire they can afford to encourage fire because it will eliminate competition from other species,' Mr Griffith said.

He pointed out that gum trees heavily shed leaves and peeling bark, which he believes is in order to generate tinder for fires.

Mr Griffith likened gum trees to 'dangerous crocodiles planted tail-down ready to destroy lives and our world'.

'There has to be a complete change of mindset when thinking about eucalypts that recognises their true nature. The stark reality is there should be legislation in Australia preventing eucalypts from growing in quantity near people,' he said.

The biologist said there needs to be more regular hazard reduction burns in eucalypt forests, like those practiced by Indigenous Australians thousands of years before British settlement.

He explained that because Indigenous Australians would start small fires regularly, the intensity of fires would decrease, which would allow for safe fires in the summer.

Mr Griffith warned of the dangers that eucalyptus trees pose in other parts of the world where they have been introduced, such as California. [And China]

Australian gold miners introduced gum trees to California in the 1850s before the local state government began encouraging their plantation in the early 1900s.

During the Oakland firestorm in 1991, it is estimated that 70 per cent of the energy released from blazes was through eucalyptus trees.

In California, which has similar dry conditions to Australia, wildfires are a yearly occurrence and recently took the lives of five people in 2019.

Australia's current bushfire season arrived early in October 2019. So far, a total of 28 people have died in the horror blazes and more than 2,000 homes have been destroyed.

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

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

19 January, 2020

A fracking ban would trigger a global recession

The extraction of oil and gas through the techniques of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (colloquially, “fracking”) has catapulted the United States into leadership of the world’s energy markets. Since 2007, fracking has doubled U.S. oil production and increased gas production by 60%. Instead of a major importer, America is rapidly becoming the largest exporter of oil and is expected to supply the majority of net new energy traded on global markets over the next two decades.

If the U.S. imposed a fracking ban, the supply disruption would trigger the biggest oil and natural gas price spikes in history—almost certainly by more than 200%—which would, in turn, tip the world into recession. Even the expectation that a ban could be enacted would destabilize markets. U.S. imports and the trade imbalance would soar, as would consumers’ spending on energy. To keep the lights on, America would have to nearly double the quantity of coal burned, as well as import up to 1 million barrels of oil per day for dual-fueled power plants that would lose access to natural gas.

Key Findings

1. Fracking technology has nearly doubled U.S. oil production, an increase of some 7 million barrels per day (mmbd) since 2007, as well as another 10 mmbd (in energy-equivalent terms) rise in natural gas production.[4]

The massive increase in supply from U.S. shale fields triggered a roughly 50% drop in global oil and natural gas prices.[5]
U.S. net oil imports have collapsed from 12 mmbd a decade ago to nearly zero now. Exports of crude oil have soared from zero to 3 mmbd following the 2015 legislation that revoked the ban on U.S. petroleum exports.[6]
The U.S. is expected to account for 70% of the global growth in oil supply over the next five years[7] and to supply at least half the world’s new demands for natural gas.[8]

2. A ban on fracking would eliminate 7% of world oil and 17% of world gas supply in a global commodity market where changes of even 1%–2% in the supply/demand balance trigger huge price swings.

When, in 1973, Saudi Arabia implemented an oil embargo and took some 4 mmbd off world markets (approximately 7% of the total at that time), world oil prices jumped 400% and triggered a global recession. Similarly, in 1979, the Iranian revolution took a comparable 5% of oil off world markets and prices spiked over 200%, sparking another global recession.[9]
A 200% price hike would increase U.S. consumer spending at the gas pump alone by over $100 billion a year, an average of $1,000 per household. A collateral spike in natural gas prices would also add billions of dollars in heating costs for 50% of all U.S. homes and offices.[10]
To keep the lights on, electric utilities would need to quickly replace natural gas (currently 35% of all electricity) with coal. This would mean burning an additional 400 million tons of coal a year. That would increase carbon-dioxide emissions by 300% more than the emissions eliminated by all wind and solar capacity in the United States.

3. Alternative energy sources—in particular, wind and solar—could not replace what would be lost from a ban on fracking in time to prevent massive economic and social disruptions.

Oil and gas together supply 54% of global energy, little different from a 55% share a decade ago or the 53% share forecast by the International Energy Agency for 2040. Oil alone powers 98% of all global transportation.
Wind and solar together supply 1.8% of the world’s energy, and electric vehicles have displaced 0.1% of global oil use over the past decade.
The entire world would have to increase global wind and solar installations by 500% to replace the energy that would be lost from an American fracking ban—never mind the additional energy needed to fuel global economic growth.
On the Record

"A fracking ban, regardless of motivation, is anchored in magical thinking that non-hydrocarbon energy sources could fill a massive global energy shortfall if the U.S. exited the world stage as a major supplier of oil and natural gas. Both fuels will be critical for the global economy for decades to come. The key issue is not whether wind and solar can supply more energy—they can and will—but whether a future American administration would reverse the progress of the last decade in lowering energy prices and enhancing geopolitical stability."

—Mark Mills, senior fellow, Manhattan Institute

Some skeptics caution against overreacting to electioneering rhetoric, citing the practical limits of presidential authority to implement a ban on fracking.[11] But “elections have consequences,” executive orders have an impact, and few industries have been subjected to such consistent attack and misinformation. It might be hard to imagine serious proposals to ban, say, farming or at least all grain farms, but it would be theoretically possible to do so by radically increasing imports. Administrative agencies can pursue creative interpretations of the labyrinth of rules and issue aggressive “guidances.” A broad and coordinated set of such actions can slow or outright stop all manner of industrial activities up and down supply chains, including, especially, the construction of vital pipelines and ports.[12] And lest one forget, Congress enacted legislation in 1972 and 1982 to ban oil production on about 90% of America’s offshore domains.[13]

The fracking ban campaign is neither new nor connected only to the politics of this presidential election cycle. The movement emerged from the intersection of two global trends: the expansion of hydrocarbon production; and a time when many pundits and policymakers believe that an “energy transition” to something different is urgently needed. For example, some 400 domestic and international environmental leaders and organizations petitioned the United Nations in September to demand “a global ban on fracking.”[14] Essentially all fracking production is done in the United States.

Fracking Has Changed the Global Energy Balance

The biggest transformation in energy markets in the past half-century was brought about by American fracking technology. This technology unlocked the astoundingly productive “unconventional” shale fields and has led to America’s reemergence as a global exporter.[15] The transformation has saved U.S. consumers $200 billion a year[16] and restructured the global energy balance: the recent growth in U.S. oil and gas production is history’s biggest increase in global energy supply of any kind in such a short time. The second biggest, with roughly half as much growth in total energy production, occurred in Saudi Arabia during the decade after 1965.[17] America’s emergence as a third major source of oil and gas (alongside OPEC and Russia) on world markets has far-reaching geopolitical implications: 75% of the global economy is found in five regions: North America, Europe, China, Japan, and India. All, except North America, are major net energy importers.[18]

Well before the U.S. began to export natural gas or crude oil, global prices dropped in anticipation. In order to preserve market share, even as U.S. oil output soared, Saudi Arabia incrementally increased production, the opposite direction that was needed to “preserve” price, leading to the epic 2014–15 global price collapse.[19] Similarly, once it was clear that the U.S. was completing construction of liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities, global LNG prices dropped more than 50% as markets started to realign with the new competition.[20] Prices also dropped for land-based gas pipeline exports from Russia to Europe in order to compete against prospects of cheap LNG arriving on those shores.[21] The net effect of the global price wars has transferred trillions of dollars from producers, such as Russia and OPEC, into consumers’ pockets.

IEA forecasts—which incorporate bullish expectations for wind and solar production—see 53% of all global needs still met by oil and natural gas in 2040, a minuscule decline from today’s 54%. Of geopolitical relevance, the U.S. is expected to account for 70% of global growth in oil supply over the next five years,[22] and to supply at least half the world’s new demands for natural gas.[23] Growth in U.S. natural gas alone is expected to account for twice as much new energy supply as is forecast for all global growth of wind and solar combined.[24]

The Consequences of a Self-Embargo

A ban on fracking would end U.S. exports, cause imports to soar, and increase the trade deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars. The more serious impact would come from the shock to global markets. Global oil prices swing widely when markets are surprised by even a 1%–2% change in the supply/demand balance.

A fracking ban would entail a loss of 7% of global oil production, comparable to the 7% lost with the infamous 1973 Arab oil embargo—an embargo that drove world oil prices up 400% and triggered a global recession.[25] Similarly, the 1979 Iranian revolution took 5% of oil off global markets. Prices rose more than 200%, sparking another global recession.[26]

Today, taking shale production off the market would also constitute an additional 17% loss to global markets in the form of natural gas.[27] Higher energy prices would hit global consumers; Americans would pay more than $100 billion a year at the gas pump alone, an average of $1,000 per household.[28]

Even a slow 10-year production phase-out would trigger an estimated two-year recession in America and eliminate $270 billion of private investment.[29] There would be some winners: Russia and OPEC would derive huge revenue and geopolitical benefits.

Losing the share of new electricity generation that is now fueled from natural gas (produced by fracking) would push utilities to increase the use of existing underutilized power plants where they’re available, which are mainly coal-fired.[30] That would increase carbon dioxide emissions by some 600%—more than all emissions avoided from wind and solar on U.S. grids.[31]

Regions heavily dependent on natural gas but with minimal coal capacity would be faced with rolling blackouts—such as New England (where gas currently provides 49% of electricity), the Mid-Atlantic region (38%), and the Pacific coast (30%).[32] Some of that shortfall could come from burning oil in the 130 GW of gas-fired turbines designed to be dual-fueled.[33] If fully utilized, those turbines would burn about 1 mmbd of oil (necessarily imported), a 10-fold increase in U.S. oil-fired power generation.

The Impossibility of Filling the Gap

The central motivation for the movement to ban fracking is the global abundance of hydrocarbons at a time when many pundits and policymakers believe that an “energy transition” is urgently needed. But America’s shale production could not be replaced quickly by alternatives, at any price, regardless of climate-change motivations. To the extent that there is an “energy transition” to new technologies, it is happening in slow motion.

Politically popular wind and solar power have become far less expensive and have enjoyed massive global subsidies; but together, they still provide only 1.8% of global energy. The 5 million electric vehicles on all the world’s roads now displace 0.1% of global oil use.[34]

Replacing the quantity of energy produced by fracking in the U.S. shale fields would entail (in energy-equivalent terms) expanding all of America’s solar and wind production by 2,000% more than what has been added in the past decade.[35] Somehow accomplishing that miracle wouldn’t help the 99% of Americans driving oil-fueled cars. In fact, because the hydrocarbon market is global, the entire world would have to increase global wind and energy supply by 500% to replace the energy that would be lost from an American fracking ban—never mind the additional energy needed to fuel global economic growth.[36]

SOURCE

Energy Paradoxes Put Europe in a Precarious Position

Despite its cool Green parties and ambitious wind and solar agendas, Europe remains by far the world's largest importer of oil and natural gas.

Oil output in the North Sea and off the coast of Norway is declining, and the European Union is quietly looking for fossil fuel energy anywhere it can find it.

Europe itself is naturally rich in fossil fuels. It likely has more reserves of shale gas than the United States, currently the world's largest producer of both oil and natural gas. Yet in most European countries, horizontal drilling and fracking to extract gas and oil are either illegal or face so many court challenges and popular protests that they are neither culturally nor economically feasible.

The result is that Europe is almost entirely dependent on Russian, Middle Eastern, and African sources of energy.

The American-Iranian standoff in the Middle East, coupled with radical drop-offs in Iranian and Venezuelan oil production, has terrified Europe -- and for understandable reasons.

The European Union has almost no ability to guarantee the delivery of critical oil and gas supplies from the Middle East should Iran close the Strait of Hormuz or harass ships in the Persian Gulf.

Europe's only maritime security is the NATO fleet -- a synonym for the U.S. Navy.

Vladimir Putin's Russia supplies an estimated 30 percent of Europe's oil needs. In times of crisis, Putin could exercise de facto control over the European economy.

In other words, Europe refuses to develop its own gas and oil reserves, and won't fund the necessary military power to ensure that it can safely import energy from problematic or even hostile sources.

It's no wonder that Europe's traditional foreign policy reflects these crazy paradoxes.

Energy neediness explains why the EU was so eager to maintain the so-called "Iran deal" with the theocracy in Tehran, and also why it was nervous about the anti-Russia hysteria that arose in the United States after the 2016 election.

Past European distancing from Israel reflected Europe's fear of alienating Arab oil producers in the Middle East and North Africa.

Europeans are also uneasy about the Trump administration. They see the current U.S. government as nationalist and unpredictable. Americans appear not so ready as in the past to enter the world's hotspots to ensure unimpeded commercial use of sea and air lanes for the benefit of others.

The result is a sort of European schizophrenia when it comes to America and foreign policy in general. On one hand, the European Union resents its military dependence on Washington, while on the other it prays for its continuance. The EU loudly promotes freedom and democracy abroad, but it is careful to keep ties with oil-exporting Middle Eastern autocracies that are antithetical to every value Europeans promote.

Germany agrees with its allies that Russian imperial agendas could threaten European autonomy. But privately, Berlin reassures Putin's Russia that it wants to buy all the gas and oil that Moscow has to sell. Germany increasingly seems far friendlier with a suspicious Russia than it is with an America that protects it.

In sum, what ensures that Europeans have enough daily gasoline and home heating fuel are not batteries, wind farms, and solar panels -- much less loud green proselytizing. They count instead on a mercurial Russia, an array of unstable Middle Eastern governments, and an underappreciated U.S. military.

In a logical world, Europeans would retake control of their own destiny. That recalibration would entail beefing up their military power, and their navies in particular.

They also would begin to frack and horizontally drill. Europeans would push ahead with more nuclear power, hydroelectric projects and clean-coal technologies -- at least until new sources of clean energies become viable.

Europe should applaud U.S. gas and oil development, which has upped world supplies, diversified suppliers, and lowered global prices. Europeans should especially remember that the U.S. military keeps global commerce safe for all vulnerable importers such as themselves.

But these remedies are apparently seen in Europe as worse than the disease of oil and gas dependency.

The result is again chaos. Europe lectures about greenhouse gases while it desperately seeks supplies of fossil fuels. Germany usually sets the tone in Europe, and it is the most hypocritical in both denouncing and buying fossil fuels from unsavory sources.

The danger for Europe now is that the charade may soon be over.

Americans are self-sufficient in gas and oil. They have lost interest in Middle East quagmires and petro-regimes. And they don't like patrolling the world for countries that both count on and ankle-bite the U.S. military. Meanwhile, the more Europeans pander to oil-rich Russia, Iran, and various Gulf states, the less respect they earn in return.

It is hard to be both the world's largest importer of gas and oil and the loudest critic of fossil fuels, but Europe has managed to do it.

SOURCE

Media Sparks Misleading Climate Alarmism Over Global Temperatures

Arlington, VA - The press is reporting that last year was the second hottest on record globally, according to the latest climate data collected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA. However, in a rush to judgement alarming the public, they fail to highlight that the data collected only goes back about 140 years, making the issue seem new and sparking a call for more regulations on carbon dioxide.

The CO2 Coalition recently issued a memo to the media correcting the record on how they cover stories related to climate science in an increasingly polarized news cycle.

The memo is written by Dr. Caleb Rossiter, a climate statistician and the Executive Director of the CO2 Coalition, a group of climate scientists and energy economists that includes two former Trump administration officials, White House science adviser Will Happer and former EPA deputy Mandy Gunasekara.

"The press routinely misleads the public by reporting that (X out of the Y) warmest months, years, decades on record have occurred recently," said Dr. Caleb Rossiter, climate statistician and Executive Director of the CO2 Coalition of climate scientists and energy economists. "This has been true throughout the past 250 years, for natural reasons. Temperature has been rising slowly and steadily since the Little Ice Age, well before CO2 levels increased. Slightly higher records are to be expected."

"For too long, the American public has been misled on the science behind about our climate," said Dr. Caleb Rossiter. "We hope this memo to the press can better inform the way these stories are covered to provide a more accurate description of the global climate."

More HERE

Mass.: DeLeo doesn’t see ‘a whole lot of support’ for a regional climate pact

House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo cast fresh doubts on the prospects of a regional pact designed to curb carbon emissions while likely raising gas prices, saying Wednesday he doesn’t see “a whole lot of support” for it.

Instead, DeLeo suggested the Legislature will plow ahead with its own transportation financing bill, which could include a gas tax hike, regardless of Governor Charlie Baker’s decision to join the multistate effort.

Amid a crisis of confidence in the state’s public transit systems, it remains unclear when the House will pursue the long-promised legislation, with DeLeo saying Wednesday he’s “uncertain as to exactly when” a bill would emerge. But he said lawmakers probably can’t wait for a potential cash infusion from the Transportation and Climate Initiative, whose apparent softening of support throughout New England could complicate an effort that Baker has roundly supported.

“There doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of support for the concept, at least that I see right now,” DeLeo said Wednesday, citing media reports. The Winthrop Democrat suggested he’s “especially concerned” about the uneven backing among Massachusetts’s immediate New England neighbors.

The initiative, known as TCI, would impose a new fuel cost at the wholesale level by establishing a system of carbon pollution allowances for up to a dozen states. The goal, proponents say, is to slice carbon emissions from transportation by up to 25 percent over a decade, but in doing so, it is likely to drive up the costs at the pump anywhere from 5 cents to 17 cents a gallon. The Baker administration expects up to $500 million in new annual revenue once it goes into effect, which could happen as soon as 2022.

New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu, however, has already opted out, and his counterparts in Vermont, Connecticut, and Maine have all thrown up caution flags, directly or indirectly, in recent weeks. Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo has said she’s “fully committed” to TCI’s goals, but Nicholas Mattiello, Rhode Island’s House speaker, has signaled he’s against it.

Officials released a draft agreement in December, and each state could make a final decision later this year whether to participate.

“What I was looking for as we went through this process was to make sure especially that the New England states would be on board,” DeLeo said.

“Now, I’m not saying they’re all off,” he added. “Right now, first of all, for us to wait for that to go into effect, we could be waiting two or three years. I don’t think we can wait that long.”

DeLeo had first said he intended to take up a transportation financing bill last fall before pushing it into 2020. He told the State House News in November that he was “shooting for January” and his transportation chairman, Representative William M. Straus, has said that was still a target.

But DeLeo offered no firm timeline Wednesday other than a possible vote in winter. The bill’s actual contents have, too, remained a mystery, with options ranging from a gas tax hike to increased fees on ride-hail trips through Uber, Lyft, and other companies.

DeLeo insisted that the lack of a clear timetable shouldn’t be interpreted as him “backing off.”

“You can rest assured, first of all, there will be a debate relative to transportation funding,” he said. “It seems to me that every day that goes by, there’s a further example, I think, of the need for transportation revenue and for some work to begin relative to our transportation system.”

The support, or lack thereof, for TCI within the Legislature, meanwhile, probably means more in the public discourse than it does on a legal level. Analysts and state officials say it’s likely Baker can commit Massachusetts to the agreement without legislative approval. In other states, it’s not so clear.

Straus said the public support in other states is important for the momentum of the agreement, not to mention a state’s ability to deter drivers from simply crossing the border to avoid higher gas prices created by the pact.

“That basic argument for TCI seems to have become a more cloudy one,” Straus said Wednesday.

SOURCE

Australia: The Queensland desalination project

The article below was written before 12.12.19. How do I know that? Because it refers to the drought. And for most of 2019 Queensland was indeed unusually dry. On the night of 12.12.19 however, Brisbane had the mother and father of a storm that delivered 6 months of rain in one hour. And there was a similar storm down the coast a couple of days later. So both the Wivenhoe and the Hinze dam (which are linked) would have received a big boost

It is particularly good for the dams to get all that rain at once. If the fall had been spread out over a long period, much of the fall would have been lost to evaporation and soaking into the ground.

The desalination project was an absolute boondoggle from the beginning. It was started by a Leftist government as an alternative to building a dam. It took years to get it working properly so it is lucky that the rains came and rendered it unnecessary. It is however some consolation to hear that it is finally working and being marginally useful

DESALINATE or die. That was the dire warning from then-premier Peter Beattie as he was confronted by a lone protester at the under-construction Gold Coast desalination plant during the so-called "Millennium Drought" in 2000.

The protester, local green activist Inge Light, had slipped through a security detail to shirtfront Beattie about the controversial $1.2 billion project's environmental and financial costs.

"I've got to be honest with you, we're going to build it(the plant), we've got no choice -- unless you go up there and play God and make it rain for me," the premier declared. "If you don't allow us to get desalinated water, frankly no one's going to be alive. "If we don't have desal, we're not going to have any water. "If you don't have water, you're dead.'

It may not be quite life or death. Beattie, wasn't averse to a bit of hyperbole — but as Queensland grapples with arguably its worst drought on record, the Tugun desalination plant is playing a key role in keeping water flowing to residents in the state's south-east.

Largely on "hot standby" since it opened in 2009 due to consistent rain events, the facility has been cranked up to full capacity after a tinder-dry spring and early summer which has seen dam levels plummet.

Since hitting 100 per cent production on November 18, the plant has pumped more than two billion litres of water into the southeast Queensland water grid. It represents about 15 per cent of the region's water use, currently averaging at 212 litres per person per day, up from 183 litres this time last year.

The first large-scale desalination plant on Australia's east coast (Perth's plant opened in 2006), the Tugun facility occupies a sprawling site next to Gold Coast Airport, a few hundred metres from the beach. It was originally planned as a much smaller Gold Coast City Council facility. But as the Millennium Drought bit deeper, the Beattie government invested almost $870 million in the project to more than double its capacity to 133 megalitres per day.

Gold Coast mother and environmentalist Inge Light wept at Gold Coast City Hall in October 2006 after councillors voted 12-2 to approve the project, saying it would worsen global warming and damage the marine environment "I'm emotional because I see my children's future being affected by global warming," she told The Courier-Mail at the time. "It's incredibly sad and incredibly frustrating that we've got yesterday's politicians making tomorrow's decisions."

But the council, led by green-leaning mayor Ron Clarke, decided overwhelmingly that the desal plant was needed, and urgently. "The region will run out of water if we don't deal with this and make the hard decisions," then finance committee chair and now Southport MP Rob Molhoek said.

Construction began irmnediately by an "alliance", incvolving French water giant Veolia, construction firm John Holland, infrastructure company Cardno and engineers Sinclair Knight Metz.

In 2007, The Courier-Mail revealed that Veolia expected to take in at least $351 million from running the desal plant over the following decade. Anna Bligh, who had succeeded Beattie as premier, took the first sip of desalinated water at a Tugun open day in December 2008.

The plant officially opened in January 2009, but the State Government refused to accept ownership after a raft of serious defects were revealed, including rusting pipes, cracking concrete and faulty valves, as well as concerns over potential contaminants leaching from the former Tugun rubbish dump on which the facility was built.

In April 2009, the plant, supposedly the showpiece of the $9 billion south-east Queensland water grid, was shut down for almost six weeks as technical experts crawled through pipes to pinpoint faults. A year later, the plant was again shut down, this time for three months, as a giant barge was brought in to make repairs. Only months later, south-east Queensland was hit by the devastating 2010-11 floods.

Critics have labelled the desal plant a costly white elephant, but it has been used to help supply water during floods as well as drought, and when water treatment plants have been shut down for upgrades.

The Courier-Mail recently took a tour of the plant with its manager, Tina Feenstra. Right on cue for our visit, the heavens have opened. "It's a running joke for us here: whenever we're at full capacity, it starts raining," Feenstra says, handing us umbrellas.

Feenstra explains the desalination process, which begins with sea water being fed through a 4m mushroom-like inlet on the seabed, about 1km offshore, and into a pipeline to the plant. Larger particles are screened out before the water passes through a finer filter which removes smaller particles. The water is then pre-treated in large tanks which blend small suspended particles into clumps which are then removed by sand filters.

Next, the main process begins — removing the salt. The water passes through thousands of reverse osmosis membranes to purify the water. It ends up being so pure, Feenstra explains, that chemicals and minerals then have to be re-added to make the water suitable to drink before it is pumped into the water grid.

Desalinated water does not come cheap, costing up to $800 a megalitre to produce. It's also energy-intensive, consuming the equivalent electricity of about 12,000 houses a day when running at full capacity.

"But when it's hotter and drier than average as it is now, having use of a facility like this is a real asset, particularly when we don't know how long this drought will last," Feenstra says.

From the Brisbane "Courier Mail" of January 4, 2020

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

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

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

17 January, 2020

Climate change could see UK seas filled with hake, anchovies and herring

And the tragedy of the viviparous eelpout. Warming waters should on the whole be more productive. The main problem below seems to be quotas. But it just needs the stroke of a pen to fix them. The "invasive" species all seem to be good eating fish

Climate change could see UK seas filled with hake, anchovies and herring as classic British species such as cod are wiped out, a new study by Defra has predicted.

Our increasingly warm and acidic oceans are not hospitable for the cold-water fish and shellfish on which our fishing industry relies. By 2050, the scientists said, these changes will cause major changes in commercial species' distributions in the North Sea.

Already, we are seeing fish from warmer climes populate our oceans, the Marine Climate Change Impacts Partnership found.

Increasing numbers of Atlantic bluefin tuna have been reported in UK waters by commercial and recreational fishers. At present, there is no quota for this species for UK vessels.

Mackerel has become dominant off the west of Scotland over the past three decades, and northern hake, a warm-water species, has recolonised the northern North Sea after being largely been absent for over 50 years.

Scientists also noted the appearance of warm-water species, such as the European anchovy and local declines of some cold-water species, including the viviparous eelpout.

Welsh fisheries will be particularly at risk from climate change, the report predicted, as cockles and whelks do not cope well with ocean acidification, which is caused primarily by uptake of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Cod is at risk; experiments suggest that Atlantic cod larvae may experience higher mortality rates due to ocean acidification compared with European seabass and herring larvae.

Fish are likely to become smaller as they have to travel further for their prey in warming waters, expending more energy, the report predicted. Sandeels, known as the "superfood of the sea", which many species such as cod rely on, are appearing later in the year as warming delays reproductive development.

Warming and associated oxygen solubility, the scientists from the institute said, also appears to be affecting the age at maturation, growth rates, and the maximum size fish can attain.

This all spells trouble for the British fishing industry, which does not have the correct quotas for the newly arriving fish in our waters and will have to cope with catching smaller fish.

The authors of the study said: "Projected declines in shellfish production resulting from ocean acidification may result in significant economic losses within UK fisheries."

By 2050, under a high-emissions scenario, the net value of the UK fishing industry is expected to decrease by 10 per cent.

In some cases, whole fisheries may have to cease operation, as populations of incoming warm-water species with limited quota allocation could act to ‘choke’ existing mixed fisheries.

Tony Juniper, Chair of Natural England, said: "This report underlines the profound and wide-ranging impacts already being caused to our marine environment by climate change. The UK is taking strong steps to safeguard the health of the ocean environment that is so vital for our wellbeing, both around our own shores and further away. More is needed, however, including the vigorous pursuit of the UK’s net zero emissions goal, which hopefully more countries will soon adopt as well.

"In 2020, countries from around the world will come together at global summits where greater collective action to tackle climate change and increase marine protections could be agreed. These historic opportunities must be tightly embraced, including at the climate change conference that will be hosted by the UK in Glasgow in November".

However, the arrival of warm-water species presents an "opportunity" for tourism by anglers, the report said, adding: "warm-water fish have been detected in the Channel Islands, including species such as the Atlantic bonito, which is popular for sea angling."

Environment Minister Rebecca Pow said: “Tackling climate change and the impact on our environment is both a national and international priority, and the UK is already leading the fight against it by delivering on our world-leading target of Net Zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

“We will be increasing that momentum at this year’s COP26 talks in Glasgow and we are calling on more countries to join us in pledging to protect at least 30% of the ocean under marine protected areas by 2030.

“We are also investing £2.6 billion over six years to better protect our communities from flooding and erosion.

SOURCE

Three Mile Island and the Exaggerated Risk of Nuclear Power

The Three Mile Island accident caused no physical harm, but the event changed public perception of the risks of nuclear energy.

You’ve likely heard of the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident. It’s often cited as an example of the dangers of nuclear power. It’s usually mentioned in the same breath as Chernobyl and Fukushima.

But what exactly happened there? Was it truly an exemplar of the grave dangers posed by nuclear power?

The answer is no. No one died. No one was injured. The other reactor on the site was still in operation until September 20 (yes, September 20 of last year). The Three Mile Island incident is an example of both the recallability trap and the sometimes negative results of being too yielding to the demands of the precautionary principle.

The Psychological Impacts

The main impact of the Three Mile Island accident has been psychological rather than physical. Big events like this one shape public attitudes for decades. People don’t remember the real impact of the event; they remember the feelings of uncertainty and fear that came with it. Those feelings now taint the public image of nuclear power in the United States.

The accident at Three Mile Island Unit 2 occurred at 4 a.m. on March 28, 1979. There was a malfunction in the reactor’s secondary cooling circuit, and the temperature of the reactor’s primary coolant rose, causing an automatic shutdown of the reactor. Control room instruments didn’t alert operators that a relief valve failed to close. Because of this, the reactor did not cool as it should have, and the core was damaged. Later that day, a small amount of gas was released accidentally, but the released gas traveled through air filters, which removed all of the radionuclides save the relatively harmless and short half-lived noble gases.

The event caused no physical harm, but the public perception of the risks of nuclear energy was heightened dramatically.

The accident created public fear but posed no real threat to the public. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the two million people in the area around TMI-2 at the time of the accident received an estimated dose of only 1 millirem above the usual background dose of radiation, less exposure than they would receive from a chest x-ray and a tiny fraction of the 100-125 millirem normal yearly background dose in the area. This is a minuscule amount of radiation compared to what all of us encounter in the normal course of everyday life.

Because of cancer concerns following the accident, the Pennsylvania Department of Health maintained a registry of people living within five miles of Three Mile Island when the accident occurred. The 30,000 person list was kept up until mid-1997 when it was determined that there had been no unusual health trends or increased cancer cases in the area immediately surrounding the accident.

People were frightened by the event, but there was no physical harm. Only the public perception of the risks of nuclear energy was heightened dramatically. The greatest effects were on the future permitting and construction of reactors and on NRC rules and procedures.

Changes in Nuclear Regulation and Construction

Following this accident, it became far more difficult to construct a reactor in the United States, in part because the politics and economics both shifted. Heightened fear makes approval more difficult and causes people to be less supportive of new construction, and changes on the regulatory side of things increase costs, shifting the economics of bringing new plants online. A 1984 New York Times article on the abandonment of construction of the Marble Hill plant in Indiana cites more than 100 plant cancellations following the Three Mile Island Accident.

Significant changes came to the NRC following Three Mile Island. It expanded its resident inspector program in which two NRC inspectors live near each of the plants and provide oversight of adherence to the agencies’ regulations.Safety became a more essential element of the system, but regulatory costs also rose.

It also expanded both safety and performance-oriented inspections and established an operations center staffed 24 hours a day to provide assistance in plant emergencies. The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, which is now the Nuclear Energy Institute, was also established to be an internal policing mechanism for the industry, providing a single point of interaction with NRC and other agencies on many issues and allowing them to share a framework for approaching generic issues they all experience.

Plants were also required to install additional equipment to monitor certain conditions in order to mitigate future accidents. These and other changes created a far more safety-oriented regulatory environment than previously existed. Safety became a more essential element of the system, but regulatory costs also rose.

The Role of Precautionary Thinking and the Recallability Trap

This is certainly a case where the downside of the precautionary principle has negative effects. Decisions that account more for the damage caused by rare accidents than by the constant benefits produced operate under an inaccurate cost-benefit analysis. This is even more true in this case, where there was widespread fear but no real off-site damage.

The Mercatus Center’s Adam Thierer made a similar point about the aftermath of Japan’s Fukushima disaster in an October 31 piece titled “How Many Lives are Lost Due to the Precautionary Principle?” wherein he pointed out the hidden costs of overly precautionary thinking. Following Fukushima, Japan stopped using nuclear power, which had previously been 30 percent of its energy. Energy prices rose, and in the subsequent four years, there were 1,280 cold-related deaths. Precautionary thinking can lead to costly unforeseen outcomes.

Reliable and affordable energy is essential—a fact no more apparent than when it becomes less affordable and less reliable. Although the Three Mile Island aftermath isn’t quite so dramatic, it’s a similar concept. Fears of worst-case scenarios prevent the development of important resources.

Overprecaution fueled by outlier events means that less nuclear power is constructed, plants are shut down before they need to be, and the public is misinformed about the safety of this technology.

The public is strongly influenced by accidents in this space, and public perception is quickly changed when they occur.

When major events occur, we often fall into the recallability trap, wherein more dramatic events are remembered more sharply and seen as more likely to occur than less dramatic ones. We might be more afraid of a nuclear disaster or a lightning strike than we are of a car crash or heart attack even though we’re far more likely to be done in by the latter than the former.

Rare but dramatic events tend to feel far more likely than statistics indicate. We misestimate the chances of these things happening. The recallability trap is especially relevant to nuclear power. Although there have only been three major commercial nuclear accidents—Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima—and only one of those was in the United States, the general public views these events as far more likely.

According to a CBS News survey, in 1977, 69 percent of Americans favored building new nuclear power plants, but by 1979, after Three Mile Island, support fell to 46 percent. Following Chernobyl in 1986, support had fallen to just 34 percent. By 2008, it had risen to 57 percent, but in 2011, after Fukushima, it fell back down to 43 percent. The public is strongly influenced by accidents in this space, and public perception is quickly changed when they occur.

Shifting Public Support

Following the Three Mile Island incident, attitudes toward nuclear power in the United States shifted.

The impetus to license new plants was all but gone. Public fear was overwhelming enough to discourage new development. From 1978 to 2012, the NRC didn’t approve the construction of any new commercial reactors. As the chart below shows, new reactors were still constructed following the incident, but new permitting did not occur, although various projects were attempted throughout the period. Much of this gap can be attributed to the Three Mile Island accident. Indeed, in 2019, Exelon, the owner of the Three Mile Island plant, announced it would be closing down its final remaining reactor after years of losing money. Following an incident like this one, people become overcautious.

Nonetheless, in the early 2000s, this finally started to change as the “nuclear renaissance” began. Following a few decades of no development, nuclear power was planning a big comeback. But because of a combination of the fears created by Fukushima and economic realities at home thanks to the financial crisis, the renaissance never materialized.

So, even though no one died or was even harmed in the Three Mile Accident, its impact is still clearly seen today. The accident seemed major and ominous, and because it was seen that way, public pressure made new construction far more difficult than it otherwise would have been.

SOURCE

Climate risks put at top of Davos agenda... as the global elite fly in on their private jets!

The World Economic Forum has urged business leaders to step into the void left by governments in tackling climate change.

For the first time, the world’s business elite has placed issues related to the environment in all top five spots on its list of concerns about the next decade, according to WEF’s annual Global Risks Report.

However, WEF risked accusations of hypocrisy ahead of its annual meeting in Davos next week, where some of the rich and famous will arrive at the Swiss ski resort by private jet.

Rachel Kennerley, climate campaigner at Friends Of The Earth, urged delegates to avoid private jets. ‘As the leaders of the world’s most polluting countries and companies they should look at cutting those emissions as a priority,’ she said.

As bushfires rage in Australia, and California repairs damage caused by wildfires, the WEF is now encouraging company bosses to come together in creating measures to minimise further damage to the environment.

If leaders wait until geopolitical turbulence has calmed, the report added, ‘time will run out to address some of the most pressing economic environmental and technological challenges’.

WEF president Borge Brende said: ‘The political landscape is polarised, sea levels are rising and climate fires are burning.

‘This is when world leaders must work with all sectors of society to repair and reinvigorate our systems of co-operation, not just for short-term benefit but for tackling our deep-rooted risks.’

The top five concerns on business leaders’ agenda are:

Extreme weather events with major damage to property and loss of lives;

Failure by businesses and governments to mitigate or adapt to climate change;

Human-made environmental damage, such as oil spills and radioactive contamination;

Major biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse;

Major natural disasters, such as earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions.

The WEF’s annual meeting will host some of the world’s most powerful figures, from Donald Trump and Prince Charles to climate campaigner Greta Thunberg, central bankers and bosses of businesses such as Unilever and BP.

Though many will fly in by private jet, the WEF claims the event will be carbon neutral due to a range of carbon-offsetting measures it has taken.

The focus on climate risks comes after Blackrock, the world’s largest asset manager, announced measures this week to encourage investors to plough more of their money into environmentally friendly companies.

Paul Morozzo, climate finance campaigner at Greenpeace, said last night: ‘It’s not enough to identify how grave the climate emergency is.

‘The banks and financial institutions jetting into Davos next week have made trillions pumping money into climate-crashing fuels such as oil, gas and coal.

‘It’s time to stop funding the crisis and start backing the solutions. That means immediately ending support for fossil fuels we cannot afford to burn.’

Bank of England governor Mark Carney has also been pushing for governments, investors, lenders and businesses to pay attention to the financial impact which climate change might have.

SOURCE



Australia: Qld. Conservative parties back grazing to reduce fire risk

MORE national parks would be opened up to cattle under the LNP's newly unveiled bushfire management plan to help reduce the fuel load across the state.

The party has announced a 10-point plan that would make it easier for landholders to burn on their land to manage fuel loads and set KPIs for fire-fighters to do 98 per cent of all planned hazard reduction reduction burns.

LNP leader Deb Frecklington said "one of the main reasons" for such catastrophic bushfires here and in southern states was because state-owned land hadn't been managed properly. "There are many old-timers, there are many people, including our indigenous elders, who are saying that they have evidence that grazing in national parks, if managed properly, is a very good way of controlling the amount of hazard," she said.

Opposition Fire and Emergency Services spokesman Lachlan Miller said the move would reduce fuel loads and benefit local economies.

We're not looking at opening it up to every national park across Queensland, what we're looking to do is looking at state forest areas and certain national parks that used to have grazing", he said.

The plan would also allow landholders and councils to burn on their land 15 business days after an application was made to stop bureaucratic hold-ups under a "right to burn" model.

Environment Minister and Acting Fire and Emergency a Services Minister Leeanne Enoch said 10-point plans were for pamphlets. "We're well past the time when politics are welcome in the discussion about bushfires," she said.

Ms Enoch said that many of the policies, such as grazing to reduce fuel loads and using indigenous methods, were already done.

From the Brisbane "Courier Mail" of 14 Jan., 2020

Australia: Greenie versus Greenie

MOUNTAIN bike riders and environmentalists are at loggerheads over potential trails through protected bushland on Brisbane's southside.

But both parties will have to wait up to five more months to see what Brisbane City Council's citywide off-road cycling plan looks like. Council says the plan will create more to see and do in a "clean and green Brisbane", and aims to provide safe and sustainable recreation opportunities that offer better protection for natural areas.

Between March and May last year, council engaged with key stakeholder groups and the broader community about their ideas for future off-road cycling opportunit-ies across the city. Now the council is in the process of analysing the "significant amount of community feedback" and developing the draft concept plans.

Author and off-road cycling enthusiast Gillian Duncan has been fighting for the rights of mountain bike riders and has been campaigning for the past 15 years for legal trails in south-east Queensland. She wants riders to have access to fire trails, and hopes the council will go one step further and open up a "satisfying trail experience" through Karawatha Forest.

But bushcare groups are "strongly opposed" to these ideas and do not want bikes destroying the habitats of native wildlife.

Currently, Mt Coot-tha is the only designated location for off-road mountain bike riding, and those tracks and trails are used more than 700,000 times each year. Karawatha Forest Protection Society treasurer Cornelis Van Eldik said mountain bikes in the reserve would cause havoc with the flora and fauna.

"Council should not allow this to happen," he said. "They (riders) won't be content just staying to the fire trails — they will want the extra thrill of a scrub dashing, which is what our major concern is."

Ms Duncan insisted a mountain bike-riding management plan would curb that sort of behaviour.

From the Brisbane "Courier Mail" of January 11, 2020

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

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

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

16 January, 2020

World's biggest investment firm BlackRock to shun fossil fuels as it steps up efforts to tackle climate change and calls for 'a fundamental reshaping of finance'

Good news for keen investors. Selling off fossil fuel shares will drive their price down -- making them a good buy for realistic investors

The world's biggest investment manager BlackRock has said it will sell-off shares in coal firms and other major polluters as it called for a 'fundamental reshaping of finance' to tackle climate change.

Chief executive Larry Fink warned company boards they must step up efforts to counter climate change in his annual letter to business bosses.

Fink said they need to act or will face increased wrath from investors concerned about how unsustainable business practices might cut their future wealth.

He said BlackRock itself, which looks after $7trillion (£5.4trillion) of clients' money, will exit investments that present 'high sustainability-related risk', including thermal coal producers.

Fink's intervention comes at a time when City firms are increasingly facing pressure to do more to combat climate change.

Large asset managers such as BlackRock own vast quantities of shares and therefore have a great deal of leverage over companies, including fossil fuel producers.

However BlackRock and investment heavyweight peers such as Vanguard and State Street have been criticised for not doing enough to guide the firms they invest in up until now.

'We don't yet know which predictions about climate change will be most accurate nor what effects we have failed to consider,' Fink stated in the letter. 'But there is no denying the direction we are heading.

'Every government, company and shareholder must confront climate change.'

He went on the say that questions around climate change are driving 'a profound reassessment of risk and asset values'.

'In the near future – and sooner than most anticipate – there will be a significant reallocation of capital.' Fink added.

The letter also specifically aligned BlackRock with the goals set out in the 2016 Paris climate agreement despite this not being the official policy of its home nation the United States, which under President Donald Trump has backed away from the accord.

SOURCE

Could Janet Mills of Maine be the next governor to hop off the TCI bandwagon?

New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu left the multistate Transportation & Climate Initiative in a blaze of glory last month. The Republican governor’s brash exit — he declared TCI a “financial boondoggle” – prompted the natural question: Who could be next?

Of New England’s other governors, Mills seemed to sound the most cautious tone last week about TCI, which would impose a new fuel cost at the wholesale level by establishing a system of carbon pollution allowances for up to a dozen states. The new revenue would help subsidize alternative forms of transportation, such as electric buses and car-charging stations.

Mills, a Democrat starting her second year as Maine’s governor, has made curbing climate change a major priority.

That’s similar to the primary goal of TCI: to reduce carbon emissions from the region’s cars and trucks by up to 25 percent over a decade. But in a brief statement on Friday afternoon, press secretary Lindsay Crete said “the challenges of climate and transportation issues for rural states like Maine are unique, and the state will be appropriately cautious when considering these issues.”

She declined to elaborate. One potential translation: Our residents are heavily reliant on cars, so there might be better ways of doing this.

Tony Buxton, an energy lawyer at Preti Flaherty in Portland, Maine, said “it’s asking a lot of her to support TCI” during the governor’s first two years in office, especially given her other environmental efforts. (Mills worked with Buxton at his law firm before she became governor.) He noted that Maine is the least dense state, in terms of population, east of the Mississippi. Driving is essential.

But Elizabeth Turnbull Henry, president of the Environmental League of Massachusetts and a TCI champion, cautioned against reading too much into Mills’ words. Mills wants to see Maine be carbon-neutral by 2045. To pull that off, Henry said, she’ll have to turn to the transportation sector.

So what do the other New England governors think?

Of course, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker is fully on board: TCI is a cornerstone of his $18 billion transportation funding plan, and his energy secretary, Katie Theoharides, is leading the effort. (The Baker administration expects up to $500 million in new annual revenue from TCI, starting as soon as 2022.)

Baker opposes a straight gas tax increase — something the House of Representatives is expected to advance on Beacon Hill in the coming weeks. TCI, however, acts like a gas tax because those pollution credits will likely drive up costs at the pump, possibly by anywhere from 5 cents to 17 cents a gallon.

A spokesman for Governor Gina Raimondo in Rhode Island said she is “fully committed” to the TCI goals, including an aggressive approach to lowering carbon emissions in the transportation sector.

In Vermont, Governor Phil Scott has expressed concerns about TCI in the past. He didn’t mention TCI by name in his state-of-the-state speech last week, but raised a few eyebrows when he said he prefers “incentives, not penalties” to transition Vermont to a greener future. TCI might be the last thing Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont wants to talk about right now. Lamont is trying to shore up support for a transportation bill that would revive tolls in Connecticut, a bill that could be taken up by lawmakers later this month. The tolls would only be for larger trucks, at 12 bridges in the state, but they still face resistance. (Lamont earlier wanted broader tolling.)

A spokesman said Lamont is still weighing TCI, but has ruled out supporting a gas tax increase as the primary way to fund infrastructure improvements.

Sununu, meanwhile, seems to be enjoying the controversy: He said he’s happy other governors are “rightfully sounding the alarm on this new gas tax.”

Most of these states need legislative approval to join TCI, although the precise number remains unclear. There could be a 50/50 split in New England. Conservation Law Foundation attorney Staci Rubin says her group’s legal analysis shows Massachusetts, Maine, and Connecticut likely do not need legislative approval, while the other three states potentially will.

Publicly, at least, Baker’s people seem unconcerned about defections, even though they want a critical mass of state participation.

A spokeswoman said the administration is pleased by broad support seen among environmental and business communities, and the “robust participation” by the various Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. The group is accepting public comments on TCI rules through the end of February, and expects to figure out who is out and who is in this spring. The caution expressed in Maine indicates TCI’s boosters might still have some persuading to do.

SOURCE

Warren Says She's Willing To Ban Construction of New Homes in America

She's a vicious would-be tyrant with no respect for ordinary people

If your home isn’t carbon neutral, Elizabeth Warren might not let you build it. And if that means no new homes get built, she’s OK with that.

In an appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Wednesday, the Massachusetts senator and fading presidential candidate talked about her Thunberg-lite plan to help end climate change. (Climate crisis? Catastrophe? What are we going with these days?)

During her appearance, Warren was asked what she’d do to “change the tide of U.S. policy on the issue of climate change” and acted as if she’d been thrown the softball of all softballs.

She promised “to do everything a president can do all by herself, that is, the things you don’t have to do by going to Congress.” This includes putting an end to energy mining and drilling on federal lands or offshore and “not having a coal lobbyist as head of the Environmental Protection Agency.”

You might not be surprised to learn that’s a dig at Andrew Wheeler, President Donald Trump’s EPA administrator, who was previously an attorney representing a coal producer.

Warren then moved on to her plan for housing, which she said was borne out of the dire predictions scientists have been making.

“What scares me is every time you go back to the scientists, they tell you two things,” the senator said. “It’s worse than we thought, and we have less time.

“That means we’ve got to be willing to do things, for example, like regulation. By 2028, no new buildings, no new houses, without a zero carbon footprint.”

And she’s coming for your car and electricity bill, too.

“By 2030, trucks — light-duty trucks and cars, zero carbon footprint. By 2035, all production of electricity, zero carbon footprint,” Warren said.

“We do three regulations, we can cut our carbon footprint by 70 percent,” she said.

Oh, and there was also talk of some vague idea of social justice — because schemes like this always need to be undergirded with some such vague idea.

“We also need to make environmental justice really at the heart of our climate plan,” Warren said.

“A central part of the plan for me is I want to put a trillion dollars into cleaning up the places that collectively we have destroyed as a nation and bringing them back,” she said.

Just out of morbid curiosity, I looked at the section of Warren’s campaign website dealing with environmental justice and then rather wished I hadn’t.

“We didn’t get here by accident. Our crisis of environmental injustice is the result of decades of discrimination and environmental racism compounding in communities that have been overlooked for too long,” Warren says on the site.

“It is the result of multiple choices that put corporate profits before people, while our government looked the other way. It is unacceptable, and it must change.”

Warren advocates a “just transition” for all Americans via her flavor of the Green New Deal, which should be interesting when the economically vulnerable and marginalized individuals she claims to care so much about see the price of an electric car or a carbon-neutral home.

That’s going to be especially true when you consider that the only reasonably cheap option for green energy is nuclear, and Elizabeth Warren will be having none of that.

“We’re not going to build any nuclear power plants and we’re going to start weaning ourselves off nuclear energy and replacing it with renewable fuels,” she said during CNN’s mammoth climate town hall back in September.

I wonder how much of Warren’s bluster on the environment is naïveté and how much of it is cynicism.

On the naïve side, this isn’t affordable or practical. It would lead to a mass voter revolt once the bills started coming due.

On the other hand, there’s also the element of cynicism. This has no chance of happening on the timetable Warren is proposing — certainly not with congressional approval, given that there are even some Democrats who would blanch at such an obviously self-defeating suite of environmental laws.

However, when you consider how serious of a candidate Elizabeth Warren is, consider that this is a woman who wants to ban regular old buildings in favor of carbon-neutral ones, all while solving serious social issues — one of which presumably is homelessness. Good luck.

SOURCE

Flushing '10 times!' What's really behind Trump's tirades about toilets

Impeachment wasn't all that was on President Donald Trump's mind in the hours after the House voted to approve the charges against him. He was also thinking about toilets.

Speaking at a campaign rally that night in Battle Creek, Michigan, Trump delivered a lengthy rant about a bevy of regulations governing bathroom and kitchen appliances.

"Sinks, right? Showers, and what goes with a sink and a shower?"

"Toilets!" the crowd chanted back.

"Ten times, right, 10 times," Trump continued, referring to the number of flushes he claimed were sometimes required because of water-saving federal regulations. "Not me, of course not me. But you," he added while pointing to a random audience member.

While Trump's remarks may seem a tad unusual, they echo a long-standing concern in some conservative circles.

For the better part of two decades, libertarian-minded conservatives have taken aim at the regulations and energy standards Trump now decries — and they're overjoyed to see him use the power of the presidency to shine a light into America's bathrooms and kitchens.

"I've never flushed a toilet 10 times," said Daniel Savickas, the regulatory policy director for the libertarian advocacy group FreedomWorks. "But I think what he's getting at is the heart of the issue. People do have to run their appliances multiple times because of water efficiency standards. I don't think people are flushing their toilets 10 times, but they're definitely reusing dishwashers, flushing multiple times, at least. And that has drawbacks across the economy."

Leading environmentalists don't see it quite the same way. They point to the positive impact of the regulatory policy, primarily improved water conservation and lower bills for consumers. And the products are just as good as their less efficient predecessors, they said.

"I don't know what product they're using but I don't have to run it two or three times," former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator under President George W. Bush, told NBC News. "My dishwashers do just fine, thank you. I do it once. My dishes are clean and everybody's healthy. I don't know what they're talking about."

The more than 20-year battle Trump has given oxygen to centers on a series of regulations and energy standards starting with the 1992 Energy Policy Act signed by President George H.W. Bush. That law set new limits on how much water a toilet can utilize and, in 1994, kicked into effect a standard that said new toilets, showerheads and faucets had to have water-saving designs. Since then, the federal government has regulated water flow of faucets and showerheads.

Today's toilets can use as little as 1/5th the water as earlier models, which the EPA's website says "happen to be a major source of wasted water in many homes." Recent advancements allow for toilets to use even less water than what is the current federal standard, according to the EPA, which also promotes the water-saving abilities of newer showerheads and faucets online.

Since the 1990s, when then-Rep. Joe Knollenberg, R-Mich. — backed by influential conservatives like then-Reps. John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Ron Paul, R-Texas — sought to repeal the restrictions, conservatives have taken aim at those standards.

"Frankly, the toilets don't work in my house," Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told Kathleen Hogan, deputy assistant secretary for energy efficiency in the Obama administration, during a 2011 congressional hearing. "I blame you, and people like you who want to tell me what I can install in my house, what I can do."

Trump pushed that issue to the forefront when he told reporters in the White House last month that the EPA would be "looking very strongly at sinks and showers and other elements of bathrooms," insisting that "people are flushing toilets 10 times, 15 times as opposed to once" and that "they end up using more water."

Gina McCarthy, EPA administrator under President Barack Obama, said in an interview, "Pardon the pun. This administration is throwing regulations and really great innovative programs that the federal government has used to push innovation forward, down the toilet."

EPA spokesman Michael Abboud said the agency is working across other federal agencies to "ensure American consumers have more choice when purchasing water products."

It's not just bathrooms that have sparked the president's ire.

Conservative groups such as FreedomWorks, through its "Make Dishwashers Great Again" campaign, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute have been influential in getting the Department of Energy to consider creating a new class of dishwashers with shorter wash cycles to get around existing standards.

Sam Kazman, the general counsel at CEI, said Trump's "sentiment" is right on, even if some of his specific claims were "overblown." He pointed to more than 3,200 comments submitted to the Energy Department as part of the effort to create a new dishwasher class as evidence the standards are causing public anger.

"This is based in reality, and it's based in the problems that the real people are having, and the folks who think there is no problem or who actually maybe designed and advocate these regulations, probably eat out a lot," Kazman said. "I think, basically, if the efficiency regs are producing better devices, devices that do save money and operate just as well, you do not need laws that mandate them."

Current dishwasher standards require that standard-size products use no more than 5 gallons of water per cycle, according to the Appliance Standards Awareness Project. Consumer Reports found that modern dishwashers use about half of the water and energy as those made 20 years ago.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has previously sought to eliminate funding for Energy Star, an EPA program allowing companies to put the program's label on appliances that meet energy efficiency standards. It's a label that many dishwasher manufacturers seek to obtain for their appliances. The Energy Star-labeled dishwashers save an average of more than 3,800 gallons of water over the appliance's lifetime, according to Energy Star.

"Why you would want to draw back on something like (Energy Star) is beyond me," Whitman said, adding the program "gives the consumers a choice to be part of an effort to reduce our use of water and energy. It gives them a way to save money on both energy and on water. It's a consumer choice option to help improve the environment."

SOURCE

Australian Federal government minister: Greta Thunberg and Climate Activists Just Want to ‘Upend Society’

The real concern of environmental activists like Greta Thunberg is not climate change, but to “upend society” and “move away from capitalism,” Australia’s Resources Minister Matt Canavan said Tuesday.

He spoke after the Swedish teenage climate worrier unsuccessfully tried to force German telecommunications group, Siemens, to drop its role as a contractor for the giant Adani coal mine now being planned for Australia’s north.

Canavan intervened and secured the company to stay and complete railway signalling at the site, but not before he took a passing swipe at the intervention of Thunberg.

Canavan told Sky News in Australia “common sense has once again prevailed,” and said the “likes of Greta Thunberg” claim to be concerned with emissions reduction remains a fallacy

“Their policy prescriptions aren’t actually about reducing carbon emissions, it’s about the radical massive changes to our economy and society”, he said:

The Adani mine, which received final environmental approval in June, is expected to produce at least 10 million t of thermal coal every year.

Nationally, the Australian coal mining industry employs 50, 400 people, when thermal and coking operations were combined, Australian Bureau of Statistics labour force data for November showed, with exports going mainly to China, India, Korea, Japan and Chile.

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who once once famously brandished a lump of coal in parliament, crying, “This is coal – don’t be afraid!” has also vowed climate protesters like Greta Thunberg would not be dictating the country’s energy or trade policy.

As Breitbart news reported, last month he backed Adani and coal production.

“We won’t embrace reckless targets and abandon our traditional industries that would risk Australian jobs while having no meaningful impact on the global climate,” he said in an opinion piece for the Daily Telegraph.

“In short, we will continue to act responsibly on climate change, avoiding extreme responses and get the balance right.”

Coal exports were worth an estimated AUS$67 billion (US$45.9 billion) to the nation’s economy in the 2018 – 2019 financial year, overtaking iron ore as Australia’s most valuable export.

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

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

15 January, 2020

Sanders Gets Endorsement Of Young Climate Group, Bolstering Left-Wing Ties

The Sunrise Movement, the collection of young climate activists who have roiled Capitol Hill and the Democratic presidential primary, announced on Thursday that it was endorsing Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, in another sign that left-wing advocacy groups have increasingly coalesced around his candidacy.

In a landslide vote — more than 75 percent of respondents — Mr. Sanders earned the backing of members of the group, which has quickly become politically influential since its founding in 2017.

Once a fledgling collection of college students frustrated that Democrats and Republicans were not acting more quickly to curb climate change, Sunrise has grown to 318 chapters nationwide, with more than 10,000 members. Sunrise will host an event on Jan. 12 with Mr. Sanders in Iowa City to formally announce the endorsement.

“We believe a Bernie Sanders presidency would provide the best political terrain in which to engage in and ultimately win that struggle for the world we deserve,” Varshini Prakash, a founder and the executive director of the movement, said in a statement. “Senator Sanders has made it clear throughout his political career and in this campaign that he grasps the scale of the climate crisis, the urgency with which we must act to address it, and the opportunity we have in coming together to do so.”

The move represents another step into electoral politics for the group of young activists. After the 2018 midterm elections, the group made national headlines by staging a protest in the office of the incoming House speaker, Nancy Pelosi.

Sunrise’s signature policy, the ambitious proposal known as the Green New Deal, became a crucial litmus test splitting moderates and liberals on climate change, and was embraced by top-tier candidates like Mr. Sanders, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind. Even moderate candidates like former Vice President Joseph R.

Biden Jr., the race’s current frontrunner, have cited the policy as an inspiration and said its goal of drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions while also addressing economic inequality was an important framework.

But on the scorecard Sunrise released ranking the top three candidates’ plans and support for the Green New Deal, Mr. Biden, with a score of 75, trailed far behind Mr. Sanders (183) and Ms. Warren (171). Mr. Biden received low marks for how frequently he talks about the proposal and a 35 out of 100 for his “Green New Deal vision.”

Mr. Biden also had a tense exchange with a Sunrise organizer in September, who pressed him on his commitment to environmental issues.

“Look at my record, child,” Mr. Biden told the 18-year-old organizer. The group’s announcement is one of the last presidential endorsements to arrive from major progressive groups, almost all of which have backed Mr. Sanders. His candidacy in 2016 helped develop much of the left-wing political infrastructure in the Democratic Party — and had huge support among young Democrats in particular — but when the 2020 campaign cycle began, it was not assured that he would retain that support.

Young Democratic voters had a bevy of options, including fresh faces like Mr. Buttigieg, former Representative Beto O’Rourke of Texas and Senator Kamala Harris of California. In Ms. Warren, there was another candidate with progressive bona fides — who would also be the first woman in the Oval Office if elected.

In September, the Working Families Party endorsed Ms. Warren over Mr. Sanders, saying that she was better positioned to create a cross-ideological coalition around liberal values and that grass-roots groups needed to choose a side in the primary.

Over the next several months, however, and after Ms. Warren drew significant criticism for a health care proposal that stepped away from an immediate push for “Medicare for all,” the energy on the Democrats’ left flank began to move away from her.

In October, Mr. Sanders announced endorsements from popular House Democrats including Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who is a sponsor of the Green New Deal legislation. He has also gained the backing of labor organizations such as National Nurses United, and leftwing advocacy groups including the Center for Popular Democracy Action and People’s Action. This week, Mr. Sanders was endorsed by Dream Defenders, a Florida-based collection of activists that focuses on criminal justice reform.

Sunrise gave its members two choices — whether to back any presidential candidate at all, and if so, which one. More than 80 percent wanted to support a candidate. About 20 percent chose Ms. Warren.

Ms. Warren sent Sunrise a positive message on Twitter in the wake of the announcement, restating her commitment to a Green New Deal. In recent weeks, with Sunrise likely to back Mr. Sanders, Ms. Warren announced she would hold a climate-focused town-hall-style event in New Hampshire and rolled out an endorsement from Rhiana Gunn- Wright, a lead author of the Green New Deal proposal.

Ms. Warren has called for a $10.7 trillion investment in the economy to implement a Green New Deal and create what she calls green new jobs, and she has also released proposals specific to fighting climate change, including one that calls for $3 trillion in spending over a decade. Mr. Sanders released a $16.3 trillion plan for a Green New Deal that called for the United States to eliminate fossil fuel use by 2050 while similarly transforming the economy.

Evan Weber, the political director for the Sunrise Movement, said the group’s advocacy would continue no matter who is the nominee.

“Should Senator Sanders become the next president of the United States, we will push to ensure that he make delivering upon the promise of his Green New Deal platform the top priority of his administration,” he said. “If Senator Sanders does not win the nomination, the stakes of the climate crisis also demand that we can’t sit this election out.”

SOURCE

US emissions are falling under Trump, thanks to fracking’s war on coal

Because of fracking, the United States reduced its greenhouse gas emissions in 2019, according to a new estimate. This comes after an increase in emissions in 2018 that happened because it was so cold.

This winding course of events has led to some confused emotions among environmentalists who like to hate fracking and President Trump.

Yet in 2019, the third year of the Trump presidency, the U.S. reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 2.1% according to an early estimate by the Rhodium Group.

The reason? Mostly, it’s that we’re getting our electricity in less greenhouse gas-intensive ways.

Emissions from electric power generation dropped by a massive 10% last year, according to this estimate. That’s because of “the switch from coal to natural gas and renewables in the electric power sector,” according to the Rhodium Group.

Mostly, though, it’s about fracking, which allows cleaner and less carbon-intensive natural gas to replace dirtier and more CO2-heavy coal. Despite the promises of Democrats and the scare stories of Republicans, it didn’t take the EPA to cut coal usage in half over 12 years. It took a cheaper form of reliable energy — and that’s natural gas obtained through fracking.

Renewable energy is a much smaller factor in this record drop in coal usage. It’s really a story of fracking.

Liberal environmentalists have very mixed feelings about this. “Despite everything, U.S. emissions dipped in 2019,” reads the headline at the environmentalist website Grist. “Perhaps surprisingly, total emissions fell 2 percent compared with the year before,” the article begins.

Why should we be surprised? And what’s the “everything” that should have caused emissions to go up?

I assume they just mean Trump.

Trump is how environmentalist liberals framed this same report a year ago when emissions went up. “U.S. emissions are rising under Trump,” the Pacific Standard wrote. Vox’s article a year ago began with the words “The Trump administration.”

But Trump wasn’t what caused the emissions spike a year ago. Weather did: 2018 was colder than 2017.

Yup. Dropping temperatures from 2017 to 2018 caused the climate catastrophe journalists tried to pin on Trump.

“2018 was colder (and closer to the ten-year average),” the Rhodium Group explains. “This boosted year-on-year demand for heating in homes, offices, stores and factories. 2019 had about as many heating degree days (HDDs) as 2018, so there wasn’t the same year-on-year spike.”

This year didn’t see a year-over-year temperature drop, but it did see an abundant harvest of fruits of fracking, and that was good for the climate, even while being bad for coal and environmentalist bloggers.

SOURCE

Climate change: No one left to defend the camels

First they came for the coal producers. But many — not moi — were silent. And then they came for the oil and gas producers. No one defended them, except a few lonely voices like mine. And then they came for the beef and dairy cattle. Same story.

And when it comes to climate perfidy, nothing is sacred. The latest climate villain du jour — there will always be a climate villain — is the vast herd of 1.2 million feral camels in Australia. Like cattle, they chew their cud, and like cattle they release large amounts of methane into the atmosphere.

The news reports on this latest dimension of the looming climate catastrophe assert that each camel emits 100 pounds of methane per year. Using the most extreme assumptions available in the literature, and ignoring such complexities as an atmospheric half-life for methane much shorter than that for carbon dioxide, and overlapping heat absorption bands — such subtleties are of little interest to the journalists — that is equivalent to 2.5 tons of carbon dioxide per year per camel.

The climate alarmists are not known for their support of gun rights, but they are proposing that the camels be shot from helicopters, all in the name of reduced methane emissions. Naturally, rent-seeking has shaped the public discussion:

Northwest Carbon, a commercial company, suggested awarding carbon credits to individuals and companies in return for killing feral camels as a part of a larger carbon-curbing legislation called the “Carbon Farming Initiative,” released [on June 9] and submitted to the Australian parliament’s Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.

The officials figure removing the feral camels, which toot and burp out carbon, would lead to a significant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

How significant? The officials and supporters of this idea have failed to tell us. So let us do that arithmetic for them, using the numbers reported. There are 1.2 million camels, each of which emits 2.5 tons of CO2e per year. The total: 3 million tons of CO2e per year. Global CO2e emissions per year are about 51 billion tons. If we kill all the camels, the CO2e reduction — gross, not net — would be 6 one-thousandths of a percent. The climate impact in terms of future temperatures, sea levels, and all the rest: zero.

But, you say: Every little bit helps, and the cumulative effect of many such efforts would be significant by the year 2100. Well, no. The entire Obama climate action plan: 0.015 degrees C. The entire Paris agreement, if it is to be taken seriously (it is not): 0.17 degrees C. Zero net U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2050: 0.17 degrees C. A reduction to zero in GHG emissions by the entire Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: 0.35 degrees C. These are the calculations using the EPA climate model under assumptions that exaggerate the effects of reduced GHG emissions. There is no dispute about them, which is why the proponents of “carbon” policies never offer actual estimates of the climate effects of their proposals.

Back to the camels: Will no one else defend them? That such ideas as killing 1.2 million camels — minding their own business and doing only that which God and evolution have led them to do — are taken seriously is an illustration of a far more fundamental truth. There is just something about climate change that leads a lot of people to lose their minds.

SOURCE

Australia: I Cheered When the Bushfire Came

By Geoff Walker, the former deputy captain of Lemon Tree Passage volunteer fire brigade

With the eastern seaboard currently ravaged by bushfires, what sort of an idiot would actually cheer when one worked its way down the peninsular where he lived? I did, and there were a lot of others who did the same.

To understand why, we must go back over more than a year when a winter bushfire got going to the west of the town. It did for us what the volunteer firies couldn’t: it got rid of the ground fuel with minimal canopy scorch. No lives or property were lost. Had this ‘good’ bushfire not happened, the peninsular would have been obliterated this summer when a firestorm with winds gusting to 100kph came our way.

No fire fuel meant that it burned and went out. Simple as that. Today, as thousands of Australians confront the bushfire threat, we on the Tilligerry peninsula are safe. With only one year of fuel build-up we have little to worry about.

When bushfire management passed from local control to government bureaucracies, the political influence of the green movement virtually stopped the off-season burnoffs. This traditional practice dated back to the black man and his firestick management of the landscape. The European settlers adopted it, as did farmers and local grassroots volunteer firefighters.

In researching my bushfire book White Overall Days, I found that our local brigade averaged some 15 burnoffs per year in the decade of the 1970s; nine in the ’80s, a mere two or three in the ’90s and similar numbers ever since.

The reason for this dramatic fall-off in burnoffs was the complex web of rules and procedures dumped on the local captains to comply with before they could do anything. They simply gave up. It was all too hard.

It was NSW Premier Bob Carr who proclaimed vast areas of the state of NSW as national parks. The problem was that they were not fire-managed and have now been devastated by uncontrollable firestorms. Lives and property have been lost as they roared out of the forests into adjoining farmland and rural communities.

Several things have emerged from the current crisis. Green zealots are blaming coal mining and climate change for the fires. They refuse to concede that the green-leaning management policies caused the fires in the first place by ensuring catastrophic fuel build-up. On the other hand, the vast number of ordinary, sensible people now realize that cool burning delivers a far better environmental outcome than raging wildfires. From what I hear, even some of the self-serving bureaucrats are starting to talk mitigation rather than reactive suppression.

To continue down the current pathway of reactive firefighting means more of the same. There will always be bushfires. They are an integral part of the Australian environment. We either manage them by controlled burning or suffer the consequences.

It was early December when I wrote this piece and the height of the bushfire season had not yet engulfed so much of Australia, from Perth to Penrith. With dire weather predictions, what it would be like a month or two down the track did not bear thinking about.

Now we know.

SOURCE

Australia: Greenies surfing over bushfire facts

Wildfire is natural, cyclical and regenerative. Australian flora has adapted to survive bushfire and some indigenous species thrive on it. However, the ferocity of recent fires that scorched the country is shocking. The recovery will be painfully slow for those directly affected. Communities will be rebuilt or left behind as people seek safer ground. As city folk return to work, they will forget. But for people in disaster zones, the fires will stalk them by day and haunt them by night until they burn out or the rain comes.

Amid the terror of the season’s fire disaster, people are grieving for what is lost, angry about what they cannot control and afraid of what might come. Green-left politicians are using the fear for political gain. The green-left media is drumming up conspiracy theories that blame conservatives for the weather, the fires, dry earth, scorching wind, death, destruction and doomsday scenarios of some hypothetical future dystopia.

My present favourite is a Guardian article on the fire tragedy that leads with: “Australia is built on lies, so why would we be surprised about lies about climate change?”

As a first-generation immigrant, I have seen a fair share of Australian bushfires. I was a kid growing up in Adelaide when the Ash Wednesday bushfires took 75 lives. On Black Saturday in 2009, I was closer to the tragedy.

Victorians woke up to winds so hellish they broke the backs of saplings, stripped the air of moisture and seared our skin. When the first fire sirens went off in the morning and fire trucks roared down the street, I was doing the weekly shopping. People stopped, looked at each other and said it wasn’t going to be good. But we had no idea what was coming. By late afternoon, we were bunkered down. By early evening, I was glued to ABC radio.

Neighbours were preparing to leave. I was urged by friends to evacuate after my suburb was included in warnings issued by the Country Fire Authority. For some it was too late and many left only after hearing reports that people were dead in Kinglake, about 55km northeast of Melbourne, and that the fires had reached nearby St Andrews. I fled for the city as the fire developed into a storm that threw embers kilometres ahead of the front.

The shock of Black Saturday was a strange thing. I thought I was perfectly fine until feeling a sudden urge to stop on the Eastern Freeway into the city. I pulled over, walked to the side of the road and was violently ill. When I arrived at my friends’ house in North Fitzroy, they poured a whisky and sat me down. They said I was in shock, but I reassured them it was not the case. After settling my pet and opening my suitcase, I realised they were probably right. The contents of the case were absurd and I had no memory of packing them only a few hours earlier. I had taken nothing of financial value or practical utility. Instead, what lay before me was a half-empty suitcase with a pair of socks, books and a clock radio laid out on the base. All I could do was laugh. It was simply bizarre.

When I returned home the following week, the hills were like a wasteland. My suburb had been saved by a wind change. But in the surrounding areas, people were stricken with grief. The usually friendly towns were laid low and an uneasy quiet hung in the air. People walked the streets saying little and staring into the middle distance. Some were looking for missing loved ones or pets. Everyone knew someone who died. The atmosphere had an ashen quality, as though a grey veil had settled to protect the present from the past.

Amid the panic and tragedy of devastating wildfires, what we needed most was immediate relief in the form of care, reassurance and simple kindness from friends, family and employers. The communities directly affected needed swift aid and financial support. Everyone needed something a little different. But what we didn’t need was cheap politicking.

The Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader have taken the higher ground in recent days by agreeing that a royal commission into the fires is a sound idea. The bipartisan approach is constructive and should produce useful recommendations if the terms of reference are set well. The green-left is looting low-hanging fruit by making political capital out of the national disaster. The major parties should leave the scavengers to their ghoulish feast and concentrate on the question of what caused the major fires and how to mitigate risks in the future.

The 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission unearthed the causes of the fire and the institutional failures that enabled it to spread without adequate warning to communities at risk. Yet despite recommendations on regular backburning to reduce fuel load, some areas between St Andrews and Kinglake appeared to be overgrown when I last drove through the area in 2018.

A central challenge of any future royal commission will be to create an enforceability mechanism to ensure fuel load is kept at a minimum while conserving the natural environment in fire risk areas. As Rachel Baxendale reported on Friday, the Victorian government has not undertaken fire reduction measures consistent with the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. The state Labor Party that encourages activism and blames natural disasters on climate change is neglecting its basic duty to keep Victorians safe.

The government does not control the weather. It cannot stand guard at every home while fires rage. It will never be responsible for every inch of land in the country because Australians believe in private property and the responsibility home ownership entails.

Politicians who use climate change to divert attention from their failure to enact bushfire prevention plans should talk less and do more to help communities in need. Reducing fuel load is something state and local governments can do as a matter of routine. It may not make for lively conversation with cosmopolites but it will save lives.

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

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

14 January, 2020

Some wisdom from 2004 about 2020

Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in The Guardian below -- on Sun 22 Feb 2004. How wrong can you be?

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that 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. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.

Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.

A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America's public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.

One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President's position on the issue as indefensible.

Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon's internal fears should prove the 'tipping point' in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.

Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.'

Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored.

'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' added Watson.

'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.

Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.

Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. 'This is depressing stuff,' he said. 'It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.'

Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. 'We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,' he said.

'The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.'

So dramatic are the report's scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists disillusioned with Bush's stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign.

The fact that Marshall is behind its scathing findings will aid Kerry's cause. Marshall, 82, is a Pentagon legend who heads a secretive think-tank dedicated to weighing risks to national security called the Office of Net Assessment. Dubbed 'Yoda' by Pentagon insiders who respect his vast experience, he is credited with being behind the Department of Defence's push on ballistic-missile defence.

Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House trying to bury evidence of climate change. 'It is yet another example of why this government should stop burying its head in the sand on this issue.'

Symons said the Bush administration's close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received sceptically in the Oval Office. 'This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,' he added.

SOURCE

German weather site says Australia's 1974 fires were bigger

Three bush fires on the borders of the two states of New South Wales and Victoria in Australia combined into one giant fire at night. The fire covers an area of ??around 600,000 hectares. This corresponds to about a third of the area of ??Rhineland-Palatinate.

In some of the areas affected by the devastating bush fires, temperatures reached 44 degrees on Friday. Wind speeds of 90 kilometers per hour ignite the flames. More than 3,500 firefighters were deployed in New South Wales. There were still over 140 fires blazing this morning.

In the summer of 1974/1975, an area about the size of Spain and France burned down in Australia.

To sum up: Bush fires are generally not unusual in the Australian summer. Large areas are often affected. Most recently, huge fires raged in February 2009. The so-called Black Saturday Bushfires killed over 170 people and destroyed 1,800 houses. An area the size of the Saarland burned down.

Since the big bushfires started in October 2019, more than 100,000 square kilometers of land have been burned across Australia, which is roughly the size of Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg combined. Thousands of houses were destroyed.

But it is even more powerful: in the summer of 1974/1975, the flames blazed over an area of ??around one million square kilometers. This corresponds to an area that is about three times larger than Germany.

SOURCE

EPA Science Could Torpedo Roundup Lawsuits

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently issued a finding that could – and certainly should – undermine some of the most outrageous lawsuits and jury awards in American history.

Bolstered by San Francisco area juries that have given multi-multi-million-dollar awards to clients who claim glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup weedkiller) caused their cancer, jackpot justice lawyers have recruited some 20,000 additional “corporate victims” who hope to reap their own fortunes.

Their cases are based on the assertion that: (a) Bayer-Monsanto negligently or deliberately failed to warn consumers that the glyphosate it manufactures is carcinogenic; (b) the plaintiffs used Roundup at some point in their lives; and (c) their short or long-term use of the chemical caused their Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma or other cancer. Those claims are dependent on several essential factors.

First and foremost, a 2015 determination by the France-based International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) that glyphosate is a Group 2A probable human carcinogen. Second, a 2017 decision by the State of California to add the chemical to its Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Prop 65) official list of carcinogens, based on the IARC decision. Third, the state’s requirement that all Roundup labels must therefore carry prominent warnings that the product “probably” causes cancer.

Monsanto and Bayer insist that their product is safe and non-carcinogenic; Roundup labels thus did not carry warnings. But that gave plaintiff lawyers the opportunity to argue in pleadings, courtroom statements and media ads that the company negligently or deliberately caused serious health risks.

In the minds of presiding judges and jurors, if it was “possible” that even short or occasional exposure to Roundup could have caused cancer – even if it was an extremely remote likelihood – the manufacturer was guilty, and liable. Hence, awards in the tens of millions or even billions of dollars were justified.

There are numerous fundamental, even monumental, problems with this strained reasoning – and they are likely to be exacerbated by the August 7, 2019 EPA decision and strongly worded guidance letter.

IARC is virtually the only organization in the world to conclude that glyphosate is carcinogenic – and it based its conclusions on examining just eight studies. Far worse, subsequent reviews by epidemiologist Dr. Geoffrey Kabat, National Cancer Institute statistician Dr. Robert Tarone, investigative journalist Kate Kelland and “RiskMonger” Dr. David Zaruk demonstrated that the IARC decision resulted from bias, improper revision of study data and/or results, and collusion between glyphosate trial lawyers and the IARC consultant who led the agency’s investigation and was paid handsomely by the trial lawyers.

Equally outrageous and illuminating, IARC classifies red meat, very hot beverages, emissions from frying food, even doing shift work as “probable” human carcinogens – in the same category as glyphosate. It lists pickled vegetables and caffeic acid in coffee, tea and broccoli as “possible” human carcinogens. It even admitted that its glyphosate decision was based on only “limited” evidence of cancer in humans and “sufficient” evidence of cancer in experimental animals. IARC seems to say everything causes cancer.

Perhaps that is because, to reach its conclusions, the agency relies on what toxicity experts call “exposure” or “hazard” tests. That antiquated approach uses lab animals to determine whether a chemical might cause cancer – even if only at ridiculously high levels that no animal or human would ever be exposed to in real life. It refuses to rely on the modern approach of assessing actual risk, by determining the exposure level at which a substance might actually have an adverse effect on animals or humans.

And yet the judges in these cases let the plaintiff lawyers focus on IARC’s claims of carcinogenicity, while they prevented defense attorneys from countering IARC cancer claims or discussing its gross misconduct. They even barred the presentation of extensive evidence that glyphosate is not carcinogenic.

In fact, glyphosate has been used safely since 1974. It is now licensed in 130 countries for more than 100 food crops. Over the past four decades, respected agencies and organizations worldwide have conducted over 3,300 studies, and every one of them concluded that glyphosate is safe and non-carcinogenic.

Reviewers include the European Food Safety Authority, European Chemicals Agency, UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Germany’s Institute for Risk Assessment, Australia’s Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, Japanese and New Zealand agencies, and the US Environmental Protection Agency. “No pesticide regulatory authority in the world considers glyphosate to be a cancer risk to humans at the levels at which humans are currently exposed,” Health Canada noted. Meanwhile, the National Cancer Institute’s ongoing Agricultural Health Study has evaluated 54,000 farmers and commercial pesticide applicators for over two decades – and likewise found no glyphosate-cancer link.

Amid all of this, the “cancer victim” patients and their lawyers benefitted immensely from endless print, radio, television, online and social media campaigns that have misinformed, pressured, harassed and intimidated prospective judges and jurors. Many of these campaigns and several “educational think tanks” are funded, directly or indirectly, by the predatory tort lawyers and their anti-chemical activist allies.

To top it off, the judges and tort lawyers have made it difficult or impossible for Bayer-Monsanto attorneys to present other highly relevant evidence: such as plaintiffs’ family cancer history and personal dietary and other lifestyle choices – and their exposure to scores of other definite, probable and possible carcinogens on IARC’s list of hundreds of human cancer risks, including those mentioned above.

The supposed corporate cancer victims were allowed to argue that, despite all these other factors, including multiple other carcinogen exposures, their cancer was due solely to their exposure to glyphosate.

Enter EPA. The agency had already conducted lengthy and extensive reviews of the global compendium of studies and regulatory decisions on glyphosate – and had likewise concluded that “glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic in humans.” But at least one judge blocked the introduction of the EPA analyses, claiming “the primary inquiry is what the scientific studies show, not what the EPA concluded they show.” He didn’t seem to mind that IARC doesn’t do original studies either – and its ruling on glyphosate was based on what IARC concluded eight studies showed, while ignoring 3,300 contradictory studies.

It will henceforth be much harder for tort lawyers and trial judges to pull that cute little tactic off again. As noted above, EPA has issued a guidance letter – based on (a) its careful “independent evaluation” and reexamination of scientific studies and regulatory determinations around the world; and (b) its regulatory and labeling authority under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

Not only does EPA “disagree with IARC’s assessment of glyphosate.” It concludes that the chemical “is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Equally important, based on its findings, EPA now holds that any “Proposition 65 warning language” based on claims that glyphosate is carcinogenic “constitute[s] a false and misleading statement.” Any products bearing Prop 65 warning statements due to the presence of glyphosate in them are thus “misbranded.” EPA will no longer approve such labels, and any such warnings “must be removed from all product labels where the only basis for the warning is glyphosate.

Applying that decision to these lawsuits, because glyphosate is not carcinogenic, Bayer-Monsanto was and is under no obligation to put warning labels on Roundup containers, stating that the chemical causes or “probably” causes cancer in humans. In fact, the company is legally obligated not to issue such warnings, because they would make the label “false and misleading.”

There is therefore no basis for cancer claims based on IARC’s erroneous, sloppy, collusive, even fraudulent “science.” Thus there is no legal or scientific basis for these lawsuits and jury awards.

It’s time for trial and appellate court judges – and state and federal regulatory authorities – to implement these EPA findings in courtrooms, in news and activist website statements, and in the ubiquitous ads that are trolling for still more Roundup-glyphosate “victims” and predatory tort lawyer clients.

SOURCE

Siemens defies Greenies and sticks with coal mine contract in Australia

German industrial giant Siemens says it will continue to work with Adani’s controversial Carmichael coal mine after the company’s CEO cited arguments from federal resources minister Matt Canavan in an open letter justifying the decision.

Siemens had been awarded a contract by the Adani project to deliver services and equipment to the rail network connecting the coal mine to export terminals on the coast.

Siemens had signed the contract with the Adani project in December but announced that it would review this decision following calls from environmental groups. At the time, the company’s CEO said that he wasn’t aware of the company’s contract with the Adani project.

Siemens had faced growing pressure to walk away from the Adani project, including from environmental campaigners in Australia and in its homeland in Germany. More than 57,000 Germans signed a petition calling on the company to cancel its contract with the Adani mine, with campaigners protesting outside of the company’s headquarters in Munich.

President and CEO of Siemens Joe Kaeser said in an open letter published on Monday that the company considered the Adani contract to be a “very small signaling order for the project”, and confirmed that the company had decided to honour the contract.

Kaeser provided a list of reasons to justify the decision, including that the mine had received approvals from traditional owners, despite ongoing challenges to this claim, and quoted Canavan who wrote in a letter to Siemens that the 2019 federal election had effectively served as a referendum on the Carmichael coal mine.

“The Australian people clearly voted to support Adani at the federal election in May 2019, especially in regional Queensland. It would be an insult to the working people of Australia and the growing needs of India to bow to the pressure of anti-Adani protestors,” Canavan told Siemens in a letter dated 19 December.

Adani’s Carmichael coal mine, which is set to become one of Australia’s largest, has faced several years of strong opposition from environmental groups who have pointed to the impacts the project will have on both local land and wildlife, as well as become a major new source of fossil fuel emissions at a time when stronger action on climate change has been needed.

Swedish climate campaigner Greta Thunberg joined calls for Siemens to refuse to work with the coal mine, tweeting this week that Siemens “have the power to stop, delay or at least interrupt the building of the huge Adani coal mine in Australia.”

The Siemens CEO said that the company remained committed to being part of the transition to a decarbonised economy, including the company’s aim to become carbon neutral by 2030.

“Siemens, as one of the first companies to have pledged carbon neutrality by 2030, fundamentally shares the goal of making fossil fuels redundant to our economies over time,” Kaeser said.

Kaeser argued that a refusal by Siemens to provide services to Adani would not prevent the project from going ahead, suggesting that competitors would simply fill the gap. Siemens also argued that the need for the company to honour its established contractual arrangements outweighed the climate change considerations of the projects it worked with.

“While I do have a lot of empathy for environmental matters, I do need to balance different interests of different stakeholders, as long as they have lawful legitimation for what they do. This is my responsibility as a CEO and that of the management team. Keeping our promises is Siemens’ highest priority.” Kaeser said.

“We should have been wiser about this project beforehand. Now, we need to be a supplier, who sticks to its commitments as long as the customer stays on legal grounds, too. Because being a company, which is not a reliable source for its customers is simply not an option,” Kaeser added.

The decision by Siemens places the company at odds with other businesses that have sought to distance themselves from the controversial coal mine. All of Australia’s ‘big four’ banks, which includes the NAB, Westpac, ANZ and Commonwealth Banks have declined to provide finance to the Carmichael coal mine following targeted campaigns from customers and shareholders.

Shareholder advocacy group Market Forces said that the decision was “appalling”, saying that the decision undermined Siemens’ own environmental credibility.

Global engineering giant GHD has also ceased its engagement with the Adani project, after the company faced internal pressure from staff to do so, and more than a dozen major insurance companies have also declined to provide financial services to the Adani coal mine.

The decision from Siemens to work with the Adani project has been criticised by environmental groups who had hoped Siemens would join other companies in refusing to work with the Adani mine.

SOURCE

'They can't even get the weather right': Conservative politician says the bushfires were not caused by climate change - and urges Australians to 'look at the facts'

Pauline Hanson has rubbished claims that climate change caused the Australian bushfire crisis, saying it was caused by the build-up of forest-floor fuel and restrictions on land clearance.

The One Nation leader appeared on the Today show on Monday, where she told hosts Karl Stefanovic and Allison Langdon to 'look purely at the facts'.

'As far as predicting the climate change... they can't even get my weather right and tell me if it's going to rain,' she said.

'They can't get it right over the next seven to 10 days and they're trying to tell me what it is going to be like in the next hundred years.'

Ms Hanson said a lack of hazard reduction burns in fire ravaged communities had contributed to the rapid spread of the blazes.

Authorities in New South Wales and Victoria previously told Daily Mail Australia the majority of recent fires in both states were sparked by lightning strikes in dry, remote areas.

Fires at Gospoers Mountain, as well as in the Snowy Mountains and at Green Wattle Creek, were believed to have been triggered by lightning strikes.

Ms Hanson also criticised Prime Minister Scott Morrison's handling of the crisis.

Throughout the nation, she said voters are becoming increasingly frustrated with Mr Morrison and his lack of leadership.

'People don't feel that he has done enough in dealing with the drought and the dairy farmers,' she said.

'I'm disappointed with him myself. When he was immigration minister I predicted he would be the prime minister but he's not as strong a leader as he was then.'

The PM has considered holding a Royal Commission into the fires, which Ms Hanson supports as long as the investigation studies 'pure facts' on how fires spread and efforts to stop them, and 'throws bloody climate change out of the window.'

Ms Hanson said her major concern is that in an attempt to lower emissions, the government will continue to raise taxes.

'How on earth is that supposed to reduce temperatures?' she asked.

'It is killing the communities. They can't afford the electricity. You have people moving out of the towns, these are going to become ghost towns.'

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

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

13 January, 2020

The Climate Crisis Is Now Detectable in Every Single Day of Weather Across The Planet

They obviously THINK they can detect it but logically they cannot. In my studies of analytical philosophy in my student days one of the topics I took an interest in was the nature of causality. I even had a well-received paper on the topic published in an academic journal.

And the most respected statement on the nature of cause was by David Hume, who said that "constant conjunction" was the whole of causality. Note that word "constant". If X causes Y then ALL instances of X will be followed by Y. So you have to have a setup where you can examine whether all instances of X precede Y.

But that does not remotely happen in climate studies. The presumed cause -- increased CO2 levels -- is NOT always followed by warming. There is even doubt whether the two are correlated at all. So the claim below that CO2 levels CAUSE various instances of weather is simply false. There is no constant conjunction between the two.

It can reasonably be claimed that weather is caused by many things -- which obscures the causal relationship, but there should be observed constant conjunction once you allow for all other influences. But Warmists never to my knowledge even attempt that analysis. Until they do there is simply no observed constant conjunction and hence no known causal relationship between any weather event and CO2 levels

The climate changes we humans have inflicted on the planet are now so deeply embedded, they are showing up in our daily weather.

Researchers from Switzerland and Norway now claim to have detected the "fingerprint" of climate change in every single day of weather in the global record since 2012.

The distinction between climate and weather is one that scientists have been hammering on about for years. And while the two are closely intertwined, they are generally considered distinct, with weather referring to short-term conditions and climate referring to longer trends.

Swiss climate scientist Reto Knutti told The Washington Post he's not sure the difference is so distinct anymore. "Weather is climate change if you look over the whole globe," he argues.

That means weather on a local scale still doesn't show a climate change signal. But if you roll these regions out into a global perspective, the variations in temperature and humidity do hold the stamp of humanity. And they are clearly distinguishable from what would happen naturally.

So, some regions of the world can still get really cold - they can even break temperature records - but if it's simultaneously warmer than average in other parts of the world, it won't impact the overall climate trend.

Using machine learning along with climate models and data, Knutti and his colleagues found daily mean weather values from 1951 to 1980 barely matched up with those from 2009 to 2018.

Examining yearly data, the authors noticed the stamp of climate change on global weather went back to 1999. And from 2012, it could be seen every single day. And the signal of climate change is now so big it's greater than global daily weather variability.

"Weather at the global level carries important information about climate," explains Knutti. "This information could, for example, be used for further studies that quantify changes in the probability of extreme weather events, such as regional cold spells."

In recent years, scientists have detected stronger links between global warming and changing weather patterns, and while it's difficult to blame any one storm on climate change, the overall pattern for heat waves, droughts and storms is clear.

The new findings suggest climate change is more deeply rooted than we thought, but if we can figure out how to link long-term trends with short-term weather events, it could help us prepare for the worst.

"This gives rise to new opportunities for the communication of regional weather events against the backdrop of global warming," says Knutti.

SOURCE

Glacier Park in Montana Set to Remove ‘Glaciers Will All Be Gone By 2020’ signs

Montana’s Glacier National Park is being forced to remove all signs that read “glaciers will all be gone by 2020,” after the doomsday scenario didn’t happen.

Some of the signs were already removed last year as it became clear the prediction wasn’t going to unfold. Now the rest of the signs will have to be taken down too.

Glacier National Park spokeswoman Gina Kurzmen “told MTN News that the latest research shows shrinking, but in ways much more complex than what was predicted. Because of this, the park must update all signs around the park stating all glaciers will be melted by 2020,”

In the late 90’s and early 2000s, scientists predicted that man-made global warming would cause melting glaciers, leading to rapidly rising sea levels that would sink coastal cities and towns.

The more dire forecasts have proven to be totally inaccurate and some glaciers are now growing. Back in June, NASA reported that the Jakobshavn Glacier in western Greenland had thickened and “has grown for the third year in a row.”

The glacier prediction is by no means the only forecast global warming alarmists have got spectacularly wrong. At the end of the 70’s, climate experts said that a new ice age was coming. It didn’t happen.

Paul Ehrlich’s prediction that hundreds of millions of people would die of starvation due to crop failure by the 1980’s also didn’t happen.

The 2004 prediction that major European cities would be underwater and that Britain would be plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020 didn’t happen.

Al Gore’s doomsday warning that the Arctic would have ice free summers by 2013 didn’t happen either.

Maybe since these “experts” been caught lying time and time again, we should stop listening to them.

SOURCE

Recycling is becoming so expensive for towns that some are thinking the unthinkable — they may stop doing it

WESTFIELD, Mass. — On a recent afternoon here, with urgency in the air, local officials huddled to consider what until recently was unthinkable. Should they abandon their popular curbside recycling program? Or spend millions to build a plant to process plastic and paper on their own?

With the recycling market across the country mired in crisis, a growing number of cities and towns are facing a painful reckoning: whether they can still afford to collect bottles, cans, plastics, and paper, which have so plummeted in value that in some cases they have become effectively worthless.

“We’re looking at going from paying nothing to paying $500,000 a year,” said Dave Billips, the director of public works in Westfield, referring to the city’s recycling costs. “That’s going to have a major impact.”

It’s a reckoning hitting home across Massachusetts. Boston, for example, is now paying nearly $5?million to have recycling collections carted away, up from just $200,000 in 2017. City officials said they do not plan to end the program.

The crisis began two years ago when China announced it would no longer accept large amounts of paper and plastic from the United States, which for years had exported huge collections of material there and elsewhere in Asia, because much was contaminated and unusable.

That decision has sent tremors through the recycling industry, leading to steep declines in the value of paper, plastic, and other recyclables. Waste Management, the nation’s largest recycling company, used to earn as much as $80 a ton for paper it collected; today, it gets nothing, officials said. The value of cardboard has plunged 70?percent, and it now costs more to recycle glass than the company can make selling it.

“There are once-in-100-year floods; this has been the equivalent to a once-in-500-year flood,” said Steve Changaris, northeast region vice president of the National Waste and Recycling Association, a trade group for waste companies. “We saw a loss of 40?percent of the market that consumed these materials.”

That collapse has reverberated widely. Until this year, Westfield and most other communities in Western Massachusetts paid nothing for recycling. Some even earned revenue from the region’s largest recycling plant, which turned their discarded paper and bottles into profits.

But the equation has changed, and by the end of January 74 communities across Western Massachusetts must decide whether to sign a new and much more expensive contract with a state-owned recycling facility in Springfield, whose contractor has said it was forced to raise its prices drastically.

“With current commodity prices at historic lows, the sale of those commodities does not cover the cost of processing,” said Garrett Trierweiler, a spokesman for Waste Management, which operates the Springfield plant for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. “As a result, new contracts for processing recyclables are typically written to cover the cost.”

As China has retreated from the international recycling business, other markets had taken some of America’s refuse. But now some of those countries have introduced policies similar to China’s to limit contaminated materials, drastically reducing US exports. Recyclables are often considered contaminated when they aren’t properly cleaned.

For example, Indonesia announced last year it would accept only minimal contamination in mixed paper — everything from newspaper to corrugated cardboard — sparking a drop in US waste exports to that nation by 95?percent, according to the National Waste and Recycling Association.

Just this month, India announced a similarly strict policy, halting all imports of mixed paper. After China changed its policy, India had become the dominant importer of mixed paper, taking in 40?percent of North American exports.

In Massachusetts, Michael Camara, chief executive of ABC Disposal Service, said the crisis shows no signs of relenting. The company’s recycling plant in Rochester, facing a 41?percent drop in prices, now has hundreds of bales of material waiting to be shipped to a processor, and the amount grows by the day.

“It’s a horrific situation, with high costs and limited demand,” he said. “At this point, it’s unclear whether we’ll be able to stay in business. Something needs to change.”

State environmental officials, who last year spent $7?million to help municipalities maintain and promote recycling programs, said they have sought to offset the financial impact on communities in Western Massachusetts by shortening the length of their contracts and opening up the plant in Springfield to 27 other towns in the region. But little else can be done, they said.

Municipalities with programs that do not separate their recyclables, so-called single-stream collection, will have to pay on average about $150 a ton over a three-year contract to have their waste accepted at the plant; those where residents separate paper and plastic into different bins will have to pay nearly $100 a ton over a five-year contract.

“The new contract will be more expensive for communities due to a changed international market,” said Joe Ferson, a spokesman for the Department of Environmental Protection. “These costs are in line with what many communities across the state, region, and country are paying.”

Ferson said the department hasn’t been informed that any communities are pulling out of the agreement, which would likely require Waste Management to raise costs even more for those that sign their contracts. But some communities — including the largest in the region — now say that they are indeed likely to pull out.

In Springfield, which produces some 7,000 tons of recycling a year, officials said the new recycling contract would force the city, which now pays nothing, to pay $1.2?million a year, an untenable sum.

“That’s a huge number for us,” said Chris Cignoli, director of the city’s Department of Public Works. “We don’t have that kind of money. Nobody does.”

He has begun informing colleagues in neighboring towns that Springfield is considering other options, meaning a potential 35?percent reduction in single-stream recyclables sent to the state plant. Such a decision could force the state to end single-stream recycling at the Springfield facility, because it relies heavily on collections from that city, he said.

“It seems highly unlikely that we’re going to sign,” Cignoli said. “That means other communities are going to have to get their own houses in order.”

In Holyoke, where in good years the city earned as much as $70,000 from its recycling program, officials were also scrambling to find another option. If officials agree to the new contract, they’re facing annual costs that start at $160,000.

“This is beyond what we can bear,” said Michael E. Bloomberg, chief of staff to the mayor, adding the city is unlikely to sign on to the state plan.

“In a city that’s fighting to find every penny it can for education, public health, and potholes,” he said, “we’re now having a reckoning.” Both Holyoke and Springfield are instead considering lower-cost offers from contractors.

At the recent meeting at the Public Works Department in Westfield, municipal officials raised concerns about being locked into an agreement with the state for another five years. As officials huddled around a conference table, many were exasperated.

Their discussion ranged from eliminating curbside recycling to whether to pass the costs on to residents in the form of higher disposal fees. Neither seemed viable, Billips said.

In the end, they decided to analyze the costs of delivering their recycling to another contractor farther away. They asked a consultant to look at the costs of converting the city’s transfer station into a facility that could accommodate recycling.

There were concerns raised about the alternatives, and little time left to decide what the city should do. “This whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth,” Billips said.

SOURCE

Scientific Misconduct At James Cook University Confirms My Worst Fears

Peter Ridd

Seven scientists expose massive scientific incompetence – or worse – at James Cook University

The paper by Timothy Clark, Graham Raby, Dominique Roche, Sandra Binning, Ben Speers-Roesch, Frederik Jutfelt and Josefin Sundin (Clark et al., 2020) is a magnificent example of a comprehensive and very brave scientific replication study. The 7 scientists repeated experiments documented in eight previous studies on the effect of climate change on coral reef fish to see if they were correct.

Clark et al. (2020) found 100% replication failure. None of the findings of the original eight studies were found to be correct.

All the erroneous studies were done by scientists from James Cook Universities highly prestigious Coral Reef Centre. They were published in high profile journals, and attracted considerable media attention.

The major findings of the original studies that were found to be wrong were that high CO2 concentrations cause small reef fish to

* lose their ability to smell predators, and can even become attracted towards the scent of predators,

* become hyper-active,

* loose their tendency to automatically swim either left or right, and,

* have impaired vision.

This is the second time these 7 authors have got together to reveal a major scientific scandal. They were the whistle blowers of the infamous Lonnstedt scientific fraud in 2018. Lonnstedt, originally a PhD student at JCU, is also one of the scientists involved with these latest erroneous studies. She was found guilty of fabricating data in Sweden.

JCU has failed to properly investigate possible scientific fraud by Lonnstedt. Government funding agencies should insist that the highest responsible officer at JCU be sacked to send a message that institutions must take fraud seriously and not try to cover it up.

I was fired from JCU in 2018 after stating that work from JCU’s coral reef centre was not trustworthy. The latest work by Clark et al. (2020) is more evidence that those comments had considerable substance.

I was awarded $1.2M for wrongful dismissal by the Federal Circuit Court in 2019. JCU has appealed the decision which will be heard in May.

Replication and Science Quality Assurance

Clark et al. (2020) is exactly the type of replication study that I have been requesting for other scientific evidence regarding the Great Barrier Reef.

Such replication studies have been opposed by all the major GBR science institutions.

Clark et al. (2020) shows a 100% failure rate of the replication tests, which is higher than the science standard of about 50% failure rate for most peer reviewed literature.

Clark et al. (2020) demonstrates, yet again, the inadequacy of peer review as a quality assurance check for scientific evidence that may be used to develop important public policy decision.

I have been proposing an “Office of Science Quality Assurance” that would be in charge of replication and audit studies to test scientific evidence to be used for government policy decisions.

The replication tests were performed on work mostly authored by scientists from JCU’s ARCCoE.

The 100% failure rate of these tests indicate that there is a serious quality assurance (QA) problem within that organisation.

I have been saying since 2015, in both public statements and the scientific literature, that the ARC COE has a QA problem. The head of the ARC COE made complaints to the Vice Chancellor of JCU about these public comments.

Those complaints led to my dismissal from JCU in 2018 after an almost unbroken 40 year association with the university.

Clark et al. (2020) demonstrates beyond doubt that my statements on Quality Assurance had considerable substance.

Scientific Fraud

No direct evidence of fraud was presented in Clark et al. (2020)

There is, however, considerable evidence of very lax scientific standards such as the lack of videoing of the behavioural experiments. This is a remarkable omission considering that videoing experiments is very easy. Combined with a 100% replication failure rate, it is clear that there was not an institutional culture of high scientific standards and integrity at the JCU ARCCoE.

Oona Lonnstedt, a PhD student at JCU, was trained within this lax institutional culture. She is an author of one of the studies tested in Clark et al. (2020).

She was later proven to be fraudulent by the very same authors of Clark et al. (2020) for work she did in Sweden.

There is compelling evidence that other work she did at JCU on Lionfish may be fraudulent.

The response of JCU to Lonnstedt’s fraud

JCU has failed to properly investigate Lonnstedt’s PhD and Post-Doc work at JCU since she was found guilty of fraud in Sweden. JCU has repeatedly said it would investigate with an external review but it appears that the committee to do this has not been appointed almost 2 years after she was found guilty of fraud in Sweden.

Scientific fraud is a serious issue. The integrity of science is at stake.

Failure to investigate fraud when there is a strong prime facie case that it has occurred is a far greater crime than fraud itself. It is a failure at the highest levels of an institution.

It demonstrates that fraud will be tolerated at James Cook University.

Source

The journal abstract

Ocean acidification does not impair the behaviour of coral reef fishes

Timothy D. Clark et al.

Abstract

The partial pressure of CO2 in the oceans has increased rapidly over the past century, driving ocean acidification and raising concern for the stability of marine ecosystems1,2,3. Coral reef fishes are predicted to be especially susceptible to end-of-century ocean acidification on the basis of several high-profile papers4,5 that have reported profound behavioural and sensory impairments—for example, complete attraction to the chemical cues of predators under conditions of ocean acidification.

Here, we comprehensively and transparently show that—in contrast to previous studies—end-of-century ocean acidification levels have negligible effects on important behaviours of coral reef fishes, such as the avoidance of chemical cues from predators, fish activity levels and behavioural lateralization (left–right turning preference).

Using data simulations, we additionally show that the large effect sizes and small within-group variances that have been reported in several previous studies are highly improbable. Together, our findings indicate that the reported effects of ocean acidification on the behaviour of coral reef fishes are not reproducible, suggesting that behavioural perturbations will not be a major consequence for coral reef fishes in high CO2 oceans.

SOURCE

Australia: Good For You, Craig Kelly

Peter O'Brien

The [conservative Federal] Coalition needs Craig Kelly but they certainly don’t deserve him. The pile-on against [PM] Scott Morrison, for his vacation, his ‘lack of leadership on climate change’ and his alleged responsibility for the bushfires, has been of Trump Derangement Syndrome proportions.

Kelly comes out in a combative interview with ITV talking head Piers Morgan and (a) defends the PM regarding his vacation, (b) points out that the bushfires have nothing to do with climate change and (c) that in terms of emissions reductions we are doing more than most countries.

And what thanks does he get? Minister for water resources, drought and a lucky dip of other portfolios, David Littleproud, says:

That’s just a sideshow. He doesn’t represent the views of the government and you know what I couldn’t give a rat’s what he said, it’s irrelevant, let’s just focus on those people that are out there that need our help.

This is the same Littleproud who, only months ago, opined that he ‘didn’t know if climate change was manmade’, only to scuttle behind a ‘clarification’ when challenged by that bastion of objectivity The Guardian:

… he “totally” accepts that worsening droughts are linked to climate change, as he signalled more taxpayer support for regional communities was coming as Australia’s big dry “escalates”.

Now there’s a man of conviction for you.

Sometime ago I postulated in this forum that logic dictated there must be someone in the Liberal ranks who was sceptical about CAGW and I lamented that they did not speak out. Craig Kelly took me to task on this and I was pleased to acknowledge in a subsequent article, that Kelly had given voice to the sceptic position and has been doing so ever since. His mastery of this brief is second to none among the political class. He can cite chapter and verse of the relevant research to support his case whereas the best the wets in the Liberal Party can come up with in response to Kelly’s specific points is along the lines of Treasurer Frydenberg’s anodyne contribution to this latest furore:

Our view of climate change is that it’s real. We accept the science.

While Mr Frydenberg said fuel loads had been a factor in the bushfires, he said climate change was causing hotter, drier summers.

Which is exactly what the Greens want him to say so that they can go on beating the government over the head for achnowledging the ‘problem’ while not doing enough, by their yardstick, to remedy it. Let me summarize Craig’s argument.

Order Peter O’Brien’s Bitter Harvest here

Firstly, even committed warmist Dr Andy Pitman has conceded there is no direct link between drought and ‘climate change’. Like Littleproud, he then demonstrated quite the talent for back-scuttling.   ‘Climate change’ is in quotation marks because Pitman was talking about one particular form of climate change – the kind caused by atmospheric warming as a result of human emissions. He has to say that, because a warming climate of this nature will produce a wetter world. That is why most of the world’s rainforests are in the warmer tropical zone.

The current bushfire emergency has come about because of three factors:

# the prolonged drought

# the accumulation of fuel, and

# the malice and/or carelessness of almost 200 people charged with starting fires

In as much as high temperatures have contributed to the problem, if they really are records (a doubtful proposition, given the revelations of Jennifer Marohasy et al regarding the BoM’s adjustments acolytes), they are only marginally higher than in previous decades and would have had no greater impact now than in the past.

But on the subject of CAGW itself, no-one has done a useful cost/benefit analysis of CO2 mitigation. That is because no-one knows just how much warming will occur in the future, how much of it will be due to man-made CO2 emissions (as opposed to natural climate variability) and how much of it will be beneficial. So the ‘precautionary principle’ argument is often made, illustrated by rhetorical devices such as comparing the price of CO2 mitigation with that of insuring one’s house – something most people do without thinking twice. That decision is almost instinctive but how much one is prepared to pay requires more thought. But analogies are often imperfect – sometimes laughably so, as recently demonstrated by Peter Van Onselen. We don’t insure our homes to prevent bushfires but to recompense us in the event that one damages or destroys our house.

A better analogy, but again imperfect, is a military operation. If your country is threatened with invasion there are two options – strike first in a do-or-die pre-emptive action, or prepare your defences, build up your strength and allow the enemy to exhaust his resources before launching a counter strike. You would only adopt the first strategy if the danger was ‘clear and present’. That is not the case with CAGW, despite the hysteric frothing of Piers Morgan and his sidekicks in the clip above. In the CAGW sense I’m talking about adaptation – more dams, more robust infrastructure etc — because what we do know with certainty is that, regardless of CAGW, we will continue to see floods, droughts, bushfires and cyclones.

Even if they’re not prepared to diss the CAGW myth entirely, any half-smart conservative government would leap on Craig Kelly’s contributions to enable them to craft a case for making haste slowly and directing resources to the cause of adaptation rather than mitigation. On climate change the Coalition is half-pregnant and that is their problem.

Good on you, Craig Kelly.

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

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

12 January, 2020

Climate Change, Lies And The Lancet

I have pointed out on several occasions how brainlessly Leftist the journal has become. It even criticized George Bush and the Iraq war -- JR

The Lancet has published its latest annual report on health and climate change, which inevitably orders us to stop using fossil fuels or the kids will get it!

It is the usual load of overhyped rubbish of the sort we have seen in previous years.

The executive summary contains a number of questionable claims and statements which seriously undermine the report’s integrity and reliability.

For a start, it claims that ‘a child born today will experience a world that is more than four degrees warmer than the pre-industrial average.’

Really? A temperature rise of three degrees in 50 years or so? Even the highly discredited climate models don’t regard this as realistic. For the Lancet to state this as a bald-faced fact calls into question the objectivity of its contents.

It then proceeds to list all sorts of ways in which health is already being impacted by climate change, including disease transmission, air pollution, extreme weather (which apparently will affect women more – yes, that’s got me and all!), wildfires, heatwaves and goodness knows what else.

Yet, tucked away in Figure 5 is the dirty little secret that mortality rates from climate-related causes have been plummeting since 1990.

The only exception has been dengue fever, principally in SE Asia. The fact that the increase is concentrated in one geographical region must immediately raise the suspicion that this has nothing to do with climate, and instead is down to local factors.

As real experts on vector-borne diseases have repeatedly made clear, the principal reasons for the recent increased incidence of dengue are demographic and societal, such population growth, urbanization, lack of proper mosquito control, increased air traffic, and the discontinuation of eradication programs in the 1970s.

Urbanization is a particularly important factor. Not only does urban crowding along with the inevitable poor quality water and sewage systems, create ideal conditions for increased transmission of mosquito-borne diseases in tropical urban centers.

Urbanization also provides ideal breeding grounds for the mosquitos, because the larvae thrive in rubbish dumps full of plastics, tires and such.

So, despite all of the report’s claims of climate change’s impact on health, it is evident that people around the world are not only living longer on average, but mortality rates due to the very same climate-related factors hyped by the Lancet are also falling.

More HERE

Greens intimidating big business

“Big Business” has been portrayed in history as intimidating and domineering in society over small business competitors, workers and politicians. In some ways that remains true. However, the larger truth is that big business is a paper tiger, easily intimidated. No segment of society knows this better than the Green climate alarmists, and they are intimidating corporate America gradually and to growing effect. Ultimately, such intimidation campaigns are misplaced and harmful.

Under pressure from groups like the Rainforest Action Network, the Hartford Insurance Company recently announced it is curtailing its investments in coal companies, which followed a similar divestment pledge from Liberty Mutual Insurance and AXIS Capital. Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street investment firm, also announced recently it would no longer make new coal investments nor invest in companies drilling for oil in the Arctic.

Hartford Insurance, for example, has completely bought into climate alarmism, even repeating the supposed connection between warming and greater frequency of storms and floods. There is no such connection, as CFACT explains.

Goldman Sachs’ divestment announcement, fortunately, did not go unanswered. The state of Alaska, with an economy heavily dependent on oil production, can also take its business elsewhere by excluding Goldman from other state business. This is something that Gov. Mike Dunleavy hinted would come.

The governor also pointed out that other investment firms could replace Goldman Sachs and that any loss in Alaskan oil production would hurt American workers and consumers. Such divestment schemes also serve to help other oil producing nations that lack the environmental safeguards mandated in the U.S. In fact, there are plenty of other takers for Arctic energy resources.

For climate alarmists, science, history and the facts on global temperature have not fit their computer models and thirty-year predictions of the earth’s demise. Accordingly, the public remains unconvinced of their claims of urgency which is one reason the Green New Deal will not be passed by Congress any time soon. In fact, the only vote that occurred was when the U.S. Senate voted against it without a single vote in support (Democrats, including the chief sponsor of the GND, voted “present”).

While it’s true that some localized Green New Deals have been adopted in New York City, Los Angeles and other places, the negative cost impact to the public, including from energy rationing, is postponed for several years. That way, few politicians of today will face any backlash. Carbon neutral climate goals, for example, will take effect in a dozen years or decades from now, long after most present-day politicians are retired or dead.

The point here is that without real public buy-in, climate extremist groups have resorted to threats, boycotts and intimidation of high profile companies. This as another means to force transformation away from fossil fuels toward a carbon-free nirvana that is wholly unrealistic and unwarranted. Still, big business is always about the bottom line, and bad publicity from a social media campaign can reap a devastating financial effect – something few corporate CEOs would risk, whether or not they agree with climate alarmism.

The corporate campaigns by alarmist groups for divestment of fossil fuels, if successful, would be harmful to workers and the U.S. economy as a whole – without the concomitant environmental benefits. If the alarmist camp were serious, they would campaign for divestment in countries that care nothing for the environment or carbon emissions, starting with China and Russia.

Many mega U.S.-based corporations such as Amazon and Apple, whose websites tout their environmentalism, are huge investors in China because they profit handsomely. They are not seriously pressuring China to care about the climate, nor are they divesting from that dictatorial country. China releases more carbon than the U.S. and Europe combined, but don’t count on green groups or multi-national corporations to attempt any redress. This not-so-mild inconsistency is less about caring for the environment and global temperature and more about a Green group agenda of anti-capitalism and anti-Americanism.

Demands for corporate divestment are an attack on freedom of choice and the economic prosperity we enjoy as Americans thanks to affordable energy. If companies are convinced it is in their interest (financial or PR-wise) to have climate goals and more renewable energy sources, that’s their choice. Intimidation and boycotts from climate alarmist groups are otherwise hypocritical, counterproductive and ultimately an assault on the liberties we enjoy as Americans.

SOURCE

Why plastics may not always be the worst option for the planet

In the struggle to achieve a green life, plastics have become enemy number one. Images of dead dolphins, their stomachs full of plastic bags, and turtles skewered by straws have raised public consciousness of the damage plastics cause in our eco-systems.

But a new report has warned that in the war on plastics, we are at risk of turning to alternatives that could be just as bad, if not worse, for the environment.

Plastic was invented during the Industrial Revolution, and in its early years was seen as a miracle alternative to depleting and expensive natural materials.

It has revolutionised the way we live and is used in everything from medical equipment to make up.

"Plastic is light and durable and has many incredible properties that others don’t have," says Dr Rachael Rothman, the associate director of the Plastics: Redefining Single-Use project at the Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures.

But the fact it is cheap, hard-wearing and readily available is also what makes it a burden on the environment.

We have come to rely on plastic, using it once and throwing it away. The UK produces 5 million tons of plastic waste every year, with only 26 per cent of it recycled, according to the World Wildlife Fund.

Plastics can take hundreds of years to deplete in nature, where it is detrimental to animal life and ecoystems, and it releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere if burned.

It’s not just a problem of deadly waste: the production of plastic using fossil fuels contributes an estimated 5 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions which contribute to the warming of the planet.

So should we switch to non-plastic alternatives?

Huge demand, particularly from middle class consumers in the UK’s big cities, in the wake of programmes like Blue Planet, has driven supermarkets and other suppliers to seek alternatives to plastic, according to a new report from think tank Green Alliance.

But the alternatives are not always as green as you might think.

Paper bags, which have been adopted by some supermarkets for fresh produce, have a carbon footprint of up to four times that of a single-use plastic bag, and are much more difficult to re-use given how quickly paper tends to fall apart.

A tote bag made from cotton - which requires massive amounts of water to produce - would need to be used 327 times compared to be as carbon efficient as a regular plastic bag, according to a 2008 study. Fine if you only have one, but less good if you've developed a collection.

Glass bottles are also significantly more carbon intensive than their plastic alternatives, partly down to their weight - in one study by the Green Alliance a glass bottle was found to use 360g of material, compared to just 10g for a plastic bottle. That adds to its carbon footprint considerably when you take into account the extra transport costs of heavier materials.

Aluminium, which has been hailed as a magic solution to plastic water bottles, has double the carbon footprint of a plastic bottle when it comes to production, though it is also easier to fully recycle.

And while switching to wooden cutlery may feel like the hair-shirt option, it can have a similar impact on marine life if it makes it into the oceans.

What about abandoning plastic altogether?

It’s easy to walk around the supermarket and bemoan the amount of seemingly unnecessary packaging on food. But a lot of the time, plastic packaging can prolong the shelf life of food, lowering food waste.

A shrink-wrapped cucumber, for instance, lasts up to six days longer than one with no packaging at all.

Food waste has a huge detrimental cost to the environment, given the often carbon intensive processes that get our food from the ground to our plate, contributing 20 million tonnes of greenhouse gases every year from the UK alone.

What about different kinds of plastic?

Compostable, biodegradable and bio-plastics have all risen in use in recent years as alternatives to traditional plastic. But Green Alliance warns that consumers have become confused by the terms, and don’t know how to dispose of them. "Introducing more types of plastic can be more confusing. And we don’t really have a clear national system for recycling," says Dr Rothman.

Bio-plastics are products made from alternatives to petroleum, often from plants such as corn or sugarcane, but require a huge amount of energy to create - energy that currently comes largely from burning fossil fuels. Meanwhile most of our plastic comes as a byproduct of the fossil fuel industry.

Compostable sounds straightforward but in fact very few of these products can simply be thrown on your home compost pile, and instead require industrial composting.

With such an array of products now on the market, it is becoming ever more difficult to work out what can go into your conventional recycling, but including compostable or biodegradable products can often contaminate the entire collection.

So what’s the answer?

It’s one you know already - reduce, reuse, recycle. Several studies have shown that single-use has the most impact on the environment, no matter what it’s made of.

"The problem is the sheer volume we have, it’s not the fact it’s plastic," says Dr Rothman. "It’s our throwaway attitude to plastic that is the problem."

So, if you’re concerned about your carbon footprint, keep on using your cotton tote bag. But try not to buy a new one every week.

SOURCE

Trump Touts New Rule as Way to Improve Roads, Bridges Faster

President Donald Trump announced a new administration policy Thursday to boost the nation’s infrastructure without spending more tax dollars.

The administration proposed a new rule under existing law to expedite environmental reviews, cutting the length of review by more than half of the average of five-to-seven years per project.

The law, called the National Environmental Policy Act, has long stalled major construction for highways and bridges.

“From Day One, my administration has made fixing this regulatory nightmare a top priority, and we want to build new roads, bridges, tunnels, [and] highways bigger, better, faster, and we want to build them at less cost,” Trump said at the White House.

The Trump administration has pushed an aggressive deregulatory agenda, and the president often has talked about streamlining environmental reviews.

The administration contends that “modernizing” environmental reviews likely would lower costs for state and local road projects.

“That is why, for the first time in over 40 years, today we are issuing a proposed new rule under the National Environmental Policy Act to completely overhaul the dysfunctional bureaucratic system that has created these massive obstructions,” Trump said.

Since President Jimmy Carter signed the measure into law in 1978, the Council on Environmental Quality has made just one substantive amendment to related regulations—in 1986, according to the White House.

On average, it takes five years to complete an environmental impact statement for a project, and seven years for highways.

“The United States will not be able to compete and prosper in the 21st century if we continue to allow a broken and outdated bureaucratic system to hold us back from building what we need. The roads, airports, schools, everything,” Trump said, adding:

Right now it takes over seven years and oftentimes much longer—seven years is like record time—to complete approvals for a simple highway, the simplest of them. With today’s proposed reforms, we will reduce that number by more than 70%. We’ll cut the federal permitting timeline for major projects down to two years, and ideally we’re going to try to get even less than that.

The proposed rule would set time limits of no more than two years for the federal government to complete environmental impact statements and one year for completing an environmental assessment.

“The administration’s proposed reforms of the NEPA target some of the worst regulatory barriers that inflate the costs of repairing the nation’s roads, bridges, airports, and railways,” said Diane Katz, senior fellow in regulatory policy at The Heritage Foundation, adding:

The streamlining provisions, if enacted, would reduce project delays and expedite the benefits of modern—and safer—infrastructure. In fact, the [law] is entirely out of sync with current environmental, political, social, and economic realities, and outright repeal would not make a whit of difference to the environment or public health.

The proposed rule also is designed to promote information sharing between or among federal agencies, allowing one agency to use the determinations of another to avoid duplicative work. Primarily, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department are involved in environmental reviews.

Under the National Environmental Policy Act, an environmental assessment determines if a project has potential environmental effect.

Each federal agency adopts its own procedures under the law. If the agency’s assessment determines a project will have significant environmental effect, it must do a more detailed environmental impact statement.

The statement requires a multistage effort that includes collaboration between the federal agency and the public. Next is a public review process for the draft statement lasting a minimum of 45 days.

A final environmental impact statement is published to include responses to comments from the public. After this, the agency has a 30-day “wait period” before making a final decision on a project. Occasionally, rules require a supplement to the environmental impact statement.

SOURCE

Australia has been hotter, fires have burnt larger areas

By Dr. Jennifer Marohasy

The word unprecedented is applied to almost every bad thing that happens at the moment, as though particular events could not have been predicted, and have never happened before at such a scale or intensity. This is creating so much anxiety, because it follows logically that we are living in uncertain time: that there really is a climate emergency.

The historical evidence, however, indicates fires have burnt very large areas before, and it has been hotter.

Some of the catastrophe has been compounded by our refusal to prepare appropriately, as is the case with the current bushfire emergency here in Australia. Expert Dr Christine Finlay explains the importance of properly managing the ever increasing fire loads in an article in today’s The Australian. While there is an increase in the area of national park with Eucalyptus forests, there has been a reduction in the area of hazard reduction burning.

The situation is perhaps also made worse by fiddling with the historical temperature record. This will affect the capacity of those modelling bushfire behaviour to obtain an accurate forecast.

We have had an horrific start to the bushfire season, and much is being said about the more than 17 lives lost already, and that smoke has blown as far as New Zealand. Unprecedented, has been the claim. But just 10 years ago, on 9 February 2009, 173 lives were lost in the Black Saturday inferno. On 13th January 1939 (Black Friday), 2 million hectares burnt with ash reportedly falling on New Zealand. That was probably the worst bushfire catastrophe in Australia’s modern recorded history in terms of area burnt and it was 80 years ago: January 13, 1939.

According to the Report of the Royal Commission that followed, it was avoidable.

In terms of total area burnt: figures of over 5 million hectares are often quoted for 1851. The areas now burnt in New South Wales and Victoria are approaching this.

Last summer, and this summer, has been hot in Australia. But the summer of 1938-1939 was probably hotter. In rural Victoria, the summer of 1938-1939 was on average at least two degrees hotter than anything measured with equivalent equipment since

The summer of 1938-1939 was probably the hottest ever in recorded history for the states of New South Wales and Victoria. It is difficult to know for sure because the Bureau has since changed how temperatures are measured at many locations and has not provided any indication of how current electronic probes are recording relative to the earlier mercury thermometers.

Further, since 2011, the Bureau is not averaging measurements from these probes so the hottest recorded daily temperature is now a one-second spot reading from an electronic devise with a sheath of unknown thickness. In the United States similar equipment is used and the readings are averaged over five (5) minutes and then the measurement recorded.

The year before last, I worked with the Indonesian Bureau of Meteorology (BMKG), and understood their difficulty of getting a temperature equivalence between mercury thermometers and readings from electronic probes at their thousands of weather stations. The Indonesian Bureau has a policy of keeping both recording devices in the same shelter, and taking measurements from both. They take this issue very seriously, and acknowledge the problem.

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has a policy of a three year period of overlap, yet the metadata shows that for its supposedly highest quality recording stations (for example Rutherglen), the mercury thermometer is removed the very same day an electronic probe is installed. This is a total contravention of the Bureau’s own policy, and nothing is being done about it.

I explained much of this to Australia’s Chief Scientist in a letter some years ago — neither he, nor the Bureau, deny that our current method of recording temperatures here in Australia is not covered by any international ISO standard. It is very different from methods currently employed in the United States and also Indonesia, and as recommended by the World Meteorological Organisation.

Then there is the issue of the remodelling of temperatures, I explained how this affects trends at Rutherglen in a blog post early last year.

The remodelling, that has the technical term of homogenisation, is a two-step process. With respect to the temperature maxima at Rutherglen, the Bureau identified a ‘statistically significant discontinuity’ in 1938–1939. Values were then changed.

It is somewhat peculiar that the Bureau did not recognise, in its process of remodelling the historical data for Rutherglen, that the summer of 1938-1939 was exceptionally hot because of drought, compounded by bushfires. Rather David Jones and Blair Trewin at the Bureau used the exceptional hot January of 1939 as an excuse for remodelling the historical temperature record at Rutherglen, with the changed values subsequently incorporated into international data sets.

These made-up values are then promoted by the United Nations’ International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This propaganda is then tweeted by Hollywood superstars like Bette Midler to The Australian Prime Minister.

After a recent Sky News Television interview that I did with Chris Smith several people have contacted me about the hottest day ever recorded in Australia. They have suggested it is 16th January 1889 being 53.1 degrees Celsius at Cloncurry in Queensland. A problem with this claim is that the temperature was not measured from within a Stevenson screen, though it was a recording at an official station. A Stevenson screen (to shelterer the mercury thermometer) was not installed by Queensland meteorologist Clement Ragge at Cloncurry until the next month, until February 1889.

The hottest temperature ever recorded in Australia using standard equipment (a mercury thermometer in a Stevenson screen) at an official recording station is 51.7 degrees Celsius (125 degrees Fahrenheit) at the Bourke Post Office on January 3, 1909.

We are all entitled to our own opinion, but not our own facts.

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

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

10 January, 2020

Tesla becomes the most valuable US car maker of all time with a market value of $81.39billion - surpassing Ford Motor's peak of $80.81billion set in 1999

This absurd valuation is driven by perceptions of electric cars as the next big thing. They are not. In the Northern North American winter the range of electric cars is going to be drastically reduced by the need to use battery power to keep the driver warm. The average Canadian is likely to find that he can drive his electric car to work for only around two months of the year.   And in the American South, airconditioning will be a big range-shortening power drain too. A car that can be fully used for less than half the year will eventually put a lot of noses out of joint and the electric car bubble will burst. Buy Ford

And the fad for electric cars is driven by the idea that their manufacture and use cause fewer pollutant emissions than do combustion-driven cars. But it has been shown many times that obtaining the materials to make the large batteries needed and the manufacture of the batteries are both very polluting and cancel out any gains from running the cars -- given the short (c. 10 years) lifespan of the batteries

Tesla has become the most valuable US car maker of all time after the company closed Monday with a market value of $81.39billion. The company surpassed Ford Motor's peak of $80.81billion that was set in 1999.

Tesla shares were trading more than 5 percent before the market opened Wednesday and finished the day before at $469.07.

But Tesla's market value still trails Toyota Motor Corp and Volkswagen AG. Toyota Motor Corp is valued at $227.90billion while Volkswagen sat at $98.65billion by Monday's close.

Tesla is currently the sales leader in the US, according to the latest data compiled by the Edison Electric Institute, an association that represents all of the country's investor-owned electric companies.

Tesla, as the sales front runner, also leads with the top selling model, its Model 3, according to EEI.

While there are almost 1.2 million electric cars on the road, according to EEI, the segment still only represents 1.8 per cent of the total number of cars sold in the US market.

Tesla's short sellers have lost a stunning $8.4billion over the last seven months as the electronic car manufacturer's stock hit a record high and beat investor expectations.

Short positions on Tesla shares suffered more losses than on any other company, according to S3 Partners, a financial analytics firm.

On Friday, Tesla's shares climbed another 3 per cent to close at $443.01 after reporting record fourth quarter sales.

In the first two trading days of 2020, short sellers lost more than $700million, according to S3. About 36 per cent of shares were being sold short in May, however many Tesla short holders are still holding onto to their stocks, adamant that Tesla shares will plunge.

Tesla creator Elon Musk has been an outspoken critic of short sellers, saying they deliberately try to hurt the company by driving down shares.

In 2018 Musk deliberated making Tesla a private company just to stop dealing with shorts.

He said their 'negative propaganda' was a reason to get off the public market and that being a public company creates 'perverse incentives for people to try to harm what we're all trying to achieve'.

But Musk got himself into hot water with federal regulators when he tweeted that same year that he had secured the funding to take Tesla private at $420 a share - a substantial premium over the company's stock price at the time - when he did not.

That tweet, in August 2018, sent Tesla's stock on a wild ride. The US Securities and Exchange Commission stepped in and charged that the post hurt investors who bought the stock after the tweet but before they had accurate information.

Tesla, in an agreement with the SEC, paid $20 million to settle claims it had not properly policed Musk's social media posts.

Meanwhile, unsold Tesla vehicles were seen parked in lots around the country after Tesla claimed it successfully ramped up production of its pivotal Model 3 sedan during the summer.

That suggested to some that the company wasn't making its production goals.

A leaked email from Musk began changing those perceptions this past September, indicating growing demand for the electric automaker's vehicles and causing shares in the company jump 6 percent.

Tesla then had its biggest trading day ever on December 18, when the stock hit $392.50, a jump of 4.3 per cent as sources said the company was exploring a 20 per cent price cut for its Model 3 sedan to compete with rivals.

By the close of trading Friday, Tesla seemed to have put any production concerns behind it, announcing it delivered 112,000 vehicles in the fourth quarter.

That beat expectations of 104,960 vehicles, according to IBES data from Refinitiv.

The company delivered approximately 367,500 vehicles during all of 2019, just meeting the low end of its target to deliver 360,000 to 400,000 vehicles.

Tesla said it demonstrated a production run-rate capability of more than 3,000 units per week at the Shanghai factory.

However, short holders still expect Tesla to be eventually overtaken by more established car companies such as General Motors, Ford and BMW entering the electric car industry.

'We think questions remain about first half 2020 results and gross margin sustainability; we point out that Tesla is already lowering prices in China and faces a flood of (electric vehicle) competition in the US, with at least 25 new models debuting this year,' CFRA analyst Garrett Nelson wrote in a client note on Friday.

The gains in Tesla's shares have elevated its market capitalization to more than $80billion, compared to GM's market value of $52billion and Ford's market capitalization of $37billion, according to Reuters.

The 48-year-old Musk, who's also had to contend with the challenges of getting his SpaceX aerospace company off the ground, as well as three divorces, including his split, remarriage, and second split with Talulah Riley, didn't hide his satisfaction over finally getting the Tesla Model 3 officially launched Tuesday.

Social media in China was abuzz with images and video of Musk celebrating with a unique disco dance routine in his $2billion 'Gigafactory' in Shanghai - exactly one year after construction of the massive plant began.

Musk, worth $27.8billion according to Forbes, busted out his moves on stage as his Chinese staff cheered during the inauguration ceremony, which was also attended by the city's Mayor and other senior government officials.

Tesla reported that it delivered China-made Model 3s to 10 customers from the public.

Last Monday, the company handed the very first batch of the sedans to 15 employees who had placed orders.

SOURCE

Race to save retreating Everglades

It has been pointed out many times that coastal Florida is sinking, leading to water level rise. But there is no hint of that below. The rise is due to global warming

Formed roughly 5,000 years ago, during a time of sea level rise, the Everglades once comprised an area twice the size of New Jersey. But over the course of the last century, about half of the Everglades’ original footprint has been lost — plowed under or paved over, never to be recovered, so long as South Florida’s 8 million human inhabitants claim it for their homes, livelihoods and recreation.

The glades have been sapped by canals and dams that remapped the landscape and altered animal habitats, polluted by upstream agricultural areas, transformed by invasive species. And now, rising sea levels — this time, caused by man — threaten to undo what it took nature millennia to build.

What the Army Corps of Engineers calls a “highly managed system,” others have sardonically labeled a “Disney Everglades.”

Nearly two decades and $4 billion into the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, an ambitious federal-state program adopted in 2000, new data about the pace of climate change have called into question how much of the Everglades can ever be restored.

“I tend to think that everything can be saved,” says Fred Sklar of the South Florida Water Management District, which monitors and runs much of the Everglades’ infrastructure. “Restored is another question.”

Today, we understand that natural systems like the Everglades provide enormous benefits — water filtration, nurseries for fish and other wildlife, protection from storm surges, even carbon sequestration. But to 19th-century Floridians, all that water — and the mosquitoes and reptiles it harbored — represented an impediment to progress.

More HERE

Climate models continue to project too much warming

A recently published paper, titled “Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections,” mistakenly claims climate models have been remarkably accurate predicting future temperatures. The paper is receiving substantial media attention, but we urge caution before blindly accepting the paper’s assertions.

As an initial matter, the authors of the paper are climate modelers. Climate modelers have a vested self-interest in convincing people that climate modeling is accurate and worthy of continued government funding. The fact that the authors are climate modelers does not by itself invalidate the paper’s conclusions, but it should signal a need for careful scrutiny of the authors’ claims.

Co-author Gavin Schmidt has been one of the most prominent and outspoken persons asserting humans are creating a climate crisis and that immediate government action is needed to combat it. Again, Schmidt’s climate activism does not by itself invalidate the paper’s conclusions, but it should signal a need for careful scrutiny of the authors’ claims.

The paper examines predictions made by 17 climate models dating back to 1970. The paper asserts 14 of the 17 were remarkably accurate, with only three having predicted too much warming.

One of the paper’s key assertions is that global emissions have risen more slowly than commonly forecast, which the authors claim explains why temperatures are running colder than the models predicted. The authors compensate for this by adjusting the predicted model temperatures downward to reflect fewer-than-expected emissions. Yet fewer-than-expected greenhouse gas emissions undercut the climate crisis narrative.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has already reduced its initial projection of 0.3 degrees Celsius of warming per decade to merely 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. Keeping in mind that skeptics have typically predicted approximately 0.1 degree Celsius of warming per decade, the United Nations has conceded skeptics have been at least as close to the truth with their projections as the United Nations. Moreover, global temperatures are likely only rising at a pace of 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade, which is even closer to skeptic predictions.

Even after the authors adjusted the model predictions to reflect fewer-than-expected greenhouse gas emissions, there remains at least one very important problem, which immediately jumped out at us when carefully examining the paper’s findings: The paper’s assertion of remarkable model accuracy rests on a substantial temperature spike from 2015 through 2017. A strong, temporary El Niño caused the short-term spike in global temperatures from 2015 to 2017. The plotted temperature data in the paper, however, show that temperatures prior to the El Niño spike ran consistently colder than the models’ adjusted predicted temperatures. When the El Niño recedes, as they always do, temperatures will almost certainly resume running colder than the models predicted, even after adjusting for fewer-than-expected greenhouse gas emissions.

Another problem with the paper is that it utilizes controversial and dubiously adjusted temperature datasets rather than more reliable ones. The paper relies on temperature datasets that are not replicated in any real-world temperature measurements. Surface temperature measurements and measurements taken by highly precise satellite instruments show significantly less warming than the authors claim. The authors rely on temperature datasets that utilize controversial adjustments to claim more recent warming than what has actually been measured, which further undercuts their claim of remarkable model accuracy.

Contrary to what has been written in many breathless media reports, the most important takeaways from the paper are that greenhouse gas emissions are rising at a more modest pace than predicted, the modest pace of global temperature rise reflects the modest pace of rising emissions, and climate models have consistently predicted too much warming—even after accounting for fewer-than-expected greenhouse gas emissions. A temporary spike in global temperatures reflecting the recent El Niño does not save the models from their consistent inaccuracy.

SOURCE

Renewable energy has significant downsides

Wind and solar power will not replace fossil fuels—oil, coal and natural gas—any time soon; not in twelve or 30 years, and likely not in anyone’s lifetime who is alive today. The pursuit of solar and wind power also comes with a steep price, not just in higher utility bills and taxpayer-financed subsidies, but to people, wildlife and the balance of nature itself.

The proposed Gemini solar farm in southern Nevada, near Las Vegas, is the latest example of the environmental tension resulting from this renewable energy.

Solar “farms” take up a lot of land. In Gemini’s case, more than 7,000 acres, which would be the largest in the country and equivalent in size to a small city (e.g., larger than Schenectady, New York).

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management is poised to approve Gemini, which would provide enough solar energy to power 130,000 homes. Anyone traversing through Las Vegas at night surely knows it will take a lot more power than a large solar farm to keep the lights on, but it’s a start.

The BLM’s own environmental impact statement documents that the solar farm also will impact endangered species and plants, including the desert tortoise, kit fox and a rare plant I never heard of called the threecorner milkvetch.

Conservation and wildlife organizations are not pleased about this project, including the Defenders of Wildlife, even as it supports renewable energy in the abstract. Instead of disturbing endangered species and plants in vast desert lands, some organizations advocate the unrealistic alternative of having solar energy placed on every home.

Solar and wind energy projects also face a not-in-my-back-yard (“NIMBY”) problem. While the western half of the United States has more open desert space, the NIMBY issue has surfaced in the east, such as in rural Spotsylvania County, Virginia and elsewhere.

Last April, the County Board of Supervisors approved, over stiff local opposition, a solar farm project comprising more than 3,000 acres. As states like Virginia, Nevada, New York and others impose renewable energy quotas, the Spotsylvania NIMBY battle portends ongoing struggles to fulfill renewable mandates throughout the country, as CFACT has discussed.

Perhaps the most famous NIMBY example of opposition to renewable energy occurred off the coast of Cape Cod, Massachusetts where wealthy residents, including the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, opposed the Cape Wind offshore wind farm. After years of litigation, Energy Management, the company behind the project, pulled the plug in 2017.

Still, wind power is expanding throughout the U.S. as it produces more than six percent of the nation’s electricity. It is expected to grow exponentially worldwide in the next twenty years, according to the International Energy Agency. Like solar power, wind energy raises similar alarms about the amount of land-use and harm to wildlife.

Wind turbines are killing hundreds of thousands of bats and birds on an annual basis. More wind turbines mean millions more winged creatures dying every year. Wind turbines also are harming other animals, including dogs and other pets. The turbines themselves require considerable energy to produce and are not easily disposed of, bringing still more environmental concerns.

Wind power also may be causing increased temperatures, which would be a facetious irony absent the seriousness of the issue. The big reason for this forced transition from fossil fuels to renewables is to supposedly reverse “man-made” global warming, yet wind power is expanding to the point where it could be contributing to warming. Go figure.

Then there is the environmental concern about batteries used to complement renewable energy sources when it is not windy or sunny. Batteries, of course, come from mining the ingredients necessary, such as cobalt and lithium. Moreover, the cost and quantity necessary for batteries to make wind and solar power viable are enormous and downplayed as politicians continue to force-feed renewable energy mandates on the public.

The environmental downside of wind and solar energy development alone is not a reason for abandoning these sources of energy. Rather, it is an argument for lowered expectations and realism. Renewable energy is not going to bring us a carbon-free world any time soon, absent corresponding harm in a variety of ways. Accordingly, scientists and policymakers should slow down the wind and solar freight train to balance more carefully the costs and benefits to people, wildlife and nature writ large.

SOURCE

The Australian fires: Climate change beliefs are distracting attention from what really needs to be done

After decades of poor housekeeping, Australia’s latest devastating bushfires were predictable. Politicians and serving officials want to leave post mortems until the fires are out. Their instincts are correct.

That hasn’t stopped green advocates and the gullible from immediately linking them to Australia’s “inaction on climate change”. Climate experts as far afield as Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore and Swedish truant schoolgirl Greta Thunberg agree on the connection.

A coalition of retired fire chiefs, in what seems a closing-the-stable-door defence, claimed that last April it “knew that a bushfire crisis was coming” and nagged the government to invest in more resources. But, “fundamentally, (the government) doesn’t like talking about climate change”.

The ex-chiefs referred to being under an “unofficial gag order”, whatever that means, and argued that if governments had listened, there would have been more assets deployed and fewer fires.

When Australia accounts for just 1.3 per cent of global emissions that proposition is plainly absurd.

Yet, for all the bluster, the only mention of climate change in five years of Fire and Rescue NSW annual reports is a reference to crews being encouraged to turn off all non-essential lights during Earth Hour, “joining millions of people worldwide in showing their commitment to tackling climate change’’.

For five years the Victorian Country Fire Authority didn’t mention climate change. Its priorities were “fairness” and “inclusion”, which it mentions 56 times.

Well may former fire chiefs blame climate change, but if they were so convinced of the connection between wildfires and global warming, why didn’t they publicly campaign for immediate, practical steps to reduce fuel loads in national parks? Surely they could have pushed their rural colleagues, government ministers, and department heads harder?

Victoria publishes limited data, but a planned hazard reduction of 370 hectares in East Gippsland was reduced to nine after protesters claimed it was “killing baby birds alive”. Much of East Gippsland is now a wasteland.

These days, it’s commonplace for national park entries to be blocked by boulders or chains and padlocks. Many fire trails are so overgrown that a sign identifying them is all that distinguishes them from the rest of the forest.

Against the advice of local brigades, the green firefighting hierarchy supported a wind farm amid prime agricultural land, rendering an existing airstrip unsuitable for water bombers. Aerial bombing is considered 40 per cent of the firefighting effort.

While Aborigines are free to clear their land without a permit, once it transfers to non-indigenous owners those rights are forfeited. There are heavy penalties, including jail, for those who clear their property without permission. Green tape and delays abound. Fires have destroyed some properties held up in this process.

So now the chickens are coming home to roost, with eastern Australian bushfires consuming an area approaching five million hectares. They have inflicted an unspeakable toll on human life, property, wildlife and livestock.

As weather patterns slowly return to normal and the fires are extinguished, there will be yet another government inquiry.

More money will be demanded, along with calls for additional jet tankers, even though there are few airfields from which they can operate. Money is needed, but alone it is not the answer. Much of it goes to the deskbound. For example, in the four years up to 2019, the NSW Rural Fire Service received a 78 per cent boost in funding, yet it oversaw a decline in volunteers and fire trucks.

Of course for Hollywood and other propagandists, it is vital that inaction on climate change, not inaction on hazard reduction, be the focus. For them, this link is vital to their cause.

Proving that a prophet can be any fool from home, The New York Times screams “Australia is committing climate suicide”. In an article long on drama and short on facts, the newspaper intones that “the response of Australia’s leaders (to the fires) has not been to defend their country but to defend the fossil industry”. Talk about ignorance and warped values.

Better to deprive 200 million Indians of a light globe and throw them crumbs through a UN-administered climate fund than provide economic independence through Australian coal.

Like ancient Druids, the media left, Hollywood and the rest of the global warming cult won’t hear that Australia spends 11 times the global average on renewable power and invests in renewables at a rate per capita four to five times faster than China, the EU, Japan and the US. They give no credit to Australia for being on track to meet its Paris Agreement target for 2030, despite a 2.2 million jump in population since 2013.

To fanatics, facts don’t matter. That there has been no drying trend in 100 years of Australian data, and that science is yet to establish a causal link between climate change and drought is irrelevant. [Global warming would induce MORE rain, not less]

While weather, droughts and bushfires will, from time to time, continue to feature, population growth and encroachment on green spaces increase risks. Indeed, 87 per cent of bushfires are due to humans. Only 6 per cent are naturally started. Arsonists, attracted by the ease of ignition, perhaps start more than half. To date, 183 arsonists have been arrested. However, while those delegated to manage the environment and those charged with property protection share a close ideological relationship, little will change.

At some point, government must take control. Communication and co-operation between the different jurisdictions, departments and agencies must be better co-ordinated.

Priorities must be set, audited and enforced. The insurance industry should be given a louder voice. It’s an important financial stakeholder and risk assessor. This crisis will lead to higher premiums, more uninsured properties and serious moral dilemmas next time.

For now, courageous frontline firefighters are putting their lives on the line and fighting fires the scale of which owes much to green ideology and confused and fragmented leadership. It is hoped that an inquiry will establish clear priorities and directions that will be followed.

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

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

9 January, 2020

Department of Defense Predicted Climate Change Would Destroy Us by 2020

Back in 2004, the Department of Defense released a report assuring the world Climate Change would destroy all of us by the year 2020.

Well, welcome to the year 2020! And welcome to yet another fake doomsday prediction number 42 from our renowned climate experts!

Yep, our so-called “climate experts” are now 0-42 with their doomsday predictions, and this latest one is a doozy.

As summarized by the Guardian in 2004, here’s what the so-called “experts” assured us would happen by now:

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that 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. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

And that’s not the worst of it. Get a load of this:

‘Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,‘ concludes the Pentagon analysis. ‘Once again, warfare would define human life.’ ....

Climate change ‘should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern’, say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is ‘plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately’, they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions

This is from the actual report:

The Weather Report: 2010-2020

* Drought persists for the entire decade in critical agricultural regions and in the areas around major population centers in Europe and eastern North America.

* Average annual temperatures drop by up to 5 degrees Fahrenheit over Asia and North America and up to 6 degrees Fahrenheit in Europe.

* Temperatures increase by up to 4 degrees Fahrenheit in key areas throughout Australia, South America, and southern Africa.

* Winter storms and winds intensify, amplifying the impact of the changes. Western Europe and the North Pacific face enhanced westerly winds.

None of this happened. None of it. In fact, over the last ten years, global temperatures have remained remarkably stable.

Take a look at the full report for yourself. It’s literally filled with fake alarmism and fake hysteria, and it’s also filled with one completely wrong climate doomsday prediction after another.

Nothing in this report has come true. Not a single prediction was accurate. Not one!

But even after this, even after no less than the Department of Defense get it so horribly wrong, even after a 0-42 record of failed doomsday predictions, we’re still ridiculed by the fake media as “deniers” if we don’t take these partisan idiots seriously.

SOURCE

An evolving climate vocabulary

In the growing strength and coherence of climate protests, something did change discernibly in 2019.

Extinction Rebellion, a new movement, disrupted major cities. Greta Thunberg, a teenage activist, was Time’s Person of the Year; she travelled by boat to a climate summit in New York to avoid flying (and the associated carbon emissions). Another summit, in Madrid, ended in acrimony. Policy may not have evolved much, but wider attitudes did— and with them, the language in which the issue is discussed.

Some climate-related vocabulary was already in circulation. After a boiling summer in Germany in 2018, the Society for the German Language chose Heisszeit, “Heat Age”, as its word of that year. (It rhymes nicely with Eiszeit, “ice age”.) In the Netherlands, meanwhile, the Society for Our Language plumped for laadpaalklever, or “charging-post sticker”: someone who uses the electric-car charging space for too long, treating it like a free parking place.

Van Dale, a dictionary publisher, lets the Dutch-speaking public vote on its word of the year (in separate contests in Belgium and the Netherlands). For 2019 Belgians chose winkelhieren, or “buying local”. The Dutch went with an imported word that has a good case for being the winner in English, too: “boomer”. As Chloe Swarbrick, a 25-year-old member of New Zealand’s parliament, was giving an impassioned speech on the impact of climate change on her generation, she coolly dismissed a heckling older mp with a curt “ok, boomer”. The phrase was already an internet meme; Ms Swarbrick made it the talk of the offline world as well.

Babbel, which makes a popular lan-guage-learning app, has collected a host of climate-related neologisms from European languages. Flygskam is perhaps the most likely to be permanently adopted into English: “flight-shame”, from Swedish, was popularised by Ms Thunberg’s rise. It also has a nifty corollary: tagskryt, or “train-boasting”, from those who advertise their flygskam by taking ground transport and letting the world know.

(Dutch has an equivalent: treintrots.)

The march of the climate-protest movement has led to the coining of disparaging terms by its critics. Italian, for example, has gretini: allegedly mindless followers of Ms Thunberg (-ini is a diminutive suffix, and the word echoes cretini, or “idiots” ). The Danish Language Council and Denmark’s national broadcaster jointly chose a similar term as their Word of the Year for 2019: klimatosse, or “climate fool”, used dismissively by Pia Kjaersgaard, a right-wing Danish politician, to explain her party’s poor election performance. Being Danish, she hastened to add that her party is itself concerned about the climate, but that the klimatosser who voted for other parties apparently care about nothing else.

Compared with its European cousins, English has not been creative. Oxford Dictionaries declared its word of the year to be “climate emergency”. Collins, another dictionary-publisher, nominated the slightly more imaginative “climate strike”, originally coined to denote the schooldays that climate activists such as Ms Thunberg began skipping as a protest. (Klimaatspijbelaar, “climate-school-skipper”, was number three in Van Dale’s Dutch vote.)

Words of the year are a way for lexicographical types to grab a rare slice of the spotlight, boost interest in language and have a bit of fun. All the same, the pessimistic trajectory of the outcomes suggests a darkening global mood. The American Dialect Society will vote for its word of 2019 at its annual meeting in New Orleans in January. Its previous three choices were “tender-age shelter” (a euphemism for places where America’s border forces keep children separated from their parents), “fake news” (often, these days, meaning real news that powerful people would like to dismiss) and “dumpster fire”. Whether or not it picks a climatic word as an emblem of the bygone year, it is hard to see the society choosing anything upbeat.

Perhaps Dictionary.com captured the feeling best with its word of the year for 2019. Neither new nor fancy, it was foreboding nonetheless: “existential”.

SOURCE

Climate Change? Turns Out Two Dozen Arrested for Setting Australia's Fires

Authorities in New South Wales have arrested two dozen Australians for intentionally setting fires as huge swaths of the country continue to be engulfed by flames.

In a news release issued Monday, the NSW Police Force said legal action has been taken against more than 180 people since late last year. The bushfires have killed 18 people and burned 4.9 million hectares of land, consuming thousands of structures, and millions of animals, the statement said.

In breaking down their figures, the police said “24 have been charged over deliberately-lit bushfires; 53 people have had legal actions for allegedly failing to comply with a total fire ban; and 47 people have had legal actions for allegedly discarding a lighted cigarette or match on land.”

Offenders could face a wide variety of penalties including:

- Damaging property with the intention of endangering life – up to 25 years imprisonment;

- Manslaughter – up to 25 years imprisonment;

- Starting a bushfire and being reckless as to its spread – up to 21 years imprisonment;

- Lighting a fire when a total fire ban is in place – up to 12 months imprisonment and/or a $5500 fine;

- Not putting out a fire that you have lit – up to 12 months imprisonment and/or a $5500 fine;

- Failing to comply with a bush fire hazard reduction notice – up to 12 months imprisonment and/or a $5500 fine;

- Light or use a tobacco product within 15 metres of any stack of grain, hay corn, straw or any standing crop, dry grass or stubble field – up to a $5500 fine. (NSW Police)

News of these arrests come as many on the left have claimed that climate change is to blame.

"Australia is on fire. Nearly half a billion animals have been killed with more than 14.5 million acres burned. This is climate change"

SOURCE

Why Even Liberals Should Be “Climate Change Skeptics”

When you’re several decades older than Greta Thunberg, her impassioned warning of impending doom hits you differently than it may college students or early twentysomethings. In a word, it sounded “familiar.”

I’m not just talking about the climate change movement, nor exclusively about the left side of the political spectrum. I’ve been hearing about impending doom that can only be averted by massive increases in the size and scope of government my whole life, from both the right and the left.

Fearmongering by the Right

The 1980s saw a massive increase in the so-called “War on Drugs.” Capitalizing on the tragic death of basketball player Len Bias, drug warriors succeeded in convincing the American public that only draconian drug laws and sentencing guidelines could save their children from certain death due to an imminent, nationwide epidemic of drug addiction. The legislation pushed through on the heels of this fear-mongering resulted in the mass incarceration of generations of disproportionately black and brown people, many for as little as possessing too much marijuana, which is now legal in more than half of US states.

Knowing what you know today, would you like to have those millions of destroyed lives and families back?

In 2003, with the American public still shell shocked from the 9/11 attacks, the George W. Bush administration embarked upon a fear campaign similar to the Reagan administration’s Soviet scare featuring an even less plausible boogeyman: Saddam Hussein. Hussein was a ruthless dictator and a generally bad guy, but he was never a threat to US national security. The Bush administration evoked images of massive chemical weapons attacks and even “a mushroom cloud” in a major US city. It was all baloney.

Knowing what you know today, would you like to have the Iraq War back?

Fearmongering by the Left

So, what does all this have to do with climate change? Environmentalists are using the same tactics, only for different ends. Right-wingers often revere the military and law enforcement. For all their talk about “small government,” no increase in either would be too much for many of them.Would it not have benefitted Americans, left, right or otherwise, to have been more skeptical of claims like this before the War on Drugs or the Iraq War?

They’ve generally got what they’ve wanted in those areas by employing a thus far foolproof tactic that goes something like this: Oh my God! I’ve discovered a dire threat to all our lives and civilization as we know it. And believe it or not, the only solution is for you to give me everything I’ve ever wanted politically.

Shouldn’t any thinking person be suspicious of this? Would it not have benefitted Americans, left, right or otherwise, to have been more skeptical of claims like this before the War on Drugs or the Iraq War?

I’m not trying to convince liberals there is nothing to the anthropogenic climate change theory. But I am calling attention to the fact that the very same tactic that gave us the Iraq War, the largest prison population in the history of the world, and an out-of-control national debt due largely to unnecessary military spending is now being used to achieve a political result to address climate change.

Let’s not forget that before the fall of the Soviet Union and China’s dramatic turn away from communism and towards a market economy, the hard left’s chief argument against free markets had nothing to do with the environment. For most of the 20th century, they claimed that full-on communism or socialism was a better economic system. It was only when its failure in so many places became impossible to deny that the focus shifted to the environment. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) didn’t form until 1992, the year after the Soviet Union disappeared and just after China’s market reforms got underway.

Coincidence? Maybe, but shouldn’t it at least raise an eyebrow? How can anyone be blamed for skepticism when the very same people who wanted a centrally planned economy based on its economic merits suddenly discover it’s the only way to “save the planet”? Shouldn’t that give pause to even a true believer in climate change?

This is before even asking the question of whether giving the government these sweeping new powers (not to mention trillions more of our dollars) would actually solve the stated problem. Past experience should make us skeptical of this, too. Did the War on Drugs result in fewer drugs on the street? Did the Iraq War result in less terrorism? Believing the government is suddenly going to be wildly successful based purely on its doing the bidding of the other political tribe seems more like religious faith than reason.

The Poor Will Suffer Most

One thing Greta Thunberg’s speech is honest about, at least indirectly, is that adopting the drastic environmental measures called for by the hard left will make us poorer. She derisively asks how any of us can even talk about “economic growth.” That’s easy for Thunberg and other First-Worlders to say, given what this will cost them vs. what it will cost truly poor people, of which there are very few in the United States or Sweden.

The truth is eliminating fossil fuels at the rate the hard left suggests could cost billions of poor people their lives, not merely their hamburgers. Given that grim reality and the poor track record of drastic government solutions adopted in an atmosphere of fear, a healthy skepticism toward the hard left’s claims and demands related to climate change should not only be tolerated but encouraged.

SOURCE

Australia: Hazard reduction for big burns ‘not a panacea’

It is utterly un-ambiguous that the bushfires would not have happened without fuel to burn. The fuel consists of fallen branches and leaves and the easy way is eliminate it is to burn it off in a controlled way, mostly in winter. Foresters have been doing that for generations. Burn all the fuel and it absolutely IS a panacea for big burns. There can be no fire without fuel.

So why is the official below saying that it is not a panacea? It is because he has failed to do his job. He has failed to eliminate the fuel that is powering the current fires. The excuse he gives is that the weather is warmer these days so opportunities to do safe burns are fewer. But that is nonsense. Australian national average temperatures differ by only fractions of one degree from year to year. And since the fires are nationwide, national averages are what counts.

So why has he allowed the huge fuel buildup that we are presently suffering from? The two main reasons are bureaucratic and he gives every sign of being a very timid bureaucrat. It even influences him when people complain about the smoke from preventive burns.

The first limitation is that the preventive burns are "scheduled". Bureaucrats love schedules but the weather cannot be scheduled. So what happens when the weather would make a scheduled burn dangerous? The burn is of course called off and the fuel remains there ready to burn.

So forestry has to be opportunistic. Any window of suitable weather has to be grabbed when it arises and used there and then to do a burn. But can you imagine Rural Fire Service Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons pushing through that policy? It is to laugh. He is just a timid bureaucrat who above all avoids making waves, hoping that it will all work out somehow.

And the second reason is also bureaucratic. When landowners want to burn off areas near their properties that have a dangerous fuel buildup, the authorities mostly say No. You can't have people protecting themselves!

"That would show us up as not doing our Job! No Siree. We know what it is needed and we will do it, not anybody else".

And people who burn off without permission are often fined heavily. So what's the solution to that? A recognition that the people on the ground know best and a general deference to their wishes.

So the present fires were entirely preventible

Hazard reductions burns are being hampered by longer fire seasons and extreme weather, Rural Fire Service Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons says, warning the controversial technique is "not the panacea" some may be looking for to temper bushfires.

The Commissioner on Wednesday defended the RFS' record on hazard reduction burning, saying the agency was not comprised of "environmental bastards", indicating prescribed burns were done with the priorities of people, property and the environment in mind.

Commissioner Fitzsimmons said the agency had met its targets for hazard reduction in the lead-up to this bushfire season, but the "really awful" conditions across the drought-stricken state meant that fires had spread wildly regardless.

"Hazard reduction burning is really challenging and the single biggest impediment to completing hazard reduction burning is the weather," Commissioner Fitzsimmons told ABC Breakfast.

"It's only when the conditions back off a little bit that you actually have some prospect of slowing the fire spread.

"It's important, but not the panacea, and something we should have a very open and frank discussion about."

Commissioner Fitzsimmons said the agency "worked through a sensible regime" to conduct hazard reduction burns, with weather on the day being the largest factor in determining if a burn could happen.

"Resourcing is challenging. Don't forget, as settled Australians, as Europeans, we are now living and working and occupying areas that used to burn freely," Commissioner Fitzsimmons said.

Commissioner Fitzsimmons said the smoke generated by the hazard reduction burns before the bushfire crisis began had made the RFS and other agencies "public enemy number one" at the time.

"There is a very significant health issue with smoke, but you can't have prescribed burning, hazard reduction burning without the by-product being smoke. Whilst we try to forecast, predict and hope it doesn't impact populated areas, you can't have it both ways," he said.

As Commissioner Fitzsimmons spoke to the ABC, Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce was on Sunrise and urged more hazard reduction burns.

"Have you seen a footpath on fire? No, because there is nothing there to burn. Have you seen a massive fire that kills people on grounds [where] there is no fuel load? People get terribly hurt but you can control it," he said.

"Once a fire breaks out onto an area... with minimal fuel load [you] can control it. In a national park, there are always fires but it is the intensity of the fire because of the fuel load catching on fire. I believe, and this is my view, there are too many caveats, green caveats, that impedes people's efforts."

The Prime Minister earlier this week also called for more prescribed burns.

"You've got to deal with hazard management in national parks ... this, of course, will be one of the things that we will consider when premiers come together after they've been dealing with the fires," the Prime Minister said.

On Tuesday, Victoria's Country Fire Authority's chief officer Steve Warrington said there was a "fair amount of emotion" around hazard reduction. "The emotive argument is not supported that fuel reduction burning will fix all our problems," he said.

"Some of the hysteria that this will be the solution to all our problems is really just quite an emotional load of rubbish, to be honest."

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

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

8 January, 2020

Record Heat and Cold Expose Climate Alarmists' Bias

Australia was literally on fire in December. Record heat made headlines in global media. So did the extreme rainfall in east Africa.

You and everybody else on earth can guess what climate alarmists blamed for both: man-made global warming, a.k.a. climate change.

But record cold in northern India at the same time didn’t make headlines in any major media in the United States or the United Kingdom.

Why? Because it didn’t fit expectations.

It’s a perfect example of climate alarmists’ obvious bias that’s seldom brought to light.

In December, east Africa received extremely heavy rainfall, causing widespread floods in Kenya and Djibouti. The floods impacted more than one million people and killed scores already challenged by extreme poverty.

During the same month, Australia recorded all-time highs. Widespread, devastating wildfires made the situation worse.

Climate alarmists predictably claimed these weather events for their propaganda.

Almost all news article about the Australian heat and wildfires ultimately blamed man-made climate change. But more than four-fifths of Australia’s wildfires were caused by arson, not climate change. And what caused the extreme hot weather was not global warming but a phenomenon called Positive Indian Ocean Dipole (PIOD).

PIOD is a seasonal weather phenomenon that can affect climate in east Africa, south Asia, and Australia all at once.

The same PIOD that caused Australia’s heat (but not its wildfires) caused the year-end floods in east Africa.

It also caused extreme cold in northern India in the same month. Largely underreported in global media, the cold continued right through to the end of December.

Delhi, India’s capital, recorded its second-coldest December in 118 years. Intermittent cold waves gripped Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Delhi.

On December 28, the heart of Delhi recorded a minimum of 1.7?C (35?F). The temperature likely reached freezing outside the city’s urban heat island effect. The cold wave impacted everyday life for 29 million people in Delhi.

But neither CNN nor BBC headlines ever mentioned it. It runs contrary to their narrative. Winters are supposed to become warmer. Though the mainstream media do link the PIOD to the Australian heat and the east African floods, they never shy away from blaming man-made climate change and find ways to link both.

Now their new theory is that the PIOD itself has become more intense because of climate change. In other words, weather events are non-existent in their dictionary. Each and every extreme weather event is blamed on man-made climate change.

This is what happens when people read every weather event through the preconceived lenses of climate alarmism.

Closer inspection reveals no change in very hot days in Australia since World War I. So hot weather (short term) and hot climate (long term) have nothing to do with the wildfire outbreak.

December’s extremes — heat in Australia, flooding in east Africa, cold in India — all were caused by a strong PIOD, not climate change.

These weather events neither prove nor disprove man-made climate change. But they do expose the bias of climate alarmists who blame them on man-made global warming.

SOURCE

The Martyrdom of Saint Greta of Sweden

She's a puppet

So Meat Loaf caused a little kerfuffle this weekend by saying he thought Greta Thunberg had been "brainwashed."

I don't know why that should be a surprise, but it got me thinking about her again. I have a lot of sympathy for the kid.

For me, it started with seeing her picture. She's small, slight, even scrawny; her head looks out of proportion to her body. She's now 17 (as of 3 January) but she still looks childlike, prepubertal, younger than her 14-year-old sister. Frankly, she looks like she's been in a concentration camp: malnourished over the long term.

Sure enough, reading a little about her, we find that she's an Asperger's child (I guess this month that's now called "high-functioning autism"), she has obsessive-compulsive disorder, she stopped eating for months and still refuses to eat anything but certain specific things, in particular, a dish of pancakes filled with rice — but her OCD keeps her from eating if there's a sticker or label on the package. She suffers from "selective mutism," which means basically that there are situations in which she's unable to speak.

She's said that this means she only "speaks when she thinks it's necessary." This includes speaking to the UN General Assembly, but in interviews, her mother often speaks for her.

Her public career started when she took Fridays off from school to hold up a sign outside the Swedish Parliament; this grew into a movement that spread throughout Europe.

Through it all, things keep striking me as odd. I don't know what it's like in Sweden, but cutting classes one day a week isn't normally feted as heroic in the U.S. And she hasn't been attending school for months as she traveled. In the U.S., that's called "dropping out".

So, this is what we're being asked to believe: that an autistic kid with OCD who often can't speak on her own has:

* organized a worldwide movement

* given TED talks, spoken to the UN General Assembly, and been named Person of the Year by Time magazine

* managed to get a ride on a multimillion-dollar racing yacht so she wouldn't have to fly (and bragged on how she wasn't releasing CO2 on the trip, although it required seven plane tickets for the crew for the boat).

There's a bucolic barnyard term for that — actually, several, depending on your choice of equine, bovine, or galline.

This isn't a neurologically atypical high school kid arranging this: there are adults, and probably a lot of adults, using her as a front. Some of them are surely her parents, but while they've been reasonably successful in music and the arts, I don't think they have the money that's obviously behind this.

Frankly, that's a tragedy. Instead of getting the treatment she needs, she's become a climate-change muppet.

It's hardly the first time a teenage girl has become the symbol of a movement. Of course, Joan of Arc was eventually burned at the stake.

I don't think that is in Greta's future. But what's happening to her looks to me like another martyrdom in pursuit of a political cause.

SOURCE

Trump Ends Decade With A Bang, Nixing Nearly 100 Enviro Regulations During His First Three Years In Office

President Donald Trump nixed nearly 100 environmental regulations during his first three years in office, effectively rolling back much of his Democratic predecessor’s environmental legacy.

The president rolled back more than 90 environmental rules and regulations, The New York Times reported in December. The NYT relied on an analysis from Harvard Law School, Columbia Law School and other sources to keep tabs on Trump’s numbers during his time in office.

The NYT’s list includes regulations that are officially reversed and rollbacks still in progress.

Trump has fully eliminated 25 rules designed to rein in air pollution and emissions, as well as 19 that regulate energy producers’ ability to drill and extract oil and gas. Trump uses a “one-two punch,” according to Caitlin McCoy, a fellow at Harvard Law School who tracks such measures.

“First a delay rule to buy some time, and then a final substantive rule,” McCoy told The NYT.

One of Trump’s biggest accomplishments in the early going was replacing former President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which required states to make deep cuts to power sector emissions. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay on the CPP’s implementation in 2016.

Obama’s rule was expected to force more coal power plants and mines to close down, costing thousands of jobs in the process. Nearly 40% of coal-fired power capacity has been retired or announced plans to retired as a result of market forces, technological change and an increase in regulations, according to some experts.

Trump promised to end what conservatives believe was Obama’s “war on coal.”

The Environmental Protection Agency rolled out a replacement plan in June, called the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, which asks states to improve coal plant efficiency. Critics said the agency does not do enough to enforce the rule.

California’s ability in September to set more stringent emissions standards for cars and light trucks. The president’s flurry of actions does not appear to have had a substantial impact on the coal industry, which is still suffering from a prolonged downturn despite an increase in coal exports.

More than 50 coal companies have filed for bankruptcy or shuttered their doors since 2016, when Trump was inaugurated.

SOURCE

Reform USAID energy aid policies now!

President Trump should direct USAID to support coal and gas, not just wind and solar

Paul Driessen and David Wojick

Apparently unable to grasp the cruel irony, USAID Commissioner Mark Green boasts that “electricity enables access to refrigeration to store fish, milk and vaccines. Electricity brightens the night and helps schoolchildren study. Electricity allows businesses to stay open later and makes communities safer.”

Abundant, reliable, affordable electricity absolutely does all of this, as developed countries prove daily. Expensive, intermittent power does none of these things. Unpredictable, on-and-off power cruelly promises refrigeration, heat, light, factories, businesses, jobs, modern schools and hospitals, better living standards, longer and healthier lives – then takes them all away, for hours, days or weeks at a time.

Right now, the average Sub-Saharan African enjoys the blessings of modern electricity 1 hour a day, 8 hours a week, 411 hours a year – at totally unpredictable times, for a few minutes, hours or days at a stretch. Under Mr. Green, the US Agency for International Development would “improve” this horrific situation by ensuring electricity maybe 25-30% of the year: 7 hours a day, 50 hours a week, 2,628 hours (110 days) a year, still at totally unpredictable times, thanks to wind turbines and solar panels.

That’s because the USAID won’t support real energy. Its Deep State Obama era policies should have been deep-sixed the day President Trump took office. Instead, three years later, they still impose cruel and unusual punishment for Africa’s “crime” of being the last continent to modernize with 24/7 electricity.

USAID runs a program with the promising, grandstanding name “Power Africa.” It began six years into the Obama presidency. And yet, five years later, it has delivered less than 3,500 megawatts (MW) of new generating capacity. Total installed US summertime electricity generation capacity is 314 times that: 1.1 million MW, to support less than one-third as many people as live in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Even worse, this minuscule improvement includes no coal-fired and no nuclear power. It’s mostly wind, solar and natural gas electricity generation, plus a tiny bit of geothermal and even a bit of heavy oil power generation – even though this still “dark” lights-free continent has enormous coal deposits. In fact, some 60% of Power Africa financial aid goes to relatively wealthy Nigeria and South Africa, not the numerous really poor countries – and countries receiving funds for wind and solar are not getting money for gas-fired power. Many countries get no energy aid at all; each of the others receives only a little.

It’s all because USAID’s “flagship” energy program is centered around and obsessed with “low-emission economic development.” Emissions in this context of course mean plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide or CO2, the trace gas (0.04% or 400 ppm of Earth’s atmosphere) that makes life on Planet Earth possible.

So even under President Trump, USAID remains locked into the notion that manmade CO2 is the primary or sole factor in climate change, and any climate or weather fluctuations will be catastrophic. Indeed, USAID brags, climate change plays a central role throughout the entire agency’s development efforts and throughout its partnerships with other federal agencies and multiple developing countries.

USAID claims its programs “help countries achieve self-reliance while pursuing clean economic growth and resilient development.” That’s complete, self-serving, carbon-colonialist garbage.

First, there is nothing clean, green, renewable or sustainable about wind and solar (or battery) energy. Wind and solar require 200 times more raw materials per megawatt than fossil or nuclear energy – and electrifying Africa, the USA or the world with wind and solar would require the biggest expansion of metals, minerals and limestone mining in human history. To end their intermittency, you’d need billions of expensive 100-kWh battery packs, still more mining – and vastly more child labor and slave labor.

Moreover, economies powered by insufficient, intermittent electricity cannot possibly be “resilient.”

USAID’s “lights on” slogan is just as phony. Solar provides zero electricity at night and powers society maybe 30% of the time year-round. A 600-MW coal-fired power plant generates 600 MW pretty much around the clock; 600 MW of solar capacity provides maybe 200 MW of power in bits and pieces, amid clouds, rains and nighttime. Battery backup for cities or countries is prohibitively expensive.

Wind is even worse. It typically takes sustained winds over 30 mph to generate full power, which rarely happens in most of Africa. Yet Power Africa boasts almost 2,500 MW of highly intermittent wind farms.

USAID programs to bring electricity to people for the first time means all Africans will get is intermittent electricity. This is cruel and unfair – a stupid, callous, eco-imperialist way to spend billions of aid dollars.

USAID’s anti-fossil-fuel, anti-development, anti-people policies are cloaked in lofty virtue-signaling language. Greenwashing PR guides and justifies policy. The agency claims it shares its “world-class knowledge, data and tools” to “help countries predict, prepare for and adapt to” climate change and “lay the foundations for sustainable growth powered by clean, reliable energy and healthy landscapes.”

These claims fail every factual and humanitarian test. They may make Deep State, UN, IPCC, World Bank and EU technocrats – and their environmentalist allies – happy. But they will keep Africa mired in poverty, disease, misery, despair and needlessly early death for generations.

USAID’s “Low Emission Development Strategies” do not “forge partnerships” with poor countries. They impose “partnerships” that provide inadequate funding for insufficient supplies of intermittent energy – while doing nothing to “mitigate” climate changes that are no different, more frequent or more intense from what Africa (and the world) have faced numerous times throughout history. And most of the aid money ends up in the bank accounts of ruling elites and wind and solar manufacturers.

The lives of impoverished families improve little, and only at the margins. The electricity that the USAID, World Bank, EU banks and even Africa Development Bank (AfDB) so grudgingly finance cannot possibly support modern homes, hospitals, businesses, factories, communities and nations.

These climate-centric, anti-development policies force African nations to turn increasingly to Chinese banks and mining companies, accept the onerous preconditions often attached to their contracts, and live with the horrific conditions that exist in their mines and processing plants. America, Europe, Canada and Australia – and their laws, regulations and operating standards – will be relegated to the sidelines.

As to assertions that carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases” have replaced the Sun and other powerful natural forces that actually govern Earth’s climate and weather: with China, India and dozens of other countries building new coal and gas generating plants every week, and driving millions more cars and trucks every year, USAID’s “low emission” policies and strategies will make no difference.

Africa’s families and communities are not threatened by fossil-fuel-induced climate or weather that differs little from what they have confronted and survived numerous times throughout history. They are threatened by climate alarmist policies that keep them impoverished and energy-deprived – with few prospects for ever enjoying the living standards, health and longevity they dream of – and deserve.

It’s time to reform or end USAID’s inhumane policies. The agency should finance coal, gas and nuclear electricity projects in destitute African countries, insist on state-of-the-art controls for real pollution, but drop all CO2 emission rules. This would transform economies and save lives. If Africa’s own banks and governments would finance coal, gas and nuclear power, they too would create jobs, growth and revenue.

President Trump should demand this via an executive order – and withhold US funding from the World Bank, AfDB and other anti-development banks until they also support coal, gas and nuclear power. He would stand tall as a true world leader on energy, climate change, prosperity and human health – a leader who finally terminated the global financial aid community’s deadly carbon-colonialist policies.

Support for abundant, reliable, affordable electricity is good policy not just for the United States, Europe, Asia and other industrialized and developing regions – but for the poorest continent on Earth. This policy change would be the best New Year’s present Africa’s desperate people ever received.

Via email

Australia: Senior government ministers have dismissed a Liberal backbencher's comments denying the link between climate change and the bushfires as a "sideshow"

It's politically inconvenient to knock global warming

Senior government ministers are distancing themselves from an outspoken backbencher who dismissed the link between climate change and bushfires.

Liberal MP Craig Kelly has caused major headaches after appearing on British television to talk about Australia's bushfire crisis.

As recently as Sunday, the prime minister claimed his government had always made the connection between climate change and extreme weather conditions.

Mr Kelly, who strongly denies the link, made his views known to an international audience.

Emergency Management Minister David Littleproud described his comments as a "sideshow".

"He doesn't represent the views of the government," Mr Littleproud told reporters on Tuesday. "I couldn't give a rats what he said, it's irrelevant, let's just focus on those people that are out there that need our help."

Mr Kelly said the suggestion the government could have reduced the bushfires by bringing down carbon emissions was nonsense.

Instead, he made disputed claims that fuel loads were largely to blame for the spread of the fires.

Scientists have disputed claims a lack of hazard reduction burns have led to the size of the bushfires, with former fire chiefs blaming the effects of climate change.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg also put Mr Kelly at arms length from the government. "Our view of climate change is that it's real. We accept the science," Mr Frydenberg said.

While Mr Frydenberg said fuel loads had been a factor in the bushfires, he said climate change was causing hotter, drier summers.

Labor leader Anthony Albanese said he was despaired by Mr Kelly's comments. "The tragedy is that he's imposed those views along with a few others to ensure that Australia isn't taking action," Mr Albanese said.

After being panned for the "train wreck" interview, Mr Kelly has defended his decision to go on air, saying he needed to defend the government because it was under attack.

Good Morning Britain host Laura Tobin called Mr Kelly a "climate denier" with Piers Morgan telling the MP to "wake up". "You are facing now one of the greatest crises you have ever faced, and there is you... who still doesn't think this has anything to do with a heating up planet," Morgan said.

Mr Kelly later dismissed Tobin as a "arrogant pommy weather girl" who didn't know what she was talking about, and claimed Morgan "didn't want to hear the facts".

Tobin quickly hit back, pointing out she was a qualified meteorologist and former aviation forecaster for the Royal Air Force.

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

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

7 January, 2020

2019 was Australia's hottest year on record – so is global warming behind the fires?

Global temperatures have been inching up ever since the little ice age a couple of hundred years ago, meaning that a hotter 2019 is no surprise. And it is also no surprise that extra heat favours fires.

What is not at all clear is that increased levels of CO2 are involved. That increased CO2 causes increased temperatures is the theory behind "climate change" but for the theory to be correct there should be a close correlation between CO2 levels and temperature levels. There is not. They rise in different ways at different times. So the theory is grounded in faith, not fact. It cannot in fact explain anything.

Northern English expat Graham Readfearn makes a living out of writing stories that boost the "climate change" faith so his latest piece in the Guardian (below) is no surprise.

He has done some homework and interviewed climate scientits about Australia's present bushfire problem in an endeavour to find out why the problem is much bigger this year. Bushfires are a normal seasonal event in Australia but the problem this year is unusually severe.

The people he interviewed all identified various climate influences on the fires -- such as the Indian Ocean dipole, the Southern Annular Mode etc -- but all agreed that "climate change" was a "contributor" to the fires

But that's just a statement of faith. They have no data that would enable them to dissect the various "contributions" to the fires.

That becomes particularly clear when we note that 2019 temperatures differed from several previous years by only tenths of one degree. 2019 was hotter but only by a tiny fraction. So if temperatures similar to those of the present did not cause bushfires in the past, how can we know that they contributed this year? We cannot. The probablity has to be that global temperatures had a negligble "contribution".

The actual causes would appear to be the drought and a long period of fuel buildup after the Greenies and their bureaucratic allies systematically obstructed backburning. Without that fuel there would have been no fires

The year 2019 was the hottest on record for Australia with the temperature reaching 1.52C above the long-term average, data from the Bureau of Meteorology confirms.

The year that delivered crippling drought, heatwaves, temperature records and devastating bushfires was 0.19C hotter than 2013, the previous record holder.

Climate scientists told Guardian Australia that climate change pushed what would have been a hot year into record territory, driving heat extremes and the risk of deadly bushfires.

The Bureau of Meteorology data shows the average temperature across the country was 1.52C above the long-term average taken between 1961 and 1990. The second hottest year was 2013, followed by 2005, 2018 and 2017.

The data, from the bureau’s long-term ACORN-SAT data, will be used as part of the bureau’s annual climate statement due for release on 9 January.

Prof Mark Howden, the director of the ANU Climate Change Institute, said the continued rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, caused mainly by burning fossil fuels, was the underlying driver of the heat.

He said: “It’s very clear that greenhouse gas emissions are changing the radiation balance of the Earth. Other contributors are minor in comparison.”

He said two other climate systems had also played a role in delivering the record hot year.

The Indian Ocean Dipole system had drawn moisture away from the centre of the continent, causing extra heat to build there. Another system known as the Southern Annular Mode had also contributed to the heat.

The data also shows that 2019 was the hottest year on record for New South Wales, with temperatures 1.95C above the long-term average, beating the previous record year, 2018, by 0.27C.

Western Australia also had its hottest year, with temperatures 1.67C above average, beating the previous 2013 heat record by 0.58C.

The Northern Territory and South Australia both had their second hottest years, with 2019 coming in fifth hottest for Victoria and sixth hottest for Queensland, according to the data. Tasmania had a relatively cool year, but was still 0.41C above the long-term average.

The previous summer of 2018-19 was the hottest on record. The spring of 2019 also delivered the worst bushfire weather since at least 1950, when the Forest Fire Danger Index data began.

On Wednesday 18 December, Australia experienced its hottest day on record with an average maximum temperature of 41.9C (107.4F), beating the previous record by 1C that had been set only 24 hours earlier.

Dr Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, a climate scientist at the University of New South Wales specialising in extreme events, said 2019 had started hot, with the previous summer being the hottest on record.

She said: “The extremes have been seen in lots of heatwaves and, of course, the bushfires, that are a consequence of the very hot and dry conditions.”

She said while natural climate cycles had pushed temperatures higher, “climate change has given them a boost”.

“2019 would not have been pleasant anyway, but climate change has made it worse. We are focusing now on the bushfires, but the underlying heat has been driving these conditions for much of the year.

“Climate change isn’t the outright cause, but it’s an undeniable contributor to this extreme year on all accounts.”

A bureau spokesperson said it would provide official comment on the 2019 temperatures in its annual climate statement on January 9 that would include a “comprehensive analysis of the year’s weather events and climate context, including any records of note”.

SOURCE

Climate Alarmists Want Eco-Reparations To Fund Green New Deal

The leftists participating in the weekly Fire Drill Fridays want to eliminate the fossil fuel industry and take all the money from the energy industry companies.

They tout wealth redistribution from fossil fuel companies as the piggy bank to fund the Green New Deal.

In other words, take the profits of capitalism and give the money to a socialist takeover of the energy sector. Sound good?

A woman named Tamara To’L, described as an Environmental Strategist delivered an aggressive message to the crowd. She conflated climate change and racism as she tried to get the crowd fired up.

“Shout out if you want to destroy fossil fuel capitalists.” That sounds almost like inciting violence, doesn’t it? “Let me hear your vigor for ending racism while you do it.” “We need to make them pay today.”

Her speech sounded like an all-purpose rant as she vented about people “who look like her” and her local roots.

Tamara

Her proposal is to redistribute “trillions” of dollars to pay for the Green New Deal. Jane Fonda, the founder of these weekly protests, sat behind Tamara on the stage and nodded her head in approval, yelling along with the crowd in response.

Is it me or does Jane Fonda look a lot less energetic than when she began these Friday protests? She still wears the red coat and hats but she seems to be running out of steam.

Next week will be the last scheduled Fire Drill Fridays protest – she has to get back to her day job and film the next season of Netflix’s Grace and Frankie – so maybe she is just winding down.

Only two celebrities were mentioned this week and both were returning protesters – Sam Waterson, Fonda’s co-star in Grace and Frankie, and young Iain Armitage who stars in Young Sheldon.

You may remember that Iain is also the grandson of Richard Armitage who was Colin Powell’s deputy secretary of state during the George W. Bush administration.

Armitage let Scooter Libby take the fall for the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plume. Maybe young Iain was in town to visit gramps. Waterson was re-arrested Friday but, as with his last appearance, Iain was not.

Jane Fonda calls it putting your body on the line as she encourages civil disobedience.

Looks like Sam Waterson fell for it again. He was led off to the local jail as his friend Jane escaped arrest once again. It is reported that 40 other people were arrested.

The protesters were arrested on the same charges as previous weeks.

Eva Malecki, spokeswoman for the U.S. Capitol Police, told The Hollywood Reporter that the federal agency responded to “unlawful demonstration activity at First and East Capitol Streets, [where] forty individuals were arrested and charged with D.C. Code 22-1307, Crowding, Obstructing, or Incommoding.”

Director and playwright Josh Fox participated in the protest. He is an environmental activist best known for his Oscar-nominated, Emmy-winning 2010 documentary, Gasland.

Gasland is an anti-fracking documentary that the entertainment industry embraced as the gospel as they did with Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth.

Fox calls himself a Bernie Sanders campaign surrogate. He told the crowd, “This industry kills people, and it kills children, and it does so with impunity and then it lies about it.”

Iain Armitage wished Greta Thunberg a happy birthday and referred to Jane Fonda as “Grandma” in a tweet.

The eleven-year-old actor made a New Year’s resolution to give up using plastic. Good luck with that one, kid.

This is the problem with environmental activists – they are oblivious to the practical hindrances to their fossil-fuel-free utopia. Iain should tell Grandma Jane that those sunglasses she wears are made with plastic.

So is that parka he is wearing. The oil and gas industry is working to find alternative fuel options and has been for years, which may surprise younger activists.

The industry employs hundreds of thousands of people from white-collar jobs to blue-collar jobs. The world may be moving toward using more alternative energy but even America is not ready for major change.

We can’t just simply leave it in the ground, as the activists demand. Slogans aren’t solutions. Nuclear energy, the cleanest of all energy sources, is never mentioned. Some truths are more inconvenient than others, I guess.

Next Friday’s protest will be the last for Fonda and I assume for her celebrity pals.

SOURCE

Old Farmer’s Almanac Vs. NOAA’s Winter Forecasts

Weather.com reported this week that massive winter storms of snow, ice, and freezing weather have wreaked havoc across the Midwest and Northeast.

In addition, Weather.com reported that over 400 daily cold records were set since the cold flowed into the continental US in mid-November.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration forecast in the Autumn, that warmer-than-average temperatures were in store for the country.

NOAA wrote on October 17th “Winter Outlook: Warmer than average for many, wetter in the North.”

“Warmer-than-average temperatures are forecast for much of the U.S. this winter… below-average temperatures are not favored.”

Given that NOAA predicted a warm winter, we have to ask… is there any climate organization that can be trusted to make accurate forecasts?

There is, and of course, it’s the Old Farmer’s Almanac.

The Old Farmer’s Almanac bases its winter forecasts on astronomical space science of the 1800s and extreme skill and experience of their forecasters. And importantly on honesty, because they have to get it right. No choice. If they don’t, farmers suffer and they themselves go bankrupt.

The UN and NOAA face no consequences for inaccurate forecasts.

Background Of The Old Farmer’s Almanac

For over 200 years, founded in 1792 (with a second competitive version beginning publication in 1818), American farmers have been depending on the skill and accuracy of the Almanac seasonal forecasts.

The Almanac forecasts have to be right. If they are not, farmers who depend on it could suffer financial loss or loss of life.

This Winter’s Climate (2019 – 2020) Forecast Made In The Autumn By The Almanac

The managing editor of Almanac Version 1 (founded 1792) summed it up: “We’re using a very strong four-letter word to describe this winter, which is C-O-L-D. It’s going to be very cold.

Version 2 of the Almanac (founded 1818) agrees. “We expect yet another wild ride this winter,” editor Peter Geiger said, “with extreme temperatures swings and some hefty snowfalls.”

The coming winter is described by version 2 as a “polar coaster” for about 70% of the US.

According to the Almanac, which has been on the bullseye recently in winter forecasts, the Northern Plains and Great Lakes area should expect temperatures dropping to -40 (F).

The Almanac provides climate forecasts nationally and state-by-state. Iowa, for example, is predicted to have a “frigid and snowy” winter.

Democrat-controlled Illinois, which is preparing for global warming, and putting the few and obsolete snowplows they have into storage based on the NOAA mild weather prognostication…is projected to have it even worse than Iowa.

Illinois has a dual-winter climate forecast with part of the state “frigid and snowy” and the other part “frozen and snowy”.

“Only the western third of the country will see near-normal winter temperatures, which means fewer shivers for them,” the Almanac (Version 2) writes.

The Old Farmer’s Almanac forecast a brutally cold winter for 70% of the country. So far this year, the Almanac has been right on target.

And in this frigid forecast, the Old Farmer’s Almanac has a high tech ally. That is the NASA Langley Research Laboratory.

The chief scientist of the Langley Research Laboratory, Dr. Martin Mlynczac, has developed a satellite method and system of calculating the loss of heat energy from the earth from its atmosphere into space.

Dr. Mlynczac wrote:

“We see a cooling trend… High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a space-age record for cold.”

The reason for this present and coming cold climate is of course… the sun. The sun controls climate on earth, and weather as well. The effect of CO2 is zero. And we are now in a deep Grand Solar Minimum, with the sun in a cooler phase.

So For Climate Forecasting, Who Can We Trust?

Invest in long underwear and a copy of the Old Farmer’s Almanac and you’ll be ready.

SOURCE

Outcry spreads over Green energy projects

As fast as developers seek approval for new renewable energy projects, people opposed to having their predominantly rural communities invaded by transmission lines, wind turbines, and solar arrays mount a counterattack.

Resistance has spread from coast to coast, and the battles are fought in city halls, local boards of health, and – if all else fails – the courts.

Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia mandate that utilities purchase a certain percentage of the electricity they supply from renewable sources, usually taxpayer-subsidized wind and solar energy. Wind and solar power, along with hydropower, is produced in areas far removed from population centers, meaning it must be transmitted on powerlines that can stretch for hundreds of miles. Industrial wind turbines are often hundreds of feet tall and are so noisy that their health effects on local residents are coming under closer medical scrutiny.

Small wonder that the natives are getting restless.

Wisconsin residents have banded against the proposed 125-mile Cardinal-Hickory Creek transmission line to be built west of Milwaukee. They are appealing state regulators’ approval of the powerline, a project of American Transmission Co.

In New Mexico, local residents, including actor and filmmaker Robert Redford, an avowed environmentalist, successfully fought Hunt Power’s proposal to build a 30-mile transmission line that would add capacity for more renewable power. Opposition was so fierce that the Dallas-based company threw in the towel last August and withdrew its federal application for what would have been the Verde Transmission line north of Santa Fe.

The Wall Street Journal (Dec. 31) reports that, in the Pacific Northwest, opposition is growing to a proposed 300-mile powerline that would transmit mostly hydro and solar power from eastern Washington through northeastern Oregon into Idaho, terminating near Boise. Idaho Power’s project would cost $1.2 billion and has riled up residents fearful that the transmission line will disrupt elk and deer herds, add to the wildfire threat, and spoil views of the Oregon Trail, where, the Journal notes, remnants of pioneers’ wagon tracks are still visible.

Idaho power has already been forced to abandon its original route in the face of threatened lawsuits by landowners and is now looking at two alternative routes. But they, too, are opposed by separate groups of landowners who have threatened their own lawsuits.

Resistance in the Empire State

Meanwhile, across the country in western New York, giant wind turbines have raised the ire of local residents. Responding to growing number of health complaints by local residents, the Chautauqua County Board of Health is considering a range of measures to regulate the limit of new industrial wind turbines. The board may even recommend a moratorium on new turbine construction until more is known about their health effects. The biggest concern: noise.

“There are numerous studies that have concluded that industrial wind energy can have serious detrimental health effects, with the primary cause agent being infrasound,” physicist John Droz, founder of the Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions, told Environment & Climate News (Dec. 2).

Elsewhere in western New York, in the November 5 elections a coalition of organizations opposed to the proposed 106-square-mile Alle Catt wind project took majorities on the boards of supervisors in two towns slated to serve as sites for the project’s turbines and the supervisor’s position in a third host town.

Project developer Invenergy has proposed erecting 116 600-foot-tall turbines within four small jurisdictions near Lake Erie.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) has set an unachievable goal of 100% renewable energy for the Empire State by 2050. That means more monstrosities like Alle-Catt and more resistance from people who stand to be the victims of the rush to “clean” energy.

SOURCE

Australia: Anger lingers at dam water being sent out to sea instead of being used by farmers: For "environmental" reasons

Nine years ago grape grower Steven Barbon joined hundreds of farmers from the NSW Riverina at a meeting in Griffith., where authorities unveiled the plan to seize their water.

Mr Barbon watched on approvingly on October 14, 2010, as angry farmers burned copies of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which launched the federal government's buyback of irrigation water entitlements to enable more environmental flows down the rivers.

The Australian was in Griffith that day, and back then Mr Barbon said the plan would cripple the nation's food bowl, wreak economic hardship on communities, and fail to save the rivers. "Everyone has worked hard for what we have got in this town, and we're going to lose it because a few green lobbyists believe the frogs need more water," he said at the time.

The Australian revisited Mr Barbon at his 40ha vineyard near Griffith, as part of a week-long investigation into how farmers and growers are coping with the Murray-Darling Basin reforms implemented almost a decade ago.

Mr. Barbon said all his predictions had come true. "It's a fricking disaster," he said of the Basin Plan. "It was designed to ensure sustainability for the environment, farmers and the rural community, and it hasn't happened ... why did all those fish die?"

Water for irrigation has become scarce due to the drought, the Basin Plan, and huge commercial plantings of thirsty trees such as almonds that can't survive without water. The price of irrigation water on the spot market has skyrocketed, with farmers saying it is accentuated by a speculative squeeze orchestrated by non-farming professional investors.

"Out of this plan, who has benefited?" Mr Barbon asked. "It seems to have been designed to feed the fat cats, the speculators up in Sydney."

The high water prices on the spot market — about $700 per megalitre in Mr Barbon's region compared to about $100 in normal times — has produced some perverse effects on agriculture.

Mr Barbon holds what are known as permanent, high-security water entitlements that came with the property purchased by his parents Maria and Renato, who migrated from northern Italy in the 1950s and saved up money over the years cutting cane in Queensland and picking fruit in Griffith.

In the current market the tradeable entitlements are worth their weight in gold, and Mr Barbon could sell his for about $2m. Or, he could lease his water allocations on the spot market each year, perhaps reserving just enough to keep his vines alive but not producing grapes. That would give him an annual income of about $100,000-$150,000 a year, without having to
employ backpackers to pick a single grape or prune a vine.

"I'd probably be in front," Mr Barbon said. "You don't have the risk of growing the crop. I could get hail." But to abandon the vineyard his family toiled to build would break Mr Barbon's heart and, at this stage, he won't. "It'sjust not in my blood to do it," he said.

If he abandoned farming and sold or leased his water, Mr Barbon said, it would also squeeze more life out of the local economy in a region he loves. Other farmers in similar circumstances, particularly older ones, have been swayed by the argument that it's easier to be a water trader than a farmer, and more profitable.

Mr Barbon knows another grape grower in his 60s who recently decided to cash in his water and let his vines die. Just up the road from Mr Barbon's place, a property has vines withering away; the worth of their grapes less than the water needed to grow them.

From the "Weekend Australian" of 28 December, 2019

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

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

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

6 January, 2020

So You Want to Convince a Climate Change Skeptic? Here are some strategies for a hard conversation

Sometimes the Green/Left satirize themselves. The whole approach of the NYT below is explicitly: "Lead with values, not facts". They know that the facts are quite inadequate to convince people so use anything else as a way of persuading people. But in the end it is the facts that matter

Happy New Year! It’s 2020, and the forecast for this next decade is cloudy with an apprehension of doom. According to the United Nations, the world has only until 2030 to cut carbon dioxide emissions down to roughly half those of 2010 levels to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the more ambitious target of the Paris Agreement. (The world has already warmed by about 1 degree Celsius since the 19th century.) The outlook, in the words of a United Nations report released in November, is “bleak.”

Daunting as the problem may be, millions of people still don’t accept the premise of its existence: Depending on how you ask, only about half to two-thirds of Americans believe that climate change is caused by humans, according to the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center.

The question: How do you convince someone that climate change is real? Should you even try?

Lead with values, not facts

If you want to convince someone about climate change, don’t lead with data, writes Katharine Hayhoe in The Times. Dr. Hayhoe is a climate scientist at Texas Tech University, and she’s also an evangelical Christian, two identities she realized after moving from Canada were “supposed to be entirely incompatible” in the United States. Understanding why that’s the case is crucial when attempting to convert climate change skeptics, she writes, explaining:

It turns out, it’s not where we go to church (or don’t) that determines our opinion on climate. It’s not even our religious affiliation. Hispanic Catholics are significantly more likely than other Catholics to say the earth is getting warmer, according to a 2015 survey, and they have the same pope. It’s because of the alliance between conservative theology and conservative politics that has been deliberately engineered and fostered over decades of increasingly divisive politics on issues of race, abortion and now climate change, to the point where the best predictor of whether we agree with the science is simply where we fall on the political spectrum.

In her experience, Dr. Hayhoe has found that the best way to neutralize the partisan charge on climate change is not by appealing to science — which some prominent Republicans, such as Senator Ted Cruz, have cast as a competitor to religion — but by emphasizing shared values. “For some, this could be the well-being of our community,” she writes. “For others, our children; and for fellow Christians, it’s often our faith.”

In such conversations, it may be important to remember how your interlocutor’s values differ from your own. In Vice, Maggie Puniewska points to the moral foundations theory, according to which liberals and conservatives prioritize different ethics: the former compassion, fairness and liberty, the latter purity, loyalty and obedience to authority. Ms. Puniewska writes:

If you’re trying to convince someone who leans left, you can stick with the polar bear and keep tugging at their heart strings with talk of how unfair it will be to our children if the world is poisoned, but if you’re with a conservative, it’s wise to change up your approach — science has found that personalized climate-related messages work better.

For example, research has found that conservatives are more likely to support a pro-environmental agenda when presented with messages containing themes of patriotism and defending the purity of nature.

Emphasize the potential benefits

For many skeptics, Neha Thirani Bagri has written in Quartz, delineating the myriad potential harms of unmitigated climate change is not an effective strategy. Instead, it can be more productive to illustrate the potential benefits that mitigation may carry. She writes:

A comprehensive study published in 2015 in Nature surveyed 6,000 people across 24 countries and found that emphasizing the shared benefits of climate change was an effective way of motivating people to take action — even if they initially identified as deniers. For example, people were more likely to take steps to mitigate climate change if they believe that it will produce economic and scientific development. Most importantly, these results were true across political ideology, age, and gender.

The messenger matters

People are more likely to listen to a message when it comes from someone they trust, Alexander Maki has argued in The Washington Post, and messages about climate change are no different. “For example,” he writes, “experimental research discovered that when free-market enthusiasts who are concerned about government regulation hear from experts who emphasize how companies are developing climate responses, they are more likely to accept climate science.”

Who makes for the best messenger depends, naturally, on the intended recipient. A study published in Nature in May, for example, found that when it comes to parents, children may be especially effective persuaders:

Because climate change perceptions in children seem less susceptible to the influence of worldview or political context, it may be possible for them to inspire adults toward higher levels of climate concern, and in turn, collective action. Child-to-parent intergenerational learning — that is, the transfer of knowledge, attitudes or behaviors from children to parents — may be a promising pathway to overcoming socio-ideological barriers to climate concern.

Follow up with evidence

While leading with data and studies can cause people to shut down, Ms. Puniewska writes, talking about the scientific consensus around climate change in general can help, acting as a kind of gateway to greater trust in the conclusions of climate science. (This rhetorical strategy has found a prominent champion in Greta Thunberg, who implores people to “listen to the scientists” first and foremost.) She explains:

In a 2015 study published in PLOS One, Maibach and colleagues found that telling people that experts agreed on climate change increased the chances that those individuals would accept that climate change was happening, was human-caused, and presented a real threat. Extra encouraging: That strategy was also particularly influential on Republicans, though liberals might also need a nudge.

To the extent that a person’s denial of climate change stems from mistrust of science in general, however — 13 percent of Americans have little to no confidence in scientists, according to a 2019 Pew survey — invoking expertise may never bear fruit.

Or is trying to convince climate change deniers a waste of time?

Attempting to convert deniers is not the most productive way to fight climate change, argue Marcus Hedahl and Travis N. Rieder in Georgetown University’s Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. In their view, climate change is a problem less of individual belief than of collective action, a failure that can be remedied only through public policy. The most efficient route toward enacting such policy, the authors argue, lies not in convincing deniers to believe in climate change but in galvanizing those who already do. They write:

With a significant majority of voters supporting taxing or regulating greenhouse gases, those who want to spur climate action ought to focus instead on getting a critical mass of climate believers to be appropriately alarmed. Doing so, we contend, may prove more useful in creating the political will necessary to spur bold climate action than would engaging directly with climate deniers.

SOURCE

How Climate Alarmists Spread Myths, Declare Impending Doom

Written by John Stossel

“The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change!” says Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Really? 12 years? John Stossel recently moderated a debate held by The Heartland Institute.

Well, not a debate … because climate alarmists who were invited didn’t show. “Please … let’s have a discussion!” begs astrophysicist Willie Soon. Stossel says the panel convincingly debunked four myths.

One is the new claim: “we only have 12 years to act.” Pat Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists, says,

“It’s warmed up around one degree Celsius since 1900, and life expectancy DOUBLED … yet [if] that temperature ticks up another half a degree … the entire system crashes? That’s the most absurd belief.”

Climatology Professor David Legates adds, “In twelve years it’ll be 12 more years.” The 3 scientists argue that even if the planet warms by 5 degrees, humans can adjust. We already have. People in Holland did. Holland is a low-lying country.

Much of it is below sea-level. So many years ago, the Dutch built dikes to prevent flooding. Michaels says, “Are you telling me that the people in Miami are so dumb that they’re just going to sit there and drown?” “You acknowledge though the water is rising?” asks Stossel.

Legates interjects, “Yes, the water has been rising for approximately 20,000 years.” Another myth they bust: government action today will save us. “

The Obama’s administration’s model projects that the amount of global warming that would be saved [by the US] going to ZERO emissions tomorrow … would be 14 hundredths of a degree Celsius,” says Michaels.

It wouldn’t stop global warming but: “You’ll sure have an impoverished dark country.” he continues. “Global warming is why hurricanes are getting worse” and the idea that “carbon dioxide is a pollutant that just does harm” are two other myths the scientists debunk.

Stossel concludes by asking, “Are they right? It’s hard to believe they are when so many serious people are so worried. I wish there were a real debate! Why won’t the other side debate?”

SOURCE

Biden Obliviously Tells Press that Fossil Fuel Execs Should Be Jailed

The hate never stops on the Left

Former vice president and presidential candidate Joe Biden told a crowd in Peterborough, New Hampshire over the weekend that if fossil fuel executives don't take accountability for helping to doom the environment, we should throw them in jail.

In order to curb the rate of pollution, Biden explained, we need to hold fossil fuel executives "liable for what they have done, particularly in those cases where there are underserved neighborhoods." When they don't deliver, Biden offered, "put them in jail."

Some spectators noted his obliviousness. Surely he didn't forget that his son Hunter was on the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian gas company that was being investigated for corruption? I mean, it has been in the news lately.

"Does that include Hunter?" more than one social media user asked the former VP after his little speech.

Hunter's work on Burisma reportedly prompted President Trump to ask Ukrainian President Zelenskyy to "look into" the Bidens' relationship to Ukraine and to help root out corruption.

SOURCE

2019: the year of peak green bullsh*t

Greta, Prince Harry and Extinction Rebellion took the eco-cult to new heights of madness.

Ben Pile

2019 was the most extraordinary year of green bullshit yet. Despite the planet being a wealthier, healthier and safer place than it was when fears of global warming first appeared on the political agenda in the 1980s – and despite the failure of more than half a century of green prognostications – crazy and destructive green ideas still dominate politics.

Royal hypocrisy

In 2019, green doublespeak went mainstream. Harry and Meghan had intended to ‘eco-signal’ by warning us about climate change. At the same time, they were hopping on private jets to stay in luxury villas. Despite attempts by some celebrities to defend the royal couple from criticism, newspapers across the world pointed out that actions speak louder than words. What Harry and Meghan’s royal hypocrisy showed was that elite environmentalism is less about saving the planet than about telling people how to live and to know their place.

Greta and the school strikes

The only truly new thing that has emerged over the past year or so has been the phenomenon of Greta Thunberg and her school-strike movement. For years, the ‘green blob’ network of campaigning organisations, corporations, academics and UN agencies has fantasised about mobilising the young as a political force. After pumping billions of children full of green propaganda, a climate avatar has arrived in the form of the Swedish truant-cum-activist. There could be no doubting the sincerity of the teen who bore the emotional scars inflicted on her by the movement that she was to lead – she had been so traumatised by green propaganda that she had not spoken, not eaten and had refused to go to school. Environmentalism is nothing if not a cult of self-harm.

Political, cultural and religious leaders fell over themselves to be seen being scolded by the child. Unlike Harry and Meghan, Greta refused to fly. Instead of private jets, European royalty, millionaires and superstars loaned her their sailing yachts and Teslas. To keep her own personal carbon footprint down, sailing crews and her entourage had to fly across the Atlantic.

Politicians and campaigning organisations may have found it useful to hide their political ambitions behind children. But to many people, the emotional manipulation of impressionable minds is unconscionable. It has now emerged that the false stories that many of the children have fallen victim to – such as the claims that charismatic creatures like walruses and polar bears face extinction or that the world’s rainforests face imminent collapse – are distressing young children and causing real harm.

The school strikes may continue next year but, at some point, parents will start to demand that organisations which have promulgated the lies that are damaging their children are held to account.

Extinction Rebellion

Extinction Rebellion (XR) is perhaps the living embodiment of green bullshit. It is hard to add much to the volumes of criticism of XR that already exists: it is a movement of bizarre, narcissistic, anti-democratic, upper-middle-class, regressive zealots. XR has no better grasp of the world than their child co-protesters.

Despite XR’s obvious contempt for the wider public, commentators argued earlier in the year that XR, combined with the schools strike, was having a positive impact on public opinion. The protests were seemingly intended to draw the masses into the fold. But by obstructing ordinary people from their daily lives, the protests quickly alienated people, leading in one famous case in Canning Town to people taking matters – and the protesters – into their own hands. Agitated commuters dragged protesters off the roof of the train they were holding up. Despite favourable media coverage, XR was emphatically rejected by the public. The year ended in ignominy when XR founder member, Roger Hallam, insulted Holocaust victims in a German newspaper.

Net Zero and the UN climate meetings

The most useless parliament in British history asked itself this year whether the goal of reducing CO2 emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 went far enough. The figure should be 100 per cent, said MPs, who then instructed the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) to investigate the possibility of ‘Net Zero’ emissions. It could be done, said the CCC, for the bargain price of £50.8 billion in 2050. But there are 30 years between now and then, and it is during that time that gas boilers and petrol- and diesel-powered vehicles (among many other things) will be banned and will need to be replaced.

I asked the CCC in a freedom-of-information request how much these policies would cost between now and then. The answer is that the CCC does not know – it was only asked to calculate how much Net Zero would cost in 2050 – in the year it had already been achieved, not how much it would cost to achieve. Nonetheless, MPs didn’t even need to vote on making Net Zero the law – the statutory instrument that will consign much of the UK to ecological austerity was passed with barely any scrutiny.

The Net Zero policy was partly engineered to support the UK government’s bid to host the 2020 UN climate talks. Unfortunately, climate meetings have a habit of embarrassing their host nations. Shortly after the 2017 meeting in Bonn, it emerged that Germany – famed for its radical green policies – was unlikely to meet its own climate commitments. Likewise, France, the host of the celebrated 2015 Paris Agreement, has been wracked by conflict on the streets for over a year since it attempted to introduce green taxes on fuel. This year’s meeting was due to be held in Chile, but the events were cancelled because of civil unrest – sparked, as in France, in part by rising fuel prices. The event was moved to Madrid, but – like almost all of the meetings before it – fizzled into nothing.

Green bullshit is the lifeblood of our remote, intransigent and useless political elites. And 2019 provided an unusual glut of it, marked by the reinvention of climate change as the ‘climate emergency’. But the volume of green bullshit also opened people’s eyes to the facts. Green hypocrites, green zealots and groundless, science-free green political posturing are now mainstream objects of ridicule. Environmental alarmism is now understood to have damaged young people’s sense of the future. Politicians, of course, will be the last to understand any of this. And for that reason, another year of peak green bullshit is probably ahead of us.

SOURCE

Australia: Big fires follow move away from preventive burning

“It’s all about fuel, not climate.”

Christine Finlay has been sounding the alarm on bushfires in Australia for more than a decade after tracking the relationship between reduced cool burning and the frequency of firestorms. And the Queensland-based fire researcher, who charted a century of archival bushfire records for her PhD, has long been screaming danger.

Finlay’s thesis examined problem bushfires between 1881 and 1981. What she found after plotting the historical data on a graph was that there was a marked increase in the size and frequency of fires after 1919. This was when bushfire-reduction operations increasingly moved away from traditional indigenous practices such as low-intensity cool burning.

Finlay says this detailed correlation between the accumulation of catastrophic fuel loads and the frequency of extreme bushfires made it possible to forecast the dramatic increase in firestorms we have seen in the 21st century.

“For years, I energetically sent this predictive model to government agencies, in particular bushfire services, the media, coronial and parliamentary inquiries and so on,” she says. “Horribly ignored, it proved horribly accurate.”

Finlay has the support of forester Vic Jurskis, who has written a book on fire stick ecology and how indigenous Australians managed the landscape with fire.

In an open letter to the Prime Minister, premiers, chief ministers and opposition leaders in November, Jurskis said this season’s bushfire situation was neither unprecedented nor unexpected.

“This latest holocaust is a direct consequence of unprecedented accumulation of 3D continuous fuels as a result of green influence on politics,” Jurskis says. “It’s all about fuel, not climate.”

Half a century ago, Athol Hodgson, who later became chief fire officer of Victoria, explained the simple physics: doubling the available fuel usually doubles the rate of spread of the fire and increases its intensity fourfold.

Jurskis says control burning over large areas cheaply and effectively reduces the incidence of high-intensity wildfires and minimises damage.

When this year’s fire season finally ends, Finlay’s research and Jurskis’s theories no doubt will be offered to a federal government review already proposed by Scott Morrison. All sides will have a big stake in any investigation: fire command, volunteer services, state government agencies and anyone who lives near the bush.

Green groups are ready to battle demands that national parks be opened up to logging to reduce fuel loads. Politically, the Greens insist their environment policies adopted in November 2017 do not prohibit cool burns.

Their policy puts climate change front and centre but says “scientifically based, ecologically appropriate use of fire is an important means to protect biodiversity and manage habitat effectively”. The policy calls for “an effective and sustainable strategy for fuel-reduction management that will protect biodiversity and moderate the effects of wildfire for the protection of people and assets, developed in consultation with experts, custodians and land managers”.

Linking bushfires to climate change scientifically is still contentious given the long history of fires in Australia. But for the Greens and climate groups making the link politically is a no-brainer.

It compounds a dilemma for the federal government, which might have hoped that finally it was getting its climate message under control. With the dramatic fires it faces the prospect of a new level of public expectation at a time when the appetite among world leaders for urgency appears to be on the wane.

For Australian Energy Minister Angus Taylor, the Madrid meeting outcome illustrates the disconnect between how climate change is being discussed domestically and what is actually happening on the world stage. Rather than setting tougher targets, political leaders are desperately looking for solutions that can make a difference at manageable cost.

Writing in The Australian this week, Taylor said there are serious limits to pressuring countries into aggressive top-down targets without offering clear pathways to deliver.

“Many countries understandably see that as negative globalism and a gross infringement on their national sovereignty,” he wrote.

“The Paris Agreement is based on bottom-up ‘nationally determined contributions’ and it should stay true to that … The best way to deliver on and strengthen these commitments is through new productive technologies and practices that deliver emission abatement while maintaining or strengthening economic growth.”

Taylor said in most countries it isn’t acceptable to pursue emission-reduction policies that add substantially to the cost of living, destroy jobs, reduce incomes and impede growth. His view is supported by international analysis that says the most daunting headwind facing UN climate talks is rising nationalism, populism and economic retrenchment — all at the expense of multilateralism.

AFP says street protests against the rise in cost of living in France, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Egypt and more than two dozen other countries last year have given governments already reluctant to invest in a low-carbon future another reason to baulk.

“These cases highlight how sensitive populations are to change in the price of basic commodities like food, energy and transport,” Stephane Hallegatte, of the World Bank, noted.

The formal withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement from November and the reluctance of the world’s major emitters, China and India, to bolster action completes a bleak picture.

According to climate scientist Judith Curry, the political divide remains between developed and developing countries, but particularly between the West and China/India, and has not changed since Copenhagen and Paris.

Curry argues we have not only oversimplified the problem of climate change but we have also oversimplified its “solution”. “Even if you accept the climate model projections and that warming is dangerous, there is disagreement among experts regarding whether a rapid acceleration away from fossil fuels is the appropriate policy response,” Curry says.

“In any event, rapidly reducing emissions from fossil fuels to ameliorate the adverse impacts of extreme weather events in the near term increasingly looks like magical thinking.”

Australia routinely is held up by lobby groups as an obstacle to progress at international climate talks. But Taylor wrote this week that debate in Madrid was not about Australia’s performance.

Unlike many other countries, Australia says it is on target to meet its obligations under both the Kyoto second round and 2030 Paris Agreement.

The most recent estimates released by the federal Environment Department last month are that Australia will overachieve on both its 2020 and 2030 targets.

The federal opposition, Greens and climate groups criticise the Morrison government for lacking ambition and counting the excess savings from the Kyoto round in the Paris targets.

But Taylor says there is less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere because of the work Australian households, farmers and businesses have done under Kyoto, and this should be recognised by the world in assessing and setting future obligations.

“Where we take a different approach to other countries is we only ever ratchet our ambition up as we know we can deliver,” Taylor says.

The Energy Minister is unmoved by protest groups like Extinction Rebellion, which he says ultimately may become self-destructive.

Curry’s advice is to consider the positives. During the past century, there has been a 99 per cent decline in the death toll from natural disasters, during the same period that the global population quadrupled.

While global economic losses from weather and climate disasters have been increasing, this is caused by increasing population and property in vulnerable locations. Global losses because of weather events as a proportion of global GDP have declined about 30 per cent since 1990. The proportion of the world population living in extreme poverty declined from 36 per cent in 1990 to 10 per cent in 2015.

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

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

5 January, 2020

X marks rise of ecofascism

The author below, far Left Australian Jew, Antony Loewenstein (Lionstone), is allegedly reviewing a book called "Fascists among us" by Leftist Jeff Sparrow. Sparrow does the usual leftist trick of deploring anger among conservatives while totally ignoring the vastly greater anger among Leftists.

Huge Leftist outpourings of hate at Donald Trump are fine but any negative utterance from conservatives about Obama are unmistakeable indicators of a deeply disturbed personalty likely to explode into violence at any minute. Leftist anger of course is completely safe and non-violent. Somebody should tell Rand Paul about that

That gross double standard tells us where the deeply disturbed personalities really are

Sparrow makes mention of global warming as an issue among conservatives and notes, correctly, that Brenton Tarrant, the Christchurch shooter, was something of a Greenie. He shared the Greenie wish to reduce greatly the human population.

Both Sparrow and Lowenstein busily make a muckle out of a mickle. They draw vast generalizations from the actions of one man, Brenton Tarrant. They somehow see in him a representation of all anger among conservatives -- and Lowenstein in particular sees Tarrant as representing a vast body of racists who are also Greenies -- "ecofascists" as he calls them.

The Lionstone himself

It is absolutely true that Tarrant was a Greenie as well as a racist but where are the others like him? Lowenstein does not say. Nationalists of any sort normally despise Greenies. So clearly, Greenie racists must be pretty rare or at least very publicity-shy. Tarrant looks like a shag on a rock, quite the reverse of what Lionstone thinks.

It is also absolutely true that there are a lot of antisemitic attacks going on at the moment, particularly in Jewish neighborhoods of NYC. But the NYC attacks are mainly the work of blacks -- who are hardly white nationalists. They and Tarrant would seem to be very different phenomena. Yet Lowenstein tries to treat all antisemites as if they are versions of Tarrant.

So in the end Lowenstein has nothing to say about ecofascism. He just throws around a lot of conventional Leftist talking points about Donald Trump and other Leftist bugaboos.

There is however much that he COULD say about ecofascism. Environmentalism is intrinsically Fascist. Greenies all want to dictate to us and control us and if that is not Fascism, what would be?

There was of course a very prominent case of ecofascism in history: Adolf Hitler. He was a very keen Greenie and also a Fascist. What he was not was conservative. He was an extreme socialist. Tarrant was pretty mixed up so he did have some socialist ideas but the people who Lowenstein demonizes -- conservatives -- are in a completely different ballpark. With his steady unwinding of Obama-era regulations, Trump is in fact an anti-Fascist

Before an attempted massacre at a German synagogue in September, the alleged shooter broadcast an anti-Semitic manifesto online. The man, who killed two people on Yom Kippur, the holiest Jewish day of the year, said, "I think the Holocaust never happened", adding that, "feminism is the cause of decline in birthrates in the West". He concluded: "The root of all these problems is the Jew."

The racism, misogyny and hate were familiar to anybody who delves into the far-right swamp, an easy-to-access world where memes, trolling and twisted irony are encouraged. From far-right vigilante groups openly patrolling German towns to supporters of US President Donald Trump creating fake videos showing him massacring journalists and critics, incitement to violence is in-creasingly part of the mainstream conversation.

These trends existed long before the internet but the web has accelerated the ability for like-minded individuals to meet, organise and strategise how to attack the designated enemies of our time: Muslims, liberal Jews, liberals in general and pro-immigration politicians.

Today it may be these groups but it will soon leap to the transgender community, Hindus, Buddhists or any other targeted minority.

It's no wonder, according to the Anti-Defamation League, that far-right extremists pose the greatest threat to our way of life in the last decade, far exceeding Islamists and left-wing radicals.

Ignore the likes of New York Times columnist Bari Weiss and others who argue that left-wing anti-Semitism is just as dangerous as right-wing hate because many on the left push for Palestinian rights, oppose Israeli occupation policies or are anti-Zionist.

The facts simply don't support this thesis. Journalist, author and broadcaster Jeff Sparrow makes the compelling case in this short book that in the wake of the Christchurch massacre, when 51 Muslim worshippers were killed by a far-right Australian extremist on March 15, ignoring the killer's manifesto is emotionally comforting but politically unwise.

He calls the murderer Person X, never naming him, because, this killing phenomenon represents a "strategy for fascist terrorism, one that seeks to incite angry young men to conduct rage massacres, not to achieve any specific ends so much as to destabilise liberal democracies. This plan will not bring fascism to power. It will, however, result in more deaths".

Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of 20th-century history may be surprised to find that fascism is again on the rise. As Sparrow eloquently explains, Nazi Germany and its epic crimes turned fascism into a profoundly unpopular ideology for many decades after the Second World War. And yet it was sitting largely dormant just waiting for a new host.

The September 11, 2001 terror attacks were the spark that kicked off the last decades' transformation into a fertile ground for hatred of Islam. As Person X explains in his manifesto, and Sparrow rightly shows that it's a profound mistake to simply dismiss it as the ravings of a lunatic, high Muslim birthrates pose what the killer views as an existential threat to Western civilisation, essentially breeding out white Christians.

This view is routinely spread in many centre-right and mainstream media outlets, showing how common this fear has become (as well as being weaponised for political ends such as ending or hugely curtailing Muslim immigration).

Sparrow constantly aims to remind readers that Islamophobia is the latest face of what used to be irrational Jew hatred. He focuses on the idea being "Eurabia", the supposed globalist plot to "Islamise" Europe. It's a nonsensical ideology.

Sparrow writes: "Had such a mad notion as 'Eurabia' centred on a 'Jewish plot', its proponents would, rightfully, have been shunned." Person X begins his manifesto like this: "It's the birthrates. It's the birthrates. It's the birthrates."

Muslims are so routinely demonised and attacked in the Western media and public since 9/11 that Person X explains that the decision to target them was simply tactical. "They (Muslims) are the most despised group of invaders in the West (and so) attacking them receives the greatest level of support."

The strength of this book is that it makes us uncomfortable
about forces seemingly beyond our control in the current political climate. Who would seriously look at the latest crop of leading politicians in the US, UK, Australia or other Western nations and find them willing, knowledgeable or able to both denounce the fascist threat and know how to enact policies that would reduce its potency?

The dangers rise while they offer thoughts and prayers. Perhaps the most prescient section of Sparrow's book is his examination of Person X's ecofascism. It's a mistake to presume that the far right denies or ignores the realities of the climate crisis. In fact, Person X is very attuned to what he believes must be done. "Kill the invaders, kill the overpopulation and by doing so save the environment."

Sparrow explains that, "in theory, ecofascism celebrates 'forests, lakes, mountains and meadows'; in practice, it demands the murder of leftists and ethnic minorities."

The most brutal fascist "solution" to ecological collapse is that only the strong will survive, leaving the weak to suffer and die.

Not addressing rising sea levels, rising temperatures and surging bushfires is a sure way to ensure that ecofascism will grow in appeal. Fascists Among Us is a powerful warning that many would prefer to ignore. The normalisation of alt-right talking points, from immigration to imperial wars, means that online hate will increasingly thrust itself into the public consciousness in the form of bloody retribution. Too few of our citizenry have any idea how to stop it.

From the Brisbane "Sunday Mail" Review of Dec. 29th

Pseudo-science gets its just desserts

Years of scares now being stopped. The NYT below thinks it is a bad thing but if you replace "science" below with "pseudoscience you will get a better picture of what it going on

WASHINGTON — In just three years, the Trump administration has diminished the role of science in federal policymaking while halting or disrupting research projects nationwide, marking a transformation of the federal government whose effects, experts say, could reverberate for years.

Political appointees have shut down government studies, reduced the influence of scientists over regulatory decisions and in some cases pressured researchers not to speak publicly. The administration has particularly challenged scientific findings related to the environment and public health opposed by industries such as oil drilling and coal mining. It has also impeded research around human-caused climate change, which President Trump has dismissed despite a global scientific consensus.

But the erosion of science reaches well beyond the environment and climate: In San Francisco, a study of the effects of chemicals on pregnant women has stalled after federal funding abruptly ended. In Washington, D.C., a scientific committee that provided expertise in defending against invasive insects has been disbanded. In Kansas City, Mo., the hasty relocation of two agricultural agencies that fund crop science and study the economics of farming has led to an exodus of employees and delayed hundreds of millions of dollars in research.

“The disregard for expertise in the federal government is worse than it’s ever been,” said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, which has tracked more than 200 reports of Trump administration efforts to restrict or misuse science since 2017. “It’s pervasive.”

Hundreds of scientists, many of whom say they are dismayed at seeing their work undone, are departing.

Among them is Matthew Davis, a biologist whose research on the health risks of mercury to children underpinned the first rules cutting mercury emissions from coal power plants. But last year, with a new baby of his own, he was asked to help support a rollback of those same rules. “I am now part of defending this darker, dirtier future,” he said.

This year, after a decade at the Environmental Protection Agency, Mr. Davis left.

“Regulations come and go, but the thinning out of scientific capacity in the government will take a long time to get back,” said Joel Clement, a former top climate- policy expert at the Interior Department who quit in 2017 after being reassigned to a job collecting oil and gas royalties. He is now at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group.

Mr. Trump has consistently said that government regulations have stifled businesses and thwarted some of the administration’s core goals, such as increasing fossil-fuel production. Many of the starkest confrontations with federal scientists have involved issues like environmental oversight and energy extraction — areas where industry groups have argued that regulators have gone too far.

“Businesses are finally being freed of Washington’s overreach, and the American economy is flourishing as a result,” a White House statement said last year. Asked about the role of science in policymaking, officials from the White House declined to comment on the record.

The administration’s efforts to cut certain research projects also reflect a longstanding conservative position that some scientific work can be performed cost-effectively by the private sector, and taxpayers shouldn’t be asked to foot the bill. “Eliminating wasteful spending, some of which has nothing to do with studying the science at all, is smart management, not an attack on science,” two analysts at the conservative Heritage Foundation wrote in 2017 of the administration’s proposals to cut various climate change and clean energy programs.

Industry groups have expressed support for some of the moves, including a contentious E.P.A. proposal to put new constraints on the use of scientific studies in the name of transparency. The American Chemistry Council, a chemical trade group, praised the proposal by saying, “The goal of providing more transparency in government and using the best available science in the regulatory process should be ideals we all embrace.”

In some cases, the administration’s efforts to roll back government science have been thwarted. Each year, Mr. Trump has proposed sweeping budget cuts at a variety of federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation. But Congress has the final say over budget levels and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have rejected the cuts.

For instance, in supporting funding for the Department of Energy’s national laboratories, Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, recently said, “it allows us to take advantage of the United States’ secret weapon, our extraordinary capacity for basic research.”

As a result, many science programs continue to thrive, including space exploration at NASA and medical research at the National Institutes of Health, where the budget has increased more than 12 percent since Mr. Trump took office and where researchers continue to make advances in areas like molecular biology and genetics.

Nevertheless, in other areas, the administration has managed to chip away at federal science.

At the E.P.A., for instance, staffing has fallen to its lowest levels in at least a decade. More than two-thirds of respondents to a survey of federal scientists across 16 agencies said that hiring freezes and departures made it harder to conduct scientific work. And in June, the White House ordered agencies to cut by one-third the number of federal advisory boards that provide technical advice.

The White House said it aimed to eliminate committees that were no longer necessary. Panels cut so far had focused on issues including invasive species and electric grid innovation.

At a time when the United States is pulling back from world leadership in other areas like human rights or diplomatic accords, experts warn that the retreat from science is no less significant. Many of the achievements of the past century that helped make the United States an envied global power, including gains in life expectancy, lowered air pollution and increased farm productivity are the result of the kinds of government research now under pressure.

“When we decapitate the government’s ability to use science in a professional way, that increases the risk that we start making bad decisions, that we start missing new public health risks,” said Wendy E. Wagner, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin who studies the use of science by policymakers.

Skirmishes over the use of science in making policy occur in all administrations: Industries routinely push back against health studies that could justify stricter pollution rules, for example. And scientists often gripe about inadequate budgets for their work. But many experts say that current efforts to challenge research findings go well beyond what has been done previously.

In an article published in the journal Science last year, Ms. Wagner wrote that some of the Trump administration’s moves, like a policy to restrict certain academics from the E.P.A.’s Science Advisory Board or the proposal to limit the types of research that can be considered by environmental regulators, “mark a sharp departure with the past.” Rather than isolated battles between political officials and career experts, she said, these moves are an attempt to legally constrain how federal agencies use science in the first place.

Some clashes with scientists have sparked public backlash, as when Trump officials pressured the nation’s weather forecasting agency to support the president’s erroneous assertion this year that Hurricane Dorian threatened Alabama.

But others have garnered little notice despite their significance.

This year, for instance, the National Park Service’s principal climate change scientist, Patrick Gonzalez, received a “cease and desist” letter from supervisors after testifying to Congress about the risks that global warming posed to national parks.

“I saw it as attempted intimidation,” said Dr. Gonzalez, who added that he was speaking in his capacity as an associate adjunct professor at the University California, Berkeley, a position he also holds. “It’s interference with science and hinders our work.”

Cutting Scientific Programs

Even though Congress hasn’t gone along with Mr. Trump’s proposals for budget cuts at scientific agencies, the administration has still found ways to advance its goals.

One strategy: eliminate individual research projects not explicitly protected by Congress.

For example, just months after Mr. Trump’s election, the Commerce Department disbanded a 15-person scientific committee that had explored how to make National Climate Assessments, the congressionally mandated studies of the risks of climate change, more useful to local officials. It also closed its Office of the Chief Economist, which for decades had conducted wide-ranging research on topics like the economic effects of natural disasters. Similarly, the Interior Department has withdrawn funding for its Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, 22 regional research centers that tackled issues like habitat loss and wildfire management. While California and Alaska used state money to keep their centers open, 16 of 22 remain in limbo.

A Commerce Department official said the climate committee it discontinued had not produced a report, and highlighted other efforts to promote science, such as a major upgrade of the nation’s weather models.

An Interior Department official said the agency’s decisions “are solely based on the facts and grounded in the law,” and that the agency would continue to pursue other partnerships to advance conservation science.

Research that potentially posed an obstacle to Mr. Trump’s promise to expand fossil-fuel production was halted, too. In 2017, Interior officials canceled a $1 million study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on the health risks of “mountaintop removal” coal mining.

Mountaintop removal is as dramatic as it sounds — a hillside is blasted with explosives and the remains are excavated — but the health consequences still aren’t fully understood. The process can kick up coal dust and send heavy metals into waterways, and studies have suggested links to health problems like kidney disease and birth defects.

“The industry was pushing back on these studies,” said Joseph Pizarchik, an Obama-era mining regulator who commissioned the now-defunct study. “We didn’t know what the answer would be,” he said, “but we needed to know: Was the government permitting coal mining that was poisoning people, or not?”

While coal mining has declined in recent years, satellite data shows that at least 60 square miles in Appalachia have been newly mined since 2016. “The study is still as important today as it was five years ago,” Mr. Pizarchik said.

The Cost of Lost Research

The cuts can add up to significant research setbacks.

For years, the E.P.A. and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences had jointly funded 13 children’s health centers nationwide that studied, among other things, the effects of pollution on children’s development. This year, the E.P.A. ended its funding.

At the University of California, San Francisco, one such center has been studying how industrial chemicals such as flame retardants in furniture could affect placenta and fetal development. Key aspects of the research have stopped.

“The longer we go without funding, the harder it is to start that research back up,” said Tracey Woodruff, who directs the center.

In a statement, the E.P.A. said it anticipated future opportunities to fund children’s health research.

At the Department of Agriculture, Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue announced in June he would relocate two key research agencies to Kansas City from Washington: The National Institute of Food and Agriculture, a scientific agency that funds university research on topics like how to breed cattle and corn that can better tolerate drought conditions, and the Economic Research Service, whose economists produce studies for policymakers on farming trends, trade and rural America.

Nearly 600 employees had less than four months to decide whether to uproot and move. Most couldn’t or wouldn’t, and two-thirds of those facing transfer left their jobs.

In August, Mr. Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, appeared to celebrate the departures.

“It’s nearly impossible to fire a federal worker,” he said in videotaped remarks at a Republican Party gala in South Carolina. “But by simply saying to people, ‘You know what, we’re going to take you outside the bubble, outside the Beltway, outside this liberal haven of Washington, D.C., and move you out in the real part of the country,’ and they quit. What a wonderful way to sort of streamline government and do what we haven’t been able to do for a long time.”

The White House declined to comment on Mr. Mulvaney’s speech.

The exodus has led to upheaval.

At the Economic Research Service, dozens of planned studies into topics like dairy industry consolidation and pesticide use have been delayed or disrupted. “You can name any topic in agriculture and we’ve lost an expert,” said Laura Dodson, an economist and acting vice president of the union representing agency employees.

The National Institute of Food and Agriculture manages $1.7 billion in grants that fund research on issues like food safety or techniques that help farmers improve their productivity. The staff loss, employees say, has held up hundreds of millions of dollars in funding, such as planned research into pests and diseases afflicting grapes, sweet potatoes and fruit trees.

Mr. Perdue said the moves would save money and put the offices closer to farmers. “We did not undertake these relocations lightly,” he said in a statement. A Department of Agriculture official added that both agencies were pushing to continue their work, but acknowledged that some grants could be delayed by months.

SOURCE

On the road to Apocalypse Soon with Greta Thunberg and her disciples

GERARD HENDERSON writes from Australia

Since the world, according to Greta Thunberg and her disciples, faces extinction it came as no surprise that this year there was a certain madness in the air — especially among those who regard themselves as progressive.

After all, when the end of the world seemed (relatively) nigh it was no surprise that hyperbole, exaggeration, hypocrisy, wish fulfilment, false prophecy and a lack of self-awareness, along with double standards, prevailed in the land as we headed towards Apocalypse Soon — month after month.

* January: The year begins with Nine Entertainment newspapers’ Peter FitzSimons criticising footballers who engage in look-at-me behaviour after scoring a goal. This from a middle-aged man who wears a red bandana on his head.

Nine’s David Crowe predicts that if former Liberal Julia Banks wins Flinders in the federal election “it will be an earthquake for the Liberals”. She finishes third.

The New Daily’s Quentin Dempster suggests that Sky News’ Chris Kenny “probably gets his instructions telepathically” from Rupert Murdoch.

* February: The Saturday Paper’s Paul Bongiorno tweets he admires “the ABC’s policy to put different voices and accents on air”. He adds: “I wish the reporter they sent to NZ spoke English; her accent is incomprehensible.” In fact, the journalist concerned speaks impeccable English with an understandable Scottish accent.

From Singapore, Alex Turnbull states that the lesson of “the internal war over coal in the Coalition is that the sooner the Qld LNP splits the better” since “you can pander to central cuspy Qld One Nation voters or form government but not both”. See May.

* March: Nine newspapers’ Peter Hartcher writes a series of articles on what he regards as the current predicament facing the Liberal Party. Hartcher is of the view that only the likes of Malcolm Turnbull should lead the Liberals.

But he expresses disappointment that his man did not perform in accordance with expectations. Hartcher seeks advice from political psychologist James Walter, who convinces him that Turnbull sold his soul to Lucifer in a modern day “Faustian bargain” to hang on as party leader by appeasing conservatives.

The fact is Turnbull lost the support of his colleagues, who did not include Lucifer. By the way, in January Walter foresaw a “wholesale collapse” of the Liberal Party “appears to be inevitable”.

* April: La Trobe University emeritus professor Judith Brett opines that “not since 1943 has the non-Labor side of national politics entered an election campaign in such poor shape” and predicts “it could well be heading for another low point”.

Bongiorno concurs, maintaining the Liberal Party’s “credibility is in tatters due to the fact that the person leading it is not Malcolm Turnbull but it is Scott Morrison”.

Former Liberal leader (and constant Liberal Party antagonist) John Hewson declares the Coalition “is facing electoral defeat”.

Lawyer Michael Bradley advises Crikey readers that Rugby Australia has “every right” to say Israel Folau’s behaviour “cannot be accepted”. See December.

* May: On the eve of the election, ABC 7.30 political editor Laura Tingle predicts that Labor will win and laughs at the suggestion the Coalition might prevail.

Guardian Australia’s Katharine Murphy writes that Morrison’s vulnerability as an “empty vessel” is “becoming as obvious as the nose on Morrison’s face”.

The Age’s Tony Wright decrees that “the Liberal edifice is toppling”. Needless to say, this trio remain “experts” after the Coalition’s victory and live to make more false predictions.

Nine newspapers’ cartoonist Kathy Wilcox laments that “morons outnumber the thinking people at election time”. The ABC’s Andrew Probyn blames opinion polls, but not commentators like him, for misleading the electorate.

* June: In The Australian Financial Review Geoff Kitney rationalises the election result by asserting that “Australian voters didn’t really choose” Morrison. In a novel interpretation, Kitney reckons “many” electors voted for the Coalition because they thought Labor would win. Really.

Mike Carlton boasts: “I feel this delicious lightness of Being. A heady draught of Liberation! Freedom! It is like Paris, August 1944.”

You see, your man Carlton said he had just cancelled his subscription to The Australian — an act he equated with the D-Day landings.

* July: Garrulous visiting British political operative Alastair Campbell dominates discussion on the ABC’s Q&A program. In the process he equates Donald Trump with Adolf Hitler — as if the victims of Nazism only had to put up with excessive tweeting.

FitzSimons suggests Boris Johnson cannot promise “strong political leadership”. Nine newspapers’ Tony Walker compares Johnson’s “shambolic personal life” with that of the “outstanding” Lord Palmerston, apparently unaware of the latter’s personal life as a womaniser on steroids.

* August: Waleed Aly, who is a presenter on Network Ten’s The Project as well as on ABC Radio National, complains in his Nine newspaper column that Johnson “has suspended Parliament in the name of the people!”

The exclamation mark is intended to underline the allegation that the move was somehow undemocratic. But parliament in Britain resumed and Johnson led the Conservatives to a clear election victory in December. Nine newspapers lead with a story that “the Chinese economy is in danger of hurtling towards a hard landing that could threaten more than half a million Australian jobs”. A prophecy that remains unfulfilled, so far at least.

* September: Malcolm Farr tells ABC Insiders viewers Cronulla, in Morrison’s electorate, will be under water in 50 to 100 years — a prediction that exceeds the most alarmist eco-catastrophists.

Zali Steggall, the independent MP for Warringah, which is close to the sea, says she cannot afford an electric car and calls on the government to subsidise such vehicles to allow her to replace her Nissan Pathfinder.

ABC presenter Matt Bevan sneers at the Prime Minister’s successful trip to the US as the “box factory visit”.

* October: In The Australian Financial Review, the normally considered Martin Wolf expresses the view that it is a measure of how far Britain has fallen that Johnson in 2019 “often sounds rather like” Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels in 1933.

Then Nine newspapers runs an article by economist Paul Krugman predicting Trump may preside over a slump — without mentioning he falsely predicted a recession in Trump’s first year in office. ABC journalist Osman Faruqi discovers rampant racism in Andrew Rule welcoming the fact an Australian-born horse won the Melbourne Cup.

* November: Retired ABC journalist Kerry O’Brien lectures an admiring audience at the Walkley Awards that Australia is on “an unacceptable step down on the road to authoritarianism” and that “authoritarianism unchecked can lead to fascism”. But not, apparently, to communism.

In Guardian Australia, Van Badham confesses she consigned her University of Wollongong Anarchist Collective T-shirt to “the dustbin of history” following a realisation that “organic extrapolitical entities” cannot “govern themselves democratically”. This wisdom came following a “wild internet barney” in the anarchist collective at Rose Bay on Sydney Harbour.

* December: Guardian editor Lenore Taylor condemns the Prime Minister for alleged “woefully inadequate climate policy” without mentioning she recently put her large Canberra house, which has a woefully inadequate energy rating, on the market.

FitzSimons dismisses the Folau settlement without realising Folau received a big payout from Rugby Australia plus two apologies.

Paula Matthewson bags Morrison for not doing “something” about the bushfires. This is the same Matthewson who dismissed the futility of Tony Abbott for fighting fires when he was prime minister in 2013. The Saturday Paper’s Eric Jensen concludes the year with this soothsaying: “Scott Morrison marks Captain Cook anniversary by taking career ending trip to Hawaii.” In Nine newspapers, Mark Mordue warns “our dead future is here”. Enough 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

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

3 January, 2020

New Year message from John Droz

Successful, happy people typically have the wise habit of periodically stepping-back to get a broader perspective as to what’s going on in their life, and society in general.

Since we are now not only beginning a New Year, but also a New Decade, it seems that doing such a careful analysis is strongly advisable.

You’ll have to decide about the pros and cons of your own life, but here is my perspective as to what is societally going on — what I’m calling the Big Picture.

On the one hand, a competent review of the last ten years would indicate that a LOT of good things have transpired. I’ve seen no better summary of this progress than:

We’ve Just Had the Best Decade in Human History. Seriously!

Please read that carefully so that you have a strong understanding of that unpublicized (and accordingly, not popularly appreciated) reality.

Based on the facts, the logical conclusion is that global citizens should be experiencing widespread happiness, satisfaction, and enthusiasm for the future.

Is that the case? Generally NO.

Well why not? Because we still have good and evil.

For example, there are diabolical, well-connected parties who have a lust for power. Citizen contentment is a major obstacle to their taking over control of the planet. The most effective way they can get people to want to change, is to make them unhappy with the way things are now…

To deal with substantial good news, their strategy is to resort to three proven tactics:

a) instill fear into the masses,

b) undermine the pillars of the current, successful society, and

c) sow societal discord.

Consider that the leader of the free world is under an intense, incessant, coordinated attack — including removal from office — primarily because of his policies.

The subversives are leaving no stone unturned to try to make the public afraid of him and his policies (e.g. his rightfully withdrawing from the Paris sham).

They claim that they are opposed to his “lying,” but the reality is that they are actually angered by the swamp-exposing truths that he has said.

His opponents — actually OUR opponents — are also:

1 -Willfully eroding the Judeo-Christian principles that our society was built on.

2 - Purposefully corroding our democratic form of government (a Republic).

3 - Aggressively diluting our academic system (to produce propagandized lemmings).

4 - Consciously sabotaging true Science (as it is a barrier to their agendas).

5 - Knowingly subverting our economic system (Capitalism).

6 - Deliberately undermining our Electric Grid (the foundation of our economy and national security).

What’s even worse, in all of these campaigns, these parties have no apparent standards (note #1 above) regarding truth, fairness, rights, freedoms — yet they speciously claim the moral high ground!

As mentioned, one of their main strategies for pulling off their political agenda is to sow divisiveness and discord — so that we fight among ourselves.

In this vile effort they are pitting: men vs women, whites vs minorities, young vs old, wealthy vs not-so-much, hard workers vs entitlement advocates, citizens vs immigrants, traditional religions vs secular religion, etc., etc.

Once one fully understands these attacks, it should be very clear that we are in the biggest war ever experienced in history.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

In the face of such adversity, it may seem that nothing YOU do will make any real difference. That is yet another lie they are feeding us, so don’t buy it! The truth is what Margaret Meade insightfully said: “A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

A less well-known insight she also wrote: “Prayer does not use up artificial energy, doesn't burn up any fossil fuel, doesn't pollute.”

My recommendation is to be aware of what is going on, and then consciously oppose the efforts of those who wish to bring us down, e.g. by actively supporting:

1 - the Judeo-Christian principles that our society was built on (e.g. more love and unity, less hate and alienation),

2 - our democratic form of government (a Republic),

3 - our academic system (to produce critical-thinking graduates),

4 - real Science (which is apolitical by definition),

5 - our economic system (while working to make it better), and

6 - our Electric Grid (by not allowing any alternative energies on it that haven’t been scientifically proven to be a NET societal benefit).

By doing all that you will be doing the Right Thing.

The world may (or may not) change because of your efforts, but your positive actions will assure you and yours of having a genuinely Happy New Year, and New Decade.

Via email

Israel's Leviathan field begins pumping gas

Note that the nearby Tamar gas field already yields more than 60% of Israel’s electricity

Israel's offshore Leviathan field started pumping gas on Tuesday in what the operating consortium called "a historic turning point in the history of the Israeli economy."

A joint statement from partners Noble Energy, Delek Drilling, and Ratio said the start of production was expected to lead to an immediate reduction in domestic electricity prices and the start of exports, "For the first time in its history, Israel to become a significant natural gas exporter," it said.

A spokesman for Israeli partner Delek said then that deliveries to Egypt were expected to begin on January 1. It will be the first time Egypt will import gas from its neighbor.

Leviathan was discovered 130 kilometres (81 miles) west of the Mediterranean port city Haifa in 2010, and holds an estimated 535 billion cubic metres (18.9 trillion cubic feet) of natural gas.

Besides bringing energy independence, Israel hopes its gas reserves will enable it to strengthen strategic ties in the region and help forge new ones, with an eye on the European market. Natural gas is set to replace coal as the the main fuel for power generation in Israel.

Critics note that while less polluting than coal, gas is still far from being a clean source of energy. There have been public fears that the start of production from Leviathan could bring harmful emissions.

Israel's environmental protection ministry has set up monitoring stations in communities along the northern coast to check for any spike in pollution.

Israeli public radio reported that some residents had evacuated their homes until results of the air testing are verified.

SOURCE

A great triumph for bullshit

The Duke of Cambridge has announced a multimillion-pound prize fund to promote research into solving the planet’s climate problems that his office described as “the most prestigious environmental prize in history”.

The Earthshot prize, endorsed by the broadcaster Sir David Attenborough, will begin this year as part of a ten-year project to reward fifty innovative ideas for tackling problems caused by climate change.

Kensington Palace did not clarify how much money will be awarded to the five winners each year or what the source of the money will be.

The duke said that the prize was intended to stimulate technological breakthroughs in the same way that the American mission to put a man on the moon had done.

“The Earth is at a tipping point and we face a stark choice: either we continue as we are and irreparably damage our planet or we remember our unique power as human beings and our continual ability to lead, innovate and problem-solve,” he said.

“Remember the awe-inspiring civilisations that we have built, the life-saving technology we have created, the fact that we have put a man on the moon. People can achieve great things. And the next ten years presents us with one of our greatest tests — a decade of change to repair the Earth”

Sir David, who appears in a short film announcing the prize, said: “The spirit of the moonshot can guide us today as we confront the serious challenges we face on Earth. This year Prince William and a global alliance launch the most prestigious environment prize in history, the Earthshot prize — a global prize designed to motivate and inspire a new generation of thinkers, leaders and dreamers to think differently; visionaries rewarded over the next decade for responding to the great challenges of our time.”

The palace said that Earthshot would be run by the Royal Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, with a hope that the prize would become an independent organisation. The duke expects that it could be awarded to “scientists, activists, economists, leaders, governments, banks, businesses, cities and countries”.

A press release said that the duke hoped to stimulate new ways of thinking. “Prince William is kick-starting 2020 with a new drive to dispel the current pessimism around the environment, and replace it with fresh optimism and action,” it said.

“Just as the moonshot that John F Kennedy proposed in the 1960s catalysed new technology such as the MRI scanner and satellite dishes, the Earthshots aim to launch their own tidal wave of ambition and innovation.”

SOURCE

Climate Change Protesters’ Traffic Tie-Ups Are No Way to Win Friends or Influence People

The environmental zealots who regularly take to the streets of the nation’s capital for climate change protests clearly have never read Dale Carnegie’s classic self-help bestseller “How to Win Friends and Influence People.”

That’s evident from the demonstrations the global warming alarmists stage at downtown D.C. intersections during morning rush hours, unapologetically snarling traffic and creating commuter gridlock.

Causing motorists to be late for work and/or miss appointments is hardly the way to win friends among those they’ve seriously inconvenienced or to influence them to buy into the climate-calamity hysteria. It’s far more likely to alienate them.

For more than seven hours on Dec. 6, for example, hundreds of “Shut Down DC” coalition environmental activist demonstrators lived up to their billing, snaking through downtown Washington, blocking intersections with their bodies, banners, and other props, and forcing traffic to be diverted and detoured.

All the while, they beat on drums, chanted mindless left-wing couplets (“Hey, hey, ho, ho! / [Fill in the blank] has got to go!”) and barked calls and responses (“What do we want?” / “Climate justice!” / “When do we want it?” / “Now!”).

What the amorphous “climate justice” they “want now” entails is anyone’s guess, but it presumably tracks closely along the lines of the radical multitrillion-dollar Green New Deal scheme hatched by far-left freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D.-N.Y.

This much is certain, however: The enormous taxes and spending the Green New Deal would mandate would do a grave injustice to the nation’s economic climate.

According to news accounts, the demonstration in early December began at about 7:30 a.m. with a march from George Washington University to World Bank headquarters along Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest, with gridlock ensuing at the height of the morning rush.

Later in the day, for two hours, seven of the protesters reportedly chained themselves to the door of a Wells Fargo bank branch, preventing customers from entering. Cheered on by octogenarian actress Jane Fonda—a longtime agitator who never met a leftist cause she didn’t reflexively support—demonstrators mindlessly chanted, “Wells Fargo, hey, you! / We deserve a future, too.” (Just as an aside, what’s with the left’s obsession with rhyming couplets?)

The bank, presumably targeted for supposedly helping finance the fossil fuel industry, should sue them all for restraint of trade.

When all was said/chanted and done, The Washington Post reported, “Despite hours of disruptions and tense moments between protesters and D.C. police, officials said no arrests were made.”

How is that even possible? Why does the city blithely allow these protests to disrupt traffic and inconvenience motorists and pedestrians, as well as businesses and their employees and customers? At minimum, why weren’t the most disruptive and unruly among the protesters not fined and/or arrested?

These protests, organized by groups with names like Extinction Rebellion, surely cost the city thousands of dollars for policing and security, so District of Columbia taxpayers are in effect subsidizing them.

There was no indication, however, that that seems to faze the ultraliberal city’s officials, many of whom no doubt support the protesters and their cause. Did either D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser or D.C. Police Chief Peter Newsham issue to police a stand-down order? One has to wonder, inasmuch as 32 people were arrested during a similar protest on Sept. 23.

Regardless, do these climate change extremists really think they’re winning “hearts and minds” to their cause by grossly inconveniencing commuters, businesses, and others? To the contrary, one would reasonably expect they’re having the exact opposite effect, turning off those who aren’t already global warming “true believers.”

In the demonstrators’ self-righteous view, the end justifies the means, even if it’s counterproductive in terms of public relations. They went so far as to insist to those who complained of the inconvenience: “We’re doing this for you. It’s your planet, too.”

But this smug notion—“It’s for your own good”—is belied by a January poll conducted by the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago and The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. It found that 68% of respondents oppose paying an additional $10 a month to combat climate change, while 43% aren’t even willing to pay an extra $1 a month on their electricity bills for that purpose.

More telling, the poll failed to include any mention of how much warming supposedly would be abated by paying an additional $1, $20, or $50 per month. In each scenario, the answer is next to nothing, and that would only decrease even further their willingness to pay such a tax.

Another irony, lost on these climate change Chicken Littles, was that the traffic tie-ups they caused resulted in long lines of cars idling, spewing more—not less—of the tailpipe carbon emissions they claim are contributing to the supposed impending climate catastrophe.

On its website, Shut Down DC insists that there’s “no time left for business-as-usual,” but regardless of how righteous the protesters consider their cause to be, D.C. officials and police need to remind them, forcefully, that the right to swing one’s fist ends where someone else’s nose begins.

SOURCE

Prominent Australian conservative politician says China and India 'couldn't give two tosses' about whether or not Australia cut its carbon emissions - and has no influence over them

Barnaby Joyce has called Australians 'naive' for believing that reducing the nation's carbon emissions will inspire coal-obsessed China and India to follow suit.

The 52-year-old former leader of the Nationals party told Sunrise hosts and Labor MP Joel Fitzgibbon Australians had little to do with carbon emissions on a global scale.

'You can't preach to the international community... We are doing our bit, but we can't start saying single-handedly we can influence what China does or what India does, or change the climate itself,' he said.

Joyce said there was no single piece of legislation that could be introduced in parliament that would change the climate back to the way it once was.

'The climate is changing, there's no doubt about it... do you honestly believe there is a piece of legislation we can move in Canberra that will change it back? The answer is no,' he said.

Mr Fitzgibbon argued that Australians could make a difference by 'having a go' and acting as a leader for the other powerhouse nations.

'The place is burning and the rest of the world is... shaking their heads at us and asking why we don't just do our bit,' he said.

'We are at risk of becoming the pariah of the international community because we are not just having a go.'

But Joyce said anybody who believed those claims was 'naively overreaching the influence of Australia'.

'The actual fact is that China or Russia or India don't give two tosses what Australia thinks... don't start thinking for one second that we are some great moral mover in global politics, because we are not.'

The duo also clashed about Prime Minister Scott Morrison's recent trip to Hawaii.

The PM apologised for causing anxiety by taking personal leave during the worst bushfire crisis Australia has seen but said he did so because he was trying to keep a promise to his daughters, Lily and Abby.

Upon his return, Mr Morrison held a press conference where he reiterated there would be no amendment to the climate policy as a result of the bushfires.

On Monday morning, the PM told the Today show his government has reduced Australia's emissions by 50 million tonnes each year for the past two years.

'We have more renewable energy going into our system now than we have seen before,' he said, before adding Australia is on track to meet its commitments for the Paris Agreement.

'Australia is taking action on climate change. 'But what we won't do is engage in reckless and job destroying, economy crunching targets which is... taking advantage of national disasters.

'No Australian would think that the direct policies of any single government in the world is directly linked to any fire event. That's not true,' 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

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

2 January, 2020

Climate change could render assets ‘worthless’, Bank of England governor warns

They will only be worthless if they stop producing revenue and despite all efforts to replace coal and gas, it shows no sign of vanishing. Even Germany is building coal generators, to say nothing of China

Climate breakdown could render investments held by millions of people “worthless”, the outgoing governor of the Bank of England has warned.

Mark Carney suggested the financial sector had not yet woken up to the looming crisis and was “not moving fast enough” to divest from fossil fuels.

Mr Carney – who will become the UN’s special envoy for climate action and finance in February 2020 – made the comments to the BBC’s Today programme for a segment guest-edited by Greta Thunberg and to be broadcast on Monday.

Asked whether pension funds should divest from fossil fuels even if the returns currently appear attractive, he said: “Well that hasn’t been the case, but they could make that argument.

“They need to make the argument – to be clear about why is that going to be the case if a substantial proportion of those assets are going to be worthless.”

“If we were to burn all those oil and gases there’s no way we would meet carbon budgets. Up to 80 per cent of coal assets will be stranded, [and] up to half of developed oil reserves.”

England’s central bank has previously suggested that while £16tn of assets could be wiped out by climate change, companies at the forefront of efforts to curb emissions could be handsomely rewarded.

“There will be industries, sectors and firms that do very well during this process because they will be part of the solution,” he told The Guardian in October. “But there will also be ones that lag behind, and they will be punished.”

Speaking to the BBC, Mr Carney said companies “have to make the judgment and justify to the people whose money it ultimately is” in relation to divestment.

“A question for every company, every financial institution, every asset manager, pension fund or insurer – what’s your plan?” he added.

Earlier this month, the Bank of England announced it would become the first central bank to conduct comprehensive tests on how well the financial system could withstand the risks posed by climate change.

Under the ambitious new plans, Britain’s largest lenders and insurers would undergo climate stress tests on their trillions of pounds of assets, similar to the financial stress tests they must already pass.

Mr Carney described climate change as a “tragedy on the horizon” and warned there would be “more extreme weather events”, but that “by the time that the extreme events become so prevalent and so obvious it will be too late to do anything about it”.

“We look to political leaders to start addressing future problems today,” he said.

SOURCE

Greta’s Generational Supremacists: Indoctrinated German Girls Sing: “My Grandma Is An Old Environmental Scumbag!”

Child abuse by German WDR 2 public broadcasting? Young schoolgirls taught to hate, made to sing “My grandma is an old environmental scumbag” because she drives an SUV, eats meat and takes cruises

We all recall how at the UN, green wunderkind Greta Thunberg lambasted the older generations for allegedly ruining the planet, climate and even her future. She also threateningly warned that her generation “will be watching” us.

Greta’s generation would like to have everyone believe that all of today’s social ills have been caused by the an irresponsible generation which now needs to step aside.

Today’s young generational hostility in Europe has hit unprecedented levels, thanks to environmental radicalism and zealots in and out of the media.

Taught to hate

Note that these kids did not just become naturally hostile to its older generations on their own. They got plenty of help being taught to be so by hateful by extreme activists who have an environmental and tyrannical agenda.

The latest example of indoctrinated intolerance and hatred is brought to us by WDR 2 German public broadcasting, which on December 27th choreographed and proudly broadcast a children’s song with lyrics dehumanizing senior citizens – grandmothers in particular – as “old environmental scumbags”!

Featured is a chorus of smiling, young German schoolgirls singing: “Meine Oma ist ne alte Umweltsau” (My grandma is an old environmental scumbag) lambasting grandmas and the older generation supposedly because they use SUVs and fly to go on their holidays, and so are creating a global mess.

The song, meant to environmentally indoctrinate kids, didn’t go down well with the usually patient German public, especially with the older generations, which demographically have become the country’s largest voting sector.

The song triggered harsh and controversial reactions, as among others recipients felt (and others) hurt and even looked down on,” reports bedeutungonline.de.

Needless to say, after some hesitation and weak attempts to defend or to play it all down, the song was taken offline in the night of December 28. Now the WDR 2 and green activists are falling all over themselves insisting it was just an innocent parody and they didn’t mean anything bad with it, and implied how it’s unfortunate some people can’t take a little joke.

Well, teaching kids to hate is no laughing matter – especially in a country with a very problem history.

What follows are the song’s text in English, so you can judge for yourself.

Meine Oma ist ne alte Umweltsau

My grandma rides a motorbike, a motorbike, a motorbike in the chicken coop.

That’s a thousand liters of super every month. My grandma is an old environmental scumbag.

My grandma says riding a motorcycle is cool…

She uses it as a wheelchair at the retirement home. My grandma is an old environmental scumbag.

My grandma drives to the doctor in an SUV.

She runs over two old ladies with a rollator, my grandma is an old environmental scumbag.

My grandma makes a cutlet, a cutlet, a cutlet every day.

Because discount meat costs next to nothing, my grandma is an old environmental scumbag.

My grandma doesn’t fly anymore, she’s purified, purified, purified. Instead, she now goes on a cruise ten times a year, my grandma is not an environmental scumbag. My grandma’s not an environmental scumbag.”

The song ends with the audio quote by Greta Thunberg: “We will not let you get away with this!”

The WDR 2, of course, was funded to produce this political rubbish and to commit this child abuse – through mandatory fees levied on every citizen in Germany.

SOURCE

China: Climate protests will have to wait

On a Friday afternoon in September, I watched a climate strike in London that was part of the global protest by school students calling for action on climate change. The participants, mostly teenagers, held pictures of Greta Thunberg, the event’s inspiration, as well as placards with slogans such as “Change the politics, not the climate” and “Make the earth cool again.”

Since Thunberg staged her first protest outside the Swedish parliament in August 2018, youth all over the world have taken off from class to organize strikes for the climate. The largest strike, on Sept. 20, saw roughly 4 million people in more than 150 countries take to the streets.

But while young protesters are widely seen in global media as the hope for the future, youth in China, the biggest greenhouse gas emitter, are still absent and their voices unheard — thanks to political constraints, personal priorities and suspicion of Thunberg and those she has inspired. A 25-year-old Chinese friend who watched the protest with me in London said she suspected the motivations and outcomes of such strikes: “Shouldn’t they learn enough in the classroom before they come out chanting those sensational slogans? The climate crisis cannot be solved... by chanting slogans.”

My friend’s attitude is widely shared in China, including among young people. Compared with their parents’ generation, Chinese youth care much more about the environment, but not in the same way as in the U.K. or U.S. — climate change is not on young people’s list of priorities, nor would they spend their school time on the street.

Do Chinese youth care about the environment? A survey by the influential Chinese newspaper Youth Daily shows that the top two issues that Chinese youth cared most about were education and employment, followed by housing, medical care and environmental protection. In the Chinese context, environmental protection normally refers to more tangible issues like air and water pollution rather than climate change.

Chinese media do cover climate change, but it is often about conference news, academic reports that look alien to the public or translated news about stories happening far away. Those stories do not seem directly related to Chinese people’s lives.

Of course, climate change is relevant to China. Studies show that Chinese coastal regions like Shanghai, Tianjin and Shenzhen would be flooded by a rising sea level by 2050 and that nearly 100 million people would be threatened if necessary measures are not taken in time. But such information is seldom covered in Chinese-language media, partly for the sake of avoiding public panic. In such a media environment, people, even young people who have better access to information and are generally more environmentally responsible, feel much less urgent about climate change.

On the Chinese internet, people are suspicious of street activism like school strikes. When Thunberg sailed across the Atlantic to New York for the United Nations Climate Action Summit, her story and the whole school strike movement finally got some attention in Chinese media.

However, the coverage is quite negative. She is often called “naive” and “a drama queen,” and the protest is labeled as “political theater” for addressing a first-world problem.

State media outlet Beijing News wrote that Chinese people worry “whether the carbon emission management system led by the West would be used as a tool to deprive emerging countries of their right to development.”

In China, a more welcome attitude is to prove things by action and act your age. Before college, most Chinese kids’ goal is going to a top university — they have no time for climate change discussion, let alone action.

Once you have finished your entrance exam, there are many more “tests” waiting for you: find a good job, establish a family, settle down in a big city, buy an apartment. These goals all look important and urgent — China changes so fast that it seems to be now or never to reach such practical goals. You know how fast house prices are rising but you cannot easily see how much the sea level is increasing or how much more carbon is being emitted.

Even when the youth decide to do something, it would never be a street protest in China. Any street protest, no matter for what reason, is almost impossible, and organizing it would invite a police crackdown and more trouble.

Ten years ago, small-scale street activity was in a gray zone, if managed carefully. A friend at environmental campaigning organization Greenpeace told me they used to organize flash mobs on Beijing’s central commercial street to call for environmental action.

Today that situation is no longer available under the general crackdown on civil society. China wants to convince the world that it is a responsible nation in the global climate crisis, but it has also determined that any actions should and could only be taken by the Chinese Communist Party. As a result, there has been a lot of Chinese news about the 25th Conference of the Parties (COP25), the U.N.’s recent climate change gathering in Madrid, and of China’s national position on environmental issues — but you should not expect to see an influential Chinese Greta Thunberg in the near future.

SOURCE

Red Old Deal Recycled as Green New Deal

Marketing experts insist that the words “green” and “new deal” invoke a favorable consumer response. So do the words “rainbows” and “unicorns.”

The Democrat Party’s so-called “Green New Deal” (GND), better known as the “Rainbows and Unicorns Resolution of 2019,” is, as I wrote previously, like a watermelon — “green on the outside, but red on the inside.” It’s the ludicrous Millennial effluent of the Leninist “Earth Day” mindset.

This behemoth “climate change” charade is, as are all others, about the implementation of socialist economic policies. That consequence is evident in the fact that the absurd mandates of the GND (as outlined in its FAQ document, which was quickly removed from public view) would result in catastrophic worldwide economic collapse.

GND is so colossally asinine that it’s difficult to know where to start — so let’s go back to the beginning, with a brief assessment of what ensued.

This example of abject ecofascist ignorance was fronted by the “new face of the Democrat Party,” as DNC Chairman Tom Perez described Miss Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), the leftist Millennial heartthrob who arrived in Congress just three weeks ago. Perez must think Democrat voters are idiots and will buy into the fresh-faced facade.

Her sycophantic Leftmedia admirers now refer to her simply as “AOC,” which, perhaps fittingly, is also an initialism for “American Organized Crime.”

She and her cohort, Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-MA), both chronically manifesting Trump Derangement Syndrome, described their plan as “a national, social, industrial and economic mobilization at a scale not seen since World War II,” attempting to frame it as an extension of FDR’s failed “New Deal” policies. (More on that in a moment.)

Their GND is the latest Demo “BIG Lie” for “fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” a masterpiece of ignorant propaganda backed by the usual socialist deniers. But Ocasio-Cortez may ultimately be a socialist contagion.

Wall Street Journal political analyst Kimberley Strassel declared, “By the end of the Green New Deal resolution (and accompanying fact sheet) I was laughing so hard I nearly cried. If a bunch of GOPers plotted to forge a fake Democratic bill showing how bonkers the party is, they could not have done a better job. It is beautiful.”

While it may be laughable, it’s no laughing matter.

The GND is not the stuff of dreams but of socialist-induced nightmares. Democrat Party neophytes romanticize such nightmares, refusing to accept the reality that socialist governments, like those of the USSR and most recently Venezuela, are destined to empower tyrants and usher in economic calamity before they inevitably fail.

Columnist David Harsanyi outlined some of the most insane requirements of the GND, including its mandate to ban affordable energy, eliminate nuclear energy, eliminate 99% of cars, gut and rebuild every building in America, and eliminate air travel and substitute for rail (which, coincidentally, California just killed).

Of course, its replete with “social welfare” objectives to guarantee a job for people willing to work (and “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work”), and housing, free education, and healthy food for all. (You can read more details here and here.) Notably, the Bezos WaPo refused to do any of its vaunted fact-checking: “We won’t be awarding any Pinocchios in this kerfuffle.”

Enter Donald Trump. On the heels of his well-received State of the Union, in which he declared, “Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country. We are born free, and we will stay free. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.” Trump was quick to offer an acerbic endorsement of the GND: “I think it is very important for the Democrats to press forward with their Green New Deal. It would be great for the so-called ‘Carbon Footprint’ to permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military — even if no other country would do the same. Brilliant!”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell followed up with a commitment to call for a vote on the GND resolution to get Democrats on record: “I’ve noted with great interest the Green New Deal. And we’re going to be voting on that in the Senate. Give everybody an opportunity to go on record and see how they feel about the Green New Deal.”

Ironically, the Demo GND resolution may not even get a vote in the Demo-controlled House. Freedom Center Journalism fellow Bruce Thornton notes that it has turned into “The Democrats’ Dangerous Gong Show.”

Demo Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered this less-than-lukewarm reference to the GND after its unveiling: “The green dream, or whatever they call it — nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?” That is reminiscent of Pelosi’s comment about Barack Obama’s so-called Affordable Care Act: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” Recall that Pelosi added, “In [passing this legislation], we will honor the vows of our Founders, who in the Declaration of Independence said that we are ‘endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’” Seriously, she said that.

Of course, Pelosi is just using the GND as a political ploy to circle back with a “moderate” version as a consensus-building negotiation ploy. Laughably, Pelosi invoked “God” to justify the Democrats’ “climate change” agenda: “We have a moral responsibility to protect God’s creation for generations to come. That is why today, we named members to the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.” (Former UN ambassador Nikki Haley responded: “Does God’s creation not include protecting babies as well Madame Speaker? A committee on that issue would be welcome.”)

In fact, more than 65 House Democrats have already signed on to the resolution. And top Democrat lawmakers in the Senate, some of whom have committed to 2020 presidential runs, including Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Cory “Spartacus” Booker, have also signed on. According to Spartacus, those not supporting the “10-year national mobilization” are not dreamers: “There’s a lot of people now going back on the Green New Deal. They’re like, ‘Oh, it’s impractical. Oh, it’s too expensive. Oh, it’s all of this.’ If we used to govern our dreams that way, we would have never gone to the moon. ‘God, that’s impractical! You see that ball in the sky? That’s impractical!’ We are a nation that has done impossible things before.” (Somebody should inform Booker about how much glorious fossil fuel we used to get to the moon.)

Leftist cadres insist the GND is a litmus test for 2020 Demo candidates.

In reality, it’s a litmus test for identity-politics idiocy, and all the candidates who signed on are banking on the idiocy of their constituents.

Of course, the GND is also backed by leftist billionaires such as George Soros, Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg, and Jeff Bezos — who, along with their Leftmedia propagandists, form the archenemies of American Liberty. And, given their insatiable narcissistic pursuit of power, they’re committed to promoting this socialist agenda.

Finally, as promised regarding FDR’s “New Deal,” let’s take a quick stroll down History Lane…

The GND socialist charade is an attempt to re-warm President Franklin Roosevelt’s populist “New Deal,” but a quick review of the facts, such being anathema to Democrats, makes clear that FDR’s statist policies failed — and that the so-called “Green New Deal” is destined to fail catastrophically.

Of course, Democrats never let pesky facts get in the way of their political agendas.

FDR’s attempt to tax, spend, and regulate the nation out of the Great Depression between 1933 and 1936 largely failed with each new initiative. While his Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and Civil Works Administration (CWA) provided labor jobs and sustenance to people willing to work, this didn’t end the Depression. His Farm Security Administration (FSA), the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA), and the Social Security Administration (SSA) provided support for farmers, the unemployed, youth, and the elderly, but did not end the Depression.

FDR also ended the “gold standard” backing of currency in an effort to stop deflation, which resulting in the fiat paper currency we use today, and Congress forced the implementation of bank reform by way of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which did improve banking confidence but, combined with all the other measures, did little to lift the nation’s economy out of Depression.

In his words, FDR defined his failed centralized government folly as “bold, persistent experimentation,” adding, “It is common sense to take a method and try it; if it fails, admit it frankly and try another.” That’s crisis management by trial and error.

FDR even attempted to pack the Supreme Court by expanding the number of justices in order to ensure affirmation of his extra-constitutional government programs, but fortunately, Congress reined in that effort. (Recently, after Trump’s successful SCOTUS nominations of jurists who support Rule of Law, Democrats are again proposing to increase the number of justices in order to recover their rule-of-men tyranny by judicial diktat.)

After FDR purchased his reelection with massive government expansion and wealth-redistribution schemes, the nation was hit with the “Roosevelt Depression” of 1937. Clearly, his first-term “3 Rs” policies — government intervention to provide relief for the unemployed and poor, recovery of the economy, and reform of the financial system — had failed, and unemployment then climbed to 22%. So FDR responded by wildly expanding government deficit spending from 1% of GDP to almost 5% of GDP, and that superficially stabilized the economy. But the simple fact is that the end of the Great Depression came with the massive spending increases we undertook to win World War II and the job creation that accompanied our wartime economy.

The net result of FDR’s “policy solutions,” however, created an irrevocable expansion of government bureaucracies defined by his “New Bill of Rights” in 1944 and a political realignment that gave the Democrat Party majorities in Congress and a stranglehold on the White House for seven of the nine presidential terms from 1933 to 1969. And in the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson’s so-called “Great Society” programs proved to be yet another case study in failed socialist policies.

Ominously, LBJ said of his statist expansion, “We have built up new instruments of public power. In the hands of a people’s government this power is wholesome and proper. But in the hands of political puppets of an economic autocracy such power would provide shackles for the liberties of the people.”

Today’s Democrats are little more than autocratic puppets.

For the record, FDR’s response to collapsing confidence in our financial system in 1933 was similar to Obama’s response in 2009 — similar in that both Democrat presidents proposed socialist “policy solutions” that, in fact, served only to extend the economic misery. In the case of Obama, his solutions were in response to the 2008 financial crisis that was, ironically but not coincidentally, the direct result of prior Democrat statist regulatory policies related to mortgage markets.

As was the case with those statist policies, the “Green New Deal” in any portion is likewise designed to result in another crisis of economic confidence, opening a much grander opportunity to break the back of free enterprise and replace it with evermore socialist policies.

SOURCE

Extinction Rebellion crowd full of hot air and coffee

GRAHAM RICHARDSON, writing from Australia

Bushfires have been around forever so it is ridiculous to claim they are a consequence of global warming.

They are far more likely to be due to an 11-year-old boy playing with matches than global warming. The Extinction Rebellion lot do themselves no good by continuing to make these claims.

Those valiant souls who risk life and limb by facing infernos know the truth. Nonetheless, speaking from behind the froth of the coffees served in the comfort of cafes in the nicer suburbs, the Extinction Rebellion people can tell you all about the march of global warming.

Unfortunately, logic has little or no role to play in our debate on climate and energy.

Josh Frydenberg has tried desperately to get an energy policy accepted by the states and, through no fault of his own, just can’t get anywhere. There are too many vested interests in this field. There are the coalminers, the power stations owners, the states and the poor punters.

Just how did Australia fall from a position where power was so cheap and so plentiful to a place where we rely on the power of prayer and hope for benign weather conditions?

Still, I guess anything is possible in a land where we sit on 400-year supplies of high-quality coal that will guarantee supply at a reasonable price -- and a vocal crowd is dumb enough to say we should leave it in the ground.

The worst part of this selfishness is the attempt by some to prevent India from importing our coal to fuel its endeavours to increase living standards. It was only in recent decades that some people there still starved to death.

SOURCE

IN BRIEF

Home (Index page)

Calibrated in whole degrees. Larger graph here. It shows that we actually live in an era of remarkable temperature stability.

Climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson said. “The warming we have had the last 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.”

Context for the minute average temperature change recorded: At any given time surface air temperatures around the world range over about 100°C. Even in the same place they can vary by nearly that much seasonally and as much as 30°C or more in a day. A minute rise in average temperature in that context is trivial if it is not meaningless altogether. Scientists are Warmists for the money it brings in, not because of the facts

This site is in favour of things that ARE good for the environment. That the usual Greenie causes are good for the environment is however disputed. Greenie policies can in fact be actively bad for the environment -- as with biofuels, for instance

This Blog by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.), writing from Brisbane, Australia.

I am the most complete atheist you can imagine. I don't believe in Karl Marx, Jesus Christ or global warming. And I also don't believe in the unhealthiness of salt, sugar and fat. How skeptical can you get? If sugar is bad we are all dead

And when it comes to "climate change", I know where the skeletons are buried

There are no forbidden questions in science, no matters too sensitive or delicate to be challenged, no sacred truths.

"Thinking" molecules?? Terrestrial temperatures have gone up by less than one degree over the last 150 years and CO2 has gone up long term too. But that proves nothing. It is not a proven causal relationship. One of the first things you learn in statistics is that correlation is not causation. And there is none of the smooth relationship that you would expect of a causal relationship. Both temperatures and CO2 went up in fits and starts but they were not the same fits and starts. The precise effects on temperature that CO2 levels are supposed to produce were not produced. CO2 molecules don't have a little brain in them that says "I will stop reflecting heat down for a few years and then start up again". Their action (if any) is entirely passive. Theoretically, the effect of added CO2 in the atmosphere should be instant. It allegedly works by bouncing electromagnetic radiation around and electromagnetic radiation moves at the speed of light. But there has been no instant effect. Temperature can stay plateaued for many years (e.g. 1945 to 1975) while CO2 levels climb. So there is clearly no causal link between the two. One could argue that there are one or two things -- mainly volcanoes and the Ninos -- that upset the relationship but there are not exceptions ALL the time. Most of the time a precise 1 to 1 connection should be visible. It isn't, far from it. You should be able to read one from the other. You can't.

Antarctica is GAINING mass

Warmists depend heavily on ice cores for their figures about the atmosphere of the past. But measuring the deep past through ice cores is a very shaky enterprise, which almost certainly takes insufficient account of compression effects. The apparently stable CO2 level of 280ppm during the Holocene could in fact be entirely an artifact of compression at the deeper levels of the ice cores. . Perhaps the gas content of an ice layer approaches a low asymptote under pressure. Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski's criticisms of the assumed reliability of ice core measurements are of course well known. And he studied them for over 30 years.

The world's first "Green" party was the Nazi party -- and Greenies are just as Fascist today in their endeavours to dictate to us all and in their attempts to suppress dissent from their claims.

Was Pope Urban VIII the first Warmist? Below we see him refusing to look through Galileo's telescope. People tend to refuse to consider evidence— if what they might discover contradicts what they believe.

Warmism is a powerful religion that aims to control most of our lives. It is nearly as powerful as the Catholic Church once was

Believing in global warming has become a sign of virtue. Strange in a skeptical era. There is clearly a need for faith

Climate change is the religion of people who think they're too smart for religion

Some advice from the Buddha that the Green/Left would do well to think about: "Three things cannot be long hidden: The Sun, The Moon and The Truth"

Leftists have faith that warming will come back some day. And they mock Christians for believing in the second coming of Christ! They obviously need religion

Global warming has in fact been a religious doctrine for over a century. Even Charles Taze Russell, the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses, believed in it

A rosary for the church of global warming (Formerly the Catholic church): "Hail warming, full of grace, blessed art thou among climates and blessed is the fruit of thy womb panic"

Pope Francis is to the Catholic church what Obama is to America -- a mistake, a fool and a wrecker

Global warming is the predominant Leftist lie of the 21st century. No other lie is so influential. The runner up lie is: "Islam is a religion of peace". Both are rankly absurd.

"When it comes to alarmism, we’re all deniers; when it comes to climate change, none of us are" -- Dick Lindzen

The EPA does everything it can get away with to shaft America and Americans

Cromwell's famous plea: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken" was ignored by those to whom it was addressed -- to their great woe. Warmists too will not consider that they may be wrong ..... "Bowels" was a metaphor for compassion in those days

The plight of the bumblebee -- an egregious example of crooked "science"

Inorganic Origin of Petroleum: "The theory of Inorganic Origin of Petroleum (synonyms: abiogenic, abiotic, abyssal, endogenous, juvenile, mineral, primordial) states that petroleum and natural gas was formed by non-biological processes deep in the Earth, crust and mantle. This contradicts the traditional view that the oil would be a "fossil fuel" produced by remnants of ancient organisms. Oil is a hydrocarbon mixture in which a major constituent is methane CH4 (a molecule composed of one carbon atom bonded to four hydrogen atoms). Occurrence of methane is common in Earth's interior and in space. The inorganic theory contrasts with the ideas that posit exhaustion of oil (Peak Oil), which assumes that the oil would be formed from biological processes and thus would occur only in small quantities and sets, tending to exhaust. Some oil drilling now goes 7 miles down, miles below any fossil layers

As the Italian chemist Primo Levi reflected in Auschwitz, carbon is ‘the only element that can bind itself in long stable chains without a great expense of energy, and for life on Earth (the only one we know so far) precisely long chains are required. Therefore carbon is the key element of living substance.’ The chemistry of carbon (2) gives it a unique versatility, not just in the artificial world, but also, and above all, in the animal, vegetable and – speak it loud! – human kingdoms.

David Archibald: "The more carbon dioxide we can put into the atmosphere, the better life on Earth will be for human beings and all other living things."

Fossil fuels are 100% organic, are made with solar energy, and when burned produce mostly CO2 and H2O, the 2 most important foods for life.

Warmists claim that the "hiatus" in global warming that began around 1998 was caused by the oceans suddenly gobbling up all the heat coming from above. Changes in the heat content of the oceans are barely measurable but the ARGO bathythermographs seem to show the oceans warming not from above but from below

WISDOM:

“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered, than answers that can’t be questioned.” — Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman, Physicist

“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” — Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

UNRELIABLE SCIENCE:

(1). “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness… “The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…” (Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”)

(2). “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)

Consensus: As Ralph Waldo Emerson said: 'A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.'

Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough - Michael Crichton

Bertrand Russell knew about consensus: "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”

"The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement" -- Karl Popper

"I always think it's a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem -- Christopher Hitchens

"The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it" -- H L Mencken

'Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action' -- Goethe

“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” -- Voltaire

Lord Salisbury: "No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by experience of life as that you should never trust experts. If you believe doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe soldiers, nothing is safe."

Calvin Coolidge said, "If you see 10 troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you." He could have been talking about Warmists.

Some advice from long ago for Warmists: "If ifs and ans were pots and pans,there'd be no room for tinkers". It's a nursery rhyme harking back to Middle English times when "an" could mean "if". Tinkers were semi-skilled itinerant workers who fixed holes and handles in pots and pans -- which were valuable household items for most of our history. Warmists are very big on "ifs", mays", "might" etc. But all sorts of things "may" happen, including global cooling

There goes another beautiful theory about to be murdered by a brutal gang of facts. - Duc de La Rochefoucauld, French writer and moralist (1613-1680)

"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate" -- William of Occam

Was Paracelsus a 16th century libertarian? His motto was: "Alterius non sit qui suus esse potest" which means "Let no man belong to another who can belong to himself." He was certainly a rebel in his rejection of authority and his reliance on observable facts and is as such one of the founders of modern medicine

"In science, refuting an accepted belief is celebrated as an advance in knowledge; in religion it is condemned as heresy". (Bob Parks, Physics, U of Maryland). No prizes for guessing how global warming skepticism is normally responded to.

"Almost all professors of the arts and sciences are egregiously conceited, and derive their happiness from their conceit" -- Erasmus

"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin." -- Thomas H. Huxley

Time was, people warning the world "Repent - the end is nigh!" were snickered at as fruitcakes. Now they own the media and run the schools.

"One of the sources of the Fascist movement is the desire to avoid a too-rational and too-comfortable world" -- George Orwell, 1943 in Can Socialists Be Happy?

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts -- Bertrand Russell

“Affordable energy in ample quantities is the lifeblood of the industrial societies and a prerequisite for the economic development of the others.” -- John P. Holdren, Science Adviser to President Obama. Published in Science 9 February 2001

The closer science looks at the real world processes involved in climate regulation the more absurd the IPCC's computer driven fairy tale appears. Instead of blithely modeling climate based on hunches and suppositions, climate scientists would be better off abandoning their ivory towers and actually measuring what happens in the real world.' -- Doug L Hoffman

Something no Warmist could take on board: "Knuth once warned a correspondent, "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Prof. Donald Knuth, whom some regard as the world's smartest man

"To be green is to be irrational, misanthropic and morally defective. They are the barbarians at the gate we have to stand against" -- Rich Kozlovich

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.“ – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

Leftists generally and Warmists in particular very commonly ascribe disagreement with their ideas to their opponent being "in the pay" of someone else, usually "Big Oil", without troubling themselves to provide any proof of that assertion. They are so certain that they are right that that seems to be the only reasonable explanation for opposition to them. They thus reveal themselves as the ultimate bigots -- people with fixed and rigid ideas.

ABOUT:

This is one of TWO skeptical blogs that I update daily. During my research career as a social scientist, I was appalled at how much writing in my field was scientifically lacking -- and I often said so in detail in the many academic journal articles I had published in that field. I eventually gave up social science research, however, because no data ever seemed to change the views of its practitioners. I hoped that such obtuseness was confined to the social scientists but now that I have shifted my attention to health related science and climate related science, I find the same impermeability to facts and logic. Hence this blog and my FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC blog. I may add that I did not come to either health or environmental research entirely without credentials. I had several academic papers published in both fields during my social science research career

Update: After 8 years of confronting the frankly childish standard of reasoning that pervades the medical journals, I have given up. I have put the blog into hibernation. In extreme cases I may put up here some of the more egregious examples of medical "wisdom" that I encounter. Greenies and food freaks seem to be largely coterminous. My regular bacon & egg breakfasts would certainly offend both -- if only because of the resultant methane output

Since my academic background is in the social sciences, it is reasonable to ask what a social scientist is doing talking about global warming. My view is that my expertise is the most relevant of all. It seems clear to me from what you will see on this blog that belief in global warming is very poorly explained by history, chemistry, physics or statistics.

Warmism is prophecy, not science. Science cannot foretell the future. Science can make very accurate predictions based on known regularities in nature (e.g. predicting the orbits of the inner planets) but Warmism is the exact opposite of that. It predicts a DEPARTURE from the known regularities of nature. If we go by the regularities of nature, we are on the brink of an ice age.

And from a philosophy of science viewpoint, far from being "the science", Warmism is not even an attempt at a factual statement, let alone being science. It is not a meaningful statement about the world. Why? Because it is unfalsifiable -- making it a religious, not a scientific statement. To be a scientific statement, there would have to be some conceivable event that disproved it -- but there appears to be none. ANY event is hailed by Warmists as proving their contentions. Only if Warmists were able to specify some fact or event that would disprove their theory would it have any claim to being a scientific statement. So the explanation for Warmist beliefs has to be primarily a psychological and political one -- which makes it my field

And, after all, Al Gore's academic qualifications are in social science also -- albeit very pissant qualifications.

A "geriatric" revolt: The scientists who reject Warmism tend to be OLD! Your present blogger is one of those. There are tremendous pressures to conformity in academe and the generally Leftist orientation of academe tends to pressure everyone within it to agree to ideas that suit the Left. And Warmism is certainly one of those ideas. So old guys are the only ones who can AFFORD to declare the Warmists to be unclothed. They either have their careers well-established (with tenure) or have reached financial independence (retirement) and so can afford to call it like they see it. In general, seniors in society today are not remotely as helpful to younger people as they once were. But their opposition to the Warmist hysteria will one day show that seniors are not completely irrelevant after all. Experience does count (we have seen many such hysterias in the past and we have a broader base of knowledge to call on) and our independence is certainly an enormous strength. Some of us are already dead. (Reid Bryson and John Daly are particularly mourned) and some of us are very senior indeed (e.g. Bill Gray and Vince Gray) but the revolt we have fostered is ever growing so we have not labored in vain.

A Warmist backs down: "No one knows exactly how far rising carbon concentrations affect temperatures" -- Stefan Rahmstorf, a scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

Jimmy Carter Classic Quote from 1977: "Because we are now running out of gas and oil, we must prepare quickly for a third change, to strict conservation and to the use of coal and permanent renewable energy sources, like solar power.

SOME POINTS TO PONDER:

Today’s environmental movement is the current manifestation of the totalitarian impulse. It is ironic that the same people who condemn the black or brown shirts of the pre WW2 period are blind to the current manifestation simply because the shirts are green.

Climate is just the sum of weather. So if you cannot forecast the weather a month in advance, you will not be able to forecast the climate 50 years in advance. And official meteorologists such as Britain's Met Office and Australia's BOM, are very poor forecasters of weather. The Met office has in fact given up on making seasonal forecasts because they have so often got such forecasts embarrassingly wrong. Their global-warming-powered "models" just did not deliver

The frequency of hurricanes has markedly DECLINED in recent years

Here's how that "97% consensus" figure was arrived at

97% of scientists want to get another research grant

Another 97%: Following the death of an older brother in a car crash in 1994, Bashar Al Assad became heir apparent; and after his father died in June 2000, he took office as President of Syria with a startling 97 per cent of the vote.

Hearing a Government Funded Scientist say let me tell you the truth, is like hearing a Used Car Salesman saying let me tell you the truth.

A strange Green/Left conceit: They seem to think (e.g. here) that no-one should spend money opposing them and that conservative donors must not support the election campaigns of Congressmen they agree with

David Brower, founder Sierra Club: “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license"

To Greenies, Genghis Khan was a good guy, believe it or not. They love that he killed so many people.

Greenie antisemitism

After three exceptionally cold winters in the Northern hemisphere, the Warmists are chanting: "Warming causes cold". Even if we give that a pass for logic, it still inspires the question: "Well, what are we worried about"? Cold is not going to melt the icecaps is it?"

It's a central (but unproven) assumption of the Warmist "models" that clouds cause warming. Odd that it seems to cool the temperature down when clouds appear overhead!

To make out that the essentially trivial warming of the last 150 years poses some sort of threat, Warmists postulate positive feedbacks that might cut in to make the warming accelerate in the near future. Amid their theories about feedbacks, however, they ignore the one feedback that is no theory: The reaction of plants to CO2. Plants gobble up CO2 and the more CO2 there is the more plants will flourish and hence gobble up yet more CO2. And the increasing crop yields of recent years show that plantlife is already flourishing more. The recent rise in CO2 will therefore soon be gobbled up and will no longer be around to bother anyone. Plants provide a huge NEGATIVE feedback in response to increases in atmospheric CO2

Every green plant around us is made out of carbon dioxide that the plant has grabbed out of the atmosphere. That the plant can get its carbon from such a trace gas is one of the miracles of life. It admittedly uses the huge power of the sun to accomplish such a vast filtrative task but the fact that a dumb plant can harness the power of the sun so effectively is also a wonder. We live on a rather improbable planet. If a science fiction writer elsewhere in the universe described a world like ours he might well be ridiculed for making up such an implausible tale.

Greenies are the sand in the gears of modern civilization -- and they intend to be.

The Greenie message is entirely emotional and devoid of all logic. They say that polar ice will melt and cause a big sea-level rise. Yet 91% of the world's glacial ice is in Antarctica, where the average temperature is around minus 40 degrees Celsius. The melting point of ice is zero degrees. So for the ice to melt on any scale the Antarctic temperature would need to rise by around 40 degrees, which NOBODY is predicting. The median Greenie prediction is about 4 degrees. So where is the huge sea level rise going to come from? Mars? And the North polar area is mostly sea ice and melting sea ice does not raise the sea level at all. Yet Warmists constantly hail any sign of Arctic melting. That the melting of floating ice does not raise the water level is known as Archimedes' principle. Archimedes demonstrated it around 2,500 years ago. That Warmists have not yet caught up with that must be just about the most inspissated ignorance imaginable. The whole Warmist scare defies the most basic physics. Yet at the opening of 2011 we find the following unashamed lying by James Hansen: "We will lose all the ice in the polar ice cap in a couple of decades". Sadly, what the Vulgate says in John 1:5 is still only very partially true: "Lux in tenebris lucet". There is still much darkness in the minds of men.

The repeated refusal of Warmist "scientists" to make their raw data available to critics is such a breach of scientific protocol that it amounts to a confession in itself. Note, for instance Phil Jones' Feb 21, 2005 response to Warwick Hughes' request for his raw climate data: "We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" Looking for things that might be wrong with a given conclusion is of course central to science. But Warmism cannot survive such scrutiny. So even after "Climategate", the secrecy goes on.

Most Greenie causes are at best distractions from real environmental concerns (such as land degradation) and are more motivated by a hatred of people than by any care for the environment

Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists

‘Global warming’ has become the grand political narrative of the age, replacing Marxism as a dominant force for controlling liberty and human choices. -- Prof. P. Stott

Comparing climate alarmist Hansen to Cassandra is WRONG. Cassandra's (Greek mythology) dire prophecies were never believed but were always right. Hansen's dire prophecies are usually believed but are always wrong (Prof. Laurence Gould, U of Hartford, CT)

The modern environmental movement arose out of the wreckage of the New Left. They call themselves Green because they're too yellow to admit they're really Reds. So Lenin's birthday was chosen to be the date of Earth Day. Even a moderate politician like Al Gore has been clear as to what is needed. In "Earth in the Balance", he wrote that saving the planet would require a "wrenching transformation of society".

For centuries there was a scientific consensus which said that fire was explained by the release of an invisible element called phlogiston. That theory is universally ridiculed today. Global warming is the new phlogiston. Though, now that we know how deliberate the hoax has been, it might be more accurate to call global warming the New Piltdown Man. The Piltdown hoax took 40 years to unwind. I wonder....

Motives: Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is generally to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Policies: The only underlying theme that makes sense of all Greenie policies is hatred of people. Hatred of other people has been a Greenie theme from way back. In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991, p. 104) published by the "Club of Rome", a Greenie panic outfit, we find the following statement: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." See here for many more examples of prominent Greenies saying how much and how furiously they hate you.

After fighting a 70 year war to destroy red communism we face another life-or-death struggle in the 21st century against green communism.

The conventional wisdom of the day is often spectacularly wrong. The most popular and successful opera of all time is undoubtedly "Carmen" by Georges Bizet. Yet it was much criticized when first performed and the unfortunate Bizet died believing that it was a flop. Similarly, when the most iconic piece of 20th century music was first performed in 1913-- Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" -- half the audience walked out. Those of us who defy the conventional wisdom about climate are actually better off than that. Unlike Bizet and Stravinsky in 1913, we KNOW that we will eventually be vindicated -- because all that supports Warmism is a crumbling edifice of guesswork ("models").

Al Gore won a political prize for an alleged work of science. That rather speaks for itself, doesn't it?

Jim Hansen and his twin

Getting rich and famous through alarmism: Al Gore is well-known but note also James Hansen. He has for decades been a senior, presumably well-paid, employee at NASA. In 2001 he was the recipient of a $250,000 Heinz Award. In 2007 Time magazine designated him a Hero of the Environment. That same year he pocketed one-third of a $1 million Dan David Prize. In 2008, the American Association for the Advancement of Science presented him with its Scientific Freedom and Responsibility Award. In 2010 he landed a $100,000 Sophie Prize. He pulled in a total of $1.2 million in 2010. Not bad for a government bureaucrat.

See the original global Warmist in action here: "The icecaps are melting and all world is drowning to wash away the sin"

I am not a global warming skeptic nor am I a global warming denier. I am a global warming atheist. I don't believe one bit of it. That the earth's climate changes is undeniable. Only ignoramuses believe that climate stability is normal. But I see NO evidence to say that mankind has had anything to do with any of the changes observed -- and much evidence against that claim.

Seeing that we are all made of carbon, the time will come when people will look back on the carbon phobia of the early 21st century as too incredible to be believed

Meanwhile, however, let me venture a tentative prophecy. Prophecies are almost always wrong but here goes: Given the common hatred of carbon (Warmists) and salt (Food freaks) and given the fact that we are all made of carbon, salt, water and calcium (with a few additives), I am going to prophecy that at some time in the future a hatred of nitrogen will emerge. Why? Because most of the air that we breathe is nitrogen. We live at the bottom of a nitrogen sea. Logical to hate nitrogen? NO. But probable: Maybe. The Green/Left is mad enough. After all, nitrogen is a CHEMICAL -- and we can't have that!

UPDATE to the above: It seems that I am a true prophet

The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) must have foreseen Global Warmism. He said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

The Holy Grail for most scientists is not truth but research grants. And the global warming scare has produced a huge downpour of money for research. Any mystery why so many scientists claim some belief in global warming?

For many people, global warming seems to have taken the place of "The Jews" -- a convenient but false explanation for any disliked event. Prof. Brignell has some examples.

Global warming skeptics are real party-poopers. It's so wonderful to believe that you have a mission to save the world.

There is an "ascetic instinct" (or perhaps a "survivalist instinct") in many people that causes them to delight in going without material comforts. Monasteries and nunneries were once full of such people -- with the Byzantine stylites perhaps the most striking example. Many Greenies (other than Al Gore and his Hollywood pals) have that instinct too but in the absence of strong orthodox religious committments they have to convince themselves that the world NEEDS them to live in an ascetic way. So their personal emotional needs lead them to press on us all a delusional belief that the planet needs "saving".

The claim that oil is a fossil fuel is another great myth and folly of the age. They are now finding oil at around seven MILES beneath the sea bed -- which is incomparably further down than any known fossil. The abiotic oil theory is not as yet well enough developed to generate useful predictions but that is also true of fossil fuel theory

Help keep the planet Green! Maximize your CO2 and CH4 output!

Global Warming=More Life; Global Cooling=More Death.

The inconvenient truth about biological effects of "Ocean Acidification"

Medieval Warm Period: Recent climatological data assembled from around the world using different proxies attest to the presence of both the MWP and the LIA in the following locations: the Sargasso Sea, West Africa, Kenya, Peru, Japan, Tasmania, South Africa, Idaho, Argentina, and California. These events were clearly world-wide and in most locations the peak temperatures during the MWP were higher than current temperatures.

Both radioactive and stable carbon isotopes show that the real atmospheric CO2 residence time (lifetime) is only about 5 years, and that the amount of fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is maximum 4%.

Cook the crook who cooks the books

The great and fraudulent scare about lead

How 'GREEN' is the FOOTPRINT of a WIND TURBINE? 45 tons of rebar and 630 cubic yards of concrete

Green/Left denial of the facts explained: "Rejection lies in this, that when the light came into the world men preferred darkness to light; preferred it, because their doings were evil. Anyone who acts shamefully hates the light, will not come into the light, for fear that his doings will be found out. Whereas the man whose life is true comes to the light" John 3:19-21 (Knox)

Against the long history of huge temperature variation in the earth's climate (ice ages etc.), the .6 of one degree average rise reported by the U.N. "experts" for the entire 20th century (a rise so small that you would not be able to detect such a difference personally without instruments) shows, if anything, that the 20th century was a time of exceptional temperature stability.

Recent NASA figures tell us that there was NO warming trend in the USA during the 20th century. If global warming is occurring, how come it forgot the USA?

Warmists say that the revised NASA figures do not matter because they cover only the USA -- and the rest of the world is warming nicely. But it is not. There has NEVER been any evidence that the Southern hemisphere is warming. See here. So the warming pattern sure is looking moth-eaten.

The latest scare is the possible effect of extra CO2 on the world’s oceans, because more CO2 lowers the pH of seawater. While it is claimed that this makes the water more acidic, this is misleading. Since seawater has a pH around 8.1, it will take an awful lot of CO2 it to even make the water neutral (pH=7), let alone acidic (pH less than 7).

In fact, ocean acidification is a scientific impossibility. Henry's Law mandates that warming oceans will outgas CO2 to the atmosphere (as the UN's own documents predict it will), making the oceans less acid. Also, more CO2 would increase calcification rates. No comprehensive, reliable measurement of worldwide oceanic acid/base balance has ever been carried out: therefore, there is no observational basis for the computer models' guess that acidification of 0.1 pH units has occurred in recent decades.

The chaos theory people have told us for years that the air movement from a single butterfly's wing in Brazil can cause an unforeseen change in our weather here. Now we are told that climate experts can "model" the input of zillions of such incalculable variables over periods of decades to accurately forecast global warming 50 years hence. Give us all a break!

If you doubt the arrogance [of the global warming crowd, you haven't seen that Newsweek cover story that declared the global warming debate over. Consider: If Newton's laws of motion could, after 200 years of unfailing experimental and experiential confirmation, be overthrown, it requires religious fervor to believe that global warming -- infinitely more untested, complex and speculative -- is a closed issue

Scientists have politics too -- sometimes extreme politics. Read this: "This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism... I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child." -- Albert Einstein

The "precautionary principle" is a favourite Greenie idea -- but isn't that what George Bush was doing when he invaded Iraq? Wasn't that a precaution against Saddam getting or having any WMDs? So Greenies all agree with the Iraq intervention? If not, why not?

A classic example of how the sensationalist media distort science to create climate panic is here.

There is a very readable summary of the "Hockey Stick" fraud here

The Lockwood & Froehlich paper was designed to rebut Durkin's "Great Global Warming Swindle" film. It is a rather confused paper -- acknowledging yet failing to account fully for the damping effect of the oceans, for instance -- but it is nonetheless valuable to climate atheists. The concession from a Greenie source that fluctuations in the output of the sun have driven climate change for all but the last 20 years (See the first sentence of the paper) really is invaluable. And the basic fact presented in the paper -- that solar output has in general been on the downturn in recent years -- is also amusing to see. Surely even a crazed Greenie mind must see that the sun's influence has not stopped and that reduced solar output will soon start COOLING the earth! Unprecedented July 2007 cold weather throughout the Southern hemisphere might even have been the first sign that the cooling is happening. And the fact that warming plateaued in 1998 is also a good sign that we are moving into a cooling phase. As is so often the case, the Greenies have got the danger exactly backwards. See my post of 7.14.07 and very detailed critiques here and here and here for more on the Lockwood paper and its weaknesses.

As the Greenies are now learning, even strong statistical correlations may disappear if a longer time series is used. A remarkable example from Sociology: "The modern literature on hate crimes began with a remarkable 1933 book by Arthur Raper titled The Tragedy of Lynching. Raper assembled data on the number of lynchings each year in the South and on the price of an acre’s yield of cotton. He calculated the correlation coefficient between the two series at –0.532. In other words, when the economy was doing well, the number of lynchings was lower.... In 2001, Donald Green, Laurence McFalls, and Jennifer Smith published a paper that demolished the alleged connection between economic conditions and lynchings in Raper’s data. Raper had the misfortune of stopping his analysis in 1929. After the Great Depression hit, the price of cotton plummeted and economic conditions deteriorated, yet lynchings continued to fall. The correlation disappeared altogether when more years of data were added." So we must be sure to base our conclusions on ALL the data. In the Greenie case, the correlation between CO2 rise and global temperature rise stopped in 1998 -- but that could have been foreseen if measurements taken in the first half of the 20th century had been considered.

Relying on the popular wisdom can even hurt you personally: "The scientific consensus of a quarter-century ago turned into the arthritic nightmare of today."

Greenie-approved sources of electricity (windmills and solar cells) require heavy government subsidies to be competitive with normal electricity generators so a Dutch word for Greenie power seems graphic to me: "subsidieslurpers" (subsidy gobblers)

Many newspaper articles are reproduced in full on this blog despite copyright claims attached to them. I believe that such reproductions here are protected by the "fair use" provisions of copyright law. Fair use is a legal doctrine that recognises that the monopoly rights protected by copyright laws are not absolute. The doctrine holds that, when someone uses a creative work in way that does not hurt the market for the original work and advances a public purpose - such as education or scholarship - it might be considered "fair" and not infringing.

DETAILS OF REGULARLY UPDATED BLOGS BY JOHN RAY:

"Tongue Tied"
"Dissecting Leftism" (Backup here)
"Australian Politics"
"Education Watch International"
"Political Correctness Watch"
"Greenie Watch"
Western Heart

BLOGS OCCASIONALLY UPDATED:

"Marx & Engels in their own words"
"A scripture blog"
"Recipes"
"Some memoirs"
To be continued ....
Coral Reef Compendium.
IQ Compendium
Queensland Police
Australian Police News
Paralipomena (3)
Of Interest
Dagmar Schellenberger
My alternative Wikipedia

BLOGS NO LONGER BEING UPDATED

"Food & Health Skeptic"
"Eye on Britain"
"Immigration Watch International".
"Leftists as Elitists"
Socialized Medicine
OF INTEREST (2)
QANTAS -- A dying octopus
BRIAN LEITER (Ladderman)
Obama Watch
Obama Watch (2)
Dissecting Leftism -- Large font site
Michael Darby
Paralipomena (2)
AGL -- A bumbling monster
Telstra/Bigpond follies
Optus bungling
Bank of Queensland blues

There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)

Main academic menu
Menu of recent writings
Basic home page
Pictorial Home Page.
Selected pictures from blogs
Another picture page (Rarely updated)

Note: If the link to one of my articles is not working, the article concerned can generally be viewed by prefixing to the filename the following:
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20151027-0014/jonjayray.comuv.com/

OR: (After 2015)
https://web.archive.org/web/20160322114550/http://jonjayray.com/