Renewable Energy

Zali wants to turn Warringah into a mini-California

No thanks. Before Zali Steggall OAM MP thinks too hastily about believing the residents of Warringah want to be a mini California, maybe she should consider how Californians view their state.

From ZeroHedge:

In the 1960s and 1970s, the possibility of moving to the west coast was “the California dream” for millions of young Americans, but now “the California dream” has turned into “the California nightmare”.  According to a brand new survey, 53 percent of those living in California are considering leaving the state, and there are certainly lots of reasons to hit the road and never look back.  The cities are massively overcrowded, California has the worst traffic in the western world, drug use and illegal immigration both fuel an astounding amount of crime, tax rates are horrendous and many of the state politicians appear to literally be insane.”

Other California issues

Rodents – According to a recent survey of California pest control companies, rat service requests are up “as much as 60% in the last 12 months”.

Homelessness – San Francisco, Los Angeles, Santa Rosa, and San Jose are four of the five cities with the highest amount of homelessness.

Public defecation – San Francisco authorities have decided to do something after thousands of feces complaints (during only one week in July, over 16,000 were recorded).

Public pension deficit – CalPERS has over $1 trillion in unfunded pension liabilities at marked to market rates.

Illegal Immigrants – despite its status as a sanctuary city, the great irony is that a growing number of illegal immigrants are choosing to move OUT of sanctuary cities, including California. In 2007, 7.7mn (63.1%) lived in the 20 largest metros to 6.5mn (60.7%) in 2016 according to Pew. During that time 1.5m illegal immigrants were deported (12.2mn ->10.7mn).

While Zali might think that California is a great role model for Warringah to follow, a quick cruise down Military Road will soon convince her that it could take quite a while to coax the residents to switch from their Porsches, Astons, BMWs, Mercedes and Range Rovers to Nissan Leafs to help her head for a zero carbon target. Not forgetting wind farms on Balmoral and Manly Beach.

How ironic that she takes what kids say about climate change as a concern rather than focus on activist teachers filling their heads with this junk.

While Zali might have whacked some solar panels on her roof at home, she hasn’t bought an EV. How funny that she thinks that reducing the number of flights she takes to/from Canberra will have an impact. Doesn’t she realize the flight she would have boarded flew anyway meaning her actions had absolutely NO impact?

Can’t wait for the next election.

Virtue Signaling Wallabies should look at their sponsors before lecturing the rest of us on climate change

Pocock.png

Wallabies flanker David Pocock, along with teammates Bernard Foley and Dane Haylett-Petty, have announced their partnership with a scheme that aims to compensate for the carbon emissions associated with travel. Woke.

Why aren’t they rushing straight to Wallabies CEO Raelene Castle and demanding that she jettison Qantas & Land Rover from the sponsorship list? Surely offsetting carbon emissions is best served by trying to get widespread media coverage to push legislation to ban petrol & diesel SUVs and restrict air travel.

Surely what better way to announce one’s true commitment to the climate emergency than refusing to endorse or play for a team where the very companies that violate the climate change movement’s goals are emblazoned on their sportswear? Sadly multi-million dollar contracts are clearly more important to these players to protect than saving the planet. Telling.

The Guardian noted, “musician Heidi Lenffer, from Australian band Cloud Control, launched FEAT. (Future Energy Artists), an initiative that would allow Australian musicians to invest in a solar farm in south-east Queensland…Lenffer was concerned about the carbon emissions generated by her group’s touring schedule and what she saw as her own contribution to the climate emergency.”

Notably, Lenffer had asked “climate scientists in the field, and connected with Dr Chris Dey from Areté Sustainability. Dey crunched the numbers for Cloud Control’s two-week tour, playing 15 clubs and theatres from Byron Bay to Perth…He found that it would produce about 28 tonnes of emissions.

28 tonnes of emissions in an Aussie context would equate to 0.00000509% of Australia’s emissions which are 0.00001345% of the earth’s atmosphere. So the global carbon footprint of her Byron to Perth tour would total 0.000000000068473%. Offsetting that will hardly be worth the efforts gone to working out the impact. None. She should double the scope of the tour and it would have no meaningful damage on the climate.

Carbon offsetting is such a wonderful idea. It essentially takes the form of commercialising hypocrisy. Effectively offsetting one’s emissions is like asking someone else to quit smoking on your behalf. How do you benefit? Don’t forget that Sir Elton John justified Meghan & Harry’s use of his private jet by offsetting on Carbon Offset which allowed him to technically pay for those emissions for the grand price of £8 return for the couple. Pocock’s trip to Japan would cost £38.70 return. That will be enough to pay for a sign to hang on the front of the FEAT solar plant.

Lenffer shouldn’t feel bad though. Climate alarmist, Bono of U2 once bragged that one of his global tours beat out The Rolling Stones in terms of trucks and 747s used to ferry all the equipment around because that’s how you measure a band’s popularity!

Maybe the players should strike in Japan and superglue themselves to a steel plant in Kobe. They best be careful, Japanese police can lock them up without charge for 21 days. They might risk missing the finals…surelythey wouldn’t want to put their careers behind their sanctimony.

If they still have pangs of guilt they can look up Extinction Rebellion’s guidelines for hypocrisy. Apparently it is justified in their view because they want the changes but have little choice but to consume in a fossil fuel world.

72% might believe climate change is affecting them personally but…

…only 19% willing to spend more than $500 per year on climate abatement. That’s the result from the online survey conducted by the Australia Talks National Survey (sponsored by the ABC, Vox Pop Labs and University of Melbourne).

The Climate Council was quick to upload a post of Ita Buttrose, who spoke of politicians who were blinkered to climate change, were ignoring the will of the majority of the Australian people. Bill Shorten wasn’t blinkered. Look what happened to him. He was beaten by a coal hugging knuckle dragger from ‘The Shire.’

Although, the question of “climate change” being the number one issue (72%) is misleading statistically given that it was the only area one could “enter” any answer for the most pressing problem whereas the questionnaire on every other issue bar year of birth and postcode was predetermined by multiple choice. So that would leave a lot of wiggle room for the survey collectors to select answers that supported “climate change.” One has to honestly wonder how climate change is affecting a majority of Aussies personally?

The question was worded as “please enter a [presumably single] response“. So if we add up these single answers published afterwards, we get answers totaling 380%. 72%/380% =19%. The same number as were willing to spend $500pa+ to save the planet.

Other interesting insights showed that people who took the survey in NT, QLD or WA, where there are higher numbers of Aborigines, voted overwhelmingly in favour of Australia Day staying as it is.

Apparently CM is 78% more right wing than others Aussies. Is that accurate?

Would love to see the raw data, including the age of respondents across the spectrum.

Don’t be surprised to see the media bang the drum that almost 3/4s of Aussies are afraid of climate change on a personal basis. Despite that, 78% people are positive about their own futures. Go figure?

Perhaps the most glaring issue with this survey is the ability for individuals to take the survey as many times as he/she/ZE likes which undermines the credibility of the data.

Never knew climate science was so precise

Forget the details of the report. Just logically, how is it that dealing with CO2 now will cause only 30-60cm sea level rises by 2100? If we do nothing it will be 61-110cm. It is almost like those surveys that ask you to select an age bracket – 25-34, 35-44, 45-64 etc…presumably if we go nuts on CO2 it will be 111-220cm?

Logically banks can’t possibly lend to house buyers that want to live by the sea. Nor will insurance companies allow owners to offset risk at a decent price.

A once a year by 2050 prediction is also pretty precise. Will these scientists issue a retraction in 31 years if the Bather’s Pavilion at Balmoral Beach is still offering breakfast, lunch and dinner? Will Mike Cannon-Brookes sell his Sydney Harbour front mansion?

It is a shame that the Obamas didn’t get a draft report before moving to the shoreline of Martha’s Vineyard.

Why does anyone put any stock into what the IPCC says anyway? Let’s look at the history of this unaccountable poorly governed UN body.

Himalayan Glaciers

In 2010, the IPCC admitted its 2007 prophecy that the Himalayan Glaciers would be devoid of snow by 2035 was unfounded. The IPCC had not based it off peer-reviewed papers but a WWF media interview with a scientist in 1999.

The IPCC said in a statement that it “refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly… The IPCC regrets the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance.”

Sea Level Rises in The Netherlands

The WG2 IPCC climate bible noted, “The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level”.

This sentence was provided by a Dutch government agency – the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which published a correction stating that the sentence should have read “55 per cent of the Netherlands is at risk of flooding; 26 per cent of the country is below sea level, and 29 per cent is susceptible to river flooding.”

African Crop Yields

The IPCC Synthesis Report (i.e. summary) states: “By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%.” This is properly referenced back to chapter 9.4 of WG2, which says: “In other countries, additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include greater erosion, deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-2020 period, and reductions in crop growth period” (Agoumi, 2003).

The Agoumi study wasn’t a peer-reviewed document.

It is noteworthy that chapter 9.4 continued with “However, there is the possibility that adaptation could reduce these negative effects (Benhin, 2006)…not all changes in climate and climate variability will be negative, as agriculture and the growing seasons in certain areas (for example, parts of the Ethiopian highlands and parts of southern Africa such as Mozambique), may lengthen under climate change, due to a combination of increased temperature and rainfall changes (Thornton et al., 2006). Mild climate scenarios project further benefits across African croplands for irrigated and, especially, dryland farms.”

IPCC SR15 Myths

The IPCC SR15 proposes that industry and taxpayers pay a carbon price of an average of $880/ton on carbon dioxide emissions in 2030, but the actual benefit, in terms of an assumed lower temperature, would only be worth at most $4. Accounting for natural climate change and benefits of CO2 fertilization, the proposed carbon tax will prevent a benefit of $8 per tonne CO2, for a total loss of $888 per ton CO2 mitigated.

The UNIPCC issued a special report for policymakers on Oct. 8, 2018 that was filled with statements of certainty about human-caused global warming.

Scientists published the Faulty Premises= Poor Public Policy on Climate report which listed the following

All climate models (simulations) used by the IPCC run ‘too hot’ versus observations. The computer simulations project future warming (thus being the rationale for global warming climate policies) show significantly higher temperatures than what is being observed. This suggests that most climate models ascribe too great an effect of warming (climate sensitivity) to carbon dioxide. This means the climate models should not be used to set public policy.

“The IPCC SR15 makes many recommendations regarding Carbon Dioxide Removal Systems (CDRS), most of which are untested and unvetted and proposed with no cost-benefit analysis. Such recommendations are contrary to the purpose of the IPCC and should be disregarded by policymakers. The IPCC should simply report on scientific findings.”

The proposed remedies of wind and solar increase carbon dioxide and cause warming. Rather than reduce fossil fuel use or aid in carbon dioxide reduction, wind and solar in fact require vast quantities of fossil fuels for productions, installation, and natural gas back-up – resulting in an increase in carbon dioxide.”

Dissenting scientists like Dr. Khandekar, did not agree with such claims of certainty.

The ‘Uncertainties in Greenhouse Gas induced climate change’ report of 2000 notes, that,

A causal and unequivocal link between mean surface temperature increase and the anthropogenic greenhouse gas increase has not yet been established. The most probable cause of the mean surface temperature increase is considered to be a combination of internally and externally forced natural variability and anthropogenic sources. Significant uncertainty still exists relating the total (direct plus indirect) radiative forcing by anthropogenic aerosols (e.g. sulfate, black carbon, dust etc.). Recent studies suggest that the negative total radiative forcing by anthropogenic aerosols may offset the positive forcing by the greenhouse gases. Precipitation trends in different regions of the world do not present conclusive evidence about the intensification of the hydrologic cycle of the atmospheric-ocean system. There is still uncertainty relating trends in storm (tropical as well as extratropical) frequency in different parts of the world. Available climate data do not show any increasing trend in extreme weather events (e.g. extreme precipitation, extreme drought thunderstorms, winter blizzards) in any part of the world.

He still believes there is no change to this thesis.

Hadley HadCRUT4

The Hadley HadCRUT4 is the primary global temperature dataset used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to make its dramatic claims about “man-made global warming”.

Australian researcher John McLean audited the report.

Almost no quality control checks have been done: outliers that are obvious mistakes have not been corrected – one town in Columbia spent three months in 1978 at an average daily temperature of over 80 degrees C. One town in Romania stepped out from summer in 1953 straight into a month of Spring at minus 46°C. These are supposedly “average” temperatures for a full month at a time. St Kitts, a Caribbean island, was recorded at 0°C for a whole month, and twice!

Sea surface temperatures represent 70% of the Earth’s surface, but some measurements come from ships which are logged at locations 100km inland.”

For April, June and July of 1978 Apto Uto (Colombia, ID:800890) had an average monthly temperature of 81.5°C, 83.4°C and 83.4°C respectively.”

The monthly mean temperature in September 1953 at Paltinis, Romania is reported as -46.4 °C (in other years the September average was about 11.5°C).

At Golden Rock Airport, on the island of St Kitts in the Caribbean, mean monthly temperatures for December in 1981 and 1984 are reported as 0.0°C. But from 1971 to 1990 the average in all the other years was 26.0°C.
Meat-Eating & the IPCC

IPCC now wants to get involved in our diets. In the IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land (SRCCL) Chapter 7 goes on to talk about trade-offs and poverty, but there is no mention single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP), or cobalamin, or B12, or even the word “vitamin”.

SNPs can act as biological markers, helping scientists locate genes that are associated with the disease. When SNPs occur within a gene or in a regulatory region near a gene, they may play a more direct role in disease by affecting the gene’s function.

Meat is a good source of cobalamin (vitamin B12), which the body uses to make the myelin sheath on nerves.

A lack of B12 leads to

Demyelination of peripheral nerves, the spinal cord, cranial nerves and the brain, resulting in nerve damage and neuropsychiatric abnormalities. Neurological symptoms of vitamin B12 deficiency include numbness and tingling of the hands and feet, decreased sensation, difficulties walking, loss of bowel and bladder control, memory loss, dementia, depression, general weakness and psychosis. Unless detected and treated early, these symptoms can be irreversible.” — Zeuschner et al 2013

The Germans Greens are pushing a meat tax

I am in favour of abolishing the VAT reduction for meat and earmarking it for more animal welfare,” said Friedrich Ostendorf, agricultural policy spokesperson for the Greens.

IPCC & Chocolate

Half of the world’s chocolate is currently sourced from just two African countries: Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana. According to the IPCC, rising temperatures and a relative reduction in rainfall could make it less suitable for cocoa production in the future. The research highlighted in the IPCC Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability report indicate that, under a “business as usual” scenario, those countries will experience a 3.8°F (2.1°C) increase in temperature by 2050 which could seriously impact cocoa production.

Claims that changes to the climate are also pushing cocoa-growing regions to higher altitudes in some parts of the world, which can make some crops unsustainable…production has more than doubled in the past 3 decades.

98% of the models are wrong

The IPCC report which investigated models showed 98% have overestimated warming.
The Twelfth Session of Working Group I (WGI-12) was held from 23 to 26 September 2013 in Stockholm, Sweden. At the Session, the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (WGI AR5) was approved and the underlying scientific and technical assessment accepted.

Everything in the Working Group II report depends entirely on Working Group I and Working Group I depends solely on the climate data of which 98% have proven wrong.

Chapter Nine “Evaluation of Climate Models” in WGI-12 notes:

Most, though not all, models overestimate the observed warming trend in the tropical troposphere over the last 30 years and tend to underestimate the long-term lower stratospheric cooling trend.” {9.4.1, Box 9.2, Figure 9.8}

…In tropical regions, the models are too dry in the lower troposphere and too moist in the upper troposphere,” (p763)

Most climate model simulations show a larger warming in the tropical troposphere than is found in observational data sets” (e.g., McKitrick et al., 2010; Santer et al., 2013).

Returning wind turbines to Mother Nature

Don’t ask questions. Renewables are there to save the planet. Period. Including wind. That is until decommissioned. In Wyoming, Casper Solid Waste Manager, Cynthia Langston, said that though most turbine blades can be reused, there are some that are simply un-recyclable. So 900 blades are headed for landfill.

Langston said, “These blades are really big, and they take up a lot of airspace, and our unlined area is very, very large, and it’s going to last hundreds of years.”

Fibreglass can be ground down into fine particles. Although there is a lot of work to cut up 80m wind turbine blades to be able to be fed into a grinder.

Blades can be incinerated but fibreglass contains only 25%~30% organic material, so its heat content is low, and its ash content is high. The ash is primarily calcium oxide, which comes from the calcium carbonate, boron, and other oxides in the glass. That heads straight to landfill.

Pyrolysis is the process of chemically decomposing or transforming a material into one or several recoverable substances by heating it to very high temperatures in an oxygen-depleted environment. Pyrolysis is different from incineration, which takes place in an open atmosphere.

Pyrolyzed fibreglass decomposes into three recoverable substances: pyro-gas, pyro-oil, and solid byproduct— all of which can be recycled. In the US, auto tyres are treated this way. However in order to put blades into a pyrolysis reactor, they must be shredded into 2″ pieces (a lot from one 80 metre blade). At about 5000F, the hydrocarbons in the resin decompose into gas. The gas is drawn off and sent through a scrubber, which separates it into pyro-gas and pyro-oil. The pyrogas is very clean and has an energy content similar to natural gas.

In Germany cement maker Holcim is using the polyesters coming from crushed turbine blades for use in cement. Recycling 1000 tonnes of fibreglass material in cement manufacture saves up to 450 tonnes of coal, 200 tonnes of chalk, 200 tonnes of sand and 150 tonnes of aluminium oxide.

Wyoming could theoretically follow the lead of Holcim but presumably, the cost to recycle fibreglass turbines is way more expensive than to bury them.

11yo experts

Pity the poor brainwashed little 11yo girl in the video (from the 1 minute mark) talking about saving the planet her parent’s generation have supposedly trashed. She demands zero carbon emissions by 2030.

She implores all climate activists to go beyond global warming and fight for gun control, LGBTQ+ rights and even rally so her teachers can receive a living wage. Surely she worked all these issues out for herself? Who are we to question that she knows more than the adults?

You’ll never guess which trash she wants to remove in November 2020.

Children should not be exploited like this. Why should teachers and parents rob kids of their innocence at such tender years? It is shameless to use them as human shields to push political agendas. Then we wonder why we have a mental health crisis.

$34,000 in school fees buys an activist indoctrination, not an education

Newington.png

CM went to a private school in Sydney. In CM’s day, we were taught respect. To give up seats on the bus if adults got on. To open doors for others. To say thank you. You know, simple manners so devoid of the headphone-wearing, iPhone gazing secondary students today, completely oblivious to pregnant women or the elderly with walking sticks forced to stand on the bus or train.

To hear that Newington College and SCEGGS Darlinghurst are allowing kids to go on the school climate strike tomorrow is an utter farce. How is it that a school that charges up to $34,000 in fees, is prepared to allow kids (with parental permission) to strike? Where is the standard of one set of rules that all must adhere to? Where is the discipline?  At what point will such activism be acceptable to other pet grievances of brain-washed kids, undoubtedly at the behest of teachers pushing their own agendas? Why not teach kids that they can’t just get their way if they protest enough?

One can understand the school respecting and observing long-standing religious days for kids of certain faiths but all this action suggests is that there is a cabal of staff who are activists in the classroom espousing their own political agendas. The headmaster has apparently caved to a bunch of Yr 11 students because climate change must be a religion in and of itself. 

Newington’s own motto, ‘in fide scientam’ (in the faith of all knowledge), suggests the school now no longer adheres to its core values. To allow this simply says that teachers are getting away with brainwashing. Where is the balance? Wouldn’t the majority of parents hope the $34,000 to help provide their kids with a jump start instead of an idiots guide to civil disobedience? Why not dispense with the uniform or replace the blazer emblem with one from Extinction Rebellion?

So what of the stats? For national ATAR scores, Newington’s rank has slipped from 78th in 2013 to 99th in 2018. SCEGGS Darlinghurst has gone from 23rd to 25th over the same period.

Over recent years, Australia’s global education standards have been slipping – in science, maths and English. What a surprise when our academic institutions fold to trendy left-wing causes. Perhaps if they focused on “education” as opposed to “indoctrination” that the long-term prospects for these kids would rise appreciably.

Australia’s future looks grim – not so much for the planet but for the prospects of the coming generations who have been completely misled as to what is actually important and relevant out there in the real world.