#climatechange

NYT – try doing some research for a change?

8CBEB2D5-AC7B-4995-BF98-D10C6EF75249.jpeg

It is true that many airports are built near sea level. In fact many airports are built around swamps/marshland (less suitable for residential areas) which actually makes aircraft more susceptible to avian events (bird strike) than crashing sea waves. So how convenient it must have been to The NY Times to blame the recent terrible typhoon in Japan on climate change when in reality Kansai International Airport’s well known drainage inadequacies were exposed. The airport opened in 1994 and engineers quickly realized it was sinking through poor design. It needs to pump water out constantly to prevent it from drowning. It has zero to do with rising sea levels but the softer base beneath the waves. Yet The NY Times wrote about the plight of stranded passengers and how it portended their imminent peril. Puhlease.

So why didn’t NY Times journalist Hiroko Tabuchi write about the UN IPCC’s own climbdowns from their alarmism in recent years? Note climate skeptics did not write these claims. No, it was easier just to join two dots together without facts.

The IPCC wrote with respect to heavy rains:

“there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale“

With respect to storms and cyclones:

confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low. There is also low confidence for a clear trend in storminess proxies over the last century due to inconsistencies between studies or lack of long-term data in some parts of the world…Over periods of a century or more, evidence suggests slight decreases in the frequency of tropical cyclones making landfall in the North Atlantic and the South Pacific, once uncertainties in observing methods have been considered. Little evidence exists of any longer-term trend in other ocean basins…”

As for rising sea levels impacting Pacific Islands.

Professor Paul Kench of the University of Auckland and Australian scientists have shown in a study of 600 coral reef islands in the Pacific, 40% are growing in size, 40% are stable and 20% shrinking…

Yet The NY Times went further. Who knew Roger Federer was also a victim of climate change?

US Open performances. 

Well the brilliant minds of The NY Times suggested Federer’s loss was caused by global warming even though it was 0.19 degrees above average. Maybe that is why Serena got hot under the collar? Or was it because 20yo Naomi Osaka’s youth allowed her to weather the heat more effectively?

Air Travel

Yet the true litmus test of humankind’s blind panic is best described by the IATA’s air traffic forecasts which point to a doubling of air traffic by 2030. It is only fair that the general population follow in the footsteps of the 50,000 climate disciples that fly half way around the world every year to COP summits to kneel at the altar of the IPCC to warn us of being destroyed by our recklessness.

Once again, ridiculously researched junk journalism is put forward by a paper that assures us “All the news fit to print.” Joke.

NATO or Paris Climate Accord – actions speak louder than words

DE99183D-361A-4F23-AF3F-F8A7B28CCC38.jpeg

Six weeks ago NATO members were outed for being woefully behind their own self imposed promises on defence spending. Seems like self-imposed promises on Paris Climate Accord commitments are just as woefully followed through. Whether saving the planet or saving borders, actions speak louder than words.

Staring at the dictator – redux

507657ED-F3DB-4239-8029-7931BB973B12.jpeg

In Feb 2017, CM wrote a piece titled ‘Staring at the Dictator’ which highlighted that winning hearts and minds comes from sensible and reasonable dialogue. Not from widespread activism where the sole purpose is to shut down debate. Hasn’t the left learnt that physically and verbally bullying people senseless and mocking them for their supposed ignorance doesn’t work? Yet they still keep screaming the same hypo-ventilated bile, as Robert Reich has below. Nothing would make CM happier if democracy does its job in any country. If we believe he speaks for the majority, he has absolutely nothing to fear. No need for protests of any kind. Yet he shouldn’t blame the constituents for overthrowing bad governments who believe in divine incumbency. Blame bad policy.

If Democrats hadn’t treated the last election as a coronation then perhaps Hillary Clinton may have got her wish. Things had obviously become so bad at the grass roots level that the establishment was rejected. Even after all of the p*ssy grabbing allegations had been brought to light, Trump still won. His vulgarity was on the ballot. His “no one respects women more than I do” lie after this revelation in the 2nd debate was broadcast to 100s of millions. It was also on the ticket. Despite his supposed racist demagoguery, he got a higher proportion of black and Hispanic voters than either McCain or Romney. Don’t hate the player, hate the game. These are facts, as much as we may not like what they portend.

The #whitelash arguments don’t rub either because the same people voted a black man in twice. Clinton didn’t lose because she was a woman. She lost in part because she ran on the basis she was a woman. Surveys may show that Republican voters don’t want a female president however should Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley run in 2024 she would win their support on the basis of her strength, not her gender or her Native American/Sikh heritage. Ability should be all that matters. Clinton’s constant griping 18 months after her loss shows just how poor a president she would have made. It is so bad even Rasmussen reports that a majority of Democrats don’t think she would have been any better than Trump. Take that!

If Trump loses legitimately (assuming he runs) in 2020 then so be it. In the last 1.5 years in office, American citizens have had plenty of time to weigh him in their own minds, regardless of the media’s relentless onslaught of over-the-top sensationalist click-baiting. If citizens feel he has delivered in areas that affected them on a personal level, they’re probably on balance willing to vote for the same again unless the alternative offers something better. At the same time they have had plenty of time to weigh the Democrats. They’ve seen first hand the bitterness at the State of the Union plastered on the faces of Pelosi et al. They’ve heard Maxine Waters call to her supporters to gang up on the staff in the current administration. They’ve seen countless Hollywood celebrities chant vile hate from celebrating the decapitation of the President, calling Ivanka a “feckless c*nt” to hoping 12yo Barron is ripped from Melania’s arms and caged with pedophiles. Democrat supporters have gone so far as to shoot GOP politicians. CM is quite sure that however horrid the President may be, these are hardly the types of antics that will sway opinion of the swing voters to join the self-appointed ‘righteous’ like Reich. And no, not all Democrats think like this much like many Republicans don’t endorse stupidity from their own. It lets down both sides.

Republicans or swing voters do not respond well to being called intolerant, cruel, racist, misogynist, xenophobic or climate sceptics without fact or basis. Since when does one consciously vote for others over their own needs? It isn’t selfish. If one is buried under onerous tax legislation, red tape or financial destitution do they vote to put the interests of others above their own? No. As a long term Liberal Party (aka conservatives) voter in Australia, the current party has ‘left’ me. I didn’t leave them. They did not win my vote last election. It must be earned. They don’t represent my values. It didn’t take tribal beltings to force me to a conclusion. Nor negative media to discover it. Yet somehow the activists believe that constant bleating will cause me to change my mind.

What would be nice is to see properly supported factual (not subjective rhetorical) evidence that 63mn Trump supporters are as one when it comes to all the claims they make. I would love to see the arguments in all their gore should they exist. Not a one off event. Happy to see where my own arguments hold deep flaws.  Many Trump voters detest him on a moralistic level yet are happy to champion his achievements if they feel they get a direct benefit from them. So often claims are made to undermine his followers. Every time (and often) these assertions prove to be baseless, the journey to sway the other side to see reason gets thwarted even further. Time magazine issuing a confession over the photo-shopped cover of last week ended up at the bottom of a long article. It just shows just how unapologetic they are. Kathy Griffin was sorry until she wasn’t again. Talk about self serving.

To the comments made by Robert Reich today:

“My friends, this is a dark hour. Intolerance, cruelty, racism, misogyny, xenophobia, and environmental destruction have been let loose across the land.

Trump controls the Republican Party, the Republican Party controls the House and Senate, and the Senate and Trump will soon control the Supreme Court.

Republicans also control both chambers in 32 states (33 if you count Nebraska) and 33 governorships. And in many of these states they are entrenching their power by gerrymandering and arranging to suppress votes.

Yet only 27 percent of Americans are Republican, and the vast majority of Americans disapprove of Trump. The GOP itself is now little more than Trump, Fox News, a handful of billionaire funders, and evangelicals who oppose a woman’s right to choose, gay marriage, and the Constitution’s separation of church and state.

So what are we – the majority — to do?

First and most importantly, do not give up. That’s what they want us to do. Then they’d have no opposition at all.

Second, in the short term, if you are represented by a Republican senator, do whatever you can to get him or her to reject Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, or, at the least, postpone consideration until after the midterm elections. Urge others to join with you. 202-224-3121

Third, make a ruckus. Demonstrate. Engage in non-violent civil disobedience. Fight lies with truth. Join the resistance. Participate in http://www.indivisible.org and https://swingleft.org.

Fourth, vote this November 6 for people who will stand up to all this outrage. Mobilize and organize others to do so. Contact friends and relations in “red” states, and urge them to do the same.

Fifth, help lay the groundwork for the 2020 presidential election, so that even if Trump survives Mueller and impeachment he will not be reelected.

Finally, know that this fight will be long and hard. It will require our patience, our courage, and our resolve. The stakes could not be higher.”

Perhaps what Reich fails to get is that he is almost backhanding his own supporters in his rant. It is more than likely that a majority of Republican (and no doubt many centrist Democrat) voters want the liberal left to give up because it has become nothing but white noise. The more they protest the more tuned out they become. Control of the Supreme Court? I encourage you to read the cake shop transcript where Associate Justice Sotomayor shows without a doubt she is a political activist, not a judge. It is embarrassingly obvious. The Supreme Court is only supposed to apply impartiality around current laws (or those at the time of the legal action), not make a song and dance about wish lists and try to piece a verdict around how nice it would be if things were different. She was trying to argue 2018 laws around a 2012 issue. One doesn’t have to be a lawyer to work that one out.

To the assertion that a handful of billionaire funders lean the GOPs way, he should reflect that most of the billionaires in America reside in blue states. In today’s world, the big corporations win more by backing Democrats because more onerous regulation benefits their ability to squeeze out the smaller competition thanks to red tape. Laissez faire? You’ve got to be kidding.

Perhaps in closing, the most compelling argument Reich makes is the one which stands out above all others – “we, the majority.” If he wants to stop Trump, he just needs the majority to vote on the shared basis of his beliefs – case closed. No need for protests. After all he says that Trump’s base is so small. If almost 3 years of negative spin on the sitting POTUS has failed to convince the majority, nothing will. Screaming in public may seem therapeutic to the masses but should the GOP win the mid-terms then Reich will prove just as out of touch as he was prior to the election.

Silence is golden. Let democracy take its course. Let us see whether the Russians consolidate their pick in the mid-terms…Putin has even more reason to ensure America sees more “red.”

How would you like to save the planet?

2B27D0D9-8C24-4214-8AFF-10E2B67BBC0B.jpeg

Climate alarmists are an interesting mob. E&E Research cites that moving North Koreans toward basic necessities you and I take for granted (e.g. electricity) might necessitate coal fired power stations being erected. That would lead to a growth in emissions as the country is rich in coal reserves. This must be stopped immediately.

E&E’s Daniel Kish said, “North Koreans reduce carbon dioxide emissions by eating, rather than burning, twigs. That’s what central control always ends up doing,

So it would seem that keeping North Koreans in the dark and encouraging its dicactor to keep developing nukes and oppressing the population is preferable in order to stop global warming. Why not keep all developing nations from jumping on the grid? Why not sacrifice their people for the greater good of the world. How can E&E continue its work if sacrifices aren’t made elsewhere?!.

Saving the planet is a grand idea…but how? Is it any wonder climate skeptics keep questioning the science….?

If you ever wanted proof of Australia’s stupid energy policy look no further

Power Station - United Kingdom

Here is a cracker from Jo Nova on proof of how retarded the thinking is with our federal and state governments when it comes to energy policy. The free market makes a compelling case for taking the opposite view of the regulators. The real danger is if more businesses move off the grid (like the Chinese Bitcoin miners) to their own affordable power the cost of electricity to the “rest of us” will soar. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work that out. Joe and Joanne Public will be forced to rely on an already unstable energy source with fewer people to cover ever rising network costs. As long as we look as we are doing something about climate change, that will be enough. Nuts!

Never let the facts get in the way of a story

82B78F90-ECE3-4DD3-95FE-38CCE2A0261A.jpeg

This story was run yesterday by two US news outlets, NY Times and CNN, based on a study from James Cook University (JCU) which actively sought to muzzle and fire a fellow professor, Peter Ridd, who criticized their poor standards of peer review.  While JCU was adamant in the quality of its study that  Great Barrier Reef (GBR) coral had fallen 15% due to “global warming, Ridd said the data showed 10% growth.

Ridd was summarily threatened by his colleagues who trawled his emails looking for dirt. Instead of being proud of the level of research that would simply prove the study of bleaching coral with data driven fact and rigour, silencing dissenters was simpler. Surely scientists would be proud to rest on the laurels of integrity and quality of analysis. One can only surmise that when agendas are at stake, facts should never get in the way of a good story.

Ridd’s blog notes,

In mid 2017, Ridd contributed a chapter in the book “Climate Change: The facts 2017” where he argued that thermal bleaching from climate change was a very unlikely threat to the GBR. He also made the point that much of the science that claims damage to the reef has been insufficiently checked, tested or replicated. He pointed out that there is a widely acknowledged “Replication Crisis” in science in general where replication tests are finding around half of the recent important scientific literature has serious flaws.”

In the day and age of Google, surely CNN and NY Times might have used their own journalistic integrity to fact check what they publish. Then again they’re climate alarmists too so best just publish anything that fits a narrative than report the truth,

Apathy the true enemy of climate alarmists

F5104007-0387-49EC-9783-D487D7D04F75.jpeg

Cold is the enemy of the climate alarmists in more ways than one. The unseasonably cold weather is not only messing with their cause, it would seem that apathy  is the more worrying symptom. As you can see in the Melbourne “March for Science”  protest, the participants are clearly cold enough to wear fur lined hooded jackets. Sydney didn’t look much different in terms of indifference.

03CBB6F5-621A-442F-AB86-2D08D1766CE6.jpeg

Indeed the “biggest threat to the planet” is their own lack of conviction. Telling. Even with the full support of the climate alarmist state media giving free plugs for the event proved to have little impact. Wouldn’t the very statistics they always espouse demand protestors in the 10s of 1000s? Given the Aussie Green Party is announcing they will run an election platform of a $20,000 universal basic income without having to work and legalized cannabis it would seem a far better pay-off staying home getting stoned.