#climatefraud

Can we defund SBS too?

This isn’t journalism. This is alarmist quackery for the sake of it. Venice has been subject to flooding for centuries. While the floods in Venice now are the highest for over 50 years, it still means that floods were higher in 1966. Let that sink in. Presumably it wasn’t climate change driven back then.

One can only imagine what a Venice Council could possibly do to combat climate change? Perhaps ruin the skyline with wind turbines and solar panels atop the roofs of the Rialto Bridge or San Marco Square?? To alarmists, no amount of tokenism is too little. Claim a climate emergency and show how worthy you really are.

No matter what the Venice Council does to “combat” climate change it will have no effect. Maybe the gondola union can indulge in some crony capitalism and demand that the €7.50 Vaporetto passenger ferries are banned so they can charge €150 to go from Santa Croce to Piazza San Marco instead. At least gondolas are zero emission vessels.

The SBS needs to grow up and deliver proper well reasoned content for the $400m in taxpayer funds it receives.

Former Fire Chief inflames the climate debate

Greg Mullins, the former chief of NSW Fire and Rescue said today, “Just a 1 degree C temperature rise has meant the extremes are far more extreme, and it is placing lives at risk, including firefighters…Climate change has supercharged the bushfire problem.”

CM could not hope to hold a flame (no pun intended) to his knowledge of fire behavior but why does the WA Government’s own fire service website, Bushfire Front (BFF) contradict him,

Compared to slope, wind strength, fuel quantity and dryness, temperature is an insignificant driver of fire behaviour. Experienced firefighters do not fear a 40-degree day per se. This is because even on a hot day, a fire in one or two-year old fuel can be controlled; on the same day a fire in 20-year old fuels with high winds would usually be unstoppable.”

One of them must be right. Could it be that Mullin’s personal beliefs about climate change are a factor? After all he serves as an author for the Climate Council.

Mullins also said that ” We saw it coming. We tried to warn the government.”

Indeed BFF notes clearly,

““Large wildfires are inevitable”

This statement is, to put it politely, bosh. Large wildfires can only occur when there is a combination, at the same time, of three things:

• an ignition source,

• severe fire weather and,

• a large contiguous accumulation of fuel.

Remove any of these three and you cannot have a large wildfire (= megafire).

We obviously can’t control the weather, nor can we hope to eliminate all possible avenues of ignition. The only factor we can control is the large contiguous accumulations of fuel. Therefore, broadscale fuel reduction burning is the only defence we have against large wildfires. This will not prevent fires occurring, but it will ensure fires are less intense, are easier and safer to control and will do less damage.

Does it work? Yes it does, as has been shown many times, over many years, by the experience of Western Australian forest managers. The “proof of the pudding” is the incidence of large wildfires in Western Australian forests over the last 50 years. There were a number of very large fires in Western Australian forests from 1900 to 1960, but after the 1961 Dwellingup fire disaster, the wide-scale fuel reduction program carried out by the then Forests Department, ensured that the fuel accumulation was well controlled. The graph below demonstrates this very clearly. It was only after the burning program gradually fell away following a diversion of resources away from forest areas, that the area of wildfires began to climb again after about 1990.

How is it that so many of these fires have been started by arsonists? A 16-yo has been alleged to have started fires in central Queensland. Johannes Leak’s cartoon was absolutely on the money.

Even assuming Australia pandered to Mullins and went zero carbon emissions tomorrow, could he guarantee that the bushfires would slow or end? Even though Australia is such a tiny contributor to global CO2 emissions? Could he show the science behind his beliefs on fires and the link to climate change even though 85% are deliberately, suspiciously or accidentally lit?

Of course the climate alarmists immediately endorse his words because he is a firefighter. Although are his words on climate change anymore relevant than those of the AMA?

Maybe we should reflect on the politics within the upper echelons of the fire services? Not so much the rank and file front line fire fighters but the bureaucrats who make daft decisions such as buying a Boeing 737 fire-bomber which can only be used at 4 airports rendering it highly inflexible (as much as it’s a great political sales point) or a military helicopter which spends 5hrs in maintenance for every hour it is in the field working. Or replacing 1yo trucks with brand new ones because records are poorly kept?

Nope, just blame climate change for it. Get out of jail free card for everything.

CM will take climate change seriously when the 11,000 signatories do

Image result for mickey mouse climate

What do

Mouse, Micky
Professor
Micky Mouse Institute for the Blind
Namibia

Dumbledore, Albus
Headmaster
Hogwarts
United States of America (the)

Aardvark, Araminta
Professor of Zoology
University of Neasden
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the)

have in common?

They are but three of the 11,000 signatories attached to the non-peer reviewed paper which the media made absolutely zero attempts to question the validity of. Typical drip-feed brainless and contemptable reporting. No wonder mainstream media ratings continue to flail.

Although one could argue that anyone could poison the signatory well (this link has been temporarily suspended). The site notes,

If you are a scientist from any scientific discipline [does that include criminology, psychology, anthropology, communication, history, law or any other social science?], we invite you to sign our Viewpoint article “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency” by Ripple et al. 2019, which is now in press with Bioscience Magazine. It is important that we get signatories from a wide variety of scientific disciplines. By signing, you will be included in the full list of scientists who have signed this article. Before signing, we ask that you view this short article by clicking the “Read the Article” tab below (the main text can be read in < 8 minutes), or read the condensed version directly below. When you click “sign the article” and add your name, you will be indicating that you generally agree with our article, helping get this message to world leaders. Note that signatories speak on their own behalf and not on behalf of their affiliated institutions.

This is akin to someone asking for likes or shares on social media feeds. It dilutes its validity by the very argument of thinking the quantity is superior to quality. After all, Einstein once said to someone who claimed he would get 100 scientists to debunk his thesis, “it only takes one to prove me wrong!

Even if one was to argue that wicked flat-earther climate sceptics added Mouse, Dumbledore and Aardvark, the reality is that the system’s lack of due process is self-evident. Furthermore, “generally agreeing” to an abridged version says more about the scientists who would put their name to such a paper without understanding the full contents. It is like people blindly signing a petition to stop rubbish bins being installed at a beach even though they are visiting interstate and unlikely to ever return. Sheep.

This is a common failing of the climate alarmist movement. Extinction Rebellion had many heavily green-leaning CEOs sign an open letter to The Times. It turned out most were affiliated with each other in one way or another and operated out of headquarters 100s of miles from the epicentre of the protests which disrupted local businesses which had to suffer the consequences of their selfishness. Hardly independent minds.

The ultimate irony of renewable energy – go off the grid

Basically prepare for their failure and become self sufficient off the grid.

XR Co-Leader hitches a free car ride to GMB studio

Wow, Extinction Rebellion (XR) is a gift that keeps giving. XR Co-Leader Skeena Rathor went on Good Morning Britain (GMB) and revealed the complete hypocrisy of the movement. None moreso than admitting to catching a lift to the studio in a car arranged by GMB. XR followers are clowns. Rathor couldn’t answer even the most simple questions but rattled off all of the garbage claims of societal collapse, food shortages and a dire future for kids, including not being able to feed them. She even invited other guests to talk to their “scientists.

If XR keep up media appearances it only assures its extinction. So CM implores XR to keep it up.

CM forgot to mention in Dion Lights interview with Andrew Neil, her claim that the scientists who compiled the latest IPCC research paper was flawed because they are focused on pre-industrial era data…hmmm…even though she broadly supported the 99% consensus of the IPCC report…so which is it? Just not alarmist enough. Noone with half a brain would ever believe that billions are at risk of dying in the next few decades.

We shouldn’t forget that yesterday, a blind paralympian, James Brown, decided to climb atop a British Airways plane at London City Airport. Despite the danger he put himself and other airport security officials, the judiciary should hand out a sentence ensure that he is charged with the total costs borne by British Airways shareholders and the airport for the inconvenience caused. Being a blind paralympian shouldn’t grant any special treatment of sympathy.

Utterly clueless

Zion Lights, a spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion (XR), is shown up by Andrew Neil for what the movement is – completely devoid of any sensible and rational knowledge of the subject they purport to know back to front.

Even the most extreme alarmist claims are treated with a level of high confidence and certainty. Lights doesn’t even accept the premise that the idea of billions dying is that far fetched. She simply deferred to the delusions of the lunatic scientists (highly questionable) who clearly made up such bogus claims as if it was a mathematical guarantee. She even thought banning aviation for a 0.03 degree temp change would be worth it.

When Neil suggested that most homes in Britain are heated by gas and/or use it for cooking, the idea that the UK be carbon neutral by 2025 was a long shot. Lights replied, “we put a man on the moon before we had mobile phones and the internet.” Sadly, it took the US more than 6 years to achieve that. Never mind, XR will demand billions are poured into research that will have no impact on the planet.

With that level of logic, we should definitely accelerate the idea of letting XR run our government with citizen’s assemblies. Utterly clueless, just like those councils and governments calling climate emergencies.

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).