#unipcc

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.

A colossally poor comparison, as usual

As ever the Climate Council of Australia rarely gets numbers right. Now they are benchmarking electric cars against Norway as a “leader”. While all these wonderful benefits might accrue to Norwegians, Norway is a poor example to benchmark against. Not to mention Wilson Parking won’t be too keen to join the party without subsidies.

Norway is 5% of our land mass, 1/5th our population and new car sales around 12% of Australia. According to BITRE, Australia has 877,561km of road network which is 9x larger than Norway.

Norway has around 8,000 chargers countrywide. Installation of fast chargers runs around A$60,000 per charging unit on top of the $100,000 preparation of each station for the high load 480V transformer setup to cope with the increased loads.

Norway state enterprise, Enova, said it would install fast chargers every 50km of 7,500km worth of main road/highway.

Australia has 234,820km of highways/main roads. Fast chargers at every 50km like the Norwegians would require a minimum of 4,700 charging stations across Australia. Norway commits to a minimum of 2 fast chargers and 2 standard chargers per station.

The problem is our plan for 570,000 cars per annum is 10x the number of EVs sold in Norway, requiring 10x the infrastructure.

While it is safe to assume that Norway’s stock of electric cars grows, our cumulative sales on Shorten’s dud election plan would have required far greater numbers. So let’s do the maths (note this doesn’t take into account the infrastructure issues of rural areas where diesel generators power some of the charging stations…shhhh):

14,700 stations x $100,000 per station to = $1,470,000,000

4,700 stations x 20 fast chargers @ A$60,000 = $5,640,000,000 (rural)

4,700 stations x 20 slow chargers @ A$9,000 = $846,000,000 (rural)

10,000 stations x 5 fast chargers @ A$60,000 = $3,000,000,000 (urban)

570,000 home charging stations @ $5,500 per set = $3,135,000,000 (this is just for 2030)

Grand Total: A$14,091,000,000

Good to see the Climate Council on message with thoroughly poorly thought out comparisons. That’s the problem with virtue signaling. It rarely looks at total costs. Never mind. Tokenism to them is worth it. Not to mention a Swedish study funded by the left leaning government in Stockholm which showed the production of the batteries to power EVs did the equivalent of 150,000km in CO2 before it has left the showroom. That’s not woke.

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.

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.