#climatechange

Keeping up with the Obamas

Former Australian PM Kevin Rudd once said that climate change was “the great moral challenge of our generation.” He also wrote in an essay in 2019 that “neighbouring island states are facing the future disappearance of their countries altogether through coastal inundation.”

The Rudds have just bought a $17m beachfront house in Noosa.

They must have taken notes from the Obamas who bought a $15m waterfront property in Martha’s Vineyard.

Why is Mother Nature so generous to left-wing former heads of state?

Thanks SF for the flag.

Sydney Lord Mayor thinks we’re stupid

Lord Mayor Clover Moore proudly tweeted the City of Sydney went 100% renewable energy.

Shame 87.3% of the state’s electricity came from coal on the day of that announcement. Or is that how it works? Calculate the total energy consumed in Sydney and claim that any renewable energy across the state of NSW was hers?

Forbes deletes climate alarmism apology

forbes

Below is the article Forbes published then deleted. One imagines it must be hold a certain amount of truth.

Perhaps the climate alarmists – so annoyed at having their platform hijacked by COVID19 and systemic racism – used their collective idle resources to mobilize and gang up on Forbes with all manner of threats. Cancel Climate Culture?

Here is what was deleted

——–

On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.

I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.

But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.

Here are some facts few people know:

Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”

The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”

Climate change is not making natural disasters worse

Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003

The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska

The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California

Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s

Adapting to life below sea level made the Netherlands rich not poor

We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter

Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change

Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels

Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture

I know that the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism.

In reality, the above facts come from the best-available scientific studies, including those conducted by or accepted by the IPCC, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other leading scientific bodies.

Some people will, when they read this imagine that I’m some right-wing anti-environmentalist. I’m not. At 17, I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution. At 23 I raised money for Guatemalan women’s cooperatives. In my early 20s I lived in the semi-Amazon doing research with small farmers fighting land invasions. At 26 I helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia.

I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network. At 27 I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California. In my 30s I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to invest $90 billion into them. Over the last few years I helped save enough nuclear plants from being replaced by fossil fuels to prevent a sharp increase in emissions

But until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an “existential” threat to human civilization, and called it a “crisis.”

But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.

I even stood by as people in the White House and many in the news media tried to destroy the reputation and career of an outstanding scientist, good man, and friend of mine, Roger Pielke, Jr., a lifelong progressive Democrat and environmentalist who testified in favor of carbon regulations. Why did they do that? Because his research proves natural disasters aren’t getting worse.

But then, last year, things spiraled out of control.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said “The world is going to end in twelve years if we don’t address climate change.” Britain’s most high-profile environmental group claimed “Climate Change Kills Children.”

The world’s most influential green journalist, Bill McKibben, called climate change the “greatest challenge humans have ever faced” and said it would “wipe out civilizations.”

Mainstream journalists reported, repeatedly, that the Amazon was “the lungs of the world,” and that deforestation was like a nuclear bomb going off.

As a result, half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity extinct. And in January, one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change.

Whether or not you have children you must see how wrong this is. I admit I may be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter. After we talked about the science she was reassured. But her friends are deeply misinformed and thus, understandably, frightened.

I thus decided I had to speak out. I knew that writing a few articles wouldn’t be enough. I needed a book to properly lay out all of the evidence.

And so my formal apology for our fear-mongering comes in the form of my new book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.

It is based on two decades of research and three decades of environmental activism. At 400 pages, with 100 of them endnotes, Apocalypse Never covers climate change, deforestation, plastic waste, species extinction, industrialization, meat, nuclear energy, and renewables.

Some highlights from the book:

Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress

The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land

The most important thing for reducing air pollution and carbon emissions is moving from wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium

100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%

We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities

Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%

Greenpeace didn’t save the whales, switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did

“Free-range” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300% more emissions

Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon

The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants

Why were we all so misled?

In the final three chapters of Apocalypse Never I expose the financial, political, and ideological motivations. Environmental groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests. Groups motivated by anti-humanist beliefs forced the World Bank to stop trying to end poverty and instead make poverty “sustainable.” And status anxiety, depression, and hostility to modern civilization are behind much of the alarmism

Once you realize just how badly misinformed we have been, often by people with plainly unsavory or unhealthy motivations, it is hard not to feel duped.

Will Apocalypse Never make any difference? There are certainly reasons to doubt it.

The news media have been making apocalyptic pronouncements about climate change since the late 1980s, and do not seem disposed to stop.

The ideology behind environmental alarmsim — Malthusianism — has been repeatedly debunked for 200 years and yet is more powerful than ever.

But there are also reasons to believe that environmental alarmism will, if not come to an end, have diminishing cultural power.

The coronavirus pandemic is an actual crisis that puts the climate “crisis” into perspective. Even if you think we have overreacted, Covid-19 has killed nearly 500,000 people and shattered economies around the globe.

Scientific institutions including WHO and IPCC have undermined their credibility through the repeated politicization of science. Their future existence and relevance depends on new leadership and serious reform.

Facts still matter, and social media is allowing for a wider range of new and independent voices to outcompete alarmist environmental journalists at legacy publications.

Nations are reverting openly to self-interest and away from Malthusianism and neoliberalism, which is good for nuclear and bad for renewables.

The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilization is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilization that climate alarmists would return us to.

The invitations from IPCC and Congress are signs of a growing openness to new thinking about climate change and the environment. Another one has been to the response to my book from climate scientists, conservationists, and environmental scholars. “Apocalypse Never is an extremely important book,” writes Richard Rhodes, the Pulitzer-winning author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb. “This may be the most important book on the environment ever written,” says one of the fathers of modern climate science Tom Wigley.

“We environmentalists condemn those with antithetical views of being ignorant of science and susceptible to confirmation bias,” wrote the former head of The Nature Conservancy, Steve McCormick. “But too often we are guilty of the same. Shellenberger offers ‘tough love:’ a challenge to entrenched orthodoxies and rigid, self-defeating mindsets. Apocalypse Never serves up occasionally stinging, but always well-crafted, evidence-based points of view that will help develop the ‘mental muscle’ we need to envision and design not only a hopeful, but an attainable, future.”

That is all I hoped for in writing it. If you’ve made it this far, I hope you’ll agree that it’s perhaps not as strange as it seems that a lifelong environmentalist, progressive, and climate activist felt the need to speak out against the alarmism.

I further hope that you’ll accept my apology.

Zali Steggall MP back to Roadmap to Zero failure

The great thing to know about our local MP Zali Steggall OAM is that she clearly equates success with pitifully low numbers, presumably a carry over from her skiing days where the law of cutting time was paramount.

Yes, 895 households in Warringah have signed up to the Roadmap to Zero initiative which she believes is “so many“. It equates to a little over 1% of all households. That means the other c.99% of households clearly don’t give a damn.

She should take a leaf out of the cancel culture playbook and start publicly shaming Warringah households for their lack of compliance as they drop their kids off to school in top of the range Range Rover SUVs.

The wonderful feedback she provided includes cafes that have found innovative ways to allow people to use keep-cups during COVID19, endorsed by the equally woke Northern Beaches Council (NBC) which falls in her electorate. Most people would prefer a limit to the spread of coronavirus by putting up with disposables for the meantime until it is all gone.

We noted the pointless efforts made by the NBC here. It declared a climate emergency where its commitments…wait for it…hammered home a mammoth 0.000000000699857% CO2 saving! Yes 9 zeroes.

The largest irony for us was the cover of the NBC 2017/18 annual report which featured a Yamaha VX Waverunner. It has a gas guzzling 3-cylinder 1049cc engine. It gets 9mpg which would be at the absolute bottom on economy per unit of engine capacity across all NBC fleet vehicles.

Way to go with the virtue signaling! With floundering successes like that, who needs failure?

The most spectacular own goal in history

We can’t think of a bigger own goal. The Guardian newspaper is no stranger to woke causes and pushing all the left wing social causes. Slavery is a definite no-no.

So we wonder how the BLM cheerleading rag can explain away its history. The paper’s founder, John Edward Taylor used profits from a cotton plantation that used slaves to establish the paper in 1821.

In 1844, the paper is claimed to have demanded its cotton workers be forced back into work to fund it.

As the US Civil War wager the Manchester Guardian sided with the southern Confederates against President Lincoln, the liberator of slaves.

The only noble thing to do would be to shut the newspaper down in line with the beliefs of all of its journalists. A petition is already up and running. You can sign here.

Naturally, the left will overlook this troubling history. If The Guardian wants to support BLM, tearing down statues and all the other pet causes of the left it should practice what it preaches.

Open Letter from doctors on BLM during COVID19

RacDoc

An ‘Open letter advocating for an anti-racist public health response to demonstrations against systemic injustice occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic  has been published with 1,288 cosignatories.

It is nothing more than the standard sanctimonious drivel sacrificed on the altar of political correctness served up by liberals desperate to appear chic in a cancel culture using their supposed intellectual superiority over everyone else.

The open letter lends its support to BLM during the novel coronavirus pandemic, stating that “white supremacy is a lethal public health issue that predates and contributes to COVID-19.

Naturally, we wanted to test the depth of the bench of the consignatories telling us that we “Listen, and prioritize the needs of Black people as expressed by Black voices.

Should we view an art therapist who signed as a leading light? The group of Seattle 500 Women Scientists? The transgender entry? The lawyers? The veterinary surgeons? The housing company? The Twitter follower? How about Antonia Beachem, Human? The former probation officer? The postdoctoral researcher at the Barcelona Lab for Environmental Justice and Sustainability? Meditating for Black Lives? The Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility & Radical Public Health? The priest? The pastor?

Apart from the predictable content of the virtue signaling hyperbole, what a shame only 19% of the cosignatories are actual doctors. 37% that co-signed are academics (excluding MDs that lecture), 10% are students and 28% are individuals who don’t list their profession. The rest are a hodgepodge of activist groups.

What these puritans overlook is that most can see this letter is just an expression of their chic political views, wrapped in medical opinion. When so many sign the document from other fields, it dilutes what little credibility there was to begin with.

We’ve seen this sort of thing before.

Remember 11,000 cosignatories to a non-peer reviewed paper on climate change that included Mickey Mouse and Albus Dumbledore?

Or the Feb 2020 Safe Climate Declaration which hosted 100 speakers of which less than 5% were climate scientists. Most were from academia, media and high schools.

Or the 268 cosignatories of an open letter in support of Extinction Rebellion (XR). Perhaps the most hilarious signatory to the letter was Matthew Flinders. Our esteemed explorer seemed to have navigated his way back to life after 200 years.

Or the the sanctimonious video made by the World Mental Health Coalition (WMHC) where all members co-signed the case for Trump’s lack of mental capacity. Sounds impressive using “world”, doesn’t it? Given the World Psychiatric Association represents 200,000 members worldwide, WHMC’s 37 members seems rather pathetic by comparison. Be sure to read how they were prepared to ditch their Hippocratic oath to smear Trump.

Back to this open letter. Let’s not forget the poor ethics displayed by many in the medical community – such as publishing a rushed paper and retracting it in The Lancet on hydroxychloroquine. Or the farcical behaviour of WHO and its kowtowing to China.

Perhaps we might reflect on the alarmist medical experts who lusted power with ridiculously exaggerated forecasts which have likely tanked the global economy and created a far worse outcome for all, especially the minorities they claim to defend.

We can’t wait for them to sound alarms when people attend Trump rallies and accuse them of being grossly negligent.

So in conclusion, certain members of the medical community should stay in their lane. They are entitled to free speech but using fancy letters after their name to lecture the rest of us to check our white privilege discredits them.

A closing thought. Have these MDs considered offering their medical services to the black community gratis to help them overcome centuries of institutionalized racism? Of course not.

Trust CNN to put Greta on a panel of coronavirus experts

Close down our universities immediately. Climate activist Greta Thunberg proves that a 17yo truant can be an expert on pandemics too. Who needs a tertiary education? At least the only thing we learnt is that CNN has even less credibility.

APRA priorities are frightening

We wrote a while back that the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (APRA) had taken its finger OFF the pulse when assessing the risks facing our financial institutions. That was before COVID19. We think our banks are heavily leveraged and have little equity to offset a collapse in the property bubble.

Despite being faced with the prospect of a property meltdown thanks to an employment destroying pandemic, APRA thinks hiring a “Head of Climate Risk” is the way forward.

Why does APRA bother pursuing a field it has no expertise in much less look to create new green tape to extend its oversight?

It is not alone. The Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC) is now seeking more oversight on corporates reporting on climate change.

ASIC’s own study found that fewer and fewer companies were reporting on climate change over the past decade. Shouldn’t we take that as corporates having a better pulse on the impact that climate change will have on their industries than a bunch of bureaucrats wanting to legislate an ideology?

With the COVID19 driven seismic economic shifts to come, it is frightening to see our government departments pursuing irrelevant regulation that companies are even less concerned about.

APRA should be focused on ensuring the coming property market implosion doesn’t cripple our banks. Instead of using the time to fine tune a wide variety of scenarios and stress tests to combat the troubling future, it is only proving it should have power taken away not granted.

Experts inside YouTube ride roughshod over medical opinion

Erickson

The video of Bakersfield-based microbiology experts, Drs Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi, discussing a contrarian view on COVID19 that YouTube took down is still available on this link.

In what world are we living where a video channel prioritises a groupthink generated political opinion that overrides medical experts who have based their findings on available hard data, not wildly inaccurate models? The video was taken down for a ‘violation of community standards.’ You can read the YouTube statement here.

We would understand this if the doctors had no medical training and were pushing wild conspiracy theories. They simply weren’t. All that happened was a sensible presentation of data coupled with opinions based on their background as microbiologists. They think the fears have been overblown.

If you listen to the dialogue, the hard data confirms what we had been saying about the statistics of the pandemic. The doctors compared the data of an open Sweden vs a closed Norway and concluded the data discrepancies of COVID19 were statistically insignificant.

Many of our readers know we are contrarians by nature. We are more curious about what we might be missing rather than just accepting what is commonly reported. When opinions support the data, it isn’t an exercise in confirmation bias. We are genuinely interested as to whether the arguments sound convincing enough to validate them. We are even more concerned when the other side of the debate seek to shut it down rather than expose the flaws in Erickson and Massihi’s thinking.

Is the dissenting view more widespread than the media given credit for? After all the data is a moving feast. We are learning about COVID19 on a daily basis so sticking to the thinking of 2 months ago may not be relevant if the course shifts. Why are governments setting fixed future dates? Why not open up when the data supports it? Hardly any science in politically driven decision making.

An ER doctor in Wisconsin confirmed Drs Erickson and Massihi’s view that it isn’t about science. He wondered why someone in a hazmat suit was taking his temperature when there were next to no patients inside, something that is borne out by the data with so many beds available. Should we fear politics more than the pandemic?

Are governments following a herd mentality which uses poorly interpreted data as opposed to considering herd immunity based on medical science? The economic fallout will likely be way worse than any impacts of the virus itself. As we wrote earlier this week, governments carry zero responsibility for their actions because they can hide behind telling us it was for our own good. We bear the lot in terms of consequences. A terrible equation.

We believe that groupthink is the more dangerous pathogen in society. Whether financial crises or topics such as climate change, dissenting voices have repeatedly been terminated, especially by media outlets. Surely if the data sits with the prevailing sentiment, why not pick the bones out of Erickson and Massihi’s statement and debunk it with more prescient facts? In what world does it help to suppress information? Defeat data with data. This is why we remain contrarians.

The medical discussion surrounding the live clinical data of Erickson and Massihi makes plausible sense. We have all grown up learning that a baby gnawing a dog lead helps its body work out how to fight future infections. The doctors argue that keeping people locked down decreases one’s immunity to fight against COVID19.

The Bakersfield doctors believe that preventing the body from being able to combat coronavirus by not being exposed to it could have the opposite of the intended effect when people start to mingle again. Many people may not even know they have it. So when those people who caught it in a supermarket could restart the process. Does the government return to lockdown again and restart the negative loop?

These doctors claimed to have done the majority of testing for Kern County, California. The data backs up what is being experienced around the world positive test rates for infection are far higher than what is being reported but the death rates are way lower. Having said that, these two owners of seven clinics noted (some might argue somewhat selfishly) that the amount of people getting tested is way lower than their installed capacity. Irrational fear has been keeping people away. Then we are surprised when the natives get restless?

The two doctors recommend putting kids back into school. Slowly reopen other businesses and eventually sporting venues. The doctors questioned how it is OK to go to Costco but not a small cafe. It is reverse logic. There is a far higher exposure in a large business than a local cafe.

The adverse economic impacts don’t match the behaviour of the coronavirus in their opinion. Until a vaccine is found, the human body has the best chance of defeating it. Erickson and Massihi argued that 94% of the people recorded as dying from coronavirus had comorbidities – heart failure, immunodeficiencies, HIV etc. The death toll related to COVID19 alone is a speck.

The doctors added that there has been a sharp rise in domestic violence, child abuse, suicide, depression or mental health issues during the stay home orders. The campaign of fear exacerbated by the media is viewed as a far bigger problem than the coronavirus itself. Massihi suggested that people are becoming afraid to see the doctor for completely non-virus related reasons for fear of catching COVID19 by going to seek medical help. He argued that someone with symptoms of appendicitis avoiding the doctor for fear of contracting coronavirus may die of sepsis.

We don’t pretend to be doctors for a second. We offer no medical opinions here. We merely question why a social media channel decides it knows better than medical experts?

We understand a private business has the freedom to act in ways it sees as best for shareholders, but this seems far more sinister –  using its power to shut down free speech. Perhaps the doctors should sue YouTube for violating their first amendment rights. If there was ever a need for control over media censorship, this makes a great test case.