#globalwarming

This didn’t age well

This article didn’t age well in Texas. The Lone Star state had both and got neither.

Yet another reason we won’t be bothering to sign up to The Economist. Why pay good money to get a glossy version of The Guardian?

A once great magazine which has succumbed to unbridled climate activism.

Truth

If we only have 12 years before irreversible damage is done, why are we setting 2050 targets?

The Babylon Bee poked fun at climate alarmists with,

If we don’t take action, then in 12 years we will have to explain why the world hasn’t ended and come up with a new number,” one UN scientist warned. “This is a very serious threat, and we urge everyone to hand control of the economy to the government immediately before we have no more time left to change the timeline again.”

The scientific consensus is that roughly 10-12 years from now, the world will be flooded with new doomsday predictions. This can all be avoided if we overhaul the economy and become socialists, according to non-political, unbiased sciencey type guys.

“Should we not change our ways, our old predictions will melt, dangerously raising the chance of us having to move the goalposts again,” said Al Gore. “Do you really want me to write another book, film another movie, and go on another tour in my private jet just because you dingbats couldn’t be bothered to alter your lifestyles? I don’t think so. Let’s all get on board with this 12-year figure, or we’ll have to push back the date again.”

Why pay for the FT if you can get the same journalism in The Guardian for free?

We ditched our FT subscription quite some time ago for journalism (sorry, activism) like this. The same reasons as junking our subscription to the The Economist. Zero thirst for proper journalism. Climate alarmism every second article.

The FT sent the following email:

Dear readers

The coronavirus pandemic teaches us a harsh lesson about the risks that come from the natural world. While lockdowns have contributed to the largest drop in global emissions since the second world war, climate change has continued to disrupt our societies through extreme weather events, mass displacement of people and loss of life. Last year, for example, saw the worst north Atlantic storm season on record, illustrated in this remarkable animation by the FT’s Steven Bernard.

The pandemic has added urgency to business concerns over climate change. We at the FT are responding with the launch of Climate Capital, a new hub for our award-winning climate and green business journalism from across the FT’s global newsroom. I hope you will join me for the first Climate Capital Live event, which I will host on March 30 alongside FT journalists and expert speakers. From emerging clean energy trends to sustainable investing and climate finance, Climate Capital will identify the emerging risks and report on the opportunities for business as our economies strive to adapt to the climate threat before it is too late.

Environment correspondent Leslie Hook marks the launch with a deep dive into how the race for clean energy will reshape the international order. Vanessa Houlder and Alan Livsey, from the FT’s financial analysis column Lex, crunch the numbers on the carbon price, one of the most important financial questions the world has to answer. The FT editorial board weighs up Joe Biden’s raft of climate measures while Japan’s energy minister told the FT’s Robin Harding about his plans to pivot towards nuclear energy in order to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

With FT Climate Capital, we will bring together the news, in-depth reporting and commentary you need to keep ahead of the defining economic story of our generation.

Thank you for reading,

Roula KhalafEditor

Why bother paying $372p.a. for the FT when The Guardian gives even more hyperbolic climate catastrophism for free? So much for the FT being the capitalists’ morning bible.

Interesting that most of the claims made in the FT email are patently false. As Mark Twain said,

If you don’t read the papers you’re uninformed. If you do read the papers you’re misinformed!

Climate Czar Kerry took private jet to collect Icelandic environmental award

America’s new climate czar, John Kerry, decided the best way to collect an environmental award in Iceland back in 2019 was to fly. Not by a commercial airliner but by private jet.

When the Arctic Circle Prize was awarded to Kerry for his steadfast commitment to saving the planet, Icelandic reporter Jóhann Bjarni Kolbeinsson confronted Kerry. The climate czar then explained his hypocrisy away by appealing that he offsets his carbon output and that he was a key player in negotiating the Paris Accords.

Even though a private jet emits 40x the emissions per passenger than a commercial jet, Kerry effectively suggested that the sacrifices we will be forced to make to save the planet will more than offset the vital work he does to highlight the cause by private jet.

Who can blame him? Kerry can’t very well attend the next Davos summit unless he can stand on equal terms by parking his own private jet next to the other 1,500 climate hypocrites attending the soirée. Just wouldn’t send the right message.

Identifying misinformation without facts

You have to hand it to government funded media networks. Just like Australia’s ABC, America’s NPR will peddle its belief system and tell you what is misinformation and what is not.

Here are some of the responses to an NPR poll listed under “incorrect statements”:

“Humans do not play a significant role in climate change

It scored a 69% false rating. Does NPR have facts to support that misinformation?

Have they read the amount of climb downs made by the UN IPCC with respect to have very low confidence that extreme climate events are in any way linked to global warming? Obviously not. The 2018 study compiled by the IPCC just reinforced the findings of the 2013 paper by an even greater degree.

Or the hilarious article in a climate alarmist newspaper that pointed to putting faith in the very investment bankers who they wanted burnt at the stake in 2008. As long as they sing the correct tune in their endeavors of crony capitalism.

Or perhaps the EU Parliament commitment to a climate emergency bill which voted on the following proposed amendment 95 (for), 563 (against), 9 (abstain) by MEPs:

Recalls that climate change is one of the many challenges facing humanity and that
all states and stakeholders worldwide must do their utmost to measure it
scientifically so that policy, and especially spending, is based on observable facts and not on apocalyptic fearmongering or unreliable models; emphasises that there is no scientific consensus on what percentage of climate change is anthropogenic and
what percentage is natural

Wouldn’t want pesky facts to get in the way of doubling commitments to the green climate fund. Openly vote to show evidence is irrelevant.

Of the 1,115 people polled to give a true/false answer on the statement “a group of Satan-worshipping elites who run a child sex ring are trying to control our politics and media” it returned a false rating of 47%.

Perhaps the 53% that returned a true/unsure vote merely thought elements of the statement were true. After all it wouldn’t be a stretch to suggest that elites are trying to control politics and media in a coronavirus lockdown world. Just look at the politicians breaking the very rules we must abide by. If we step out of our homes we risk instant infection from a disease with a 99.9% recovery rate.

With an ever complicit social and mainstream media peddling fear and checking their own facts by shutting down alternative viewpoints (aka free speech), what is so hard to fathom?

Presumably aliens on Venus burnt too much coal

Just when you thought the world’s biggest collection of elitist hypocrites (World Economic Forum) – who fly everywhere on private jets demanding soccer mums refrain from driving the kids to soccer practice in their 2nd hand SUVs – could get any more sycophantic, think again. Apparently climate change ruined Venus.

The WEF believes that Venus has a lot of lessons for earth.

We can learn a lot about climate change from Venus, our sister planet. Venus currently has a surface temperature of 450℃ (the temperature of an oven’s self-cleaning cycle) and an atmosphere dominated by carbon dioxide (96 per cent) with a density 90 times that of Earth’s….Less than one billion years ago, the climate dramatically changed due to a runaway greenhouse effect.

Those damned aliens should have stopped using baseload coal-fired power, moved from internal combustion engines and consumed coffee out of keep cups!

Perhaps we’ll know in a billion years whether the Paris Climate Accord was worth it. Given CO2 is only 0.04% of our atmosphere, it might take some time to get it to the 96% on Venus. It may shorten if we allow too much hot air to escape the conferences held by the WEF.

Surprised they didn’t mention COVID-19’s impact on the inhabitants of Venus.

Can someone point to which department will head climate change policy?

We are getting confused. It seems that a growing number of government agencies are pushing a climate change agenda, an extension of a remit that is well outside its scope of expertise.

Never mind. The US Federal Reserve is the latest group to announce it is throwing its hat in the ring on climate policy. Perhaps the board of governors felt left out that former Fed chair Janet Yellen was promising to stem the climate emergency via the Treasury. Best keep up.

Never mind that 35% of all M1 money supply has been printed in the last 10 months. It would be one thing if the Fed had a track record to boast about. Sadly, it has such poor predictive powers that getting the core business right maybe a more prudent strategy. God help us if inflation ever hits us. Read Jonathan Rochford’s piece on too much cash here.

The problem with central banks is that they continue to use the only tool they possess – a hammer – which would be great if every problem they encountered was actually a nail.

We aren’t alone. The Reserve Bank of Australia has also joined this climate alarmist bandwagon. Even worse the speech based its assertions on the prophecies of the IPCC and BOM, two of many organizations which have been caught red handed manipulating climate data.

Instead of coordinating monetary policy which has fed a housing bubble of almost 1980s Japan levels in terms of price:income with banks 50% more levered to mortgages on average than Japan’s financial institutions were at the point of collapse.

APRA and ASIC have also told us they plan to get stricter on climate change reporting by corporates even though their own data over the last decade shows the opposite. In order to get the results they want, they plan to legislate to enforce it. That should tell us much.

Forgive us for being cynical, but we all know that government agencies must submit their budgets each year. What better way to get a healthy shot in the arm than add a climate change agenda to it in order to squeeze $10s or $100s of millions in extra funding. Forget if the agency has absolutely zero relation to climate change like the DOJ. Just tick that box and then hire a bunch of activists to write puff pieces warning us of the grave dangers of a future crime wave if we don’t stop rising sea levels as opposed to defunding the police.

What an absolute farce. What tends to happen is that extra funding often finds its way to line the pockets of those who work within these agencies, especially at the senior levels. Note what happened to our own fire services in Australia who rarely spoke about climate change but got masses of funding which didn’t go to replenishing equipment but salary increases.

We guess the 2020 annual reports will be ALL about the impacts of climate change when it was hardly ever mentioned over the previous decade when it should have mattered.

Just watch department and agency around the world line up one after another at the climate change teat. That tells all we need to know. A bunch of amateurs doing what they do best – behaving as professional politicians.

It’s for our own good, you know! Shut up already.

The Guardian answers its own question but still doesn’t get it

You have to hand it to the left-wing media. The Guardian has put a puff piece together attacking the success of Sky News.

Journalist Jason Wilson noted, “since mid-2019 Sky has transformed itself into “one of Australian media’s digital leaders” by “focusing on producing highly partisan opinion content targeted at a global audienceThis has attracted a large international audience to Sky’s online offerings. On YouTube, in the last month, Sky attracted 100,000 or so new subscribers and now has 1.06 million in total, putting it just behind the ABC at 1.2 million.”

Imagine that? Make a product that consumers actually want and make money from it. Revolutionary idea! Versus a $1bn+ taxpayer funded behemoth which year after year posts ratings declines despite more budget poured into its coffers every year.

The Guardian fills the exact same space as the ABC, SMH, The Age, AFR and so on. There is no differentiation in product. More commoditized me too. If one were to remove the mastheads and journalist names no one would know which paper they were reading. If they had any sense they’d all merge and sack 80% of the staff.

Alas, Sky News has filled a massive void because it took the time to understand the marketplace rather than cry foul because dwindling eyeballs are a reflection of the mainstream media’s own poor content and lack of creativity. The irony is that media outlets like The Guardian will still demand that YOU are the problem for not reading the endless streams of climate alarmism and anti-Trump articles. And the claim of fake news is laughable when the paper self confessed to demanding journalists up the sensationalist prose in its articles on climate change.

That didn’t stop Wilson from tossing the toys from the pram at the end of his article:

There’s no indication that the Coalition government has any interest in policing the Sky-to-internet fake news pipeline. The companies that host Sky’s viral far-right disinformation bombs are in cahoots with them. Nothing about this is likely to change in 2021, outside the unlikely event of massive pushback on the channel from an Australian public that hardly knows the channel exists.

It’s enough to make you wish for the good old days of 2020.

Talk about sour grapes. 🍋 🍇

Isn’t it fascinating? The left wing media demand that a channel – one an individual has to voluntarily subscribe to and playing in the free market – must be investigated. Were the content to be so despised and off the mark, its ratings would plunge and the whole thing end up in the dustbin of history. Is it any wonder Fox News in America has higher ratings that CNN & MSNBC combined?

The difference between Sky and the ABC is that one has a legislated charter which demands it display zero partisan bias in its coverage (which it flagrantly flaunts). How proud we must be as Australians to forcibly fund an organization that tells us to “shut the f*ck up!” The other is merely beholden to shareholders. Yet the ABC is given a free pass because it is on the same side.

The Guardian would do far better following Sky’s business model rather than a strategy which begs for donations as it competes with the very organization that is guaranteed an income without even trying. If socialists understood economics, they wouldn’t be socialists.

Fukushima offshore wind farms to be dismantled

From The Japan Times:

The government said Thursday it will remove the two remaining wind power turbines it installed off Fukushima Prefecture citing lack of profit in the project, which cost ¥60 billion ($580 million).

The project was widely seen as a symbol of the reconstruction of the northeastern prefecture following the 2011 earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disasters.

The decision came despite Japan’s goal of raising its offshore wind power generation to up to 45 gigawatts in 2040 from a mere 20,000 kilowatts at present as part of efforts to fight climate change. Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga has pledged to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.

At a meeting in Fukushima, industry ministry officials briefed fishermen and other participants about the plan, with local people saying the government had wasted taxpayers’ money and should conduct a thorough study of why the project had failed.

In June, the government removed one of the three turbines installed 20 kilometers off the town of Naraha. It has decided to remove the remaining two in the fiscal year starting April.

The three turbines were constructed in stages from 2012 to support the local economy by creating a new industry based on renewable energy.

To commercialize wind power generation, the operational rate of a turbine must remain at 30% to 35% or more, according to the ministry.

But the rates of the turbines off Fukushima had been around 4% to 36%, according to trading house Marubeni Corp., which participated in the project.”

Germany also gave us a wonderful case study on how its renewables based energy system has backfired spectacularly. 

In 2007, Germany forecasted that 2020 residential electricity prices would be approximately 16 Eurocents with the shift to renewables away from nuclear. Today they trade at c.31 Eurocents. Der Spiegel, a normally left-leaning journal wrote in a two-part series. 

Part 1 – Germany Failure on the Road to a Renewable Future

“But the sweeping idea has become bogged down in the details of German reality. The so-called Energiewende, the shift away from nuclear in favour of renewables, the greatest political project undertaken here since Germany’s reunification, is facing failure. In the eight years since Fukushima, none of Germany’s leaders in Berlin have fully thrown themselves into the project, not least the chancellor. Lawmakers have introduced laws, decrees and guidelines, but there is nobody to coordinate the Energiewende, much less speed it up. And all of them are terrified of resistance from the voters, whenever a wind turbine needs to be erected or a new high-voltage transmission line needs to be laid out.”

Germany’s Federal Court of Auditors is even more forthright about the failures. The shift to renewables, the federal auditors say, has cost at least 160 billion euros in the last five years. Meanwhile, the expenditures “are in extreme disproportion to the results, Federal Court of Auditors President Kay Scheller said last fall, although his assessment went largely unheard in the political arena. Scheller is even concerned that voters could soon lose all faith in the government because of this massive failure.

But never let that get in the way of feeling good about saving the planet.

AOC channels The Last Emperor

Few things come closer to the recent comments made by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) -who thinks that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (80) and Senator Chuck Schumer (70) need to step aside for the harder left faction of the party – than this clip from The Last Emperor.

While we agree with AOC that both are past their prime purely on their ridiculous policy positions, at the very least Pelosi has regularly kept AOC away from any bodies of influence given her even more radical views. Recall Pelosi referred to AOC’s Green New Deal as a “green dream.”

Still, the Trojan horse in Biden will make way for Harris at some stage and so will begin the cultural revolution within the Democrat Party.

We just thought AOC wanted to publicly blacklist Republicans. Now even her own elders are ripe for ridicule.