#unipcc

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.

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.

Swedish truant slaps the high priestess of woke

The beauty of being young is that any manner of words can come out of the mouth and be automatically assumed to be fact or truth. Anyone with teenagers knows this.

How sorry we feel for the high priestess of woke, NZ PM Jacinda Ardern, to be chastised by the infamous Swedish teenage truant for not doing enough on climate change. We should prepare ourselves in the future for Greta Thunberg as UN Secretary General because she is gifted in the ways of admonishing those that stray from the preordained orthodoxy.

Now that COVID19 is almost behind us and Joe Biden has officially been nominated president-elect by the electoral college we should expect to see the coronavirus restrictions/cases to disappear and climate change to regain its rightful place at the top of the liberal agenda.

We’ve always held the Paris Accord as an absolute joke. Self-declared developing nation, China, as the world’s biggest polluter by a minimum factor of two, is free to increase emissions out to 2030 while the rest of the developed world must self-flagellate. No matter what strides are made by nations on emissions abatement, it is never enough. Thank God we have all those elites who fly by private jet to global summits to tell mothers who drive their kids to soccer practice in second hand SUVs will burn in hell if they don’t quit their selfish behavior.

No doubt Greta will praise China’s net zero emissions commitment by 2060 as she’ll probably be one of the few that will be around to validate the promise.

Now that peons around the world have proved their obedience during lockdowns, ramming the global warming agenda should be a piece of cake. Maybe those who rationally want to see fair minded cost benefit analysis of going 100% renewable will risk being arrested by the apparatchiks and charged with hate crimes, as has previously been promote by the more radical climate alarmists.

Before they do that, we always have green pioneer Germany to guide us with the massive costs of decommissioning wind farms that have outlived subsidies. None of it factored into the modeling but you aren’t allowed to question this additional burden.

Rest assured global central banks have extended their expertise from monetary policy to saving the planet. We are in safe hands. Treasury Secretary-elect Janet Yellen has told us as much. After all, she claimed as Fed Chair that we’d never see another depression in our lifetime. Hmm.

Now that we are presented with negative sovereign yields for Portuguese, Italian or Greek debt despite the fact much of it will never be repaid, we know these geniuses have got Frankenstein under control. Just trust them, the media and ignore our thoughts. It’s above our pay grade and intelligence. So shhhhh. We’re in safe hands. School skipping teenagers know best.

If we believed the science 50 years ago

50 years ago we were told to prepare for an ice age. Now we’re told to prepare for rising global temps. Believe the science or the activists?

We always like to refer people to the UN’s own survey on itself as to the (lack of) robustness in the scientific process in the very climate bibles we are told are the gold standard. Note, the contributing scientists’ words. Not ours.

Whatever side of the coin you maybe as goes climate change, one can’t deny this is incredibly damning and highlights that it is almost exclusively about politics and wealth redistribution than saving Johnny polar bear.

That hasn’t stopped climate alarmists rejoicing the prospect of Biden rejoining the cabal of capital misallocation. One wonders whether the climate apparatchiks will carry out their promise to jail climate skeptics.

And isn’t it funny the mainstream media celebrates China’s commitment to be carbon neutral by 2060? Not sure if many of will be around to find out. Maybe that’s the point. At least by then Greta Thunberg will be in her 50s. We hope not traumatized knowing that she was totally hoodwinked.

How to sum it up? The climate change industry wants us to believe that highway service station diners are worthy of Michelin stars. Thank God we may have John Kerry telling soccer mums to refrain from taking the kids to soccer practice in a second hand SUV as he pontificates from one of his six houses.

Watch the hips, not the lips.

America’s new climate czar

John Kerry: Joe Biden’s pick for Climate Envoy. The hypocrisy of being lectured to by a man who is hardly setting the example.

Scientific American endorses Biden – first time in 175 years

Wow. Scientific American has endorsed Joe Biden. This is the first time the magazine has backed a presidential candidate in 175 years. We think it may live to regret its move. The magazine has merely exposed the deep partisan bias and confirmed again how much of scientific academia and media leans left. Why?

The editors closed with,

It’s time to move Trump out and elect Biden, who has a record of following the data and being guided by science.”

If we listened to Joe Biden’s ‘Moses and the 10 Commandments’ speech the other day, it was full of unsubstantiated hyperbole about the risks of higher incidences of floods, hurricanes and wildfires if Trump is reelected despite the fact that under the current administration, harmful GHG emissions have fallen by the largest absolute number ever in 2019 according to the IEA.

For a magazine that rests its laurels on “following the data” and “being guided by the science”, perhaps it missed the UNIPCC’s March 2018 report on weather extremes (with respect to anthropogenic induced global warming) which noted:

…There is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems…in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia. There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and frequency of floods…low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences..low confidence in projections of changes in extreme winds.. low confidence in projections of changes in monsoons…low confidence in wave height projections…overall low confidence because of inconsistent projections of drought changes…low confidence in projected future changes in dust storms…low confidence in projections of an anthropogenic effect on phenomena such as shallow landslides.

Perhaps the editors missed the questionnaire posted by the UN Interacademy Council committee on its website which invited interested parties to respond to the scientific processes at the IPCC during the compilation of the gold standard climate bibles? These were some of the responses;

some of the lead authors…are clearly not qualified to be lead authors.” (p.16)

There are far too many politically correct appointments, so that developing country scientists are appointed who have insufficient scientific competence to do anything useful. This is reasonable if it is regarded as a learning experience, but in my chapter…we had half of the [lead authors] who were not competent.” (p. 138)

The whole process…[is] flawed by an excessive concern for geographical balance. All decisions are political before being scientific.” (p. 554)

half of the authors are there for simply representing different parts of the world.” (p. 296)

Lest anyone think that people from less affluent countries were being unjustly stereotyped,

The team members from the developing countries (including myself) were made to feel welcome and accepted as part of the team. In reality, we were out of our intellectual depth as meaningful contributors to the process.” (p.330)

The founders of Scientific American must be rolling over in their graves. If their scientific rigour is as sound as their endorsement then Trump has even more chances to secure reelection.

This should be seen as a rejection of Trump not an endorsement for Biden.

UN to hire young climate leaders to advise on climate action

UN Secretary General António Guterres has announced a new group of youth climate leaders, aged 18 to 28, to advise him on climate action.

Never mind using facts and logic. Forget getting the brightest minds with decades of experience to objectively look at the data. Just hand pick brainwashed kids who will parrot whatever is required by Dear Leader.

Can you imagine the amount of group think? Why bother having meetings at all? Will Guterres get any dissenting voices? Not on your life.

We guess that after all of the decades of doom and gloom forecasts made by the IPCC, next to none of which got even close to the mark, it is best use kids as human shields to peddle the nonsense because it is not cool to attack them.

Why stop at climate change? Perhaps they should be advising WHO? After all Greta Thunberg is a renowned expert on coronavirus and it is fair to say she couldn’t do a worse job that Dr Tedros has done so far. Come to think of it, where is Greta?

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.

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.