Something interesting happened in Canada!

The vid above is about policing in the most woke (= idiotic) city on earth in the most woke (= insane) province in Canada’s fair domain. The rest is about energy policies which provides a lesson to us all.

Ontario was once the wealthiest province in Canada, but is in the process of proving that while there may be much ruin in a great nation, eventually you really can ruin the place if you work at it long enough and hard enough. Here is a cautionary tale proving there are some people for whom no level of ruin is ever enough: $312 Billion: Green Energy Makes Ontario the Most Debt-Ridden Province on Earth. Not long, worth your time, in my view, but here is something to get you started.

A major issue has been crippling energy and environmental policies. It began when, in 1992, then-premier Bob Rae appointed businessman and former UN Under-Secretary-General Maurice Strong to be chairman of Ontario Hydro. At the time, Ontario was a prosperous, economically sound province. Strong changed that when he applied the energy and environmental policies he proposed for the entire world. In 1992, he introduced them through his creation of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and the conference he chaired in Rio de Janeiro.

At the conference, Strong introduced his creation of Agenda 21, a global energy and environment policy of world-shattering implications, and got it ratified. It was at the same conference that world leaders signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The UNFCCC set the ground rules for the UN’s climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In Article 1 of the UNFCCC treaty, it specified:

“Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.

It is a definition that predetermines the outcome of the IPCC’s work. You cannot isolate human causes of climate change without knowledge and understanding of natural changes and mechanisms. The fact that we cannot forecast the weather beyond 72 hours demonstrates how little we understand about natural climate change and its causes. Accurate forecasts require accurate science, and yet the science is still highly immature.

To further his anti-development agenda, Strong needed “science” to isolate and prove that increasing carbon dioxide emissions from industrial activity, a natural outcome of increasing production, would cause runaway global warming. Once the science was determined, the bureaucracies of national weather offices such as Environment Canada (EC) could push policies to cripple energy production, industry, and development. It is not coincidental that Gordon McBean, later assistant deputy minister of EC, chaired the founding meeting of the IPCC in 1985. Other countries and regions were slow to adopt these principles, but in Ontario, Strong was able to use his position at Ontario Hydro to implement with impunity the crippling policies he orchestrated in Rio.

You’ll never guess what happened next.

 

The politics of the environment

Steve Hayward who wrote the article discussed on the decline but sadly not the fall of the politics of climate change wrote an earlier and related article on Conservatism and Climate Science. This is the core of the issue discussed:

The conservative ambivalence or hostility toward the intersection of science and policy can be broken down into three interconnected parts: theoretical, practical, and political. I begin by taking a brief tour through these three dimensions, for they help explain why appeals to scientific authority or “consensus” are guaranteed to be effective means of alienating conservatives and spurring their opposition to most climate initiatives. At the root of many controversies today, going far beyond climate change, are starkly different perspectives between left and right about the nature and meaning of reason and the place of science.

This is his final conclusion found at the very end:

Liberals and environmentalists would do well to take on board the categorical imperative of climate policy from a conservative point of view, namely, that whatever policies are developed, they must be compatible with individual liberty and democratic institutions, and cannot rely on coercive or unaccountable bureaucratic administration.

Nice thought, except that for liberals and environmentalists, who are largely the same group, the very aim is to achieve coercive and unaccountable bureaucratic administration. They are not interested in the issues or in finding the dimension of the problems involved and seeking solutions to whatever problems there are. Their only interest is taking control over our lives and running things themselves without interference.

So why are we the last to know?

There’s an old story I heard when I first came to Australia about how the original inhabitants of Tasmania had lost the art of fishing, so lived on an island surrounded by water but never ate the fish that swam in the oceans around them. So one day others may tell of a people who inhabited an island made out of coal but chose to drive their electricity using windmills while running water up hill. In this vein, let me draw the following to your attention, from The Wall Street Journal: Climate change is over. There at the start we find this:

No, I’m not saying the climate will not change in the future, or that human influence on the climate is negligible. I mean simply that climate change is no longer a pre-eminent policy issue. All that remains is boilerplate rhetoric from the political class, frivolous nuisance lawsuits, and bureaucratic mandates on behalf of special-interest renewable-energy rent seekers.

Judged by deeds rather than words, most national governments are backing away from forced-marched decarbonization. You can date the arc of climate change as a policy priority from 1988, when highly publicized congressional hearings first elevated the issue, to 2018. President Trump’s ostentatious withdrawal from the Paris Agreement merely ratified a trend long becoming evident.

This is a trillion-dollar issue, that if you get it wrong, will lower living standards by substantial amounts for a generation at least and potentially more. From the same kinds of people who brought you Venezuela, the climate change spectre has made some people rich, has made obscure academics in obscure corners of the world of research famous and wealthy, has scared no end of our citizens about some possible rising of the oceans and an over-heated planet fifty years into the future, but has not produced a single verifiable fact about the climate.

If no one else is shooting themselves in the foot, then why are we? It’s time to stop, and return to burning coal and start building nuclear power stations just like everyone else.

The “progressive” monoculture and free inquiry

Because they do it about maths it is an open and shut case so is not truly comparable to what really goes on, which is largely found in the social sciences. The story of Peter Ridd – told here – is extraordinary mostly because of how blatantly political the university was in shutting down debate.

Universities, particularly in the humanities and social sciences, are dominated by progressives. A US study found less than 10 per cent of academics identify as conservative, while another study found 39 per cent of US campuses have no Republicans. The situation in Australia appears to be similar. Universities seek gender and racial diversity but they are missing the diversity that is crucial for their effective functioning: viewpoint diversity.

“When everyone shares the same politics and prejudices, the disconfirmation process breaks down,” Haidt says.

Academics interviewed by Inquirer tell of a variety of ways that the progressive monoculture limits free intellectual inquiry in Australia. Important projects do not receive funding. Challenging papers are not published. Important issues are not investigated. Studies are designed to reach predetermined outcomes. Erroneous research is misguiding society. Academics self-censor. Administrators censor heretics. Students are exposed to fewer ideas and are marked down or failed for expressing a different perspective.

Witchcraft in the form of science

Jo Nova on The “ten second” guide to the world of skeptics. She says it is only for newbies but said so well and so contrary to modern forms of madness, thought I would list those essential ten seconds’ worth, but there is much more at the link.

The oddest peculiarity of all is that for someone who is an AGW sceptic, it appears as if almost the entire world has gone mad.

Daemonology, climatology, it’s all the same thing, a means for the ignorant to pretend they know something important when they actually don’t

This is Karabar commenting on a previous post. It’s about the kind of people who now invest psychologically in global warming. They are the same people who once burned witches at the stake.

In 1597 King James VI of Scotland published his work “Daemonology”. Within a few decades, Europeans discussed endlessly various methods of killing demons of all description. As time passed and people became “enlightened”, it became obvious that all this discussion about ‘fighting dangerou0s demons’ was nothing but make-believe intended to enhance the power and wealth of the elite.

We really haven’t learned anything, since in the 21st century we discuss endlessly the make-believe of ‘global warming’, ‘dangerous climate change’, the ways in which human activities affect the weather, etc.

Discussions about the imaginary “Global Climate” are as much nonsense as discussions four centuries ago about werewolves, vampires, and witches. In order to determine whether or not some parameter has changed, it is necessary to have some sort of metric that can be examined over time to discover the extent and nature of the change.

“Climate” indeed has such a metric, in the form of classification systems, for the most part Koppen-Geiger and Trewartha. Both have six basic classifications, which are further subdivided into approximately ten sub classifications each. In examining the geographical changes over a century or so, it is clear that areas of each classification can expand or contract slightly in tune with the cyclical nature of the solar system. Indeed, over the breadth of the twentieth century one can argue that there has effectively been no NET change, other than the remarkable greening of vegetation over the past three or four decades which is reflected in the Trewartha classification.

If there were such a parameter as the imaginary “global climate”, what would it be? Would it fall into the classification A, B, C, D, E, or F? Would that mean that the climate of the Scott base is of the same classification as Honolulu?

As homo sapiens did three or four centuries ago, today we insist on the discussion of pure nonsense, but instead of it being how to identify and torture witches, we insist on discussion nonsense such as ‘global warming’, ‘ocean acidification’, and ‘decarbonisation’.

Four centuries have passed with little or no anthropocentric advancement in common sense. Thousands of innocent people were tortured and burned alive in this previous bout of idiocy. How many have to suffer due to the IPCC version of “Daemonology”?

A bit of history and a challenge to the climate change people, a challenge they are absolutely certain never to take up.

Maybe weather really is climate after all

Now updated with the above video from 1977.

I fear we are looking at a breath of sanity in the midst of madness, but enjoy it while you can.

Trump mocks global warming in tweet

President Trump mocked the idea of global warming in a tweet Thursday, making one of his first (if not the first) such public comments on the topic since entering the White House almost a year ago.

In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against. Bundle up!

Why it matters: Trump has tweeted in the past that he thinks global warming is a hoax, but that was in 2012 and he has not focused on the topic much at all in his Twitter activity as president. This tweet shows he’s still openly mocking mainstream climate change science, even without directly questioning it.

Fast facts: Most scientists agree human activity, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels, has been the primary contributor to Earth’s aggregate temperature going up this past century. That does not mean, though, that freezing cold weather, like the East Coast is experiencing right now, won’t happen in the future in many parts of the world. Climate change science is much more complicated than that, but citing cold weather is still a favorite line of politicians and others who doubt climate change is happening. Sen. James Inhofe, Republican from Oklahoma, threw a snowball on the Senate floor in February 2015 to mock global warming.

One level deeper: Trump’s tweet was also mocking the Paris climate deal, a global accord virtually every country in the world except the United States supports. It calls on countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but as it stands the commitments wouldn’t cut emissions to the levels most scientists say is needed. America’s commitment under President Obama was actually relatively moderate — up to 28% cut in such emissions by 2025 based on 2005 levels, but the Trump administration pointed to conservative groups’ studies showing it could cripple the U.S. industrial economy while other countries, notably China, were called on to do less.

Between the lines: The Trump administration released without political influence a statutorily required reportearlier this year confirming in great depth that human activity is driving climate change. Trump’s tweets get a lot of attention, but make sure to also watch what the administration does or doesn’t do on this issue.

The bottom line: Words matter, and so do the president’s tweets. His perspective on this issue is influencing his most ardent followers, a new poll suggests. A survey released in October from George Mason University found that just 21% of conservative Republicans think global warming is mostly human-caused, a decrease of nine points since earlier this year.

One more thing: The semantics around climate change, or global warming, are almost as divisive as the science itself. Global warming was the default term up until the last decade or so, when climate change became more popular among those urging action to cut greenhouse gas emissions. That shift was partly to respond to comments like Trump made Thursday by clarifying that a higher global aggregate temperature does not mean the entire planet would be getting universally warmer.

And for interest, you can follow the entire twitter conversation here. It’s an astonishing thread.

Australian energy policy [!] viewed from Canada

From the great Canadian blog Small Dead Animals: Y2Kyoto: Blunder Down Under

Let’s take a visit to clean, green Australia where they gave up coal

In Australia, peak summer is about to hit in a post-Hazelwood-electricity-grid. There’s a suite of committee reports as summer ramps up. Everyday there’s another Grid story in the press, and a major effort going on to avoid a meltdown. Minister Josh Frydenberg announced today that “we’ve done everything possible to prevent mass blackouts”. Or as he calls it, a repeat of the South Australian Horror Show. Politicians are so afraid of another SA-style-system-black that they are throwing money: The “Snowy Hydro Battery” will be another $2 billion. Whatever. It’s other people’s money.

… to move to diesel.

Homes and businesses are so afraid of blackouts in Australia that some retailers are selling four times as many generators as normal. Mygenerator.com.au reports a 425% increase year on year. The strongest growth has been in South Australia, Victoria and western Sydney.

It’s probably nothing.

AN UPDATE ON THE LATEST EVIDENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING: From Drudge today:

Tony Abbott: Daring to Doubt

Here is the full text of his presentation which is extraordinary, especially when you think how almost unique his views are among political leaders. And as long as you may think this excerpt is, you really should go to the link and read it, or watch it, all.

To a greater or lesser extent, in most Western countries, we can’t keep our borders secure; we can’t keep our industries intact; and we can’t preserve a moral order once taken for granted. Eventually, something will crystalize out of this age of disruption but in the meantime we could be entering a period of national and even civilizational decline.

In Australia, we’ve had ten years of disappointing government. It’s not just the churn of prime ministers that now rivals Italy’s, the internal divisions and the policy confusion that followed a quarter century of strong government under Bob Hawke and John Howard. It’s the institutional malaise. We have the world’s most powerful upper house: a Senate where good government can almost never secure a majority. Our businesses campaign for same sex marriage but not for economic reform. Our biggest company, BHP, the world’s premier miner, lives off the coal industry that it now wants to disown. And our oldest university, Sydney, now boasts that its mission is “unlearning”. . . .

Since the Global Financial Crisis, at least in the West, growth has been slow, wages stagnant, opportunities limited, and economic and cultural disruption unprecedented. Within countries and between them, old pecking orders are changing. Civilizational self-doubt is everywhere; we believe in everyone but ourselves; and everything is taken seriously except that which used to be.

Just a few years ago, history was supposed to have ended in the triumph of the Western liberal order. Yet far from becoming universal, Western values are less and less accepted even in the West itself. We still more or less accept that every human being is born with innate dignity; with rights, certainly, but we’re less sure about the corresponding duties. . . .

Climate change is by no means the sole or even the most significant symptom of the changing interests and values of the West. Still, only societies with high levels of cultural amnesia – that have forgotten the scriptures about man created “in the image and likeness of God” and charged with “subduing the earth and all its creatures” – could have made such a religion out of it.

There’s no certain way to regain cultural self-confidence. The heart of any recovery, though, has to be an honest facing of facts and an insistence upon intellectual rigour. More than ever, the challenge of leadership is to say what you mean and do what you say. The lesson I’ve taken from being in government, and then out of it, is simply to speak my mind. The risk, when people know where you stand, is losing their support. The certainty, when people don’t know where you stand, is losing their respect. . . .

Beware the pronouncement, “the science is settled”. It’s the spirit of the Inquisition, the thought-police down the ages. Almost as bad is the claim that “99 per cent of scientists believe” as if scientific truth is determined by votes rather than facts.

There are laws of physics; there are objective facts; there are moral and ethical truths. But there is almost nothing important where no further enquiry is needed. What the “science is settled” brigade want is to close down investigation by equating questioning with superstition. It’s an aspect of the wider weakening of the Western mind which poses such dangers to the world’s future.

Physics suggests, all other things being equal, that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide would indeed warm the planet. Even so, the atmosphere is an almost infinitely complex mechanism that’s far from fully understood. . . .

Certainly, no big change has accompanied the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration over the past century from roughly 300 to roughly 400 parts per million or from 0.03 to 0.04 per cent.

Contrary to the breathless assertions that climate change is behind every weather event, in Australia, the floods are not bigger, the bushfires are not worse, the droughts are not deeper or longer, and the cyclones are not more severe than they were in the 1800s. Sometimes, they do more damage but that’s because there’s more to destroy, not because their intensity has increased. More than 100 years of photography at Manly Beach in my electorate does not suggest that sea levels have risen despite frequent reports from climate alarmists that this is imminent. . . .

Australia, for instance, has the world’s largest readily available supplies of coal, gas and uranium, yet thanks to a decade of policy based more on green ideology than common sense, we can’t be sure of keeping the lights on this summer; and, in the policy-induced shift from having the world’s lowest power prices to amongst the highest, our manufacturing industry has lost its one, big comparative economic advantage. . . .

Also now apparent is the system instability and the perverse economics that subsidised renewables on a large scale have injected into our power supply. Not only is demand variable but there’s a vast and unpredictable difference between potential and dispatch-able capacity at any one time. Having to turn coal fired power stations up or down as the wind changes makes them much less profitable even though coal remains by far the cheapest source of reliable power.

A market that’s driven by subsidies rather than by economics always fails. Subsidy begets subsidy until the system collapses into absurdity. In Australia’s case, having subsidised renewables, allegedly to save the planet; we’re now faced with subsidising coal, just to keep the lights on. . . .

In the longer term, we need less theology and more common sense about emissions reduction. It matters but not more than everything else. As Clive James has suggested in a celebrated recent essay, we need to get back to evidence based policy rather than “policy based evidence”.

Even if reducing emissions really is necessary to save the planet, our effort, however Herculean, is barely-better-than-futile; because Australia’s total annual emissions are exceeded by just the annual increase in China’s.

There’s a veneer of rational calculation to emissions reduction but underneath it’s about “doing the right thing”. Environmentalism has managed to combine a post-socialist instinct for big government with a post-Christian nostalgia for making sacrifices in a good cause. Primitive people once killed goats to appease the volcano gods. We’re more sophisticated now but are still sacrificing our industries and our living standards to the climate gods to little more effect.

So far, climate change policy has generated new taxes, new subsidies and new restrictions in rich countries; and new demands for more aid from poor countries. But for the really big emitters, China and India, it’s a first world problem. Between them, they’re building or planning more than 800 new coal-fired power stations – often using Australian coal – with emissions, on average, 30 per cent lower than from our own ageing generators.

Unsurprisingly, the recipients of climate change subsidies and climate change research grants think action is very urgent indeed. As for the general public, of course saving the planet counts – until the bills come in and then the humbug detector is switched on. . . .

I’m reminded of the story of a man randomly throwing pieces of paper from the window of a train. Eventually his companion asked him why he did it. It keeps the elephants down, he said. “But there are no elephants here”, his companion replied. “Precisely; it’s a very successful method”.

A tendency to fear catastrophe is ingrained in the human psyche. Looking at the climate record over millions of years, one day it will probably come; whatever we do today won’t stop it, and when it comes, it will have little to do with the carbon dioxide emissions of mankind.

The most dangerous organisation in world history

Sent from my old public school mate in Silicon Valley with this note:

Excerpt from the book “Who Rules the World” by Noam Chomsky. I found his comments to be accurate. I hope that you are able to make out the text.

So as we experience brown outs and black outs, this is the morality that lies behind it. Meanwhile he has his four cars and million dollar lifestyle. It is the rest of us who should stay home and freeze in the dark.