Absurd forecasts remain a thing of the present

From the indispensable Donna Laframboise: That Laughably Wrong Climate Prediction is Now 21 Years Old. That should be enough in itself to discredit the entire business, but it’s not. So let me quote from her text:

The entire climate crusade rests on predictions such as these. It is because politicians believe scientists such as Viner that they’re determined to impose a low-emissions regime on the global economy.

That really ought to be the end of it but alas, as we know, none of the morons who continue to fret over global warming can be shamed out of their absolutely insupportable beliefs. They are determined to believe it to the end, partly because without it they would have nothing to believe of substance at all, and partly because it would be too embarrassing to admit how wrong they were. What to do remains a problem without a solution other than to keep making fun of such people as they cause their own cost of living to rise along with the rest of us. Yet I fear the obstinacy will continue until who knows when?

“Thank you to the Nats for making a stand on this issue. The Libs have gone to water”

“Nats would betray farmers if it waved through net zero”

That was the headline that introduced this story in The Australian today. I defy you to work out what that story is about, so I will tell you, and it was jointly authored by Barnaby Joyce and Matt Canavan. Here are the relevant quotes to help you see where it’s going which in my view the heading will inhibit anyone from reading. This is the first para.

Australian politics is obsessed with a target to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Like so many political decisions, it is being sold as a sea of righteousness with no rocks.

Let me point out that this is a form of ironic statement where we are being instructed that the action is not righteous, in which there are plenty of rocks. The writers of this story do not think a policy of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 is a sensible policy. Now some more.

Climate politics has many quasi-religious aspects to it which, like many religions, breeds a cynicism at times, especially when the religion is forced on you. Absolute beliefs that tolerate no dissent; absolute belief, devoid of a highly scientific understanding by most followers. Compliance and tithings to a dogmatic sermon. Every word accepted as sacred and underwritten with hellish climate damnation if not adhered to. This religion also requires people to speak to you from the other side as many of the politicians and commentators talking about a 2050 aspiration will be dead by then. They won’t have to deal with the economic consequences or pay for the policy. Further, just as COVID-19 has hit us from left field in the past year, lots of other issues will emerge between now and 10 federal elections away.

The use of the term “religion” means they think the Global Warming mafia are a bunch of deluded fools who believe all kinds of stupid things without a sound basis for those beliefs. Here’s some more from the article with a few bits highlighted:

In regional Australia we have a clear memory of the sneaky pact between the federal and state governments to divest farmers of their property rights so as to meet Australia’s Kyoto targets. In 1990, the baseline year for our Kyoto commitments, Australia cleared 688,000ha of land. We negotiated a clause in the Kyoto agreement that allowed us to claim a “carbon credit” if we cleared less than this amount each year. This led to state governments imposing ever tightening restrictions on land clearing. Now Australia clears just 50,000ha of land a year. This is not enough to keep our farming land at a constant amount, let alone develop new areas.\ To put it another way, the emissions from people living in cities have gone up during the past 30 years, but their moral guilt has been eased by sending the bill to the bush.

Here is the nub of the article where the headline is drawn from:

This is why the Nationals have always been opposed to a net-zero target…. A net-zero emissions policy would destroy any hope of expanding Australian farming. If the Nationals supported net-zero emissions we would cease to be a party that could credibly represent farmers.

Here is the final para. See if you can detect their use of irony.

Last year, China brought online more coal-fired power than we have in the whole of Australia, and then China announced that it was committed to a net-zero emissions target by 2060. If you believe that, you probably believe Hong Kong remains free. The past year demonstrates that we should stop being naive and start focusing on the real issues that threaten the security and independence of our free country.

The heading above was the “Most liked” comment on the article. But you would have to read the story to know what is what it said. Here are some of the other comments that followed that one.

Very refreshing. The international climate change hoax is currently the greatest threat to this nation’s prosperity. When GetUp places an ad thanking Liberal Party members for their support you know the country is on its knees…. Only a modicum of research is required to demonstrate that the global warming scare is simply a get rich scheme for those involved in the renewables industry, a point of which these two politicians are well aware. But who to vote for in the future? Once again Barnaby has to step up to show the Coalition how silly Australia’s ‘climate action’ is. Unfortunately there’s no Tony Abbott around to crush the wet Libs. I used to consider myself an environmentalist- I took Environmental Law as part of my degree and was Law Students Rep on the Environmental Defence Society. But it just isn’t rational to believe that a gas comprising 400 parts per million in our atmosphere can cause the planet to heat. I read Prof Ian Plimer’s book and he backs up this position. In fact CO2 levels have been far higher in the past without causing warming. You take the stuff about rising sea levels. There is no evidence of this whatsoever. I have been visiting Fiji for 30 years and haven’t seen a single island swamped. In fact I have seen new islands forming. My parents had a beachfront property in NZ and periodically we would have storms that took away the front of our property. But the wave action would always return that sand. Until next time. Matt and Barnaby (plus Craig Kelly) are about the only rational voices in Canberra. The very well informed One Nation MP Mark Latham was on SKY News last night setting out in graphic detail who is behind the NSW Liberals lurch to the Green Left On Energy policy. The same faction that was beholden to Turnbull and gave their blessing to Morrison to get the top job. RE RentSeekers of the highest order with only one aim in mind and that is feathering their own nests with Other People’s Money.Lots Of Other People’s Money.In the name of Saving the Planet of course. Yes from that Rampant Global Warming That is predicted to see an increase of .5 of a degree Celsius in 70 years time. Not much of problem really by any stretch of the imagination.

Given how opaque the heading was for me, which almost stopped me from reading the article myself, these are the views the editor at The Oz did not really want anyone to read. That there were only 183 comments makes me think they succeeded. In any case, whatever the intention, I am happy to help spread their message because it is not heard often enough.

More climate hysteria

We really are living in a world of titanic lies designed to inflame the hysterics. This just in: 2020 May Be The Hottest Year On Record. Here’s The Damage It Did.

With just a few weeks left, 2020 is in a dead-heat tie for the hottest year on record. But whether it claims the top spot misses the point, climate scientists say. There is no shortage of disquieting statistics about what is happening to the Earth.

The hottest decade on record is coming to a close, with the last five years being the hottest since 1880. 2020 is just two-hundredths of a degree cooler than 2016, the hottest year ever recorded. The Earth is nearly 2 degrees Fahrenheit warmer now than it was in the 20th century, and greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are still rising.

The future will be even hotter, although humans, through the choices governments, corporations and individuals make, will decide exactly how much.

That means more years like 2020, with increasingly powerful hurricanes, more intense wildfires, less ice and longer heat waves. The average yearly number of $1 billion-dollar disasters in the U.S. has quadrupled in the last three decades. As of October 2020, there had been 16 climate-driven disasters that caused at least $1 billion in damage each.

And to remind me of how all of these views are inflamed by academic scholarship I received this today as well, a notice seeking entries for the  2022 Essay Prize in Economics which is to be on the topic of: “What Contribution can Heterodox Economics Make to Addressing the Climate Emergency?” Here are the details:

Essays are invited which explore the potential contribution of any aspect(s) of heterodox economics, broadly construed, to addressing the climate emergency. Possible sub-topics include:

  • Ends. What should be the objectives of climate policy, and action more generally by states, institutions and individuals, in addressing the climate emergency? How should the values at stake be conceptualised? 
  • Means. Assuming some clear goals or objectives, how should these be pursued? How should we act in the face of economic, scientific, and political uncertainties?
  • Discourses and strategies. In addressing the climate emergency, how are our means and ends best described and framed? Are there tensions between well-justified ends which might emerge from ethical, political economic and scientific analysis, and the means available to us?

I loved this bit most of all:

The essay will be judged on its originality and independence of thought, its scholarly quality, its potential to challenge received ideas, and the success with which it matches the criteria of the ISRF and the CJE. The successful essay will be intellectually radical, orthogonal to existing debates, and articulate a strong internal critique across the fields of economic research. Its challenge to received ideas will have the potential to provoke a re-thinking of the topic.

The possibility that anyone is looking to challenge the climate doomsday consensus is zero. As for the successful essay being “orthogonal to existing debates” I have no idea what that means but will anyway not be entering.The prize to the successful winner will be EUR 7,000 which is an indication of how cheap getting academics to fall into line actually is. 

The climate change scam

This is how this post begins which is titled, The Climate Scam: What We Are Up Against.

What I call the “climate scam” is the proposition that human use of fossil fuels will shortly bring about a catastrophic increase in atmospheric temperatures, and that this crisis can easily be averted by governments in a few rich countries, with about 10% of the world’s population, imposing crippling coercive restrictions and cost increases on fossil fuel use while also massively subsidizing alternative “renewable” energy sources.

I have long thought that this scam could not go on too much longer. The reasons I have thought that are many, the least important of them being that in the several decades since the warnings of catastrophic warming were first issued, atmospheric temperatures have increased much less than predicted. But here are two other reasons for my view that are more important:

  1. Restrictions on rich-country carbon emission cannot possibly have any meaningful effect on world climate, because rich-country emissions are a minority and a rapidly-shrinking portion of total world emissions, while developing countries, with about 90% of world population, are rapidly increasing their emissions from a low base. The developing countries will never agree to limit their ongoing emissions increases, particularly while many of their people still lack basic access to electricity, automobiles, air conditioning, and so forth; and
  2. In rich countries, ordinary and working-class people will surely put up an insurmountable roadblock to restrictions on fossil fuels as soon as they figure out that many of their jobs are threatened and their costs of electricity and gasoline are planned to increase by factors of 2 or 5 or 10 in the effort to achieve a (theoretical) meaningless reduction of predicted world temperatures of a few tenths of a degree 50 or 100 years from now.

I still believe that eventually this scam will fall apart, and for the reasons given (among other reasons). After all, the information to support my points (1) and (2) is readily available, not only from many posts on this blog, but many other sources as well, official and otherwise. There is a network of climate-skeptic news sources and bloggers, of which I am one, constantly putting this information out for the public to see. All of these sources, as far as I am aware, operate on a shoestring; but they cannot be silenced, and the skeptic community is remarkably robust and resilient. We aren’t going away.

But then, you have to consider what we are up against.

If you want to know what we are up against, you should go to the link, although this brings you close to the answer:

Thumbnail

But go to the link anyway even if it might depress you.

Political self-harm

Most people lead such empty lives they are grateful for anything to believe in. Now that politics has replaced religion, particularly on the left, the madder the notion, the more likely it is to be adopted to provide their lives with meaning.

Take global warming. With the limited levels of un-faked evidence that the planet is warming – polar bears, anyone, no rise in sea levels etc – plus the tremendous harm that ridding ourselves of fossil fuels would do to our standard of living, you might think these would make some kind of impression. Why are people so willing to believe that something that will damage their lives in such a devastating way is true?

But for whatever reason, that they are. Biden Said He Would Transition From the Oil Industry. Nearly 3 in 5 Voters Support That Move.

The election remains a cliffhanger. Talking to lefties is a sobering experience. They don’t just believe this stuff, they instantly believe anything the moment it is put onto The LeftAgenda. How stupid do you have to be to believe the Chinese Flu means we should shut down our lives until it has entirely disappeared. You should even be made to compulsorily wear a mask if you are driving alone in your car. That’s what Joe wants to do and said exactly that yesterday.

California here we come.

How close we were

This is from The SMH: ‘You bastards sacked me.’ When the climate sceptics arrived. It begins:

On the first day of the new Abbott government, Australia’s climate scientists got a pretty clear message. It was September 18, 2013, and within 24 hours of the swearing-in ceremony at Government House in Yarralumla, the new environment minister, Greg Hunt, had called the head of the Climate Commission and sacked him.

“It was a short and courteous conversation,” Dr Tim Flannery recalls. “I’m pretty sure that cabinet hadn’t been convened when they did it. My very strong recollection is that it was their very first act in government.”

Flannery’s colleague on the commission, Professor Will Steffen from the Australian National University’s Climate Change Institute, was also sacked, along with all the other commission members. “I think we were the first definitive action of the Abbott government,” Steffen recalls. “They got rid of us and you could probably measure it in hours rather than days.”

What surprised the scientists most was not their hasty sacking but how quickly the government obliterated their work. “The website that we’d spent a lot of time building was taken down with absolutely no justification as far as I could see,” says Flannery, the one-time principal research scientist at the Australian Museum and internationally renowned scientific author. “It was giving basic information that was being used by many, many people – teachers and others – just to gain a better understanding of what climate science was actually about.”

Or as summarised by the article:

When Tony Abbott became prime minister, a raft of legislation was introduced to shut down everything from the emissions trading scheme, the CEFC and the Climate Change Authority.

The article is told as a tale of catastrophe averted. For myself we are dealing with some of the most destructive people in Australian history. If only Tony Abbott had been able to repel these climate fog-heads our economic future might have been set in a different and more productive direction. Do these people really believe that global climate change is the danger they keep saying it is? It would be nice to find at least one prediction that has ever come to pass. Flannery is the most infamous of the lot with his predictions on the future of drought, but none of them has ever had a predictive success.

Sweden has “got quite a long way to the same effect”

Epidemiologist Who Triggered Worldwide Lockdowns Admits: Without Instituting Full Lockdown, Sweden Essentially Getting Same Effect

People enjoy the sunny weather in Tantolunden park in Stockholm on May 30, 2020, amid the novel coronavirus pandemic.

On Tuesday, Professor Neil Ferguson, of Imperial College London, whose bleak projections of future deaths from COVID-19 influenced governments around the world to institute massive lockdowns, admitted of Sweden, which did not institute harsh lockdowns, “It is interesting that adopting a policy which is short of a full lockdown – they have closed secondary schools and universities and there is a significant amount of social distancing, but it’s not a full lockdown – they have got quite a long way to the same effect.”

From here. What really happened in Sweden we may never know. But as CL points out, they have a new toy to play with so who cares?

But why should we steer the economy away from carbon?

From The Economist just now. We live in the midst of such idiocy in almost every direction that it will be a miracle if we get through this without a major collapse, going well beyond a mere depression. You really have much to fear when it’s Daniel Andrews leading the way. Plus this:

cover-image
Our cover this week calls for a global effort to tackle climate change. Covid-19 creates a unique chance to steer the economy away from carbon at a much lower financial, social and political cost than before. Rock-bottom energy prices make it easier to cut subsidies for fossil fuels and to introduce a tax on carbon. The revenues from that tax can help repair battered government finances. The businesses at the heart of the fossil-fuel economy—oil and gas firms, steel producers, carmakers—are already going through the agony of shrinking their long-term capacity and employment. Getting economies back on their feet calls for investment in climate-friendly infrastructure that boosts growth and creates new jobs. Low interest rates make the bill smaller than ever. The world should seize the moment.