Living in an “epistemological crisis”

I read this sentence which began the article and stopped right there. This, I said to myself, is the single most strikingly offputting statement that I have ever read that would ensure that from then on I would not trust a word of what follows. This was the sentence:

Barack Obama is one of many who have declared an “epistemological crisis,” in which our society is losing its handle on something called truth.

An authority on lying he definitely is having been one of the most grotesque liars in quite a long line of dishonest politicians, and not just in America. The article was, How physicist Steven Koonin became a climate truth teller.

The article is so empty of analysis that I am virtually unable to provide a brief example of its inanity. This will have to do.

Mr Koonin created the Energy Biosciences Institute at Berkeley that’s still going strong.

At Berkeley! Meanwhile the article is from the Wall Street Journal. The last thing I would look for in any of this would be something that might accurately be described as “truth”.

Beyond stupidity and deeply into mental illness

These climate cranks are literally mad. There is no reasoning with them, and the wronger they are, the more the will to believe becomes stronger. From:

When dealing with a fundamentalist religion it does no good to point out the facts and data about improving environmental conditions, or the reasons behind these happy trends (namely economic growth, open markets, and technological advance), or the sorry record of environmental doomsday predictions ever since the first Earth Day 51 years ago. This one may be my favorite:

Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

We are living in an intellectual emergency

We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We're Going to Say So

Scientific American is the latest to join in and in no uncertain terms: We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We’re Going to Say So.

An emergency is a serious situation that requires immediate action. When someone calls 911 because they can’t breathe, that’s an emergency. When someone stumbles on the sidewalk because their chest is pounding and their lips are turning blue, that’s an emergency. Both people require help right away. Multiply those individuals by millions of people who have similar symptoms, and it constitutes the biggest global health emergency in a century: the COVID-19 pandemic.

Now consider the following scenarios: A hurricane blasts Florida. A California dam bursts because floods have piled water high up behind it. A sudden, record-setting cold snap cuts power to the entire state of Texas. These are also emergencies that require immediate action. Multiply these situations worldwide, and you have the biggest environmental emergency to beset the earth in millennia: climate change.

Given the circumstances, Scientific American has agreed with major news outlets worldwide to start using the term “climate emergency” in its coverage of climate change. An official statement about this decision, and the impact we hope it can have throughout the media landscape, is below.

It’s no longer global warming, of course, since their evidence of an emergency is “a sudden, record-setting cold snap cuts power to the entire state of Texas”, so any unusual climate event will now do as evidence. If you wish to read it all, including their “official statement”, you can go to the link.

Is the Energy Security Board a joke name for the organisation?

Why yes it is. Energy Security Board warns more coal power stations face closure.

Australia’s remaining coal fleet could be forced to close earlier than expected as low wholesale prices and cheap renewables rout generators’ profits, the Energy Security Board has warned, following EnergyAustralia’s decision to shut Victoria’s Yallourn coal plant four years early.

Coal generators including Trevor St Baker’s Vales Point in NSW, Queensland’s largest power station Gladstone and Alinta Energy’s Loy Yang B in Victoria are all viewed as contenders for early closure by ­analysts.

ESB chair Kerry Schott said marginal coal plants faced a decision on whether to pull the pin early.

Let me therefore take you to the comments section. In order of Most Liked First.

How can the ESB still be chaired by someone who has done their best to make energy supply INSECURE through her unceasing advocacy of solar and wind as the country’s future?

We are entrusting our nation’s energy security future to Kerry Schott? Ummm…… Why?

Goldman saachs said it “ADVERSE POLICY SETTINGS”! The freemarket sprinkled with fairydust and bs to make it look like renewables are cheaper yet as noted in the comments below. Your power price keep going up, not down. What a joke. Its time for the politicians to put an electrical engineer in charge instead of green beurocratic bean counters. Kerry schoot, ceo of the energy security board : Has a bachelor of arts degree and was the governments representative that oversaw the sale of vales point for $1m in 2015. Meanwhile, the two lucky owners of vales point pocketed a $62m fy dividend in 2020 and currently value the plant as an assett at $220m, closing it in 2029. The wrong person for the job.

So…Governments federal and state abrogating their responsibilities to the citizenry. You’ve sold us out, pushed power prices through the roof and are trashing our future well being. All of your cute marketing tricks and smug smiles are for nought. I don’t trust your ‘best intentions’.

Media and government keep talking about “cheap renewables” yet the more renewables are introduced, the more expensive electricity and everything related to it gets. When will the cognitive dissonance crack through?

The simple fact is that foolish government policies threaten to make these plants completely worthless. Spend money on upgrades or even serious maintenance and there’s little chance of recouping what was spent. It’s an object lesson in how to destroy Australia as quickly as possible.

These so called experts know nothing. They love attending conferences and blab on. One big hug fest. Like Davos. You dare not be a AGW skeptic.

What sort of a market is it where according to the “experts”, the removal of the so called “most expensive” form of generation (coal and gas) and its replacement by so-called “cheaper” renewables, leads NOT to wholesale prices FALLING but instead RISING by an estimated $6/Mwh? It may, according to the “experts” be “basic economics” but its definitely NOT the brand I was taught.

Wake up Aussies. We will be poorer and China even richer!

Last night it was hot and muggy, then the power went off for several hours. There was no wind, no sun (it was night) where is the back up when there is no solar or wind power. This was at night, but what if it happens during the day when heavy industry are shut down because of no solar or wind power. In the meantime China is laughing building more and more coalfired power stations. Where is commonsense?

Take the triple coal taxes off and the power stations will become economical. Simple.

Barnaby Joyce is one of the few prominent politicians who dares to defy the foreign climate alarm confidence tricksters who work against the best interests of Australia. There is no climate emergency. There is no valid reason for outlawing coal and oil and slaughtering most of our cattle and sheep. Look for those who profit from the sale of windmills and solar panels and for those who enjoy career enhancement and regular overseas jaunts on fully-paid climate-alarm business. All Australian political parties except Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party see climate saving gestures as a vote winner although the liberals are not quite as impatient as the Labor/Green partnership. Will the Nationals party under new leadership rise from the ashes and take a stand against the foreign climate confidence tricksters who threaten the future of our nation?

Say goodbye to our Aluminium smelting industry. It will move offshore..China?

California here we come!

The AEMO operates under rules set by the AEMC. They have publicly stated that they will alter those purchasing rules to facilitate the change in direction of the energy market from centrally located coal fired power stations to geographically distributed renewable networks. That is the reason that the owners of the existing coal fired power stations are running them into the ground. Our power systems are heading into rolling blackouts because not enough investment is going into the required firming when the coal fired assets are retired due to neglect.

And that is every comment at the present time. So let me end with this: EU bullies demand control of Australian electricity in order to do trade deals.

The EU has given up trying to persuade Australian voters that wind and solar power is “cheap”. Instead, it’s using Upperclass centralized bully-power in an attempt to force Australia to sacrifice cheaper electricity and hobble its generation network to satisfy the EU totalitarians.

Australian exporters could face millions of dollars in European tariffs as EU seeks to punish polluters

Written by someone at Their ABC

Australian exporters to Europe are likely to face millions of dollars in new tariffs after the European Parliament voted overnight to move forward with a carbon levy on products from countries lacking serious pollution reduction programs.

The vote came after a top parliamentary committee noted concerns about “the lack of cooperation by some of the EU’s trade partners … to reach the objectives of the Paris Agreement”.

Australians installed more renewables per capita than any place on Earth in 2018-19, but that isn’t enough. The EU say we need a “target” of net-zero, (which we can point at and ignore, like most of what the EU does):

Kathleen van Brempt, a key parliamentary trade coordinator, said an FTA was contingent on “a clear vision [from] Australia by when and how they will become climate neutral and by when and how they will phase out of coal”.

Until Australia establishes a new scheme to lower emissions, its exporters to Europe face the prospect of paying additional tariffs under the new Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which is expected to come into force in 2023.

The mechanism is designed to apply tariffs on imports equivalent to the fees paid under the EU’s Emissions Trading System by local businesses producing the same product.

The aim is to have us freeze in the dark while others prosper.

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:


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