Not supported by facts

He’s 93 so probably no longer compos mentis, but as it says here:

He melodramatically proclaims…that “what we do in the next few years will determine the next few thousand years.” If we don’t take action, he declares, “the collapse of our civilizations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.”

The Walter Cronkite of climate change. Sounds plausible, inevitably wrong when it matters. And to round this out, let me add this:

Swarbrick [swȯrbrɪk] noun – a believer in cataclysmic anthropogenic climate-change

Reprinted in The Oz from The Economist was an article on how English lags behind in climate change word creation. It’s about how across many linguistic groups but unlike in English new terms are being coined in relation to climate change. There we find this:

Van Dale, a dictionary publisher, lets the Dutch-speaking public vote on its word of the year (in separate contests in Belgium and The Netherlands). For 2019 Belgians chose winkelhieren, or “buying local”. The Dutch went with an imported word that has a good case for being the winner in English, too: “boomer”.

As Chloe Swarbrick, a 25-year-old member of New Zealand’s parliament, was giving an impassioned speech on the impact of climate change on her generation, she coolly dismissed a heckling older MP with a curt “OK, boomer”. The phrase was already an internet meme; Swarbrick made it the talk of the offline world as well.

I’m not sure I can actually think of anyone lower on my list of authorities on anything than “a 25-year-old member of New Zealand’s parliament” but let that be. And myself being one of these baby boomers, whose generation has done so much to lower the collective common sense of the planet, I will remind Ms Swarbrick that what she thinks she knows she learned from us, from us baby-boomers, her teachers and professors at every step along the road of her education.

But what struck me even more in the search for a collective term to describe “a believer in cataclysmic anthropogenic climate-change”, now all so common everywhere, is that in her honour such people should be referred to as a “swarbrick”. It’s the brick part that I find so accurate, as in “thick as a brick”, but also because of how lacking in melody and sweetness the term itself seems to be. You’re just a swarbrick, you climate change ninny. Like Victoria was turned into “Victorian”: we would have swarbrick turned into “swarbrickian” in its adjectival form.

I imagine that Ms Swarbrick would take this usage as a badge of honour.

Others like Craig Kelly needed even more than ever

Yesterday I put up a post on Craig Kelly standing up for sense in the face of the climate change idiocies we are forced to endure. I titled the post, More like Craig Kelly needed. I am coming back to it only because it has been brought up again somewhere else.

I hadn’t seen Craig Kelly’s original interview on ITV but Gerard Henderson had: Interview more about ‘look-at-me’ Piers Morgan than Craig Kelly. First the bad news, which I had not known:

Early on, Morgan put this question: “Do you accept the planet is heating up at a dangerous level — yes or no?” To which Kelly replied “yes”.

It’s almost certainly untrue, but during the times in which we live, that is the only answer a politician, other than Donald Trump, is permitted to give. There was then more. The gullible self-harming fools who watch Morning Television on ITV in the UK are not part of Craig’s constituency. So what followed next only matters here in Oz:

Within minutes, [the pommy weather girl] Tobin entered the discussion by accusing Kelly of burying his “head in the sand”. She added: “You’re not a climate sceptic, you’re a climate denier.” This, despite the fact that Kelly had accepted Morgan’s proposition that the planet is heating at a dangerous level.

This would suggest that Tobin was more interested in stating her case than listening to what Kelly had to say.

Of course they’re not interested in listening – we’re talking about the ABC and their like-minded cohorts. They are just part of the liars-squad who for reasons already well-known, are the actual deniers, the ones who deny there is no problem.

Although Henderson thinks there is nothing to be gained by putting the case that global warming “science” is almost entirely fraud, there is, in fact, a great deal to be gained. Someone in a position to actually be interviewed needs to say these things in public or they will never be said where others can hear. Good for Craig Kelly and tough luck for Britain if that is the level of their understanding about climate change.

Of course Uri Geller can bend spoons with the power of his mind, you bloody morons.

More like Craig Kelly needed

There is then the Turnbull wing of the Coalition which seems to cover around half the party. Which brings us to this in the Oz today: Bushfires: Scott Morrison courts states for fire inquiry. What exactly was the “trainwreck”here?

Amid international media criticism of Australia’s emissions policies, Mr Morrison also warned his MPs off interviews with overseas media outlets — a reference to Liberal back­bencher Craig Kelly’s trainwreck British TV interview in which he was attacked as a climate change denier.

This is the trainwreck:

Mr Kelly traded barbs with Laura Tobin and co-host Piers Morgan on the Good Morning Britain television program on Monday where he was accused of being a “climate denier” by the hosts over his views on the effect of global warming on Australia’s bushfire crisis.

Mr Kelly accused Tobin of being an “ignorant Pommy weather girl” in the now-deleted post and said that he “might have to send her some of the published peer-reviewed scientific papers on Australia’s weather.”

She sounds like just another standard-issue cookie-cutter climate alarmist. They are everywhere with nothing to show for it other than a failure to deal with actual environmental problems that have made the bushfires this year so devastating. She would be absolutely impervious to any peer-reviewed scientific papers or indeed, any evidence at all. Happily blighting the lives of billions across the planet because of some conjectures about the future trends in the weather. We need more Craig Kellys around to put the acid on to see if we can prevent a collapse of our economies while the cost of energy goes through the roof.

Noble and self-sacrificing for the common good of humanity

An update on We are the most virtuous country in the world. I have now been informed of the following:

Multiple Facebook posts shared thousands of times contain a list of purported active and under construction coal-fired power plants in several countries around the world. The figures in the list are out of date; the numbers in the misleading Facebook posts were taken from a 2015 report; the current figure for active and under construction coal-fired power plants in the selected countries is less than half the total count listed in the misleading posts.

I never trusted Facebook anyway. The revised figures nevertheless don’t change the point, that it would be insane for Australia to do anything to ruin its standard of living in some kind of noble sacrificial decision to rid itself of coal-fired power stations as part of some non-existent global effort. It’s good to have more accurate data, but the conclusion remains. And even on the new list Australia is the only country not building any others at the present time, although we are apparently considering adding two others.

The Global Coal Plant Tracker provides summary statistics for the number of coal-fired power plants per country here, as well as by region here.

As of July 2019, the Global Coal Plant Tracker shows:

  • Within the 28 European Union countries, there are 268 coal-fired power plants in operation, with 7 in construction and 8 in pre-construction.
  • Turkey has 29 plants in operation, with 2 in construction and 31 in preconstruction.
  • South Africa has 19 plants in operation, with 2 in construction and 5 in preconstruction.
  • India has 291 plants in operation, with 33 in construction and 41 in preconstruction.
  • Philippines has 21 plants in operation, with 8 in construction and 19 in preconstruction.
  • South Korea has 24 plants in operation, with 3 in construction and 1 in preconstruction.
  • Japan has 83 plants in operation, with 15 in construction and 5 in preconstruction.
  • China has 1032 plants in operation, with 126 in construction and 76 in preconstruction.
  • Australia has 20 plants in operation, with 0 in construction and 2 in preconstruction.

Excluding Australia, the countries listed have 1767 operational coal-fired power plants and a further 196 under construction, for a total of 1963.

A list of the 20 coal-fired power plants in operation in Australia can also be found on the Australian Clean Energy Regulator’s website here, which was published on March 25.

Australia houses 1.1% of the world’s coal-driven power stations. It’s insane anyway, but let’s not lead the pack over the edge of the cliff.

We are the most virtuous country in the world

Or something ….

cid:A754B895-0790-4FE0-B33C-B80DBCE7A996

 

TO CONTINUE: I can see it. I’m sorry if it doesn’t come up on some screens. I wasn’t suggesting we should all learn to code.

The heading is “World Wide Coal Plants”.

The next seven lines mention how many coal-powered plants there are in different countries and how many they intend to build. The second last states, “China has 2363 plants building 1171 more – total 3534”.

The final line of the chart says, “Australia is planning to shut down its remaining 6 plants in order to SAVE the World”.

Perhaps I should have said “We are oh so self-sacrificing” rather than virtuous, or something.

An actuary looks at record temperatures and random chance

# records days Probability
0 10.1%
1 23.3%
2 26.7%
3 20.3%
4 11.5%
5+ 8.1%

I have asked an actuary to look more closely at the data I put up on Record temperatures and random chance. Based on a few assumptions, the probability that in any year a weather station will not produce a single record event is 10.1% so that the probability there will be at least one is 89.9%. What is therefore very unlikely is that there will be no such event in any year, and that is with weather stations that have been around for more than a hundred years. The more recent a station has been set up, the more likely there will be a record event in any given year. Given how many stations there are, there will be thousands of such record events in any given year, and for many of those stations, there will be more than one such event. In 8.1% of stations there may be five or more.

Record events happen all the time. There is ZERO information about whether the planet is heating by noting that a record high temperature has occurred in some place or another. If this were Uri Geller bending spoons with the power of his mind, it wouldn’t matter. A few dummies get conned and that would be the end of it. That we are dismantling and refusing to build coal-fired power-generating installations is a form of insanity that is making some very undeserving people very wealthy while threatening the future prosperity and living standards of many many others.

“Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe” we were told 20 years ago

From Report Hyped by Climate Alarmists Warned of Million of Deaths, Nuclear War, Sunken Major Cities by 2020.

According to experts, climate change will result in “millions” of deaths, major European cities being sunken, nuclear war and global environmental riots…all within the next 5 days.

That’s because they made the prediction back in 2004 and said all that would happen by 2020, which is just 5 days away.

“Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters,” reported left-wing newspaper the Guardian on February 22, 2004.

“A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world,” the report added.

The alarmist document went on to claim that nations would resort to using nuclear weapons to protect dwindling food supplies, a situation that would “bring the planet to the edge of anarchy.”

All from The Ministry of Truth as the clock strikes thirteen.

Record temperatures and random chance

This is something I have been thinking about for a while but has been brought to a head by this article: Extreme weather in 2019 broke over 120,000 records in US: report.

Extreme weather incidents in 2019 set more than 120,000 daily records across the U.S. according to data from the National Centers for Environmental Information.

The 122,055 records set include record daily high and low temperatures as well as record rain and snow.

CNN reported on the record events, noting heat waves that hit Alaska and raised temps to 90 degrees Fahrenheit, a winter storm that brought snow to Hawaii, and rain that flooded the Midwest and hurt crops.

The report comes after a year of devastating climate events, from Hurricane Dorian to record melting of ice sheets. Other countries also saw record-breaking heat and cold, and raging fires severely damaged the Amazon rainforest.

Note that these records are not just about heat, as in global warming, but about cold, and rain and other climate events that ended up breaking whatever had been the previous record. My quesion therefore is this, and I will stick to just record high temperatures.

If there are 365 days in a year, and a weather station has been in existence somewhere for say 120 years, how many days during any normal year will turn out to produce a record high temperature just by random chance?

As far as I can tell, there should be approximately three such record temperatures a year for each and every weather station. And if the station has only been running for 60 years say, then there should be around six days during the year that should produce a record high temperature. A new station should have 365 records a year and after a year 183.

This looks obvious to me. So is this right or wrong, and if it’s wrong, why is it wrong?

And of course, if it is right, then these weather cranks should shut up every time some record is broken somewhere since a new record is in itself meaningless.

Culpable monsters

UPDATE: Bushfires: Greta Thunberg lashes ‘political inaction’. Is it possible for her to be more stupid and obnoxious? Actually it is. This is only mid-level for her.

And from where we were before_______

The Greens, of course. Everyone cares about the environment with no exceptions. But really, first the response from Scott Morrison (now back in Oz): Action to be taken on managing fuel loads: Scott Morrison.

Scott Morrison has flagged a push to overhaul the management of fuel loads in national parks as well as the rules around land and native vegetation clearing as he warned the fires would rage on after the Christmas period.

In a media blitz this morning, the Prime Minister stood firm against ramping up Australia’s climate change commitments after meeting with NSW fire crews and opening the door for compensation for volunteers fighting the nearly 200 blazes across the nation.

Speaking on 2GB, Mr Morrison said that action was “absolutely” needed to better address “how fuel loads are managed in national parks” and said a greater focus should be placed on the “rules that sit around clearing trees” close to properties.

He warned that some people had been “quite difficult” in preventing progress in these areas but agreed it was necessary to change the existing rules.

“Some people” is it? Who are these people, which party are their representatives and who are their leaders?

Everyone is a “green” in some sense but not when it comes to this: Bushfires: More than 1000 homes set to be destroyed, and dead people as well. There are people who are personally responsible for this devastation which has nothing to do with global warming, but quite a lot to do with global idiocy.